User talk:NawlinWiki/Archive 44

Sorry about the whole Haley Birthday thing. It's just that my friend Haley's birthday is coming up so me and my other best friend wanted to post it and take a picture. We intended to take it off though. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFrayHater4life (talk • contribs) 03:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC) This talk page is archived every month (if I remember). The older pages are indexed at User talk:NawlinWiki/Archives.[reply]

Please sign your comments with four tildes (~).

Wondering why your article was speedily deleted? Check this list first.

Do you want to move a page that I've move-protected? Discuss the move first on the article's talk page. If there's a consensus for the move, let me know and I'll unlock the page.

Please add all comments at the bottom of the page (or I may not be able to find them).

_________________________________________________________

• Perhaps if you did not spend all day administrating Wikipedia, you would be aware that "Test Article" is military/engineering terminology for a prototype that carries specific connotations. Please defend your deletion of the wikipedia page on this subject. 70.240.148.81 (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article I deleted was literally a "test article", with no actual content. See WP:CSD category g2. There is nothing to stop any registered user from creating an article on the military term, assuming they can find reliable independent sources to support that meaning. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for telling me the information and I am very sorry. I was wondering if that counted as a warning. Goat999 (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

blatent hoax? do you have any knowledge of the british doctor brian cox? or his work on proteins? i ask again for you to reverse your decision of deletion Lennon128934 (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

how do you expect me to do my "job" without giving me neccesary time

how do you expect me to do my job with out giving me necessary time Lennon128934 (talk) 01:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you sir are a condecending "dick" Lennon128934 (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made a lot of edits and I believe this is good to go. Please take a look and let me know you thoughts. The article can be found here...User:Q-cue/Foursquare Day

Thanks, --Q-cue (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you get a chance to read over the article I posted yesterday? I'm not sure if you want me to wait on you before I republish the article or not. Please advise.

Thanks, --Q-cue (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Ok, this is getting a little ridiculous. How about you just tell me exactly what lines need to be edited or deleted. There is zero promotion going on in the article. I'm not affiliated with Foursquare, I could care less who uses their service, and it does doesn't really matter who celebrates the day. I wrote this article because cities all over the word embraced the day and even some Mayors in American cities have announced an official Foursquare. Everything in the article is face, I cited several independent sources, and it is from a unbiaeds point of view.

Please point out what needs to be done so we can get this thing published. --Q-cue (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been 3 days and I haven't heard any response. I have asked several people to read my article so they could give me their opinion and not one of them said it read like a PR blurb. If you don't tell me what sections need correction how will I know what to correct? --19:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I edited a lot of the content so hopefully this version will be satisfactory. One thing is for sure, I'm learning Wiki's neutrality policy the hard way. :) Please advise if this is good to go. Thanks!

--Q-cue (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is fair. I agree with the suggestion and I'm ready for it to go live. Thanks for all your help, btw. Hopefully my future articles will be more inline with Wikipedia's policies.

• Ps. Since I don't have the authority to upload the offcial Foursquare badge images, how do I go about it?

• • Also, did you want me to publish the article or were you moving it back to the public space?

• • • I do have permission, but don't have the authority @ Wikipedia yet. Also, you keep saying to move it back to the userspace. Isn't that where it is sitting now? Did you mean I can publish it as a public article now? Thanks! --Q-cue (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • I'm assuming you meant move it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foursquare_Day since the article is finally complete. Therefore, I'll just move it over there if I don't hear back from you within the next 30 minutes. Thanks again for all the help. --Q-cue (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank you for your reply and explanation. This is my first article and I’m trying my best to follow policy at Wikipedia.

Nonetheless, you are incorrect on a few things. For example, you say “There is no independent media coverage of this "holiday",” which is false. The LA Times mentioned it in their article, FOX News interviewed the individual who coined the term, and several independent media outlets and popular blogs such as TechCrunch and Mashable have written several articles about the new social media holiday. Here is the list (http://4sqday.com/cities) of cities that have participated around the world. You also said “when what it really means is that a few Foursquare users decided to celebrate Foursquare” which is incorrect. I would hardly say that more 500,000 is a “few Foursquare user” by any means especially since the holiday was just embraced by the social media circles weeks ago.

I don’t mean to beat this to death, but it seems that you are making ill judgments based on things your opinions and not the facts. I am willing to edit the article in any way you feel is necessary, but to reject the entire article is wrong. Whether it is posted by me or someone else, it is a fact this article will be written and posted to Wikipedia one day soon. Therefore, why not allow me to get it done now since I’m halfway done?

