User talk:Excirial/Archive 5

	Userpage	Talk	Awards	E-Mail	Dashboard	Programs	Sandbox	Sketchbook	Blocknote

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I just flamed some poor unsuspecting good-faith-but-sloppy Huggler to hell and back on RFA. I feel like I kicked a puppy. – iridescent 20:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Forty lashes for Irid. Tough love perhaps, it was something he/she needed to hear I'm sure, you don't take RFA lightly or "make up" reasons to oppose. I highly doubt you've ever said any of the oppose views I just typed up. Keeper | 76 | what's in a name? 20:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sloppy Huggler's deserve kicking to hell and back. What's the problem? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Rereading, Iridescent never said he didn't enjoy kicking the puppy, to be honest. Keeper | 76 | what's in a name? 20:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've been seeing a lot of reports to AIV about people that were clearly editing in the good faith. Hugglers need to slow the fuck down. –xenocidic (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

  ooh! Such language Xeno. Fuck me, that was rash. Keeper | 76 | what's in a name? 20:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

For a group of people with such a nice name, they seem to be well-hated by the Keeper-pedia community. Ironic.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 20:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

"I use Huggle so fast so of course I make more errors" has got to be one of the worst explanations I've ever seen for just about anything. On reflection, I could have been a lot harsher. And that sig looks oddly familiar to me... – iridescent 20:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I have never said (and will never say) that I hate Huggle, or hugglers. I'm wary of them, perhaps even a bit terrified. I believe others here would agree there is no "hate" involved, perhaps annoyance at best. Keeper | 76 | what's in a name? 20:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The big thing people need to do with Huggle is pay attention. Vandal-fighting should not be a race, but it always has been. Huggle makes this worse through its tremendous speed . Huggle's speed ensures that if something is vandalism, it will be reverted very quickly, especially if several people are on at once. In their haste to "get the revert" many, many Huggle users knee-jerk revert anything even remotely resembling vandalism. If you take a second to actually read the diff, and check things out in Firefox if you're not sure, Huggle is THE best anti-vandal tool ever made. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) During the assorted testing runs, at a rough estimate I've made at least 4000-5000 Huggle edits myself, so I probably technically qualify as a Huggler. What I do notice, is that when Gurch, Persian Poet Gal, Epbr123, J.delanoy etc are using it, they somehow manage to use it without racking up a string of "unavoidable mistakes". – iridescent 20:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

<--this really isn't related (because I can't relate, still haven't loaded huggle), but J.d, what you said about "racing" seems to be true at WP:RFR. Most requests are filled within 2 minutes of the request coming in. It's almost as if admins (I'm including myself in this) are rushing to be the one that gets the little notch in their Userright log for granting rollback. Maybe no one else is fellin' that, but I can't believe how many times I edit-conflict over there when a "new request" pops up. Keeper | 76 | what's in a name? 20:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming you saw this, Irid? You is a powerful powerful person it seems....Keeper | 76 | what's in a name? 21:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

My view on this is coloured by the fact that yesterday evening, while I was merging three articles, some damned Huggler came along behind me and reverted me. I mean, me, I ask you. On the other hand, I've got to admit that was pretty brave of them. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually tempted to revert your edit here on my talk, citing harassment, or maybe wikilawyering. Just to see how that sits with you.  :-) Keeper | 76 | what's in a name? 21:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Oooh. I can feel the hackles on my back beginning to rise already. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Re to Keeper – ironically, while it wouldn't have passed after that, if he'd left it open he'd have picked up a fair few supports (Majorly supports anything I oppose, and the Kiddy Kabal would have wanted to make a point). This is why (despite my reputation) I hardly ever actually oppose at RFA.  – iridescent 21:10, July 11, 2008

Dear god, what have I done now? – iridescent 21:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, that's a much more mature response than some of the flames I've seen when an RFA gets snowed under...Keeper | 76 | what's in a name? 21:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me hopping in here even though im on a wikibreak, but i rather don't want this to be classified as yet another crybaby response to a failed RFA :). YES, i am indeed going on a wikibreak because of the RFA, but NO im not doing so because i want to prove a point or because i am all angry now. (Please permaban me the instance i fall even lower then the vandals i revert)

Till a certain height i can agree with the comments given on the RFA. I have been given nudges for being overzealous, and i have been notified of mistakes in the past. Personally i thought they got less and less, but it seems i have just been fooling myself. I do have a fond disagreement with the statement that unbalanced editors cannot be admins even in their own natural habit due to the lack of all round experience and i also cannot help but finding your thoughts on Huggle a bit... Single sided Iridescent. While mistake are indeed made, the vandalism reverted by it is an order of magnitude bigger then with previous methods and tools. While the regular editor notices a bigger error ratio, you cannot deny its also quite a bliss to have virtually no vandalism to articles. Even so, i cannot deny that i am making mistakes. To many? Perhaps. And that's what i want think over . Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 21:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'll say it. I find that to be a rather mature response. I don't fault Iridescent for opposing your RfA, his reasoning was valid (and had the RfA run longer, I would have most likely followed suit after my own investigation of your contribs). But still, I'm very impressed by your post here, and your response to a "bad" RfA, Excirial. Completely unrelated, I notice that your signature is strikingly similar to someone else's. Not a problem, generally, but do you have any RL affiliation with XP54321 (or whatever?) Keeper | 76 | what's in a name? 21:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, i appreciate it. And now you say so, yes i know XP54321 quite well. In fact, i adopted him some time ago. (Ever wondered why his user page looks so similar to mine? :P) Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 21:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you and he the same person? Do you know each other in real life? Keeper | 76 | what's in a name? 21:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Double negative on that. (Your not saying i got a sock except coreva, do you?). I suspect that XP simply copied over the code i used for my signature since I was the first with a colored siggy on his page. The user page is definitely the same story, as i doubt a lot of people would use Firefox specific code to create nice round borders (Its not even in the official api docu the last time i checked). Actually, he would not be the first. Have a look at where this blode is transcluded, and you might see some very similar things. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 22:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent, edit conflict) I think that there's a place for Huggle, and that it does help fight against vandalism. Heck, I've even used it myself when I'm not doing anything else on-wiki. The trick is though, to only use it in cases of really blatant vandalism. If there's something that you're not sure on, or unclear, fire up your browswer and take a more detailed look. It might be a new user that needs welcoming, or an edit war that needs resolving, or a number of other options except clicking revert and moving on. That's the difference between using a tool heavily and letting some innocent edits get reverted, and using it cleverly to make a better experience for all concerned. Hope this helps, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 22:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, just a quick note about Wall-E. It is a misconception that micro-gravity was one of the elements affecting the humans. At no time in the film is it depicted as being a problem, especially since on multiple occasions the humans are depicted as being heavy to lift for robot assistants. Instead, the only factors depicted in the film as a cause of the humans' evolved weaknesses is their obesity and lethargic lifestyle. If you have seen the movie, it is clear that the animators and writers focused on the passengers' constant eating, lack of physical interaction, and television viewing to be the problems on board the ship, not micro-gravity. The humans initially have difficulty walking, not because of a lack of gravity, but rather because they have spent most of their lives sitting and have either almost forgotten how to walk or never experience it in the first place. By reverting the edited passage back to the one stressing micro-gravity as a major element in the film allows a factual inaccuracy to persist on the Wall-E page. Scipio82 (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a slight feeling you posted this at the wrong user page? The revert i executed at this page is only consisting our of clear vandalism, as you can see Here. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 13:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the junk article noted above, i have the slight suspicion that we are dealing with a mass of sockpuppets here. All the user account noted below took part in this page. In a sense thats already highly suspicious, as they are all new user accounts flocking to the same page. Second, all these accounts except for the initial contributer (Johncockman ) were made within minutes after each other according to the creation log. What do you think about this? Report the mass as suspected socks or just keep an eye on them to check for vandalism only accounts? Kind regards, Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 13:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Suspected socks

