User talk:Deiz

Archives: Talk 1 - Talk 2 - Talk 3 - Talk 4 - Talk 5 - Talk 6 - Talk 7 - Talk 8 - Talk 9 - Talk 10 - RfAs - Trophies

---

Welcome to my talk page

I'm pretty easy going about what goes on here (and am still alive). However, if you have come here regarding an administrative action I have taken that you disagree with or wish to be clarified, or regarding a copyedit or cleanup I have performed, please ensure that you:

• Maintain a civil tone and are clearly interested in improving the encyclopedia.
• Understand that Wikipedia is not the Stanford Prison Experiment.
• Know that I do not hate you (I love you), nor do I hate your company, group, product or friend (at worst, I am ambivalent towards it / them, and I may well love them too)
• Have read any and all links to guidelines or polices included in my edit summaries or talk page edits related to your reason for being here.
• Understand that disruptive, trolling, ignorant or otherwise undesirable or unconstructive messages - and the editors who post them - will be treated as they would anywhere else on Wikipedia.

Hi Diez. Mike Mongo Nicholl here (aka Mongo Nikol). Thank you for your work on Wikipedia. I see it as being extensive and dedicated, two of my favorite qualities. It is rare to see such devotion. May I help with regards to the changes? I seem to recall a Michael Meinhart, but not having spoke with Frank (Shepard) in a while there has been no follow-up. In any case, the Ryan Lesser thing is a long-time coming; he and Shepard did collaborate on the Original Giant (OG) sticker at RISD in '89/90, to the best of my recollection. He has gone uncredited largely because Frank is notorious for forgetting to mention these things. I was doing GIANT in Charleston from '91-93, and published the first article on the campaign in a newspaper I owned in Charleston, SC, "Andre The Giant has an apostrophe." Moving to Berkeley in '94, I ran and led the GIANT campaign on the West Coast from to '98—Frank switched it to OBEY at the beginning of '94—taking a break in '95 to put up in Europe (London, Greece, Italy), and Mexico in '97.

Blaize and Alfred moved to Rhode Island circa '91-'93, and were both imports from Charleston, friends of Frank growing up. Together, they transformed the entire operation moved from art project to commercial operation/skateboarding excuse at this same time: AG aka Alternative Graphics.

Blaize Blouin is skate legend. His name is spoken of reverantly in the deepest skate circles: He was the real thing, RIP. Alfred Hawkins is an LA DJ of acclaim. Ryan Lesser is a video game designing genius, and is referenced elsewhere on Wikipedia: Working for Harmonix, he has been co-designed Guitar Hero, Karoake Dance Revolution among others. (Lesser's site references his original connection with the project.)

And I wrote most of this original page, circa 2005. That's why it has many of the illuminated references it does.

Anyhow, that's my take on things. My hope is that my input is helpful, and consistently honest and keeping in line with Wikipedia's well-established guidelines and traditions. Yours. Humannaire (talk) 15:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed this because it was added to the top, rather than the bottom of the page. I'm not really a major contributor to the article in question, but I do keep an eye on it for unverified information, trivia and vanity / namechecking, all pretty routine stuff. And I have an OBEY sticker on my TV that I peeled off a napkin holder at a bar in Seoul. Deiz talk 08:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm actually the one who added him to the aricle originally. Mainly because if you google search him you'll find Mike Mongo actually blogged on this co-creator himself at one point. However, I only added him because I found him on the internet and This revision offers enough skepticism in itself. Either way I don't have enough time to sit around and change articles based on my opinion all day anyhow. Cheers! 24.192.70.156 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yeah, I thought she was nominated for a merge initially, but it appears it was a redirect. I shall bow to the AfD, though I may link to the section mentioning her in Souness' article. - Dudesleeper / Talk 11:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good spot. They were left over from the Aggie Moffat section removal (i.e., it was a subsection of her section). - Dudesleeper / Talk 00:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I didn't mean to act like I owned the article and was unwelcoming of other contributions. However I did add back just one of the photos you removed because your intention was to remove only the images of people listed less than 3 times, but you accidentally removed the image of someone listed five times. Slackergeneration (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your comments on the talk page about the gallery becoming too much if we include the twice listed people, perhaps we should still include them, but get rid of the gallery, kind of like the older version of the article you can check out here: [1] Slackergeneration (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deiz, Thank you for your message. I was at one stage a self-employed professional football photographer. I personally took all of these images and hold the full and unequivocal copyright licenses. I am very keen for these images to be used rather than going to waste on my hard drive and am therefore more than happy for the Wikipedia community to benefit from their display in the public domain. Please get in touch if there's any further issues and I'll do my best to explain. Cheers, Dan (sorry, I can't find the 'new thread' button so this message might be in the wronf place!)

You're right I didn't create them but I didn't know which option to pick so I thought it would be easiest to state that because I knew the creator of the images wouldn't contest it. I bought the images from a guy who gave me permission to use them however I liked but I didn't have an email or anythign to prove that to Wikimedia. SO yeah, what do you suggest I list it as? REZTER ^TALK ø 11:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer (and also the warm welcome), I'll think to ask you when all else fails ;) As for Rezter, I chose him from the adoption page because we seem to have a few things in common (some music (The Strokes for example), age, interest in art). Of course I wouldn't insist on being adopted if he'd rather have a Slipknot child :) Thanks, Lukas (talk) 02:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure your edit is right. As I understand it, if you are a resident of England, you travel free in England but pay in Scotland. If you are a resident of Scotland, you travel free in Scotland but pay in England. This is the government website which is supposed to explain it:[2] Mhockey (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC article suggests he did it all for free, and there is such a scheme in Scotland, even if he would not normally qualify for it, hence I think I'm good. There does appear to have been some special permission granted here, presumably dispensation for him to use the Scottish scheme, but the BBC doesn't make the precise details clear. By the way, if your edit listing the price of a journey by public transport was achieved by tapping destinations and arbitrary dates into search forms on a travel site, you've breached WP:OR. Deiz talk 22:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it ok to allow MSU-Meridian campus and Meridian Community College to have an external link on this page, but not any of the private schools in the city? There are tons of external links about specific topics on many pages; how is this one any different? It's always been my understanding that if there isn't a wiki article on the subject, one should external link to it; have I been mislead?

(If that sounded like it was in a sarcastic tone, it wasn't. I'm strictly asking a question haha) --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yes, that was one of the changes I intended to make when restoring the Bishop infobox, but I forgot in the end. David Underdown (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete the James Wesley Rawles article when there was clearly a majority in consensus for keeping it? Please restore the article. Obviously the guy is noteworthy. BTW, he was just quoted again, here:

 http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/04/20/survival.feat/index.html

....where he was referred to by the CNN reporter as "the unofficial spokesman" for the global survivalist movement. Thx, Trasel (talk) 12:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact you mention "majority" implies you're perhaps somewhat inexperienced with the decision making process surrounding deletion debates. Your position that he is "quoted" in the media, and therefore notable, is also out of step with WP:BIO. The outcome, however clouded by duplicate votes, users with no record of contributions and various misreadings of policies and guidelines, was actually very clear. If you speak to the other editors involved in the debate with a substantial history of edits in a variety of areas and a proven, applied knowledge of policy (I believe User:NawlinWiki was one), they'll tell you the same thing. Sorry if it wasn't the result you were hoping for. Cheers, Deiz talk 13:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--- I simply ask that you objectively reconsider your decision, rather than having to go through another lengthy review process.

If the same rationale on noteworthiness were applied to other wiki biographies, then perhaps half of them would be deleted. Somehow, in the topsy-turvy logic of Wikipedia, being "noted", "quoted", and an "expert" doesn't confer notability??? I think that Michael Z. Williamson (who, like Rawles is an author that is the subject of a wiki biography) summed it up nicely: "Nah, the [wikipedia] bandwidth could be better used for Expendable Crewman #3 in Episode 87."

Please read the article in the link that I just sent you, and objectively ask yourself, "Does it just quote him, or is it ABOUT him?" I'd say it is the latter.

For someone to be quoted so widely, seen as a subject matter expert and influential, and even labeled by a journalist as "the unofficial spokesman of the movement" indicates to me that he is indeed noteworthy. I see him quoted regularly.