If you choose reject the entire article without telling me what I should edit please let me know who is above you so I can speak with them. I’m sure the final decision doesn’t stop with you so please advise.

Thanks in advance! ---Q-cue (talk) 02:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Foursquare had absolutely nothing to do with Foursquare Day. This was a grass-roots movement that started in Tampa, Florida and ended up to be a global phenomenon in a 3 week period. McDonald’s jumped on board and recognized Foursquare at their locations in the U.S. too. Anyway, here are a few links to the sources I mentioned to you…

Mashable - http://mashable.com/2010/04/16/foursquare-day/ TechCrunch - http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/16/4sq-day-foursquare/ LA Times - http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2010/04/foursquare-day.html FOX News: - http://vimeo.com/10916090 [video] Miami Herald - http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/04/17/1583685/foursquare-day-rewards-roving.html NBC TV Washinton - http://www.nbcwashington.com/around-town/events/Foursquare-Day-Rabble-Rousers-Swarming-a-Bar-Near-You.html

Will this work? ---Q-cue (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for working with me. I do agree with some of your points, btw. I agree using first names might not be the best route now that I think about it. I will edit it and shoot you a message when I have finished. Thanks again for allowing me to edit! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Q-cue (talk • contribs) 02:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NawlinWiki. I was wondering if it's okay with you if I modify this block. I'd remove anon. only and enabled talk page editing. Fine with you? Best regards, --Kanonkas :  Talk  19:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great. Thank you. --Kanonkas :  Talk  19:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to post an article about a professional wrestling organization but it keeps getting deleted. Can you help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan1boyle (talk • contribs) 15:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How was the page I created, "Steinbeck's Point of View" vandalism? I got my information from imdb.com.(Movieguruman (talk) 04:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Should I come out fighting? Hmm. Pseudo-science? 20 years of research and evidence given in the book say, no. New terms coined, fresh examinations of current theories, new experiments proposed. Pertinent arguments relating to population growth and human future. Hmm. Yes I am the author, but the article is modest, confined merely to a description of the principle themes. In contrast to many other articles in the Wiki, I think I leave it enriched with key results. Ankank (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)ank[reply]

• The fact that you consider it necessary to "come out fighting" in support of the importance of your own ideas shows why *you* shouldn't be writing about them. You're not unbiased or neutral with respect to your own work. See WP:COI and WP:NPOV. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, thanks for taking the time.Ankank (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)ank[reply]

You've got mail! The Thing // Talk // Contribs 19:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1] could you semi this article please, it is being hit heavy by a vandal, thanks mark nutley (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It's one IP vandal, who hadn't yet been warned. I left a warning and will keep an eye on the page. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, could you let me know were the template for that is please? mark nutley (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list of warning templates is at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

88 could you semi this space please, it is being hit heavy by a vandal, thanks. 89.238.153.16 (talk) 12:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What was wrong with it?--LongGrandPiano (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It only had 1 sentence because I was creating a stub, not a whole article.--LongGrandPiano (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but you deleted it before I had the chance to even look for sources.--LongGrandPiano (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As part of a project funded by the European Commission (QLectives), we are collecting and analysing data to study quality control mechanisms and inclusion/deletion policies in Wikipedia. According to our records, you participated in a large number of AfD. We are currently soliciting editors with a long record of participation in AfD discussions to send us their feedback via a very informal survey.

The survey takes less than 5 minutes and is available at this URL. Should you have any questions about this project, feel free to get in touch.

Thanks for your help! --DarTar (talk) 10:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly was the point of reblocking all those ancient accounts? Were they really becoming re-active? Seems to just grant them recognition and bring notice to the offensive names in the recent block log.

What is the status of this query? I see you only unblocked 3 of these IPs, but I doubt that the rest are open proxies? –xeno^talk 14:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The old accounts were reblocked because the vandal was posting offensive unblock requests. On the old IPs, I've done 11 more -- will keep working on the list, thanks for the reminder. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Cheers. –xeno^talk 22:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For example, I`m from Russia. I don`t know what is towncar service or towncar. May be this car for wash city! Towncar service and taxi are synonymous. But many people in the world don`t know what is this "town car service". We can place Town car service in Taxi. And that people who look towncar service find and understand that it is TAXI. You are American. But there is a people, who live in Russia, Poland, Ukraine. They understand Englsh and they didn`t know what is town car service. What do you think about it? Thank you. DavidKooh (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, NawlinWiki. Please tell, what is a reason of deleting Town Car Service. Tell me please where did you find an Advertising text, so I can make some improvements. I just want help people.