• Rocketgirl99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DarthMarth312 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• I wack the Wiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kevinpark30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jonathan03 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dgjr10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Xxxzzz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Johncockman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not sure. I'd probably guess they're just a pack of schoolkids, but I'll keep an eye on them. I already blocked one for a usernamevio. --slakr^\ talk / 13:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Which reminds me, I hardblocked it, so if they're editing from the same school, it likely autoblocked all of them. :P --slakr^\ talk / 13:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I should seriously start a page called "Favorite Slakr Quotes" since thats the second time you got a smile on my face with a one line comment :) (I still haven't removed the first from my user page either). Either way, i guess that actually solves the entire problem for now. And if they can come back, well, well see what happens then Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 13:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr Excirial,

Thank you for protecting Kamma (caste) from vandalism. Please block the offender 144.36.134.189. User:Sriramas and User:Lakshminivas have also vandalized the article. I appealed to them to discuus before making new inputs but of no avail. In fact, they appear to be sock puppets of each other. Thanks.Kumarrao (talk) 07:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

As i am a Rollbacker, and not an Admin, i don't have the capacity to block users. User 144.36.134.189 has received a level 4 (Final warning) from me though, which means that in case of repeated vandalism a report will lead to a temporal removal of editing rights. I cannot warn the other two accounts though, even if vandalism took place since it was several days ago (Warning isn't done in retrospect).

While you are correct about the IP vandalizing the page, the two user account, based on Diffs are Good Faith editors meaning that their edits are made to inflict harm. I actually wouldn't even qualify them as "Wrong" since i cannot spot any mistakes on them. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 15:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Apart from my previous edit, i will have to give you a nudge towards the ownership guidelines. From the page history i can see you have been removing other users contributions on the basis of them not being discussed. The inclusion threshold however is "Verifiability", which means that discussion isn't required to add information to an article. unless another users edit can be proven as wrong, i would suggest leaving it in the article, or moving it to the appropriate section, but NOT removing it. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 15:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi HTAFC23 is spamming articles at the moment t- can they please be blocked ASAP as even with Twinkle I can't keep up --BustOut' (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Im a Rollbacker, not an Admin. Judging from WP:AIAV logs, It seems that he/she is already blocked by User:Rettetast one minute after the initial report :) Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 14:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks anyway for the response....!! --BustOut' (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Since the book has not won any awards it does not meet the required "Notability requirements" so any article on it will be deleted. Please delete my account or tell me how to do so. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dshaines (talk • contribs) 15:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Account removal is not possible due to consistency issues within the mediawiki software. The closest thing to account removal that can be done is courtesy blanking of the user page and subpages. The account itsself however, can not be removed. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 15:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is my edit not appropriate? It's an article about improvised firearms - I think that the fact that fully-automatic improvised firearms exist should be duly noted, and that the site of The Home Gunsmith, Mr Luty, would be a very appropriate reference, since he gives an in-depth view into how he has devised an improvised fully-automatic firearm able to be made with similar materials and in a similar process to the average zip gun. Now, my edit might have sounded a little like an advertisement, but I still think it's a very important piece of information to note in an article regarding improvised firearm design. 121.222.63.14 (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

As you identified correctly, my main concern with this edit is that it indeed consists of spam. I have no issues with the first line of the edit, but the second line on can be summed up as: <MR X> from <PLACE Y> is famous for <XYZ>. In general this wording style is removed from each and every article as not appropriate.

Second, the website in question is a personal website, and does as of such not qualify as a reference for an article. Any references should be from notable, third party sources as explained in WP:CITE. Also, the reference should be Written in a neutral point of View, but i this case its simply the opinion of Mr. Luty.

Kind regards,

Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 15:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

What about an independent book website, such as Amazon or something, where the book is listed? Would the information on such a third-party listing qualify as a good third party source? 121.222.63.14 (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That depends on what the source is used to prove. For example amazon's description about the first pressing date can be considered reliable. But if amazon is used to prove a line such as "The book is awesome, Amazon says so" it is not. WP:RS probably gives the best overview of what a good source is. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 15:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

When an editor attempted to redirect the duplicative copyvio page he wrote to a relatively non-copyvio page already present in Wikipedia, you issued him repeated warnings for removing content User talk:Jamesmcardle. Perhaps you may have been using an automated tool, without looking at the nature of the actual edit? Changing to a redirect is very often a legitimate edit, especially in cases like this--it was exactly the right thing for him to have done, and he deserves praise, not censure. I have already apologized to the editor on behalf of wikipedia--and rewritten and combined the additional usable information from the copyvio article into the preexisting article. DGG (talk) 16:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that DGG. This is indeed a rather grave miscalculation from my side. If i remember well the first edit i noticed consisted of a partial removal of some of the text, followed by a complete replacement with a red link article. I expected this was yet another user who tried to redirect a page to a nonexistent one, and covering the action up by making the name sound plausible. (I reverted a same sort of attempt a few times today, which caused a "Not another one" reaction").

Thanks for cleaning this one up! I removed the warnings from the page as they are not valid; Not trying to hide what happened, but i don't think it should be on the user record as if he was being a vandal (That, and if another huggle warns him it would be a level 4 warning). Kind regards as ever, Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 17:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

And thanks for the acknowledgment. Personally, I consider Huggle so likely to lead to problems that I don't trust myself to use it, nor do I use any other automated tools. DGG (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't really agree with Huggle leading to problems. While my count of mistakes has risen by a factor two, the amount of vandalism i reverted has actually risen by a factor 4 or more (I can do the same amount of work in four days which previously took me almost a month!). I find that Huggle has the added value of not having to switch to different pages each time to issue warnings, something which really gets you out of the diff loop (And causes errors).