In addition to direct quotes, there are indirect references. Here is an example, from Fortune magazine that cites his quote in the recent New York Times article: http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/14/markets/gold_appeal.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008041705

I appreciate your objectivity and wisdom as a wiki administrator. Sincerely, Trasel (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I checked all relevant links when closing the debate, and nothing I have seen since gives me cause to reconsider my decision. The CNN link does feature Mr Rawles and quote him, but I disagree that some web coverage in a lifestyle / feature section of the CNN website adequately secures his notability - the article is about "survivalism" (which is fairly clearly presented as a fringe movement), rather than Mr Rawles, and it seems to me that their featuring of Mr Rawles and the enigmatic "Derek" is more akin to an investigative piece that would speak to "Sally" about the life of a street worker rather than serious, primary coverage of an individual. In any case, the debate was closed on its own merits, and you should also be aware that this is the third time this article has been deleted, in December of 2006 (WP:PROD) and again in December of 2007 (WP:CSD). Your comment that "perhaps half" of other biographical articles on Wikipedia is, I have to say, spurious in the context of this debate. I appreciate this is a topic you are deeply interested in, as evidenced by your contributions to Wikipedia. However, I'll be honest with you - I believe this interest is making it extremely difficult for you to be truly objective on this matter. Again, sorry if you disagree with this decision, but I remain of the view that it was the correct one. FYI it's approaching midnight in my timezone, hence any further interaction over this (which I am happy to enter into) will have to take place after I've had a good night's sleep. Thanks, Deiz talk 14:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Rawles was also quoted just today, in The New York Sun: http://www2.nysun.com/article/74994

For someone that Wikipeia deems non-notable, he sure gets noted in the newspapers a lot!

Trasel (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He sure does. Well, I think I've said all I really have to say in this phase of the discussion.. Seems if you could build a new article in your userspace, stripped of blog / forum type noise and references, maybe taking style notes from a nice clean biographical article of a genuinely famous person, e.g. an author, I'd be happy to offer what advice or help I could. If, however, any new article resembled the old one which was a total mess, it could be speedily deleted as a recreation of deleted content. For that reason I would advise not taking any new article live until you're absolutely happy with it, a fourth deletion would be very difficult to come back from. Give me a shout if theres anything I can do. If there were any further deletion debate about this topic, I would advise any editor without an account, or who has recently registered an account, NOT to comment. Experienced users are very wary of niche debates that attract a suspicious following of new editors, and it's always clear who's who. Deiz talk 23:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the 'Written By' seciton on the infobox because the movie was written by the entire cast. The source says "Screenplay, Sean Cliver, Preston Lacy.". Obviously thats inaccurate since theres no screenplay for Jackass Number Two. And again its also innacurte since it was written by everyone not just Sean Cliver and Preston Lacy.

My suggest would be to not have that section at all in the infobox, just like in the Lost (TV series) article they don't have "starring" in their infobox because it would be to long. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 02:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sounds reasonable, the issue is that removal of cited information from a reliable source should be accompanied by a valid rationale in the edit summary at minimum, and a note on the talk page. If an experienced user (in this case Ocatecir, who is also an admin and the founder of Wikiproject Jackass) reverts your edit, you're at the R stage of WP:BRD, and its always good form to go to D rather than repeating the R. Cheers, Deiz talk 02:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you shoot me a copy of this deleted article? A less experienced wikipedian asked if he could figure out a way to make it work more appropriately. If possible, could you drop it here: [[3]]? Thank you!! LegoTech·(t)·(c) 06:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to, although I'm just going to hang on until Trasel lets me know about his intentions for the page, and some assurances that he understands the work required, the consequences of reposting the material without substantial improvements in various areas, and the regulations surrounding storing deleted pages in userspace. Given that the article has been deleted three times, it's very important that it isn't simply touched up and reposted - that's going to result in a fourth deletion, likely a speedy, and a protected title, which I'm sure is not on Trasel's wishlist. Trasel, hopefully you'll see this and can respond here. Deiz talk 10:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--- I"d like to see to see a new biography written on this man, since he is frequently noted and quoted in the print media, and prominently mentioned in related wiki articles. (Such as the Survivalism and Retreat (survivalism) pieces.) My attempts at editing it were deemed substandard by more than one editor, despite the fact that I included copious references. (There were 37 references in a bio that just had 35 lines of narrative.) So at this point, since my Wiki writing style was obviously lacking, I'd prefer to see someone else write it--from scratch, if need be. To avoid further controversy, I'll refrain from doing much more than adding references to it. I'd appreciate the time and effort required to salvage this article. Humbly, Trasel (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A major problem with the previous article was the quality of the references and their reliance on blogs, unreliable sources and tendency to highlight cases of Mr Rawles being quoted, rather than receiving primary coverage. The approach with references should certainly be quality, and never need be quantity for quantity's sake. Given that the previous article did, as you note, contain 37 references yet was still deleted, I remain unconvinced that recreation of this article is merited. The CNN reference above does not, in my humble opinion, confer notability, and is probably the "best" reference I have yet seen. Cross references in Wikipedia articles - bear in mind Wikipedia is a tertiary source that can be edited by anyone - are never an indication of notability. Perhaps you could indicate 3 or 4 of the references you wish to include, and outline why you believe they satisfy both WP:RS, and the primary notability criterion of WP:BIO? Deiz talk 14:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

for my part, the editor that would like a copy isn't Trasel if that makes a difference...I'm not the MOST experienced article writer, but I'm most willing to help out with making sure this is more appropriately ref'd before it goes live. I have no opinion on the subject matter one way or the other, but thats the great bit about WP :) LegoTech·(t)·(c) 14:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed no, given that you made the request and would like the article to be placed in your userspace, the editor asking for the copy is you :) Presumably you've seen the AfD on this matter, which along with the conversations here should give you a flavour of what the article looked like. As above, I'm willing to pass on the content of the previous article, but I believe it is most definitely in the interests of any future article that we can see a few references that will be used to establish the notability of the subject before doing so. I'd also like to get the opinion of a couple of experienced editors who contributed to the AfD, User:NawlinWiki for one, on proposed references. Without satisfactory refs the article will simply be deleted again, hence I'd rather get some consensus going here first, lest anyone spend a great deal of time on a stillborn article. As happened yesterday, it's bedtime here, hopefully there will be some refs for me to check out in the morning. Deiz talk 15:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't have a problem giving Legotech the deleted text and letting him/her have a chance to try to find reliable sources. They may be out there, but the article as posted didn't yet have them. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

As per your request, here are a few of the notability references on Rawles, starting with the most recent:

http://www2.nysun.com/article/74994

http://arlingtoncardinal.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2008/4/21/3652291.html

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/04/20/survival.feat/index.html

http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=96250 >>>Here is the original source for same article, at the NY Times site, but they require registration to access some older articles: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/fashion/06survival.html

http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2008/20080408131354.aspx

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14119

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=LB&p_theme=lb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EAE929EEB312718&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

http://derekclontz.wordpress.com/2007/09/10/second-great-depression-just-weeks-away-warns-expert/

And here couple of others, that were cited but may no longer be available online:

THURSDAY OFFERS A MINI-Y2K SITUATION, EXPERTS SAY The Sacramento Bee, September 8, 1999

"Do you live in fear of the millennium?", South China Morning Post, April 6, 1999

There are also numerous on-line references, but since Wikipedia referencing is geared twrad print books and journalism, I'll just note one that is about him: http://www.onlinetradersforum.com/showthread.php?p=98454

Let me know if I can help you further. Thx, Trasel (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go through these, but what we need is articles ABOUT him, not just places where he's quoted. Tons of people are quoted in the papers daily, but that doesn't necessarily make them notable. There are also a lot of people that the news call as experts to appear on reports about certain situations, but being an expert in a field also doesn't make you notable, otherwise we'd have to have an article about just about every college professor in the world :) Which appears to be where this breaks down...let's see what else we can find that was written about him. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 22:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• OK. Of the references listed above, only the New York Times, New York Sun and CNN would qualify as reliable sources, so you can dismiss the others - these would not be suitable for inclusion as references in a Wikipedia article, and do not confer notability. On the RS/BIO test, that's a fail/fail. The articles that are from reliable sources do not feature Rawles as their primary topic. They are articles about survivalism that include a quote and / or background information about Mr. Rawles. So pass/fail. What I foresee in any future article is another mass of these kind of references, which will put the article at serious risk of being speedily deleted. What I'm looking for are articles from reliable sources with this individual's name in the title. Where are they? It should also be noted that an article about JWR should contain exactly one external link to survivalblog, and one link to his other website. There should not be individual links to separate articles on either site. On a scale of 1 to 10, where 7 would be "OK, I think this guy squeezes into the notability criteria", I'm at about 4.3 right now, .3 ahead of where I was when I closed the AfD. Deiz talk 00:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section break

As was discussed at length in the AFD debate, Rawles is best known for his novel and for his blog, which have not been covered heavily by the print media. (I think that the newspapers are still fairly ignorant of the societal impact of the blogs.)

Even though his novel has been in print off and on for 10 years, it still has a sales ranks under 1,500 on Amazon. I find that pretty amazing, considering that most novels from the smaller publishers drop off the radar after about two years. His blog (that has deep archives and some static pages) is considered a standard reference on survival and preparedness. He is pretty much a survivalism guru and very well known in those circles. One of the other survivalist bloggers called him "The Dark Overlord of Yuppie Survivalism." His blog gets a surprising amount of traffic for a niche blog. (Something like 71,000 unique visits a week--although I haven't seen its statistics page first hand.)