It is explanation for people from other countries who do not know any other means except taxi. In other countries there is a common name "taxi" without any differences

What I should do for restore this page. Ma be I should place it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_service

Thank you. DavidKooh (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You deleted my article on Lee Milteer using the Quick Delete citing a reason that it had to be fundamentally rewritten to be an encyclopedia article. However, the article was written objectively using all fact from notable, independent sources. You also cited the reason that the article was promotion, but nothing was being promoted or advertised. This person is a Living person who has made notable contributions in the area of Self-Help and business, and is a published author. I do have to admit that the categories under which the article would have appeared were not set when the article moved from the sandbox, but it was deleted while I was trying to make the category changes. I would like to attempt to contribute this article again. Please advise as to what needs to be changed in order to do so. 4sburton (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Filter 264 recently caused a false positive on DGG's talk page, and I don't know why. However, I was able to isolate the problem down to the very last line of code, which, if it were a filter by itself, would stop all edits by all users on DGG's talk page. This condition was not added that recently, but the page on which it triggered was, so perhaps there have been more false positives in the past but they were by people who were vandalizing in other ways or simply were not aware they had a false positive. If you or anyone else can find out why the filter was behaving that way and add code that would serve the same purpose but not have problems with false positives, that would be great, but for now I have removed that line as I can see no other solution. —Soap— 21:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I will be as generic as I can since it's a private filter. new_html operates on the entirety of parsed text, not just added lines (and, honestly, not even on just the page text, even). As a result it's (1) extremely slow (to the point that old_html is intentionally disabled on enwiki) and (2) very dangerous. The condition matched from something someone added a long time ago, and this applies to all future edits on that page (until it's removed). For that reason, I think the condition is far too generic to leave in. It has many practical applications. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shirik explained to me on IRC how he found that. I was searching on a truncated version of the page and therefore couldn't find the text that triggered the filter. Now that I know the filter was working all along and that it wasn't a bug, I wouldn't have any objections to adding the condition back in, but I do think it should be made to search only on the text the person is adding rather than the whole page, if possible. —Soap— 21:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with that, but I can't see from the documentation how to have that condition apply only to added html. The condition in question doesn't show up in new_wikitext (which is why you couldn't find it at first), and I don't see a command for "added_html". FYI, the condition in question has been dramatically effective against User:Runtshit vandalism, and the DGG page was the first false positive -- false positives are limited in this filter because only specifically-designated pages are covered. Anyway, is there any way of doing what you suggested? NawlinWiki (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, I moved the filter for DGG to #294 (where it won't have this problem) and reinstated the condition. I'll still change it as suggested above if someone will tell me how. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alienwaredj (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)hola,[reply]

escribo con el motivo de reclamar que han borrado el articulo que escribi acerca de CubaSurf, una organizacion del surf en cuba, de hecho es la unica y en la wiki no hay ningun articulo acerca de surf en cuba. no se si es que no escribi lo suficiente pero en su web no hay mas nada. acerca de ellos, creo que es una idea genial lo que ellos hacen con los niños de cuba, ect .

quisera analizaran mi caso y vieran si existe alguna posibilidad de publicar el articulo de nuevo, si hay algo que deba cambiarle me avisan