Of course huggle is incredibly powerful in both the right and the wrong hands, but it merits far outweigh the dangers. Vandalism has never been so consequently reverted, and since the new version can only be used when a user has Rollback, will prevent the malicious and the "Not sure how this works" from using it :) Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 09:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to reedit vandalism on my IP and you reverted it! I know it was a unsourced statement, but User:Londoncall was blatant POV pushing --Numyht (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I ran a diff on this, and i can't help but support Londoncall's viewpoint on this. While wikipedia is not censored and should not only contain praise, there is a threshold on what should, and what should not be included. The first section london removed was about the show getting a negative reception which is labeled as a fact, yet there is no source, not even a POV one, linked to the claim to back this up. As WP:NPOV rules criticism is allowed, but should be sourced which is not the case.

The second part are all negative quotations from several people. If it was not for this message, i would have re-removed this section myself by now. The section is completely POV (There is not even one positive comment), isn't even labeled as CRITICISM if its that, and adds completely nothing to the article itsself (What value lies in what these people think?). If it is supposed to be a criticism section it should at least have some form of lead section explaining that this is some peoples opinions. Yet even then, i highly doubt that these peoples opinions who only consists of pure swears belong on Wikipedia. The sources with these quotations are incredibly POV, which makes them invalid sources Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 19:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Kind regards, Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 19:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

hey, no hard feelings at all, for once he did vandalism and it was good. But you should see Londoncall's questionable edits to Gamezville --Numyht (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

All sounds good. I was on the fence as for a decision on the value of those quotes, I was just waiting for someone without an obvious agenda to input their opinion. I must say though, there is no threshold that can be passed as to what can be on Wikipedia. No censoring, means no censoring, as it should be. Only the value of the material should be considered, which is where I agree with you. Slydevil (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

When i said threshold i meant the threshold any added material must meet before it is considered usable. I have rewritten my comment one or two times before posting it, which ,in retrospect, didn't do any good to the consistency of it. indeed Wikipedia is not censured, and if a show was crap, then it was, as long as it can be backed up with reliable third partly sources. :) Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 08:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The new editor, User:AnusUtra, has continued to vandalise, including my user page. Please would you be able to block?--UpDown (talk) 11:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Got it. User reported at WP:AIAV. if any, this user is t least in violation of WP:U, even without the vandalism. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 11:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Many thanks for your quick help, I'm not that familiar with what to do with vandals like this! --UpDown (talk) 11:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I have seen you around on vandalism patrol and I would be willing to nominate you to be a Administrator. If you are willing to accept, please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact me to accept or decline the nomination.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 17:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit i am truly flattered by this offer, and i am happy to accept it. Several months ago i refused a similar offer since i deemed it to early, but i have to admit that i recently have been playing with the thought to put up an RFA someday so i could help out with several maintenance related sections on Wikipedia. I didn't really have an idea about "when", but i guess this solves that problem :)

Again, many thanks for the offer

Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 17:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Please formally accept your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Excirial and answer the questions.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 18:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It took some time, but im finally done with filling in the questions. I had to triple check the answers because im not a natural born english speaker, which causes some toe-curling grammar at times. (And i don't want that to happen at an RFA :P) Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 19:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

How did you get your page looking so cool? I need help please! Please respond at my talk page when you get a chance. Thank you! --Chrismaster1 (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to respond to this when i read this a few days ago, but since i was busy back then i postponed it and kind of forgot to react, sorry about that. As for your question, the wikipedia userpage is in fact much similar to a website as it accepts HTML syntax. To make a user page look cool, is simply a matter of coding a normal HTML page, and then using it as your own user page.

If you want a cool looking userpage, there are a few options available. The first one is obvious: You can create a userpage by simply making a webpage yourself, or asking someone else to do it for you. It does require some time investment and a bit of coding skills to get something up and running (I spend about 11 hours on mine last year). It is not hard o do so, but if your not familiar with it HTML it can take some time to learn. An excellent head start can be found at The user page design center.

A second option is simply copying over an existing userpage from another user, and then changing any links to your own. Generally this is much faster and much easier, but your userpage lacks a personal feel of course. For that matter i am allowing everyone who wants to copy the templates i designed over and modify them for their own use, as long as the little bottom bar that says "Omega Purple Template - Excirial 2007" stays in tact. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 22:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Its always nice to see such an extensive article such as Catholic Ecumenical Councils being created when checking the new pages :). While only having skimmed over the contents, it looks very well written and providing sufficient in depth coverage. My compliments on a fine article!

Apart from that, i would like to make a suggestion based upon the references section. As this section is kind of long, might it be an idea to close the individual references with </ref> tags, and then generating the references section with a {{reflist|2}} to generate two seperate coloms to create a bit more overview? I would be happy to do this for you, but since im not involved into editing it, i wanted to consult you about this idea before making such a change.

Kind regards, Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 18:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I would be delighted if you could make the suggested changes. I have another small request. I wrote the whole article on my own with exception of the last two § on Vatican II which due to timing I borrowed from Second Vatican Council. I tried to leave a note in the text but was unable to find the right ( ) Can you help? Thanks again -Ambrosius007 (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I have edit the article to include a two coloms reflist, instead of the singular column that was previously used. This can be changed at any time by altering the number in the {{reflist|2}} template. As far as i am aware, there is no restriction in the amount of columns that can be created this way.

I also edited the comment mentioned a bit. I assumed that you wanted to give credit to the article, yet did not want to have it appear in the text itself. In order to do this i used the standard HTML comment tags. Once a user opens the article itself this text is not visible, yet when a user edits the article this text will be visible. This is, by the same means, also an excellent way to leave a comment for other editors without disrupting any of the text. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 18:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's exactly what I was looking for. I will eventually write my own text there but not today -:)) Thank you --Ambrosius007 (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not new to wikipedia. I do edit many pages and add things that may have been left out, but I have never started my own page. I am not sure what I have done wrong on the Army Men: Team Assault page and would appreciate it if you could help explain. Please respond to my talk page. I am Thompsonmarksman.

The problem on this particular page is that it is pretty much reads like a user manual for the game it describes. For example the lead section contains some form of introduction that you would encounter in game, and not in an encyclopedia. The rest of the article are statistics about various units that, while obviously of interest to whoever plays the game, does not belong into an encyclopedia. Personally i am not a specialist on game related articles, but i might still give you a little assistance by pointing you to a game related article which seems to comply to the article guidelines: Grand Theft Auto 3. Have a look at the structure of this particular particle, and see if you can incorporate it into your article.