There are hundreds of other novelists with far smaller readership that are deemed notable enough in Wikipedia to justify a bio. Why not him? Given the current media interest in survivalism, it seems apropos. One proviso: Interest in survivalism looks to be cyclical. It peaked in the late 1970s, again in the late 1990s (just before the Y2K rollover), and it seems to have been resurgent in the last few months--what with anxiety over crude oil prices, food shortages, and the credit market whammy. So this will likely fade out again for a few years. But I think that Rawles is certainly notable.

I can look for some more refs, but I don't think that there is much more out there than what I've already sent to Deiz. They should suffice. TTFN,

Trasel (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input.. I'll take a look at the refs when I have time, should get a chance later today. Deiz talk 02:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could I please have that copy of the article? I will not be using Trasel for the rewrite, so his refs are useful but not the end of the line either. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deiz, any chance I can have your opinion on WP:Bio "Any biography

   * The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.
   * The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field."

Appears he certainly covers the second bit quite well as is? I'll completely agree it needs cleanup and a reduction in the number of blog and self referential refs, but no matter how you or I feel about the subject matter of the guy's expertise, he does appear to be considered an expert by the press. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 03:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a secondary criterion, and is not related to being an "expert", but making an "enduring historical contribution". JWR is a contemporary figure in a contemporary movement, and the spirit of this criterion is to include people who were around before mass media and the internet, or are active in fields that are, for some reason, not likely to produce individuals who would normally pass the primary criterion. Any modern-day "notable", especially in a field that appeals to tech-savvy, middle class white people, should not need to rely on this criterion, and it should not be applied to people who have not, as yet, been fully judged by history. Deiz talk 00:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact remains that he's never been presented as notable in any verifiable way. Nobody has ever come up with an article that's about him. All we have is tangential stuff that doesn't meet WP:RS standards. One prime example of this is the Amazon fluff offered above--any non-notable self-published book can be listed on Amazon, and then anybody can drive the numbers up by placing bulk orders. Because it can so easily be manipulated (like Google hits for blogs), the Amazon ranking really doesn't mean a thing, and it certainly can't be used to satisfy WP:RS to establish notability. Qworty (talk) 04:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree. I think that this previously mentioned article is indeed *about* Rawles: http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/04/20/survival.feat/index.html It is not just quoting him. The second half of the article talks about his life, where he lives, what the foods that he subsists on, mentions his wife, describes his demeanour, etc. Here is a quote from the article:

(note - quote removed, can be seen in the article linked above)

That is far beyond what most journalists would write just to substantiate a quote about current events. Trasel (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've already commented on this ref. It's the best I've seen, but still features JWR in a piece about a more general topic, which it presents as a fringe movement. I know you're trying, but it's not primary coverage, and while this could certainly be used in an article, you would need more, better refs than this to assert notability. Deiz talk 00:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to beat the little horsie into glue, but he was interviewed yesterday on Fox about food shortages...I realize the guy is a wingnut, but putting that aside, I really think he's met the bar at this point. You can see my evaluation of the "socks" in the AfD here: [[4]]

Rawles has been characterized as a "survivalist nut job" over at the revived AFD discussion. Lets look at this at a 30,000 foot view: He's clearly a subject matter expert. He regularly gets called on to share his expertise by both the print and broadcast media. (Most recently on Fox News: http://www.truveo.com/Load-Up-The-Pantry/id/739652561 ).

I've agreed to step back from this and let Legotech write new wiki bio, from scratch.

I admit that I am a survivalist and a fan of Rawles--both his novel and his blog. But I have never consciously allowed this to color my edits, and I have NEVER been one to nominate a wiki page for deletion. But others have blinded themselves to their own biases and have perhaps subconsciously let themselves exercise their bias--in relentless edits and AFD nominations of wiki pieces where they have a disagreement or even just a vague dislike. Further, they have used the Wiki rules with virtuoso precision to get things their own way.

Jimmy Wales was quoted as saying "I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population. There are no data or surveys to back that." (See: http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/email_debatewales_discusses_po.html )

Elsewhere, in 2006, Wales mentioned that only 615 editors are responsible for over 50% of the edits on Wikipedia. (See: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=2 )

There is bias in Wikipedia, and fighting it is an ongoing struggle. This debate over the deletion of the JWR bio page is a good example of a microcosom of a macrocosm. I suspect that Rawles is disliked not just because he is survivalist--which is a fringe movement--but also because he is a conservative, a Christian, pro-Second Amendment, and pro-homescholing.

I think that I am a good judge of who is notable in the survivalist movement. Why? MOST of what I do in wikipedia is write and edit biographies of survivalist authors. (I know, it a weird specialty, but there are also people that specialize in editing pages on other obscure and arcane topics.) Having read and edited many of these pages in detail, and keeping close tabs on the various Survivalist blogs and forums, I can tell you forthrightly that Jim Rawles IS notable. If you go to any survivalist blog or forum on the Internet and type in "Rawles" or "survivalblog" in a search box, you'll probably see that he is very frequently cited and linked.

Try any of these, for example:

http://tslrf.blogspot.com/

http://www.survivalistboards.com/

http://bisonsurvivalblog.blogspot.com/

http://www.survivalfiles.info/

http://www.commanderzero.com/

And just to show that he is not just known in the US, here is one in Australia: http://www.aussurvivalist.com/forum/

The objections to the Rawles bio page seem to center on two issues: First, his notability and second the fact that some his books were published by Print-on-Demand publishers. (The latter is what seems to have attracted Qworty's attention, since it is one of his pet peeves.) To my mind, both of those issues have both been resolved.

I think that it is time to get on with the task at hand: writing a quality bio piece about him. As I said before, I'll just drop in references to what others write and otherwise leave my hands off.

The fact the subject of the bio is controversial or disliked should not be used as an excuse for "censorship via AFD" wikilegalism. If that were allowed to be the modus operandi for Wikipedia, then there would be no wiki bio pages on either Pol Pot or even Barry Manilow. -- Trasel (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been away for a couple of days so forgive me if I haven't kept up with this. The thing that most concerns me right now is that you (Trasel) intend to add references to the piece. Aside from the question of his notability, you don't seem to have a great grasp of what is accepted as a reliable, notable reference. The fact that you provide link after link with the word "blog", "forum" or "surviv-" somewhere in the URL makes me want to scream. References to establish notability must be from accredited, major-media sources, and must feature the subject as the primary focus of their coverage. Any other links are not helping at this stage. We know he is all over the blogosphere, forums and niche sites about survivalism. I find it hard to listen to your musings about bias on WP when you clearly don't understand WP:RS, which is a pretty damn fair piece of legislation. Wikipedia is not a blog, or a synthesis of blogs, or obliged to feature topics which are commonly blogged about - it is an encyclopedia which just happens to be a freely editable website, and draws a similar cross-section of white-bread humanity as blogging, which is why a lot of people get confused. If we can't get down to working together on the brass tacks of notability - which is different to coverage, popularity, name-recognition, column inches, hits, clicks and disciples - then I'm not going to be able to help you much. I appreciate Qworty and others are blunt about their opinions, but from what I've seen they understand more about how and why Wikipedia works the way it does. Deiz talk 06:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I saw that someone was being a pain as usual on wikipedia creating accounts with aa...ss as can be seen here Why wasn't it possible for you to block the IP address where the user was creating the account from? Are you allowed to do this or is this only for the rare Checkusers in extreme circumstances? Surely there must be an easier way. This surely can be considered vandalism because you know there only going to create trouble with a bunch of letters like that.

By the way, is it possible whether you can follow this up for me here this user with a bunch of letters similar to above made 1 vandal edit yday and i think it should be blocked indefinitely. I reported it to username for admin attention but it looked like all the admins were asleep. What do you think? Your the expert. Thanks Roadrunnerz45 (talk) 05:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of a long term problem with a particular IP creating such addresses.. I just blocked an inappropriate username I happened to notice after it edited one of my watchlisted pages. If there is a pattern, someone who contributes regularly to WP:UAA may be interested? There are various issues regarding blocking IPs, including - as you mentioned - the need for checkuser priveliges to investigate such matters, which I don't have. I used to take a keener interest in this kind of thing, but not so much recently. Sorry I can't be of more help, Deiz talk 06:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I more or less agree with Quorty's assessment of the self-publishers. What bugs me is the tone he takes in every dispute. Without much investigation, he slams every tool at his disposal at articles and users who work on them. Every user page request is mean-spirited, no one is ever given benefit of the doubt. I post now from my IP so I won't get beat up by him on my registered page -- in an hour or so there will be a marker put on the IP page showing where it's from and implying some kind of misdoing or accusing it outright.