thank you so much!! Fredey3 (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NawlinWiki, I submitted the Fast-5 diet page at the request of a person wanting to learn more about it who asked why it wasn't described on Wikipedia with countless other diet alternatives. The submission was an educational article describing the diet based on the content of the book (which is available as a free download) disclosed all the essentials of the diet and made no claims for it. I ask that you review the speedy deletion on the grounds of advertising. Putting fully descriptive information about the diet as is contained in the submitted article on Wikipedia would serve to educate and would decrease the demand for the book, so it would be actually be contrary-advertising. The Fast-5 diet alternative has been around for five years, is referred to in countless blogs and posts, has been featured on news broadcasts and is growing in popularity. The entry was based on the entries for "The Shangri-La Diet" and "CRON-diet." If I have somehow created an article less educational and encyclopedic in nature than the "Shangri-La" and "CRON" entries, please indicate the difference you see so I can recreate the Fast-5 article accordingly. I intentionally avoided making the entry about the book which is the case in the Shangri-La entry. Thank you Thentor (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Unlike the other articles that you mention, the Fast-5 article cited no sources other than the diet book itself. You would need to supply reliable independent sources demonstrating that this diet is notable per WP:N. Without them, the article is simply promotion for the book. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll include the news sources. Thentor (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be nice if you could post something on Wikipedia that has other sources online that back it up? Wouldn't it be nice if you could post something on Wikipedia for people to learn from? All the stupid rules that Wikipedia has is making it nearly impossible for people to learn "new" information about people, things, music and etc. When I posted a band that has cd's for sale in stores, online and who tours and is an actual real band and had sources to back it up, it gets deleted because they are not the beatles, because they have now grammys or mtv awards, because they are not miley cyrus. I have always used Wikipedia to find information about bands and other stuff and if I can't add a band because they are not "big" enough for Wiki's liking, then what is the point of wikipedia? I am just really stressed over this, sorry for the rude way of saying things, its just bothersome that a great tool on the internet is not used to its full potential, if i can learn about stuff on other creditable websites, what would I need wikipedia for? Thanks for letting me vent a little and hope you can calm me down! haha! Thanks NawlinWiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonsofthunderdesign (talk • contribs) 16:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Butting in as CSD nominator) Sorry your article was deleted. Your impression of the purpose of Wikipedia is slightly misguided though. Wikipedia articles need to be notable and verifiable (among a few other criteria). Specifically, articles on bands need to adhere to the specific notability criteria for bands. The article you produced lacked any support (that's the verifiable part) for the notion that your band was notable. The problem is, all your sources were primary sources, meaning they originate from people and organizations directly affiliated with the band, or they were not significant, meaning they merely acknowledged the existence of the band without providing evidence for broader recognition. If you can provide reliable sources that establish the notability of the band, you are free to recreate the article. A couple reviews from news sources (college newspapers rarely count, but just about anything higher profile would) would satisfy this requirement. If you can establish that the indie label publishing them is one of the "more important" indie labels (defined as an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable) and they have released at least two albums with said label, that would also qualify them. Please, I beg you, read WP:BAND. This isn't a personal knock on the band itself. There are too many garage bands out there for us to accept notability on faith; the requirements for band notability make the rules quite clear. If you can establish notability by those guidelines, you're in the clear. If you feel like notability might be non-obvious, post on the talk page of the new article and explain how it meets the WP:BAND requirements so no mistakes are made. Again, sorry you feel put upon, it's nothing personal and future contributions are welcome. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 16:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Created the page mastacraft it is not advertising at all. This artist has run a huge music festival the first of its kind in South Australia. There are several other festival pages & artist pages live which have are not worthy of being in this encyclopedia such as KiD Crusher. Please review this as we have major articles from big papers such as The Advertiser which we want to add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonkid44 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If you have reliable independent sources that show that this artist meets the notability requirements of WP:BAND, feel free to repost. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why my post, Erie Family Health Center, was speedily deleted because it is considered spam. I wanted to write about a community health center in Chicago that I had recently learned about and I got all of the information from their website. Please advise. Spotlight1701 (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Spotlight1701[reply]

• It contained promotional language such as "At Erie Family Health Center, we believe health care is a right, not a privilege. Our mission is to provide accessible, affordable and high quality health care for those in need." Wikipedia is not a publicity site. See WP:SPAM and WP:NPOV. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you protected Bishkek and 2010 Kyrgyzstan riots from some page move vandalism that occurred due to the current civil unrest in that country. I follow many Krygyz-related articles and a lot of them are currently being vandalized and/or edited with unconfirmed information, mostly by non-registered users. I'm reverting as much as I can, but people change them back almost immediately. Could you please take a look at the following pages and put a temporary lock on them as necessary?

• Bishkek
• 2010 Kyrgyzstan riots
• Kyrgyzstan
• Kurmanbek Bakiyev
• Roza Otunbayeva

There will probably be more that need watching/locking too, at least in the short term.

Thanks! -- Hux (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • I've moveprotected all of these. Right now, it doesn't look so bad that semis are necessary, but I'll keep an eye on them. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look at FameLeague and the history of FAME League as you have already speedy deleted something similar. If they survive then they need a history merge (probably after what you deleted is restored); if not then they both need to be deleted again. I don't care either way.--Rumping (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted a page called The Republic of Unclaimed Land on the grounds that it was a hoax. This is a real micronation. A micronation "is an entity intended to replace, resemble, mock, or exist on equal footing with recognised independent states."

For Example, The Federal Republic of St. Charlie, and Sealand, are famous micronations.

The RUL has a legitimate government, and a constitution.

Please reconsider and undelete this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Republic of Unclaimed Land (talk • contribs) 01:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You would need to show that, like Sealand, your micronation has been covered by reliable independent sources such that it meets our standards of notability. It's not enough that it's "real", and you are not a reliable or independent source. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RUL

Go to

http://micronations.wikia.com/wiki/The_Republic_of_Unclaimed_Land

for the micronation wiki article. It has been edited and reviewed by other wiki users.