By the way, signing your posts with your user name is done by adding four tildes ~~~~ after the message. Also i hope you will forgive me this comment, but i kind of believe this is about the first edit you ever made, based upon both the account creation log and the user contribution log :). In case you have a different account that is of course void, but in case that is not the matter i have to say im rather impressed with the first edit you made. Most first edits are either small changes or new pages that contain the words "Test" or some other bogus info. Seeing full fledged new pages from a new user account is something special, even if i end up having to prod them :). Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 22:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright thank you very much you are very helpful and yes this is my first page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thompsonmarksman (talk • contribs) 02:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi - you tagged this article as a recreation of material deleted via a deletion discussion (WP:CSD#G4. This was actually inappropriate for this page, as the article had only been speedy deleted in the past, and G4 is for cases where an AfD discussion has taken place. I have, however, deleted it under the more appropriate A7 (group) criterion, so this is an educational notice. Feel free to ask me any questions Fritzpoll (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I kind of already knew that since I have been notified about it in the past :). I (very rarely though) use a G4 to signal reviewing admins to check the deletion log, which most times explains the meaning of the tag. While not technically the meaning of a G4, i found it helpful to counter articles that are disturbingly often re-created (To signal it might be appropriate to salt) or in case an article is a recreation of a salted page. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 23:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, although admins can see the previous deletions as we have the ability to view deleted articles. So I understand your reasons, but it's a lot less effort for us if you just tag it with the reason it should be deleted :) Of you need anything else, drop another line here Fritzpoll (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I Will do so then :). For me the G4 was just a means of pointing to the matter at hand, which can be done just as well by using a {{comment}} template or a custom CSD message, in case the amount of recreations starts to grow wild again. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 23:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your concerns over The Stranger In The Mirror Dissociation - The Hidden Epidemic, i will re-write the article soon, to make sure it comply with the necessary distinctions. Ecrone.

Nice to hear that, and thanks for stopping by to give me an update on this :). Since you placed a hangon tag and left a clear valid reason for the opposal of the CSD tag, i am certain that the article will be allowed to stick around some more time. In general you can assume the article to stay in place about more 5 days before getting its final judgement, which is identical to a prod tag. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 11:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

On 24 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Srizbi botnet, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Congratulations! PeterSymonds (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I will develop all these articles...this is just my systematic work.. I dont know why you delete .. you may check all are Turkish fotballers and played for Eskişehirspor. I find some info and add on them. it is sort of mass production way... Now, would you please let me do something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eraslan71 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Eraslan!

There is a minimum amount of content required for articles to allow them on Wikipedia. As of current the articles itself only contain category tags and no information whatsoever about the subject of the article. I would suggest developing them one at a time (Believe me, thats easier to manage), or, if you want to develop them all at the same time, make a stub out of them. Just type a little text to identify the subject such as "X is a player of club Y, which transfered to club Z at (Time)" (Just an example). This will allow the reader to identify who is being spoken about. Oh, and you might want to mark them as stub by putting {{Turkey-footy-bio-stub}} under the article to tell people its a stub for the time being :).

Good luck with the articles, and with kind regards. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 19:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey... seeing as you've adopted me... and i haven't asked much... can you help me with this sandbox please? Itfc+canes=me (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

But I don't know how to delete it!Tim (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh, nope. If you want to demean yourself, by all means go ahead :-)

The non-html-commented version is (ironically) included in an html comment in this message. You may want to replace or remove the diffs I linked to.

Feel free to stealborrow anything you want from my userpage in the future without asking... Cheers! J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for saving me from having to invest valuable hours of time to uncomment that box.

As for demeaning myself, well, don't they say that knowing oneself is the basis of all wisdom? No matter that, i changed the text a little notch, due to the much more pressing quote that says: "its better to shut up and make them think you are a fool, then to speak and remove all doubt". Sillyness aside, the infobox its just to fitting of what im doing (Both in old and new form) for me to just walk by :) Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 18:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

That saying about opening your mouth and proving you're a fool is, IMHO, one of the best statements ever made. BTW, I didn't have an uncommented version lying around, I just copy/pasted the text (commented and all) to MS Word and used its find-and-replace feature to replace all the comments with, um, nothing. :P J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Frederick T. Haneman a stub article article created by me, has been added by you as a Candidate for speedy deletion. The article is on the most wanted list and I wanted to continue creating at least stubs of the most wanted list, so should I move on? I mean I thought the most wanted articles would ensure the importance of the article. Please advise me in going on with my project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diaa abdelmoneim (talk • contribs) 20:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Diaa!

There are a few basic criteria an article must comply to, and the one i tagged for, notability, is one of the core ones. Notability, rules that to be on Wikipedia, the articles subject needs to have some kind of importance which warrants an encyclopedia article. For example an article about Google is notable because Google is the worlds biggest search engine. An article of the butcher on the corner here is an example of an article of would not be notable. For persons, notability is most times established trough citings publishings in secondary sources. Full guidelines on that can be found at WP:Person and WP:Bio.

That standard response on notability aside, let me give a more specific explanation. While being on the list of most wanted articles indeed is often an indication of notability, the article should reflect this. Lets take myself as an example. If i wrote an article about myself that said: "Excirial is an editor on Wikipedia with a high edit count" the article would be removed as i did not meet the guidelines for inclusion. I might be a completely notable subject if i were a famous dancer/singer/entrepreneur, but the article needs to reflect this. In short, does Mr. Haneman have anything notable to discuss? Maybe he is a writer that wrote a famous book?

Third have to note that while requested articles MOST times gives a clear indication for notability, this might not always be the case. The page simply counts the amount of internal links to a certain title. if i added something trivial to several articles and then linked it, it would show up on this list as a requested article. As of such you should always have a short search to determine if the subject is really notable.

And last, As for the article as is, it might be removed if no notability can be established, but an article is (Almost always) recreatable, with the only exceptions being pure vandalism. If its removed now, it can simply be re-created later to improve it.

I hope this helps, and with kind regards, Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 20:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Reconsider yout attempt to delete. I'm still working on the page. However. Even as it is it is now it has sources and asserts notability. this young vicitm of a terrorist bombing is the cousin og Eric Cantor, a member of congress who who is being mentioned as a leading dandidate to run for Vice President on the Republican ticket. People will want to know who this boy is. and don't be so trigger-happy. Read articles before questioning their notability.BatYisrael (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)BatYisrael
• Perhaps you could come back, read the article, and judge for yourself.BatYisrael (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)BatYosrael

• • I re-evaluated the article, and in its current state it looks a-ok. In the first version there was indeed a issue of notability, as the primary notability claim was a relationship to a politician. This falls under WP:INHERITED, which dictates that a person should be notable themselves, and that notability isnt established by being related to someone notable. I always like to explain this with the following example: "Mr X is the mailman of the sister of bill gates aunt's uncle!". As laughable as the example is, it does give an indication why notability isn't inherited. however, since you added third party sourcing about this victim it is more then clear that the boy is notable as himself. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 21:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• • • thank you.BatYisrael (talk) 21:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)BatYisrael

Please delete, per CSD G7. Jheald (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 21:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

And i am truly sorry that i come crashing in with yet another CSD template. I know that this is by no means the best way to start a day at Wikipedia, with people wandering in with all kinds of "This isnt right, that is not done well!" messages. Please rest assured that i (As can most people) can see from your contributions that you are doing just fine, and that these templates should not be taken as some form of negative criticism. In fact, about 50% of the new articles ends up getting removed, though that includes empty articles and pure vandalism.