Quorty is a very powerful user, and there's really nothing regular joes like me can do about his nonsense. Is there anything a higher end user like you can do? Or somebody, just to get him to dial it back a notch or two? It's not the Spanish Inquisition -- it's a bunch of people working for free on a community encyclopedia project. I know I'm super-discouraged from creating new and notable content just for dread of having to spend my time wrangling with him instead of actually working on Wikipedia. 72.241.98.90 (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree his style is not softly-softly, but WP is a broad church, and from what I've seen I would judge his approach as no-nonsense, and certainly on the "deletionist" end of the spectrum, but within the rules. If you came to WP as a "neutral" editor and spent some time learning how it all works and saw the kind of content that some editors push then you would understand why people popular in the blogosphere, related to fringe movements and theories, or "actors" who appeared in one episode of a teen drama or porn film etc. etc., are viewed with suspicion by some, and the standards about referencing and notability strictly applied in such cases. My WP:CHILL essay covers this kind of ground as well. Is Qworty powerful? Sure, but so is any editor who knows policy and has got their hands dirty all over Wikipedia. If he was truly out of line, someone higher up would have stepped in by now, but his record is clean as far as blocks are concerned. If you guys have a truly serious interpersonal issue there are avenues you can go down, which I hope will be unnecessary. Deiz talk 09:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this just deleted? Tnxman307 (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake! I didn't see this: "AfD relisted per WP:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 23#James Wesley Rawles .28closed.29" listed on the AfD page. Sorry to bother you. Tnxman307 (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No probs. I'm staying out of all this. Deiz talk 01:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to know... why did you delete the BAM definition for "Binary Angle of Measurement"?

That exists, event if you don't know about it...

Binary Angle of Measurement, standardized binary words used to transfer angular measurements between shipboard tactical data system equipments —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.170.46.90 (talk) 07:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because there was no linked article. Disambiguation pages are internal pages to disambiguate between existing articles, not to list all possible meanings of an acronym. Hope that's cleared things up. Deiz talk 09:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then , but it would have been easier to add the red link that exists in many disambiguation pages than just deleting it...213.170.46.90 (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Dab pages should not contain redlinks. Feel free to delete any you find. Deiz talk 22:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are the odds that I would stumble on this conversation? I added "Binary Angle of Measurement" to the BAM dab page. It was my first edit! I don't blame you for removing it though, I didn't know much about Wikipedia when I added it. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 23:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's pretty tough editing on wp. I disagree that general information on a player's family is trivial; afterall, professional career data isn't the only pertinent information regarding a player's life. However, I think KBO related pages are one of your specialties so I leave it to your discretion. I would like to see an up-to-date player picture on the pages too, but can't seem to upload a picture. Thanks for all the good work Deiz! Baseballhero (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are special provisions regarding info about living people at WP:BLP. It's also pretty easy to infer that he would live in or around the city where he plays, hence it simply isn't necessary to mention it. It was also unsourced, and as such can be removed per WP:V. Please ask if theres anything else you want to know, and please take it in good spirit if I edit any of your edits! Cheers, Deiz talk 02:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it's not worth the bother. Thanks for sharing your opinion. As I said, I was extremely disappointed to see my good intentions having been misconstrued. Please understand that everything I do here, I do in the faith that I am improving the project, and I shall not let this minor dent in my esteem from continuing to do so. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to contribute information about the Moulthrop family. I cited several magazine articles and newspaper articles and you have deleted my entry stating that the "WP diff". I am new to wikipedia - please explain what this means and what I need to do to have this information properly posted. You help would be appreciated.--Millie04 (talk) 11:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page you deleted was vandalised, and lacking the rollback feature i really couldn't be bothered to put it back. The article was tagged with a speedy delete without me being notified, or i would have contested it and improved the article. I do not believe it should have been deletd per CSD A1 as it was lacking in a large amount of information, but was still classed as a stub and was relativly informative (before it had been vandalised, of course.) and is a moderatly well known, being featured on many videos. I am not saying you we're wrong to delete, but it would have been nice to of been notified so i could have improved the article. Regardless, i will not fight your decision :)! I just thought id tell you! Have a great day! Matt (talk) 08:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no tag, I simply deleted it outright - there was nothing in any revision I saw to suggest the song was notable, primarily because the artist appears to be non-notable. Pretty clear cut, imo. Deiz talk 09:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. I still don't believe an outright delete was appropriate but thats just my opinion. Regardless, whats done is done. Best, Matt (talk) 10:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "Majin Buu" was moved to its preferred name by WP:WPDB, "Majin Boo". Reason why I had recently taken off Bam's Unholy Union from Buu was mainly because Bam's Unholy Union did not make a reference to the dab term. I was just following JHunterJ's example, but perhaps it could be discussed again? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As BUU is still the acronym of the show, the only thing I'd see to discuss is whether Majin Boo belongs on the Buu page, given there is already a see also link to Boo (disambiguation). I've asked JHJ for clarification on the basis for removing articles without specifically referenced acronyms from dab pages. Deiz talk 03:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you ask me, I'd say the Dragon Ball reference on Buu is legit. Reason why I used a redirect was because WP:PIPING recommends it. See also the brief discussion I had with J. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the character is alternatively spelt as Buu (6+ years in Asia, I know the pain of transliteration), it's fine with me. Interpreting the balance between piping and redirecting on a dab page from an alternative spelling is trickier, but looks OK. Deiz talk 05:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:D#Disambiguation pages: "Only include related subject articles if the term in question is actually described on the target article." -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, the flag / canton example makes that clear, but I fail to see how that applies to acronyms in any way, shape or form. You do realize that, if the article title has the initials in question, that they are already very much "described on the target article", in bold, capital letters. I wish I had time to reinstate the valid links already purged from dab pages on other acronyms. Disambiguation pages are there to help people find articles in the encyclopedia, why make them harder to find? But don't take my word for it, here's a line from WP:D: "Ask yourself: When readers enter a given term in the Wikipedia search box and push "Go", what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result?" I don't know about you, but when I type a set of initials or acronym in the search bar, I damn sure expect a list of all the articles we have with those initials. Deiz talk 16:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken this dispute to Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Requesting clarification. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three people, including myself, have conveyed that the page must cite the initials regardless of how obvious it may be. I am not trying to "battle", just following protocol. If you are going to respond please respond on your talk page (which I've watchlisted). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still seeing nothing in policy or guideline to support removing this or similar links. Protocol means following rules and common practice, not imposing your own mystifying interpretation of a guideline because a couple of editors voice opinions which are similar to your own. 2 opinions made in a few hours about a non-existent, non-common practice point are not consensus. I would also disagree with your use of the word "must". By all means propose an addition to the guideline, which is the only way I see this leading to an actionable outcome. Deiz talk 05:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask you a question: what does WP:D#Disambiguation pages mean to you? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow your point. It's part of our guideline on disambiguation - a system designed to help readers find relevant pages to their search query throughout the encyclopedia. It contains nothing that disallows or discourages the common practice of listing articles by their acronyms on an obscure technicality. Deiz talk 01:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest fix is to list their acronyms on their pages; if there's consensus on the target article's talk page against including the acronym, then that may be a reason to exclude it from the dab, and its inclusion counter to the so-called obscure technicality should be discussed on the dab page's talk page -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term "fix" would imply there is some kind of problem to be remedied. There is nothing in legislation or common practice which discourages listing an entity - especially one whose title should be capitalized - by its initials on the appropriate disambiguation page. Therefore, there is no need to insert this unusual "fix" to solve a problem that doesn't actually exist. If such initials are added in the course of normal editing, all well and good, but there should be no compulsion to add them solely so that the page can retain its entirely justified spot on a disambiguation page. Deiz talk 09:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem of listing an entity on the proposed appropriate disambiguation page when the disambiguation phrase is not mentioned on the entity's article has been discussed. The "fix" acknowledges that problem, yes, and remedies it. If such initials are not added in the course of normal editing and someone adds the entity to the disambiguation page anyway, all well and good, but if another editor notes that the abbreviation is apparently not common enough to merit mention on the entity's article and doesn't need to be listed on the dab page, there is no compulsion that it should be listed there without discussion. That leads to the simple fix identified -- add it to the article or discuss its addition to the dab page despite its absence on the article. Just because you don't buy into a particular guideline doesn't mean you can call it an "obscure technicality" and ignore it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Common practice is to list entities on dab pages by their initials. As to ignoring a guideline, I'm unaware of a guideline which discourages so doing. The subjective question of how commonly such initials are used, and what level of commonality is required before something is suitable for inclusion on a dab page is a) incredibly hard to define, and b) effectively moot when the initials in question are clearly the initials of the thing being described. If there were a concern about, say, using the initials of something in a foreign language which differ to the common English name, or a non-standard interpretation of initials in order to cleverly spell a word by missing a letter, that would be a point for discussion. I think I've made my concern clear here, and I believe - in fact, I know - it is absolutely in keeping with a fundamental concept that makes this the great project it is: there should be no unnecessary, instruction-creepy barriers placed in front of making the encyclopedia as easily navigable as possible. If adding the initials to the page satisifies then great, but absent of an irresistible reason not list something by its initials, we should have better things to do in terms of maintaining and improving the encyclopedia than removing useful links from dab pages and spending hours wikilawyering about our motivations for doing so as a result. Deiz talk 15:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline WP:D has been pointed out. If you don't want to use the quick fix, that's okay. I just raised it here because it has worked for me in the past to avoid long discussions on issues that don't really warrant long discussions. OTOH, if you feel that the particular guideline is an unnecessary, instruction-creepy barrier, WT:D awaits. Even more, there's another discussion on WT:MOSDAB in which another editor proposes removing some abbreviations even when they're listed on the target article. So you can see why we've tried to spell it out in the guidelines. :-) I suppose I am used to editors who disagree with (insert any guideline here) calling its use "wikilawyering" while still happily using the guidelines they agree with, but calling the use of the guidelines wikilawyering is poor form. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is inappropriate to protect a page just because you have a good-faith dispute over the content of a page. I am unprotecting and moving your comment onto the article's Talk page. Rossami (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is inappropriate to remove perfectly encyclopedic pages from the encyclopedia. Deiz talk 10:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Deiz,
 with all due respect I have to notify you that Petabyte 