Also see

http://republicofunclaimedland.webs.com/

It is still just a barebones website, but it will be improved over time.

Republic of Unclaimed Land (talk) 01:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Other wikis are not reliable sources (because they can be edited by you, or anyone else). The micronation's own website is not independent. Please read WP:V. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This guy has been posting a bunch of article in one fell swoop regarding Catholic figures in Canada. All are unreferenced, and appear to be copy-and-pastes. I put up a note to him (after mistakenly doing the new BLP-PROD tag, and forgetting the "L" stands for "living"), but he keeps on going. Maybe you can have a word with him. I suspect most subjects are notable, but I worry about copyvios, even though I can't find matching text. I could be altogether wrong. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The one I checked had a cite to the Catholic Encyclopedia, and didn't appear to be an exact cut and paste. I'll look at them again tomorrow. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay man I just wanted MPJ-DK to expand and extend them soon. Because I wanted to read those articles. --RATK (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy deletion of Billy Koskinas was declined by me because there was an indication of significance. I am finding far too many incorrect A7s. I know the feeling may be that it is easier to delete but I don't think incorrect A7 is the way to do it. Polargeo (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact by deleting these articles we are encouraging taggers to be bolder and bolder, such as "I don't think he quite meets our notability standards, A7", or "no sufficiently reliable sources, A7" this is not good. I have had at least one tagger respond quizically to me when I declined a speedy, saying "but it is an unreferenced BLP", I had to tell them that is what BLPPROD is for. Polargeo (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't see your decline, should have looked. Honestly, "professional tennis player" without more isn't a claim of notability in my opinion -- you could be the 7,469th-ranked player in the world, or something like that. But there's a lot more detail in the article now. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you about the notability and that the article should probably be deleted, just not about the A7. Polargeo (talk) 14:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I came across SymmWin randomly and I'm pretty sure it's spam but not sure enough to tag as such . . . Prod? AfD? Delete on sight? (That didn't seem like a pun when I typed that, I swear.) -WarthogDemon 02:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Prodded. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 02:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I thought this[2] was good of you. I wonder whether you could use that discrete padlock in the corner, rather than the garish template? It's obviously up to you. My feeling accords with an essay I once read on the subject: it's not necessary to have it so obvious and big, and a padlock in the corner will do. OK; for your consideration. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 13:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Done, thanks. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You probably remember last year when I asked why you move-protect pages, and you said that if I do not see a reason for a page to be MP, then I would let you know. Well, I was stumbling around events in U.S. history and clicked on the link to J. Oglethorpe and it happens to be move-protected (by User:Gimmetrow). I don't see any history of page-move vandalism, nor any high visibility in the article. Plus, it has only been protected once in its entire history span. So, is it okay to have the move-protection lowered/removed? Thanks, Schfifty3 01:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see anything in the history either, but I think you should ask Gimmetrow what the reasons for the protection were first. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've got an e-mail regarding this. Schfifty3 03:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted the article on Alexander Snitker and cited spam as the reason. How is an article about a United States Senate candidate with 13 external references, many from respected news sources, considered spam? For reference, every other candidate in this race has an article. He is inlcuded in the article United States Senate election in Florida, 2010 and is the candidate for the third largest polical party in America.

I'm assuming you deleted this article by mistake, because it easily meets every criteria for inclusion. Please restore this article at your earliest convenience. PlainSight (talk) 12:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was disappointed to see that you deleted my article on Mickie Kennedy without giving me a reasonable amount of time to defend it after you proposed deletion. Aren't wikipedia admins supposed to allow editors to improve their articles before deleting them? Now if you rule in my favor after this appeal I will have to redo all my hard work!

I disagree with your assertion that there was "No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content)." In my first sentence I explained that the subject of the article is an American businessman and entrepreneur known primarily for founding eReleases. Further, I disagree that this company is "non-notable." In the PR field eReleases is well known, particularly since its recent exclusive partnership with PR Newswire (which DOES have a Wikipedia article!) I'm also not sure why you found my sources "unreliable," since I provided several, all of which were factual and which came from a variety of websites.

My experiences with Wikipedia so far have been generally positive, but I was hoping to share my specialized business knowledge by creating and editing articles focusing on the PR field. This is very discouraging and does not make me want to continue contributing to Wikipedia at all. It's not offensive that admins can delete an article, but it does upset me that my hard work was removed without even offering me a chance to defend or improve it!

Please review this decision and restore my article. I would be happy to add additional sources if you will explain what you consider a "reliable" source.