Apart from this, you seem to be doing a fine job on the most wanted articles section. If you like working in that particular section (There are actually a whole lot of sections. personally i really like WP:NPP WP:GEO and WP:SPAM, with WP:NPP being the reason why we met twice :-) ) you might also be interested in WP:AR1 and WP:RA, both sections that also contain requests for articles.

With kind regards as ever, and happy editing to you! Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 21:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot you seem to be a nice person Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Dawoodabro has made some confusing contributions such as Shaheed Mir Murtaza Abro. To put them in context, his or her contributions are either historical rulers of Sindh or politicians in present-day Pakistan. Rulers and elected politicians are generally notable. --Eastmain (talk) 10:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

...but I am forced to copy-and-paste it to List of Coptic Orthodox churches in the United States, which is more-or-less an incomplete version of it but one that has the correct name ("Churches" should be "churches", right?). Thanks again, ~ Troy (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I find it rather difficult to judge whether a new page on a company should be CSD'd or not. Most of the time, the page is blatant advertising. But, as is the case with IGEL technology, sometimes they do not push themselves. But the page is an obvious vanity page - vanity for a company. It just mentions it, and then gives some links to some pages related to the product or service offered by the company. Since you hangon'ed my CSD over there, do you perhaps have a few pointers? Thanks. Stijndon (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You are completely right that companies are about the most annoying articles to deal with when it comes to notability. The big issue with them is that they often balance on the edge of advertising, and rarely have a claim that reflects how important they are. At least articles about other subject give some indication if someone is or is not notable once a small description is up! :)

The best way to judge an article, is first looking if the article complies with WP:CORP. The page gives some very basic guidelines that allows non advertising article to be roughly split between good or bad. (For example, an article saying that its a butcher around the corner or a local charity almost always ends up being not notable, no matter of its advertorial or not)

However, often you will find that the article is balancing somewhere between notable and not notable. The easiest thing to do then is fire up google and do a google test where you try to match articles for the full name of the company ("IGEL technology"). If there are no results it can virtually always be safely tagged for CSD. If there are several thousands of results, its likely to be notable. If you would only get a few results, have a look at the quality of them. 10 results that are external press releases from press agencies are excellent notability granters (Since 2 quality references are all that is needed to establish notability on an article par WP:SOURCE) If there are only myspace pages or similar, its best to tag CSD it as not notable.

Most of the times that covers the articles. If it is something in between, use WP:PROD or WP:AFD instead of a CSD tag. Use a prod when you think the article should be removed unless improved, and use an AFD when you are not sure if its a good article. Generally i tend to use PROD's more then AFD's as a case of soubt about an articles worth is most times because you don't deem it should be kept. AFD on the other hand is great if you truly don't know if it should or should not be tagged.

And last: Trust your own feeling what to do when you are not sure. You will end up making mistakes, and thats something completely normal that happens to all of us. I tagged similar articles (And completely ok ones!) when i started new page patrol. Thats why its called a tag, an admin will always check if its correct, so Be bold! As long as you keep an eye on the rulesand don't go in a tagging frenzy, nothing bad can happen :)

With kind regards, and wishing you a happy editing!

Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 22:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Origionally posted at User talk:Kintetsubuffalo (Reverted without reply in this revision)
Have you ever heard from someone called Joanna Rutkowska? Or have you ever heard about the fact that all the botnets together send out about 150 billion spam message A DAY? And did you know Catnip is likely to mimic a cat pheromone that makes cats go crazy when they are near the plant? :)

I'm certain that at least one asnwer to this will be: "No, i never heard of this". There are simply a lot of topics out there, in a lot of topics area's that are completely diverse. No one will know everything, and knowledge is also based on the geographical location of that person. Similarly, i have never heard of Louis Teicher or the duo he was in. For one because im on the other side of the ocean, for two because music is not my favorite topic area.

Keep such things in mind when editing articles, and please don't use edit summaries such as If you'd do anything aside from deleting articles, you'd know the man is notable. grow up and do something productive. Apart from not complying with WP:Civil (And simply being rude), keep in mind that i am not out there to blast every single article i come across to kingdom come. If i can avoid removing things, gladly. From my point of view, this article fell under WP:NOT, the memorial subsection, and has no sources to back it up on notability. However, since you added the internal link to Ferrante & Teicher i am assured that its a notable person. While technically still falling under the WP:NOT section, along with not being sourced and being written in a non neutral point of view, its good enough for me to keep it around. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 08:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Origionally posted on User talk:MegaHL90
I remember tagging this article for removal since it contained only an article to an external site, and i have to say i am quite pleasantly surprised with the changes made now i have another check on it! Well deserves praise apart, i wanted to give you two pointers on creating artices:

• Don't remove speedy deletion templates on articles you created, even if you edited it in a way that invalidates the template. An admin stopping by will simply decline those templates. If you are affraid that your article would be removed, simply add {{hangon}} under the tag that says {{db-}}, which will delay removal.
• If you are creating an article, you might want to tag it with {{underconstruction}} at the top of the page. This signals people you are still working on it, which will prevent CSD's most of the time.

That was if for the technicalities i guess. Thanks for contributing a fine article, and with kind regards, Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 09:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do not delete my contribution on the Gujarati Poet Rajendra Shukla. I am still developing it and you will have proper article in some time ready. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spancham (talk • contribs) 09:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I changed the article in a way it should be given it some time before receiving removal judgement.

• I added several references to the article, which more or less indicate Notability
• I tagged it with {{underconstruction}}, which signals it is still being worked on.
• Last i Wikified and Stubbified the article.

This does NOT mean the article is A-ok now, or even that it is out of the removal danger area. The text has to be changed as soon as possible to a more encyclopedic text that asserts Notability. For example change the text to <Aricle subject> is a Gujarati poet that received an Indian Literary Academy Award in <Year>. Furthermore <Anything else that is notable goes here>.. There is a minimum amount of information that has to be covered before an article is considered keepable, and in its current form, well, lets just say it does not comply (Since the article does not explain WHY he is distinguished). Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 10:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

ANI related topic DelRev related topic

HI,

I think that I have now figured out how to contact you. I've tried to place a posting on wikipedia several times today but have been unable to because you've judged the posting as unacceptable. I tried to do the holdon but that didnt work, not because of the system but because of my lack of skill. Anyway, I would like to ad a psoting for the Ort Institute here in Skokie, Illinois. Its a small private not for profit two year technical school serving local and international students. When attempting to place the posting I simply edited (cut and pasted our school's name and deleted some information from our sister school's wikipedia posting at schools page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bramson_ORT_College). Since their information is deemed appropriate for wikipedia I wold think that our's would be as well. We are not soliciting or advertizing simply looking to be included in your community and offer information. Thank you for your consideration. Perhaps you could remove the blocks etc. and allow the page to be seen.