trivia is undone, simply because of what the definition of trivia (per Webster dictionary) is:
S: (n) triviality, trivia, trifle, small beer (something of small importance)
In other words:
That's what trivia is. Those trivia lines where facts, updates and data of smaller importance in relation to quest of 1PB.
Of course they are "unsurprisingly" ralated to companies that handle of lot of data.
By default simply 1Petabyte could not be related to anyone or anything else.
I kindly urge you to approve and understand why I thought it would be justified to revert your decision.

Best regards

Fauxstar (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fauxstar. I'm sorry, but the reversion is incorrect. This is pure trivia, and - as I noted - absolutely coincidental to what a petabyte is. It's like filling the article on concrete with information about how much concrete is used in various construction projects. If you were to restore one, two, maximum three items that are sourced to notable media then I might be tempted to leave them. However, a full reversion of the entire list in inappropriate. Let me know if you have any more questions, Deiz talk 22:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, terms such as trivia, spam, vanity, notability etc. often have their own connotations on Wikipedia that cannot be gleaned from reading them in external dictionaries. Deiz talk 23:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Bibimbap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, Deiz, I come to ask your help. User:Badagnani inserted a misfit (I believe) category such as Category:Egg dishes to bibimbap. I've never seen the food categorized as egg dishes. (books, Korean cuisine related cartoons, food TV shows). It is commonly categorized as "rice dish" or "namul (vegetable dishes)" Fried eggs are often topped with the dish, but is not mainly consisting of the dish and also can be omitted. Since you're living in South Korea and have knowledge of Korean culture and cuisine, can you make him stop adding misfit one? He also insists that I'm the one making edit wars based on his firm belief that his tagging is warranted. He is also frequently introducing original research which several editors into Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink have pointed out his such behaviors. I've been very fed up with his aggressive behaviors without consensus and source over and over. Can you judge this silly case? Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He also insists some unfit categories like Category:Summer should be attached to Naengmyeon which was originally eaten in winter and Nabak kimchi (mostly eaten in spring, not summer) since Category:Seasonal cuisine was deleted at AFD discussion. --Caspian blue (talk) 00:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Badag is certainly a dedicated editor, but I've also had reason to question his understanding of common practice and Wikipedia policy, including the core policy of verifiability. Various editors have made working on Korean food extremely frustrating, to the detriment of coverage of Korean cuisine on Wikipedia. In the above cases, I would agree that bibimbap is certainly not an "egg dish" - it is a rice dish that optionally contains an egg, and anyone who attempts to argue that it is an egg dish is either ignorant about Korean cuisine and culinary terms in general, or perhaps enjoys making weak or tenuous edits and then playing word games to defend them. I can't think of any reason to add a food dish that is not explicitly seasonal (eg christmas cake) to a general season category. If the seasonal cuisine cat was deleted, this should be evidence enough that adding dishes to the bigger categories is also discouraged. I'm not really in a position to "judge" this case given my previous disagreements with the editor in question, and my aforementioned frustration about how Korean cuisine is presented on WP. If this is a more serious problem than can be solved at an appropriate talk or project page, you might have to go to WP:RFC. Cheers, Deiz talk 07:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. RFC would be a good way to solve a problem (I think this is a kind of RFC with which I have a third opinion from you) However, I've felt frustration on him as to why I always have to explain even easily accessible English information to him every time he has some question left on articles with hidden comments. At yukgaejang article he created states that the food is for winter, but his reference says it is originally eaten in summer in place of bosintang. Apparently, he even misreads or not throughly read his own reference and then introduces original research to the article. This repeated act exhausts my patience, so I'm back off from whatever Korean dish-articles he creates; all such articles should be my clean-up list anyway. I appreciate you opinion and now the Korean cuisine article is shaped into a good status by User:Tanner-Christopher. You can check the article. :) --Caspian blue (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Deiz for contacting me about this. I understand your concerns and would like some guidance about how to clear up any claims and provide proof. Would not uploading album artworks (proving both the label (Sony/Epic) and sponsorship (Pepsi) be a copyright infringment? I was not sure on how this could be done. The same with the Comic Book issue. It would stand to reason that a picture/scan of the cover would be proof. But again would that be an infringment? Please provide guidance, as I am very new to article submission. Thank You. Dd studios (talk) 00:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing to do would be look at the articles of similar artists and see how they are sourced and presented. However, given the current state of the deletion debate, it may not be easy to prevent deletion of the article. Deiz talk 01:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, and for backing me up. I tried to be as civil as possible when explaining to him/her why I removed the section, but I guess it didn't get through. Darry2385 (talk) 02:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I'm taking this page off my watchlist and removing myself from this debacle. It's laughable - laughable - that you've defended those images (I still think the repeated defence of the microscopic black dots on Windermere is some kind of joke) and your general conduct, and given me the big speech about blah blah blah. I hope you and your attempt to create a little personal vanity page on Wikipedia are very happy together. Deiz talk 23:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be asking the admin that provided a third opinion on the page to oversee my development of the page to ensure that it remains a quality Wikipedia page as I expand it. Ross-c (talk) 06:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good luck with it. Deiz talk 06:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should I remove the dispute/request for a third party opinion tag? Ross-c (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can promote yourself to "Imperial Majesty of the River Cam" as long as I don't see the words "open", "water" and "swimming" in the same sentence ever again. Deiz talk 13:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you have removed some external links from articles with the explanation "per WP:EL, rm specific (branch) links from general topic)". I've looked at WP:EL and I didn't see that (not saying it's not there, it seems like I miss or misread things there all the time). Could you please provide me with a more specific link to that guideline? Thanks!--Editor2020 (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, this is point 13 of "Links normally to be avoided": Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article... a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject..

One of the primary applications of this rule is that individual groups, organisations, television channels, people, sports teams etc. etc. should not be linked externally from their parent or umbrella topic. They can, of course, be linked internally if they are individually notable, and then linked externally from their own article. The typical case on many pages that I and others cleanup in this fashion involves removing a long list of specific external links, with the main external link - usually a "jumping-off point" such as a directory or main website from the which more specific links can be found - retained. Wikipedia is not a repository of external links, that's official policy, and although this is something the casual editor may consider "no big deal", hence the surprise and frustration of many unfamiliar with the guideline when they see links being removed, and their good faith but anti-policy reverts and quarrelling that often follows, it is an important part of keeping Wikipedia manageable. Without reasonably strict controls on external links, over time these sections become huge, dwarfing the article and making it difficult for readers to find the useful links that will help them discover more about the topic they are reading about. There are also copyright and other concerns with indiscriminate external linking. Hope that helps! Deiz talk 04:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your help.--Editor2020 (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you do me a favour please? Could you read all of Talk:Oddfellows?