---

Hi. Thanks for the message - I wondered why it was filtering me - I'm normally a pretty non-controversial on-line so I'm not used to being nannied - I just figured it was my incompetence with this interface (I'm an IT lecturer but I've not played with the wiki interface before). Sciencebiker (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you should know.  7  23:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly do i get the option to upload files? I need to add a file to List of backmasked messages but I fail as I cant upload any files :( ... halp! --02:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! PhantomScott (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NawlinWiki. I noticed you deleted this article just before. It's back, and I PRODded it because I thought there was some tiny measure of significance asserted. Could you take a look, and delete it again if it's the same as before? Thanks Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 04:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Clementine2009 is continuing to add external links to a commercial site after repeated warnings. I would appreciate if you would intervene. Thanks. Boghog (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am required to contact you before publishing my article, Straw (film). What am I supposed to do? Are you able to see it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secondtimethesecond (talk • contribs) 19:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted my article about Travis Senik because of significance. However, Wiki's policies state no such subjective hurdle.

From the policies...

An article about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. ...

The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.

My claim of significance was credible and sourced. Each quote was sourced, stated specific facts and accomplishments about the person (basketball and baseball player who was named to several all star games/teams), and was not superfluous.

Please explain why it was deleted or explain why you believe it did not meet the criterion above. This seems like Wikisnobbery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhtower (talk • contribs) 20:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. 1- notability isn't a requirement. Please don't quick delete based upon your personal criteria. The criteria for biography specifically states that notability is not the same as significance...which was your reason for quick delete. You are abusing your discretion to quick delete by not following wiki's guidelines.

Bhtower (talk) 02:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)bhtower[reply]

Thanks, for removing the vandalism and for protecting my User page. I have no idea where this vandal has come from, hopefully they'll get bored soon. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 21:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Userpage Shield
		Thank you, for reverting the vandalism on my userpage! - JuneGloom07 Talk? 21:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You're welcome.  :) NawlinWiki (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While we're on the topic, do you mind blocking User:166.137.11.42, who is the same user who continues to harass User:JuneGloom07? Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rangeblocked, thanks. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That "Lennon" account that wrote the hoax article has pretty much destroyed your talk page. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, I've seen worse. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Heh, so I see (from the history!) Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

for now, I do not want to spend more time elaborating on my reasoning regarding this disambig dispute, which is already at the bottom of Adorno's talk page. I won't put up with a refusal to take a quick look to spot for character differences. 华钢琴49 (TALK) 17:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read CSD and you will find this sentence: 'It also does not include disambiguation pages.' Surprised that an admin would fail to notice that sentence. 华钢琴49 (TALK) 01:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nawlin -- sorry about that. If it's all right with you, can I give this one another shot? It's my first page. I can tone down the language and reduce it to just the facts. Will you let me give this one another shot? Thanks, cjones65 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjones65 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got it -- thanks anyway.Cjones65 (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Locked333 (talk · contribs) created Wild Boyz (film), which seems to purposely have a lot of information such as Morgan Freeman appearing in the film and the film being distributed by Universal Pictures. I'm putting it up for speedy deletion, but it seems that Locked333 is a vandalism-only account posting false information. Should he be banned? Erik (talk | contribs) 01:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Erik (talk | contribs) 03:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Locked333 continues his campaign of misinformation with this. We cannot assume good faith any longer about his contributions; can he not be banned as a vandalism-only account? Erik (talk | contribs) 16:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Locked is blocked. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