Sincerely,

Steve

Responce on the removal

Hello steve!

The article you posted actually created quite some talk around several users and sections at wikipedia. I am still standing with the decision, as backup up by the reviewing admins and delrev, that the article falls under the G11 criteria. In short, the article violates wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, since it seems mainly written to promote the ORT Institute. The lack of proper formatting ([WP:MOS]) and the fact compeltely no reference (WP:Cite) was added, was enough to mark the article for speedy removal. As you reposted the exact same article several times in a very short time span, i decided to issue an only warning to prevent another repost.

So far this is actually quite standard procedure that happens every day. However, as you pointed out, the article is remarkably similar to a different article. While the excistance of that article does not necessarily mean that the article is conform policy (Nor does its long time excistance give it consensus it is good), it is indeed a situation that warrants investigation. I contacted the removing admin regarding the matter, and this was the responce:

I'll just let it play out at DRV. There were *so many* things wrong with that article, from the capitals in the title, to the total lack of wiki formatting, to the inclusion of a lot of non-wiki formatting code, to the totally spammy tone, to the total lack of references, to the total lack of any assertion of notability. Only the spamminess was CSD actionable, given it was a school and thus not A7 eligible, but it was overall a pretty worthless article, IMHO. As for the other article, I'm not really sure what to say. There are indeed some similarities of text, the second article has a lot more to it. None of the other problems I mentioned above apply to the Bramson article. Would the Bramson article survive a notability AFD? I'm not totally sure, but I would not bet against it. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with his judgement of the article. The article Ort Institute was based on might be questionable of content, but it is conform most of the other policies. As TexasAndroid pointed out, if the particular article would face a vote based decision regarding removal, the outcome it could stay is less then sure.

Re-creating the article

As you explained, you want to re-create the article. however, before doing so, the article needs a fundamental rewrite. Period. If you are indeed interested in doing this, have a look at the following policies at least: WP:MOS, WP:NPOV and WP:SOURCE. These are about the most important policies the article is violating. The main issue is that the article has no source that can verify information in the article, and that it is written as an advertorial.

The best place to rewrite the article is in a personal sandbox. (For example at User:Sapplebaum/Sandbox) A personal sandbox will not be checked so articles can be developed in all quietness there. Feel free to contact me if you created the article, and need it evaluated before posting it on its old location again.

After that contact User:Orangemike, or any admin and request that the Page Salt is removed so the article can be recreated. Personally i can not do this as i have WP:Rollback and not WP:admin privileges. I know that this is quite the bit of arbitration, but seeing the current situation the administrative route is about the only way left open, as the page has been protected from recreation due to spam. I honestly wish you the best with this situation, as this is not exactly a situation i wish to push upon a Good Faith account. Also apologies for the long reply, but i wanted to cover everything in it. if it didn't, feel free to contact me again :) Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 20:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Mail conversation regarding the article

Hello Excirial,

Thanks for your answers and advice. And thank you for your offer to take a look at any future attempts before they get posted. I’ll try rewriting the article in the sandbox and forward it to you for your review. I appreciate your time and consideration.

Steve

Hi E,

I was wondering if you could take moment and look at the updated version of our sister school, the bramson ort college’s Wikipedia page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bramson_ORT_College and let me know if we mirrored that posting if you would consider it appropriate?

Thanks,

steve

I have seen the page before, and i have actually been involved into editing it in its current state. :)

For the matter, i am very glad with the page in its current state. It is properly sourced, does not include advertising, and its layout and structure are all just fine. In short, i think there will be no problem in using this version as a basic layout for your own article. However, this time, use the pages source if you are going to copy it over to a sandbox to edit it. If you copy and paste the webpage, the entire editing syntax will be lost, and you will end up with an article looking like the previous one, which is not exactly the way they should look :)

Kind regards as ever,

Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 20:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest AFD is appropriate - there's a notability claim in there. --Dweller (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, i will start an AFD on this one. EDIT: AFD has been started. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 14:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I just wandered across Comparison of P-51 variants while being on New page patrol. I have to say i'm impressed with the thoroughness of the table and the looks of the article in general. My compliments on a very nice page! Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 14:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi from NZ (2.15 am), I appreciate your comments. There's still a lot of work ahead on this page before I'll link to the main P-51 Mustang page; right now most of my books are packed up and in storage pending house renovations and I am lacking some performance figures. In the meantime, I have work tomorrow and its *yeeek!* Regards, Minorhistorian (talk) 14:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Origionally posted on User talk:Cr3
I especially liked the edit summary you wrote when i was looking who created this article: Nervously creating first article - The Viral Factory

This has to be the FIRST article on a company today that does not need a SINGLE maintenance tag from my part. Properly wikified, referced, adhered to WP:NPOV, in one word, excellent work for a new article, especially if it is the first article you ever wrote. To tell you the truth, i am very glad to see an article like this. I had to remove about 90% of the articles on companies today, so this is actually a confirmation that it still possible for people to write article about companies that doesn't have to be directed to the spam bin the second they it is created. Again, my compliments on an excellent first page! Keep up the good work :) Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 15:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the warning that Twinkle put here. I was marking the page Snoopfox for deletion, and didn't realize you originally set the page to refer to a user's page. The editor removed those tags and recreated the article back in main space, and I re-added the tag via Twinkle, which then saw YOU as the original editor. Sorry about the mix up! :)

No worries, you are not the only one who didn't see it (And in all honesty, neither would i). However, did you also notice the user is actually called "Snoopfoxculture"? Looks like he has been trying to circumvent this by creating a talk page at user_talk:Snoopfox. Either way i reported him now. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 19:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Aye my apologies too :) BigDunc^Talk 19:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

No need, no need! No harm was done, it was not intentional, and there was no real way this could have been known. In short, was there a mistake in the first place? ;) Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 19:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You added a speedy delete tag on this page as a copyvio. It would appear that you accidently suggested the page was a copyvio of itself! Consquently I've changed the URL to the correct one (taken from your previous speedy tag which I followed to the actual page copied). Hope this isn't a problem. Dpmuk (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Moot point now as I've just noticed it's been deleted. Dpmuk (talk) 21:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I just copied and pasted the url into my WP:TWINKLE box to place the template, but i guess the wrong one was in the buffer. Thanks for correcting it :) Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 21:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Origionally posted on User talk:Thejewisheditor
Before going into the details, let me first give an example why the radio may be notable, yet Howie aybe not be. Imagine Microsoft. The company itself is highly notable, yes Mr/Mrs x, the person who sits behind a desk handling customer relations is not. This is because they are both completely different subject. While being related to [[]Microsoft], this relation doesn't make her special enough to have an own article.