Also, could you refrain from bullying me please? I'm somewhat taken aback by your accusations; in 18 months and 6,000 edits, no-one has previously either accused me of incivility, nor threatened to block me. To me, it feels like you are abusing your power simply because I have a different point-of-view to you. No doubt you see it differently - that's what different points-of-view are about. Please advise how I would go about complaining, and to whom, that you appear to be abusing your power? With thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 23:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm at it, could you kindly explain what is "incivil" about: "It's easy to be disparaging. It requires one or more of will, effort and thought to actually add something to WP. If you don't like what's there, expend some of your own will, effort and thought."? It seems very polite to me. With thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its fine now with just the Mongolia image. That sort of very familiar scene played a major role though much of the central asian/eastern russia par tof the trip. I'd rather have a few screenshots but we'd probably get them tagged for copywright. It just needed some images given the physical nature of the trip. The Bald One ^{White cat} 09:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree, and I wish we had a few freely licenced images of the actual trip. I found one from Long Way Down on Flickr from some guy who met Ewan in a campsite in Malawi, but even that wasn't free enough for WP. I totally appreciate what you were doing by adding images, but they really need to be directly related to, i.e. taken during, LWR. The landscape one is ok because it's totally generic, the one of the bike didn't have any relevance to LWR - even a side view of a fully kitted out GS1150 wouldn't be appropriate unless it was one of the actual bikes from the trip. I wonder what luck we would have asking the production company for a couple of free images... Deiz talk 10:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent them an exploratory email about releasing a couple of images. Let's see what happens... Deiz talk 11:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The front cover of the book quite clearly shows the long note about detailing every station is a description of the contents, not a heading or subheading. As such, it is not necessary or supported by precedent to include it in the description on the template. Being essentially a data-dump directory, it is not surprising that WorldCat would simply reel off the cover verbatim, but this does not make the description part of the title or influence the style in which book titles are represented on WP. On a bit of a tangent, it might be useful to have an article on the book itself, and/or the author (unless I missed either of these because they are not linked from the template?), especially if we are suggesting to WP readers that the book is a weighty and authoritative tome about the railways. Deiz talk 15:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I totally diagree with your arguement regarding the title - see [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] et al --Stewart ^(talk) 17:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My argument has nothing to do with denying that various book catalogues list the description of the book, which is all that your cited links seem to be referencing. Seems that your argument is predicated on the notion that Wikipedia is obliged to list descriptions of book contents as found on data-directories as if they were part of the actual book title? As this is a Wikipedia style issue, rather than citing various catalogues and directories do you know of anything in Wikipedia policy, guideline or common practice that would support this? Deiz talk 00:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My arguement is based on the complete title - as given on the front of the book, and in various catalogues, - is quoted. If the author and publisher have given this book this title then that is what should be used, not a short title. --Stewart ^(talk) 05:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. But is it actually a title - or, more accurately, subtitle - or is it simply a description of the contents of the book conveniently placed on the cover? Strikes me as far more akin to the latter, and there is a difference. Deiz talk 07:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, the official KBO site still lists the team as Woori. Your copyediting is confusing and - the key point here - entirely unsourced. I want to be very clear about this: even if what you are saying is true, please do not move the page or make any further references to this unless you can add sources. As the KBO is the official outlet for Korean Baseball, it is very difficult for Wikipedia to unilaterally change the name of the team if they are not also doing so. Further unsourced changes will be considered disruptive, regardless of how well-intentioned they are. Thanks, Deiz talk 03:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the official site KBO didn't update the English version yet, but the reason I change the team name was as follow: In exactly, Many news announced that heroes baseball club didn't pay the admission fee to KBO on June, 2008. So the Woori Tabacco corporation requested that they want to remove their company name from the heroes team. In spite of many presuasions, Woori corporation requested to remove their name repeatly instead of paying admissions for the sponsor. Then the Heroes had to accept the requestion and remove "WOORI" from the second half of August. And the Heroes had to change their team without the sponsor name "Woori" since August 26, 2008. SEEK and LOOK the uniform of the Heroes since August. They had already removed "WOORI" logo from their uniforms but they inserted "h" mark meaning "the Heroes."

Personally, I thank to your contribution to our Korean baseball games. However, don't believe the wrong or unupdated informations. As you know, perhaps, KBO didn't change the English version in the fixed period. I hope you understand that they didn't update in English quickly. Thus, You don't have to take the reference from the English site of KBO. Though they are busy to update many kinds of records about most players, they might not be interested in updating in English for foreigners. There are some journalists of English-language newspaper companies still write as the old name "WOORI Heroes." But Most Korean journalists and Baseball fans started to rename as "Heroes." Is my opinion is useful for you?

Still lacking sources - as you say, it is no more than an opinion. The Official Korean KBO front page (www.koreabaseball.com/) still lists "우리" as the team name. I'm going to protect the page until sources are available. When you find a source, please place it here for consideration, in that way we can ensure the page is moved appropriately. Thanks, Deiz talk 00:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your uploads. You've indicated that the following images are being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why they meet Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page an image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Image:Elycclubhouse.jpg

• Image:Elycsailing.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --12:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reguarding my edit summary "whether the refs are sufficient enough or not is not for you to decide", I was referring to the references in the article, of which none were the external links in question. You were probably talking about sufficient amount of external links, in which case, you made a mistake by calling them "refs". So if you're confused, then you are the source of your own confusion. I see no problem with having 9-10 external links. It's not like there's 20 of them. That's what the guideline is for - to ensure the number of ELs doesn't reach a ridiculous level. Links should not be removed if they are on topic (which interviews are). It's funny how you link me to the guideline, yet, in the lead it says "If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it." which you obviously have not considered. How about you get rid of the external links by adding content to the article, and citing them as refs? It would kill two birds with one stone by adding information to the article, and getting rid of the external links. --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Can you help me, become a great contributor. Moon Star X1 09:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Russabbotbond.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm too involved in those articles to do anything other than block for simple vandalism. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 13:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this still protected? AFD said nothing about protection. We have an article for this software at Tomato Firmware so it would make better sense to move it to Tomato (firmware) and redirect accordingly. ViperSnake151 14:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a huge case for WP:WEB on the page. No doubt Tomato is out there, but the references are technical rather than notable-media oriented. However, Tomato Firmware moved and redirected to Tomato (firmware) as requested. Deiz talk 14:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Emmalina, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmalina (4th nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 00:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC) TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 00:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear I rather than got blocked by WP, would like to stop giving my contribution on WP. WP would not get any article or edits from now. I know i was providing actual information not fake. for people i have print media and i can send scan copies of national news paper for notability. But my district is very backward and no one share all this news on web. so people doesnt apear on web. thats why its very tough to me to find links on net for references. Well I really felling very sad and sorry saying these words bbye WP forever.

Regards

Sameer

Sameergoswami (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my edits on Holidays & Festival lists, I only made changes to previous entries e.g. October 19 there was entry for a Hindu festival which occurred in 2007 at this date but this year it moved to October 09. Then there are events like Thanksgiving, Good Friday, Ester, etc. which are not bounded to specific Gregorian calendar dates but find place in the list and even on Wikipedia Home page e.g.

October 13: Sukkot begins at sunset (Judaism, 2008); Columbus Day in the United States (2008); Health and Sports Day in Japan (2008); Thanksgiving in Canada (2008)

Regarding addition of emty pages which say "no event", I hope and am trying to get the data for these dates also, which suffices the guidelines of Wikipedia. I am not using single page for no event due to rendering pattern.

I'm really sorry if I voilated any Wikipedia Guidelines and will assist in repairing the damages if any.

Thanks --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 03:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I'll apologise for my edit summary. It was rude and out of line.

As the article stood there was no indication of notability (as verified with reliable sources). I put the links there so I wouldn't lose them - they were to be expanded into proper notes supporting claims later. The in-depth coverage was the Museo Magazine article, as well as an Aftenbladet article (not in-depth coverage), and an article on Sweden.se [10]. A quick web search (Akay + graffiti, Akay + Sweden) pulled up the Wooster Collective describing him as "of one of the true legends in street art today" [11]. Wooster are recognised as an authority on street art. There were also mentions in books and academic articles in English, German and Swedish, again not in-depth, which to be honest I'm too tired to put through a translator, but give me enough hope that he's not some flash in the pan. I'm pretty sure I could give it a WP:HEY edit, but for the moment it was just enough to save it - and articles that are deleted are more likely to be deleted a second time, even in the presence of decent coverage in reliable sources.