OK, I admit that Australia doesn't win many Olympic medals or World Champs in athletics, but to CSD:A7 delete a two-time national decathalon champion is a bit much. I agree the article needs work, as the opening two paragraphs don't assert much notability, but there it is in third and fifth paragraphs, stating he won the national championships. Please be more careful in future. Do you agree that it should be reinstated? I would prefer for an admin to do an undelete to restore the full history, rather than just moving it from my userspace where it was put yesterday.The-Pope (talk) 06:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Restored - not sure what I was thinking (back in Oct. 2009), but you are clearly correct. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know the purpose of this filter is to avoid having to semi-protect an article, but the recent change you've made to that filter essentially blocks out many edits to the page and the error message that it gives them is not very helpful; could you please consider putting it on regular semi protection? At least that way, people will know why theyre not being allowed to edit the page. —Soap— 16:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The person who was attempting to make the edit has now been blocked, as she^(?) seems to have been a sleeper account, but I still see this type of semi-protection as potentially frustrating unless a more specific error message can be created (which only an administrator could do). —Soap— 17:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since theyre apparently specifically targeting articles that are already semi-protected, I can see why you did it now. So I withdraw my objection unless and until a very large number of false positives arises. —Soap— 17:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you have deleted the page about Four Green Steps I put online last week, because the “article doesn’t assert the importance of its subject”. However, I do not really understand what is missing: the company has a wide range of operations (from e-commerce to education, as mentioned), on an international scale. I also referenced the article with credible sources. I could have certainly added more information (such as the fact that their school program has already been adopted in more than 30 different countries), but I thought adding such comments would make it sound like I am trying to advertise the company… :S Can you please tell me (a bit more specifically) what is wrong with my article (if you do not want to put it back online) ? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kighafarz (talk • contribs) 18:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't delete the last version, User:DESiegel did. But in general, you need to cite multiple reliable independent sources (see WP:V) that show that the company meets the notability standards of WP:CORP. It's not enough that you think the company is useful or important. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey you deleted it at 20:08 fair reason then at 20:20 but it was un-advertised at this point, it talks about certain aspects of 2 boots but just because in a historical sense they were the first to do such things. Please re-check, bye. *RyanPT*

So a fictional claim of notability, sourced to a website that contains malware (my virus protection went red when I tried to go there) trumps WP:BAND? Woogee (talk) 04:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure what you mean - source 3 seems legitimate, and I didn't get any malware warnings from it. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to theaudioperv.com/2010/02/15/the-downtown-fiction-to-release-best-i-never-had-ep-tour-dates-sxsw-warped-tour (virus there) Woogee (talk) 04:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then we should take out that source. But being signed to a label distributed by Atlantic Records (supported by source 3) seems like a valid claim of notability to me. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having been signed doesn't meet WP:BAND. Having albums out does. Woogee (talk) 04:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then the AFD will probably succeed. Look, I speedy-delete dozens of band articles every day. I just think that in this case, the label claim merits a longer look at AFD. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I do appreciate your work. Woogee (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the most recent SPI into Lila Cheney, I gather the plan is to WP:RBI, with no block notices or any sock tagging, correct? Cheers, -- Flyguy649 ^talk 04:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds good. I wonder if Lila Cheney isn't an old acquaintance. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Alison would be a good person to check with. Obviously Lila is a long-term user/abuser. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 04:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this page was recently deleted. I did not mean for this to come across as advertising. How should I rewrite it? The link doesn't need to be on the page for a start. There isn't much on the web but I could link to all articles on the subject as well. Thanks Rjcrabbe (talk) 10:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have responded to others since my prior question. Could I get a response too? Thanks.

BritneySpearow (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. I'm not sure how to respond directly to that message so I'm writing here now... could my page be restored if I find more sources to add? It took me a while to figure out how to make a whole page (I've just edited others before) and I don't want to have to do the whole thing over again :( I'm pretty sure I used some independent sources already but I'm sure I can find more, it just seemed like information is more reliable "From the horse's mouth" you know?

BritneySpearow (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your hard work deleting and protecting against the page-move vandalism of recent days, involving San Diego County and other sites. I wanted to let you know that one of the pages you deleted, Talk:Did jesus have a son, has apparently been recreated - possibly by a bot. You might want to kill that sucker again. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Woops, that was fast! It's gone again. Sorry to bother you. --MelanieN (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Got it, thanks -- and thanks for the kind words. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NW, I hope you don't mind but I had to disable a few filters, modify some, and probabily will have to disable some more. We're starting to get really desperate for filter conditions as we're now exceeding 3% edits hitting the limit and some are taking a significant amount of time. I would welcome any assistance in merging and eliminating filters that aren't necessary to reduce the number of conditions we're consuming. I tried to keep everything you had in tact so far, but I did have to disable a few notable ones as well. I left notes in them where applicable, but feel free to ask on my talk or email me if you have any particular concerns. I trust your judgement on the filters, just there's a lot of edits going through that aren't even being checked now and we should really try to get that down as close to 0% as possible. Thanks! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll take a look. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disabled #54 (merged to #47), 72, and 315 -- that seems to have helped a little. We need to not be too hasty to disable these -- look what happened when we turned off #295. Thanks for the help with the Rodhull filter. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We seem to be down to 1% now on the condition limit. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes this is good. I really want to get it back down to 0% where it was before, but this is much better for now. I do have plans to disable 2 (particularly long-running) filters I authored a while ago as that pattern seems to be tapering off now that I've really locked it down, but I need to give it another week at least to be sure. Thanks for your help, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you recently deleted How to make coconut and chocolate pudding as an expired prod; don't they have to be seven days old to be expired?--BelovedFreak 11:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I should have given a WP:SNOW reason for that deletion. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for explaining! --BelovedFreak 09:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to note that this edit was stopped by a recent change to Filter 316, and Im not actually sure what youre aiming at, so I don't want to change the filter. —Soap— 20:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed it already and notified the user. The filter was aimed at 5 hours' worth of User:Zealking socks from this morning. It worked well, and the filter has caught a bunch of other vandalism and only 2 false positives. I'll continue to watch it closely. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