Back to the radio and Howie, this might be a different story. The guidelines that apply here are WP:Notable and WP:People. Have a look at these two guidelines. If Howie received coverage in reliable third party sources independent of himself, and those sources can be added to the article, he is presumed to be notable. If he doesn't, then he is deemed to be not notable. Remember that reliable third party sources fall under WP:RS. In short: An article in a local magazine is not deemed a notable third party source, yet quality papers such as the New York Times are. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 22:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey there, Excirial. A user at the Editor assistance board pointed out a couple of your recent speedy deletion taggings, and I just wanted to drop you a line about a couple of them. Please make sure that the article you're tagging actually meets a speedy criteria - while many things may not express notability, such as Rapid roll, only those articles about people, groups, corporations, and web content. Even if it does fit one of those, please try to make sure you use the correct template; for example, {{db-bio}} only applies to biographical articles. If it doesn't seem like any of those criteria apply, it's probably better to PROD the article or send it to AfD. I took a look at some of your other recent taggings, and the ones pointed out seemed to be the exception rather than the rule, but all the same, please try to be a little more careful, especially when using Twinkle. Thanks for all your help; don't think I'm yelling at you, I just wanted to let you know someone had expressed a concern. Happy editing, and keep up the good work! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Lets see, i kind of tagged a lot of articles today, so i am fairly certain there are some questionable material among them. I am not sure (yet) if i still fully remember the reason for tagging them, but ill see if i can remember the original reasoning. :)

• Rapid roll: This one seems to have been tagged with a A7 tag ,although i have no idea why i used that one( And especially a bio? It should at least have been the generic A7.). The article itself was tagged for CSD by a fairly uncommon rationale i use at times. Normally i refer to these as Snowy articles. If i am COMPLETELY certain that the article stands no chance whatsoever on AFD or PROD, and requires a full rewrite before being a good article, i tend to use CSD over the prod/AFD tags. AFD because its a lot of work and takes to long, and PROD because a contest would create an useless AFD. Be assured i don't do this often.
• Tiger images: This is an article i remember quite well, and the tag is indeed an error on my part. Initially i thought it to be redundant with Tiger and wanted to tag it for merger, before spotting at was some form of origional research and issues with advertising promoting a local project. By that time i read trough it twice i ended up being a bit lost on what to do with it. The G6 tag was a bit of a weird decision though, apologies!
• The Gadfly (Philosophy Magazine) and Lutherwood Camp and Retreat Center: I think i pushed the first one of the two under products products and services and the latter under company. Still, its a bit of a weird decision in retrospect, as both don't really apply.

Thanks for notifying me about this. I always like to know if i'm making mistakes (Feedback keeps me on the tips of my toes :P). Also, major thanks for taking this into context; I have had people wandering in with 3-4 mistakes before who then started an entire preach about 4 problems in ONE DAY were intolerable, most times is less then fiendly wording. (Without actually seeing that it was technically just 4 out of 400). Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 23:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Happy to admit to it being me that took it to editor assitance. This wasn't out of a desire to delibrately bad mouth you in a wider setting or any other nasty reason. Rather as I hope I make clear on the editor assistance page it was because I wanted to make sure my concerns were valid before raising them with you given your much greater experience. I hope this is understandable and there's no hard feeling. Dpmuk (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

But of course this is understandable! And no, no hard feelings whatsoever :). Everyone makes mistakes, and i am in no way an exception to this. Actually, i like it when these mistakes are pointed out, so i can actually learn from them. There are still articles i tag with the wrong tag, sometimes intentional, sometimes by mistake, or sometimes by misinterpretation. However without feedback, there is little i can change about such things. When starting on WP:NPP i was quite overzealous, and it took quite some time (+some good article removals/speedy declines) before someone ever gave me a nudge. So in short, all feedback is welcome, as long as its Civil, adduming good faith, and not entirely taken out of context :) Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 23:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that's what I thought. And you're welcome. Just one thing - if you want to leave me a message on my talk page, just leave one and not your whole talk page, k? ;-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That was indeed a complete failure. I was editing just the section in question till i got a "Your page has been edited already". Once i finished the second reply to Dpmuk i completely forgot this and simply pressed CTRL+a, which in turn selected the entire page and not the section. To bad i couldn't cover up before you saw it, but you cannot say im not generous with text! :P Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 00:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

i doubt this was supposed to land in the article space? :) Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 09:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I screw up, ok! Miss Lindsie (talk) 09:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"Screw up" is a rather large word for such a little misplacement, don't you think? Either way, i tagged it for removal as you blanked the page. Oh, by the way, i found your secret page! Guess this one doesn't count though ^^. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 09:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to do a secrete page, but as a new user page like the one I found from another user.Miss Lindsie (talk) 09:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I figured that, good luck with it! Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 09:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reports to WP:UAA regarding potentially improper user names. I could not help but to notice a recent report in which you stated that you were seeking a user warning rather than an outright block. I just wanted to let you know that any user, not only admins, may politely notify another user that their name may potentially be problematic. Use of the {{uw-username}} template is usually the simplest way to handle this. If you are unfamiliar with the use of this template then let me know and I'd be happy to explain it further, but for future reference, if you see questionable usernames, feel free to use this template to bring the issue up with the user yourself. Cheers, Shereth 23:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me at this! This was actually a very rare case since most of the times promotional accounts just create pure spam articles, while this one was actually doing a good job. I have one small question about the usage of the template though; As it is obvioudly a "request discussion" template, what should be done if the user does not react? (Either by ceasing to edit, or by removing it from his or her talk page?) Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 08:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If the user just stops editing, the best thing to do is just forget about it :) There is generally no point in blocking an account that was a one-time use and isn't going to be back. If you bring it up on their talk page and they simply ignore it/remove it and continue to make spammy edits, then a report to UAA is most certainly warranted. Shereth 13:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This article has been deleted per G6 by your request. Let me know if you need anything else. It looks to me like the article should exist? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, looks like i should stop tagging pages earlier in the evening, as it seems the bulk of my errors seems to happen the last few hours. Proper category should probably have been G2 as the user was requesting information why the article's subject could not have its own page on Wikipedia. In those cases i rather don't smack pages with an A7 not notable as it would be a little rude to explain what has to be done to create notability, immediately followed by a notable tag as if it were some final verdict. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 08:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Should it be restored? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 12:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No. The article itself was simply a test page, from which not even a stub could be extracted(Its at the original creators talk page). At the same time, i spend some time to research Howie Silbiger. He has 197 hits of which all are either play lists, myspace pages or other sites that are fully unusable for Wikipedia. News.google.com turn up no usable sources, and based upon the small bio i found, there is no notability at all. I would say that the removal is correct, as were the previous A7's :) Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 14:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool - thanks for researching, replying, and being an all around good person :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The Ort Institute has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please use deletion review instead of continuing to recreate the page. However, if you continue to recreate the page at different titles, you are likely to be blocked for disruption. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Forwarded to Delrev, feel free to join in if you wish to comment. Also, while i technically don't fully support the policy, have a look at WP:DTTR. (Apart from that, isnt a wizzard supposed to make things easier? This actually feels more complex then just dropping a message) Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 17:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