Again, I shouldn't edit when I need sleep, and apologise for my snappy summary. Mostlyharmless (talk) 10:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you for changing that. I never checked that page.(I'm en-2 so my grammer might be wrong.) --Bart0278 (talk) 06:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

is located at COEX Mall —Preceding unsigned comment added by 서울 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must contest your action to 서울 (talk · contribs). He is a newbie who desperately needs guides to understand image policies (hell, I even have to search suitable image policies whenever I upload images other than cc-by or cc-by-sa). He just does not get what image policies. You know South Korean does not care much about copyright laws. The 72 hours block is harsh, and you have not tried to inform him about adoptee programs, or image policies at all. Just dreadful warnings and blocks. I'm not saying that the user is doing right, but his contributions to COEX Seoul is not vandalism. Please reconsider your block. Thanks.Caspian blue 15:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. I'm not sure how many of his multiple image copyright violations are hidden by the fact that a great number of his image uploads have been deleted, but he has ignored multiple warnings and shown absolutely no intention of ceasing to upload inappropriate images. His other edits have variously contravened WP:V, WP:NPOV and a raft of other policies and guidelines. He has shown little or no intention of discussing edits and, when he has commented, it has included pointed posts which further underline his violations of WP:NPOV and show no sign of willingness to actually discuss or learn anything. He has, on multiple occasions, in English and Korean, been invited to discuss his posts or respond to questions and he simply has not. If by the COEX edit you mean the bus timetable, that was certainly an inappropriate edit although not a major contributing factor to the block - as I said, it may be that the majority of his disruptive edits are hidden to non-admins as they have been deleted, and others have been reverted. I'm sorry but, as it stands, we are talking about an editor who is editing disruptively, and is refusing or unable to get the point. If you would like to offer him some kind of adoption or coaching, please do so - feel free to offer advice on his talkpage and give him some links to read over while he is blocked. If he would like to send me a message himself, on my talkpage or his, I would love to get some meaningful dialog going. However, at the moment, the block (72 hrs, fairly short given his utter lack of willingness to learn, discuss, cease editing disruptively or violating copyright policies after an initial 24hr block) stands. The fact that Koreans "don't care" about copyright does not change the fact that the Wikimedia servers are located in Florida nor give them any latitude to continually contravene policies that all editors have to abide by. Thanks, Deiz talk 16:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The mention that "Koreans do not care much about copyright law" is a phenomenon about activities related to Naver, Daum. The image policies are a lot to learn for beginners. The language barrier is also a big problem. At first he did not write any information about his uploaded images, however, after I said to him, he provided source link. I think that is a small progress. Before joining in English Wikipedia, I was making many errors on Korean Wikipedia, especially for image uploading. As for East Sea, well you know Sea of Japan, Liancourt Rocks are magnets for newbies from both Korea and Japan. He needs a lesson, but the block seems like your frustration through the experience with Marcopolis (talk · contribs). Just like the example, he was blocked by you, his contribution was significantly decreased.--Caspian blue 16:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright violation is a more serious issue than I think you understand. Copyrighted images can only be uploaded if they are accompanied by a valid fair use rationale, demonstrably usable on the English Wikipedia, and immediately used in articles. Non-compliance with these requirements puts WP in a difficult position, and "hurting the feelings" of an editor who fails to comply with this policy after repeated warnings is a secondary concern to protecting WP. As I said, it is a relatively short block, and you are welcome to use this time to offer him advice, coaching or links to read so that he can be a better editor when he returns. Deiz talk 01:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm.... I wanted to head up about newbie eager to upload dubious images to Wikipedia, but you blocked him. I was afrad the result. I understand their intention because they seem to believe their contributions with (their or other) photos could enhance articles dramatically because they're not good at writing in English. They want to do something good for Wikipedia, but their abilities are limited, and very ignorant of image policies and reading them is dizzy. Before writing something, I only uploaded images to English Wikipedia (although they are all cc-by or cc-by-sa) Anyway, I will write a note in Korean for the newly blocked user. Regards.--Caspian blue 13:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote my honest observation on the blocking. My concern is actually not the newbies who did wrong with poor Wiki knowledges of Wikipedia, but Sennen goroshi (talk · contribs) and many Japanese sockpuppeters, fake newbies who have known too many Wikiepdia rules, but use them for their game. I know you're not interested in Japan-Korea related articles, but there needs attention.--Caspian blue 11:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm troubled with Caspian blue about Woo Jang-choon. There is my point of view report,Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive487#User: Caspian blue. And there is Caspian blue's message for me [12] Then he also told WikiProject Japan's people like that I already provided him links that back up the mistreatment that Dr.Woo suffered and Bukubku ignored the "fact".[13]this link. However, I don't think his new source says Japanese mistreated Woo. Moreover I think his source supports my opinion(1.Woo's father is one of assasins 2.Japanese is not Racist), and denys his opinion(1.Japanese government attempted to divert the blame to the Koreans about the assassination of Empress Myeongseong 2.Japanese is Racist). I have already involved and bothered many Admins and WikiProject Japan's member about this problem. However no one read Korean. Deiz, you are Korean reader and Admin, please mediate us. Please help us.--Bukubku (talk) 12:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhhh, I really try not to get into contentious Korea / Japan debates. I try to add general / non-controversial content about Korea and anywhere else from my own knowledge and interest when possible, and sort out very obvious or small scale K/J issues with the utmost neutrality, but I would have to recuse myself from any invitation which deals with racism or other highly contentious issues. My Korean skills aren't good enough to accurately interpret historical texts or documents, and I'm also seriously busy in RL right now and couldn't commit to the time it might take to fully explore the details. Sorry, thanks for asking. It does seem from your tone that you are a very level-headed kind of editor, especially as you are asking a Korea-based admin for help, and CB seems to be similarly screwed down, so I wonder if you guys couldn't sort something out yourselves. Deiz talk 12:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I absolutely will not tolerate my talk page being turned into a battleground or petty slanging match about an issue I have very respectfully declined not to get involved in. You are both disrupting this page. Go somewhere else. Deiz talk 22:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry.--Bukubku (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:Deathardath seems to have done a useful job of identifying Blue Ribbon schools. However, you have undone several apparently accurate edits, for example, [14], [15] and others. Before I revert the edits, I wonder if there is something that I have missed, please? TerriersFan (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore any appropriate content. Deiz talk 03:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this dab on your watchlist? I don't know if anyone noticed it yet, but it seems like there is some sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry going on here. Why else would there be a sudden urge to keep re-adding the same non-existent entry? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have that one listed. It does seem to be a strange one, probably a good idea to at least drop a note on the talk page of the named users (User talk:Quidam65 for example) who have added the line. I'll semi-protect for a while if it happens again and you think it needs it. Deiz talk 10:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Think you could also watchlist it or do you already have enough on your plate? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ben. I note that you have DYK experience, eg. Scotland during the Roman Empire recently. Could you cast your eye over this:

• Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_December_1

I feel that the hook could do with "tightening up" (perhaps a total re-write or "ALT" hook proposal?), and the article needs a lot of work with copy editing, refs, expansion etc etc. Pretty photographs or other good images would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance for any assistance whatsoever.

Hello Deiz. Long time no see! I saw you about (over at Chris Hoy), so I just wondered if you could you cast your eye over this (I seem to remember you have quite a bit of DYK experience):

• Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_December_1

I feel that the ALT hook is better (improvements always welcome), but the article needs a lot of work with copy editing, refs, expansion etc etc. Pretty photographs or other good images would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance for any assistance whatsoever. --Mais oui! (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mais, sorry I didn't get back to you on this one while it was happening :( Deiz talk 09:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My dear Sir, do not jump to conclusions. I simply copied the old article to my Sandbox so I could work on it to integrate lost images. I would have to read up to find out how to revert anyway. Exasperatedly yours, Rosser (talk) 11:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed the threat - many thanks for your appreciation of my outstanding contributions. You should feel more than a little ashamed and maybe question your motives. Rosser (talk) 11:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had to revert another one [16]. How about that protection? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, 4 weeks semi. Let me know if it works out. Deiz talk 05:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they're a pain. The one user who is responsible for them wouldn't communicate until threatened with blocking and I just noticed he'd slapped them over basically every article. There are quite a few there, but I'll keep digging through his history. There are some articles where he put 8-10 pictures and in the beginning he wouldn't format things properly, so he was using -- and font sizes to make headers rather than wiki mark up. so with the inconsistent formatting, its probably not even something we can use a bot to do.--Crossmr (talk) 08:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