After re-reading my last responce it it seems to be quite harsh and rude, which was not what i had in mind when i posted it. Apologies for the wording, and know it was not intentional! :) Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 17:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Not only is WP:DTTR not a policy, not only did you go through a wizard page that said I don't support it, but the message I left you wasn't a template :)

My message wizard is designed to make sure that questions go to the right place, whatever that is. It may take slightly longer but can refer people to a public board where their question can be answered quickly rather than just asking me, when I might not be online. Stifle (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That was not a template? In that case, very nice design and wording on it! It looks a lot like the CSD templates im tossing around all day :). As for WP:DDTR, well, its not a policy, but it might as well be one, seeing how many editors seem to cling like it as if it were one. :)

As for the wizard, its actually handy if it can do that. All trees i tried ended up with a "Leave a message" link, so it looked a little redundant. Regardless, i think i somehow prefer copying messages around. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 19:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I had already seen the deletions, and the DRV, and have already responded there. Thanks for the notification. I'd address my concerns about the circumstances, but let's leave it at that. Alansohn (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, and I would say that this has no other option then being overturned. there could have been a bit more discussion, and the circumstances might be a little odd, but of course mistakes can be made (Hence, i made plenty myself to know that :-) ). Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 17:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

While i am not sure if its actually worth wasting your time on something this minor, thanks for signalling me that the log shows a G11 deletion of the article. My own talk page identified it as a G4, so i just went ahead on the basis of that. If you had not given me a nudge about that it would have probally been there much longer, and would have made no sense at all :) Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 17:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Figured that needed to be fixed. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Conversation regarding 2008 South Ossetian Conflict
Right now on Russian TV they showed it. Georgia started a war on SOuth Ossetia. Use google! Help with the article, please, i'm a new user. Please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrystal Blue Moon (talk • contribs) 21:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that is about the fastest article i have ever seen regarding recent events! While YAHOO news seems to cover it, even CNN does not have an article about it yet. I edited the article a little bit to cover some more sources, and removed the CSD tag as it is void by now. Depending how this article end up, it might be suitable for wikinews. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 21:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Before i forget, excellent start on this article, in particular with the sourcing. Great job for a new user! :) Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 21:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I wish I could do that start on a more friendly newsflash. As a Russian i have great respect to our friends Ossetians and the thing i was really afraid the last days was that war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrystal Blue Moon (talk • contribs) 22:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Can this be upped to a permablock? Apart from never wanting to see him again, i have never seen a single non bot user ever creating such mayhem. Endless counts of deletion (prod/CSD/AFD) tag removal, creating bogus articles, vandalism to excisting articles, and on top of all creating a lot of useless work involved with closing needless AFD's. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 23:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Already said something on the talk page. We'll take care of this, don't worry. Please don't go making ANI or RFPP reports or anything in the meantime. Tan ǀ 39 23:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Tan, I made a RPP report earlier, asking for a temp protection. Should I remove it? Arbiteroftruth (talk) 23:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, my comment here was BECAUSE you did that. There was really no reason to - first, there hasn't really been any abuse. Second, it was about twenty seconds after the unblock request. Third, there's already admin eyes on it, it's probably going to be taken care of; and fourth, instead of making a "formal report" to RFPP, if you were REALLY that concerned with an unblock request on a user talk page, just go to the blocking admin (me). Tan ǀ 39 23:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that... Arbiteroftruth (talk) 23:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries, i submitted the guy to WP:AIAV, tagged everything that needed removal, and rollbacked every vandalized article. For me, this is finished business now. If anything else needs to be done, ill leave that that you. Also, i don't see why i should go to ANI now, as this incident is handled and no flak seems to remain. (Its not really necessarily to post some useless story of The Valiant Victory over the Vandal there :) Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 23:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC).

(to Arbiter) No problem, Arbiter. Like I said a few days ago somewhere, I'm glad you're here and you're a very significant asset to this project. I just wish you didn't seem to take vandalism so personally. :-) Ex - I didn't really think you would take to ANI, I was being facetious... Tan ǀ 39 23:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I see you created an entire squadron of virtually empty pages regarding the Kipling stories. While i cannot help but smile at this obvious enthusiasm, please keep in mind that the articles need a minimum amount of content to stay around :). As of such i tagged the articles for WP:PROD as being virtually empty articles. Try to develop one article at a time, and make sure that articles you post at least have some content. Articles can always be created when required, and working on a single article at a time is many times easier then multitasking an entire bunch. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 09:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to say the same thing ;) Why don't you draft the articles in your userspace, then move them to mainspace when they have some content. - sorfane 09:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Before I read yours, Sorfane, I drafted this to Excirial (thanks to both fore your watchfulness!).

How then am I to control the fact that when listing the Contents of Plain Tales from the Hills (and subsequently others) I will create several ambiguous links? These 'empty' pages are only designed to give me a link on a disambig page - they are only being created for the Kipling stories whose titles already have (ambiguous) pages in Wikipedia. I'd be grateful for advice - I have come up with a make-do-and-mend solution to a problem I have stumbled across. I trust that I will have dealt with each of these within 5 days; but there is a total of 28 stories in Plain Tales

I'm not sure that Sorfane's suggestion will entirely deal with my problem, but I will try to us the userspace - for the first time... I have never been able to get the sandbox to work; I hope this is easier. MacAuslan (talk) 10:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages can be created and edited at later dates as well. Many of the disambiguation pages are newly created as soon as a new article creates a conflict with articles already existing. Articles can be moved later on if required to allow for disambiguation pages as well. Generally taken, i would say "Don't move the mountain unless you have a reason to move the mountain". Don't concern yourself with all the necessarily changes to other article to much before you have an article ready. I generally tend to follow a set of steps when writing an article, which start at the article context, and end at the entire wiki context. Maybe these steps prove handy for you as well, as writing an entire set of articles can prove to be VERY complex in the amount of changes that need to be made.

• Write the article itsself, and include the sources used
• Wikify, and add links to other relevant articles.
• Update other articles "See Also sections" if they are related to my own article
• Update any pages not directly related such as disambiguation or templates.

As for the sandbox, simply create an article at User:MacAuslan/Sandbox. This is a subpage for your own account, where you can edit pages without being disturbed by people checking the new pages ;). Also, i would suggest creating a parent page for the stories if one does not already exist. For example, many pages about individual notable books contain a link to the series or author of the book. If such a "parent" page does not already exist, it might be convenient to write one first as it gives a nice anchor to hook all the individual books to. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 11:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)