is this a fairly common problem with many national articles or something unique to korea? It seems a lot of articles here have a lot of articles in them.--Crossmr (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a lot of people like to wander about and take photos of unusual or idiosyncratic things - skyscrapers, subway stations, markets etc - and upload the fruits of their labours to WP. Trouble is, you get the ones who start building their own photoblog. It's hard for non-Korean speakers to get much text-based information about these places, especially stuff that can be reliably sourced in English, so they compensate by adding a glut of photos. Of course, sometimes it gets ridiculous, like the 13 slightly different, yet effectively identical vistas of Tower Palace 3. Korean editors with a good command of English tend to quickly get bogged down with Korea / Japan nationalism-related topics, at the expense of adding content to other articles. Deiz talk 13:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kuebie (talk · contribs) don't talk with me about Korea under Japanese rule. He continued inserting the word Forced Japanese Occupation Period in Infobox. It is one of native name in South Korea. It is not conventional name. It is not disputing issue. Please warm him to stop vandalizm.--Bukubku (talk) 11:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've dropped a note on his talk page. Be aware that while you were restoring what you believe to be the "safe" version, you could very legitimately be blocked yourself for breaking the WP:3RR yourself in this case. WP:CHILL and ask for others to help before you make a 4th revert next time. Deiz talk 12:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deiz, if you warn an editor, could you take a look closely to the disputed article? In fact, the conventional name used in Korea has been addressed to the article over months, but Bukubku (talk · contribs) removed it first without consensus and changed kanji of the title used in Japan for Japanese POV which practices are not neutral nor consensus-reached edits. I suggested Bukbuku to take it his concerns to the talk page, but he never did. The restoration by Kuebie is not a vandalism.--Caspian blue 12:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't call it vandalism, I called it disruptive. I warned both editors. I passed no comment on whether it was "right" or "wrong". Both Bukubku and Kuebie have editing issues, but Bukubku is at least trying to communicate with someone other than the person he is in conflict with. The title used in the contentious edit is given in the lead paragraph of the article and has not been erased from history. So, if you're confused about something, don't say "Deiz, you didn't read the article and you did the wrong thing" - you can very definitely assume that I did read the article, checked the history of the article, and checked the contributions and talk pages of both editors. If you are unsure of why I acted in the way I did, by all means ask me to explain. If you want help or advice from me as an administrator and neutral party, just ask. If you want to attempt to mediate between them, make my day. OK? Deiz talk 13:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you did not call it vandalsim but Bukubku did. He gave a "vandalism" warning to Kuebie which is neither an attempt to resolve the conflict in a civil way that he caused. Besides, he came here after he reverted 3 times and then violated the rule right away and reported Kuebie to ANI3. I did not confuse anything, because you reverted to Bukubku's preferred version as calling one party disruptive. You previously rejected an offer for a meditation on Woo Jang-choon, so since you've shown your interest in meditation, I'm happy to have you as a meditator.--Caspian blue 13:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to improve the article with more facts. It would be more appreciated if somebody could help me, but I will any get to work. Russian Luxembourger (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't see where reliably sourced content that proves Greeks in S. Korea are any kind of significant community is going to come from. By all means have a go at improvement, but this could go to AfD. From a quick look at Greek diaspora, there are many countries with larger Greek populations than SK with no corresponding article - it would probably be of more benefit to the encyclopedia if your refocussed your efforts there. Deiz talk 23:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed merging it to Greece–South Korea relations (which isn't in very good shape either, but has far more potential as an actual encyclopedia topic, given e.g. Greek participation in the Korean War). I also see no possibility that Greeks in South Korea can be improved; they are simply too small a group for any reliable sources to have found them worth writing about non-trivially. See Talk:Greece-South Korea relations#Merge proposal; appreciate your comments. Cheers, cab (talk) 11:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J Bar. Regarding Bogan, WP has fairly strict content policies on trivia, images and unsourced material. With particular reference to the trivia section, I'm sure you're aware that such sections - if they exist at all - should be short and are there to give a flavour of how a topic is referenced in the media, rather than every conceivable appearance. The homemade images failed WP:NFT, and there are/were various other instances of unsourced or WP:NPOV content in the artice. Thanks, Deiz talk 12:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect Deiz, the information you keep deleting from the article is not trivia. The popular culture references you keep deleting are important facts that help to illustrate the article better and provide links to other wikipedia articles which provide more information. Bogan Pride for example is a television show that parodies this subculture and is quite an important popular culture reference. J Bar (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HI, I'm Historiographer.

I don't know that why Japanese user claimed her's name in wikipedia is called Queen Min. She given name the as Empress Myeongseong by Emperor Gojong. If You interested in this, Please support naming the Empress Myeongseong. Thanks... --Historiographer (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Principals & Presidents - uh-oh, they're ba-ack... Perhaps the time has come to lock the page or disable the contributors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonstan (talk • contribs) 16:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. I'm not on much these days, but I'm checking msgs. If the same user restores the info, let me know. Deiz talk 06:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... just rollbacked another one [17]. ATP, it might be better if a <! -- dull comment --> was placed somewhere instead of another page lock. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you indef block this and this? Thanks, Enigma^msg 05:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: [18]. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 04:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:East Lothian Golf Courses has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. GOLFAUTHORITY 16:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Sagreslogo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Just to let you know that this dab has been nominated for deletion using Template:db-disambig. If you have any questions about this, please let me know. Best wishes, Boleyn3 (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Deiz, you have received this notice because you have placed your name on the list of members of WikiProject Metal. We are currently looking to make the wikiproject more active, and in doing so, we need to have a list of active members on the wikiproject. If you wish to stay an active part of wikiproject metal, please add your username to Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal/Active Users. Conversely, if you wish to leave the wikiproject, please remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal/Members. Thank you.

Stu Macher needs to be redirected to List of characters in the Scream film series#Stuart "Stu" Macher. Thank you. Geeky Randy (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Wikisconorber.PNG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. nn123645 (talk) 05:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I hope you're doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this intrusion. I've just read your profile and saw that you're an enthusiastic Scotsman (I went to Edinburgh not that long ago and I really appreciated the people and the wonderful place! Beautiful and really nice!), so I guess that being Scottish helps you understand what are a minorized language and culture and maybe I am not bothering you and you will help us... I'm a member of a Catalan association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this hasn't been approved up to that moment. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. Supporting us will be like giving equal opportunity to minorized languages and cultures in the future! Thanks again, wishing you a great summer, take care! Keep on preserving your great culture, country and language! Mar sin leibh! Capsot (talk) 07:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sorry I have a Basque friend who would get jealous. Deiz talk 22:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kaixo, Well I really feel sorry for your friend since many Basque people from the Euskara Wikipedia (among many other minorities) have shown their support as you can check on the template. Tell him kaixo! from me, have a pleasant summertime, agur/mar sin leibh/adéu! Capsot (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just closed this AFD on gameification but it bought back memories of one of my newbie edits to dehardwarization which you took note of back in 2006 :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a blast from the past.. I have a pretty good memory for edits but was probably prodding at serious volume around that time, can't say I remember that one specifically. And closed by none other than Mailer Diablo.. I do stay signed in but got waaaaaay too much goin on IRL for much editing these days. Thx for the wikimemories :) Deiz talk 12:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just heard an interesting item on BBC Radio 4's Making History programme about Hugh Forbes, a soldier who fought in the Italian nationalist campaigns of the 19th Century and helped train John Brown's abolitionist troops. I see that you deleted an article at this title some time ago. Was it about the same Hugh Forbes, and if so, was there anything there that could be salvaged for an article? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Duncan. No idea, and no idea :) Deiz talk 06:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deiz,

I've come across an article named 'Abd al-Ilah. I find the Notes and References are mixed up (See my comment on it's discussion page). I've asked 23skidoo from WikiProject Biographies and Ian Rose from the WikiProject Military History to look at it. Adamdaley (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam. Best of luck with all that. Deiz talk 14:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Sbocklogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 07:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Deiz,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at [email protected] (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at [email protected]. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chlopeck (talk • contribs) 23:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, I love WP:NOTSPE. I'm so gonna buy me some mirrored shades and sadistically beat... oh, wait, no, that would be bad. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

T'would indeed. But as long as you know what you're doing... :) Deiz talk 09:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Deiz, I was wondering what you think of the mess that has become of the UFC/MMA articles. You can see the situation here. As an Admin I would love to hear what your opinion is. Portillo (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Portillo. I am actually a big UFC/MMA fan, and from a scan of the discussion you linked I can see it is indeed a bit messy. However, it's not an area I've been active in on WP, and in all honesty I can't see myself getting involved. Hope everything works out. Deiz talk 05:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject CKY has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Kumioko (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi Deiz! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! 20:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Boxingicon.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:NOA. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:NOA redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Tito☸Dutta 00:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:BO. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:BO redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deiz.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this was one of yours, though I copied it to Commons: Deletion request Seacliffhouse.jpg

If you have a source (the one quoted is a deadlink), that would help. Thanks. Hogweard (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:EARLY. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:EARLY redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Oli Shaw at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — Rod ^talk 19:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Scodunbarmap.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned map.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next month.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Scohadd.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Users with indefinitely protected user talk pages". Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Deiz. Trust you are doing great today. I see you participate in WikiProject Biography and I'd like to request a favor from you.

I recently created a draft at Draft:Dremo, but a higher authority user accuses me of creating a Sock Puppet account and declines all of my works. They did this twice.

Honestly, I feel they are being biased. Can you have a look at the draft and let me know whether or not, it provides notability of the subject?

I looked at several other articles such as Mayorkun, Rema, and Chinko Ekun, and made sure I followed similar patterns.

I strongly believe if articles such as Tems, Taaooma, MC Lively and more are in the article mainspace, then Draft:Dremo also stands a chance.

I recently joined Wikipedia, but learning and contributing in a community where they are higher authority users that throw accusations and also ignore the questions and concerns of new editors is just very demoralizing.

I appreciate your time and I hope you look into this. Thanks in advance. Mondayudowong (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:ABT. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 6#Wikipedia:ABT until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Sagresbottle.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reminder that established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. You are receiving this annual reminder since you have averaged less than 50 edits per year over the last 5 years.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to reengage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to be engaged with the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]