geez, it is my own talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronaldodonut (talk • contribs) 22:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - the "I hate..." accounts just had a SPI opened against them. Seems pointless to me as you have already blocked them both and they are clearly just a frustrated kid. However I am concerned that having the SPI archive and all of the edit summaries containing this text is in fact perpetuating the comment. Do you think we should delete the SPI case, remove and RD2 the edit summary from the SPI log? Thanks.  7  23:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, the second one wasn't blocked (it is now). No, I think someone should just close the SPI and we should move on. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks.  7  23:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some time ago you very kindly looked at my first article (Higher State) prior to my moving it from my user page. I have since just created another article (User:Hudson702/Illicit (Dillon & Dickins) which I feel is of worth and would be grateful if you would take a look (I have chosen what I think would be the most practical and relevant title for disambiguation purposes but am not sure whether the '&' might cause problems). Many thanks Hudson702 (talk) 10:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems to me there should just be one article at Dillon & Dickins, with the other titles redirecting there. These guys may be notable enough for one article, but not two or three. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that makes sense, especially as by far the bulk of notable work was released under the name of Dillon & Dickins. Many thanks for that. Hudson702 (talk) 06:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I have renamed and redrafted (User:Hudson702/Dillon & Dickins) - After moving it out of my user page, I assume I have to create a new article named, say, "Illicit (Dance music group)", and redirect it to the Dillon & Dickins one? Also, Dillon & Dickins is often missspelt Dillon & Dickens - is it worth doing a redirect for this as well? Hudson702 (talk) 09:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes to both questions. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Many thanks Hudson702 (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You deleted the recreation of this article. Can you please tell me the name of the user who re-created it? I have an SPI on the creator of the original article, and this would probably be the same editor. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Mythology4ever. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aand they're back as RoymartinCMR (talk · contribs), having created CALIFORNIA MOUNTAIN DEVIL, the same thing. Could you delete it? And maybe salt it? And block as sockpuppet? (And run over their remains with a lawnmower! Hahahaha!!) ALI ^{nom nom} 19:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the original version was created by User:Justin.Gilette, and in all probability User:Beargullykid is the same person. See this SPI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• All blocked, thanks. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, and [File:Lonepinemountaindevil.jpg] needs to be deleted here and on Commons. I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the file deletion process. ALI ^{nom nom} 19:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  It's only on Commons, and I'm not an administrator there. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll find an admin there, then. Sorry. ALI ^{nom nom} 19:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you let me create en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_In_Verona/ to increase local bands popularity? User:Nick2146 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick2146 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nawlin, the user who created the above mentioned article, TheSaurus, recently came into the wikipedia IRC help channel asking why the article had been deleted under CSD A7. Looking at what they have submitted here: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/TheSaurus (rapper), I'm also slightly confused as to why you felt that the article met A7, as it appears that the topic of the article has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources, specifically:

• http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/archives/2006/2006-Jul-27/Article.831_mini/1/@@index
• http://www.eastbayexpress.com/eastbay/epic-slang/Content?oid=1090617
• http://wweek.com/editorial/3517/12276/
• http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/archives/2008/2008-Mar-13/the-best-of-editorsapos-picks/1/

Meaning that they seem to pass WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. It also appears that the subject of the article has received several awards, meaning that they pass (albeit marginally) WP:ANYBIO.
In any case, I do not think that the article was deletable under A7. I'd greatly appreciate it if you would take another look at the article, and if willing then please move Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/TheSaurus (rapper) to TheSaurus (or give me the go ahead and I'll do it). If you still have concerns over the article please let me know, especially if you have concerns over any BLP problems, in which case I'm happy to look through the article and remove any unreferenced material, or if you have concerns over the tone of the article, in which case I can edit it accordingly.
Kindest regards and thanks for your time, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Point well taken, I've restored (and added some tags). The tone is still promotional and violates WP:NPOV. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much indeed, much appreciated. I'll mention the problems with the article to the creator. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thank you sooo much for restoring this page. this was my tribute to this rapper. im gonna try my best to make this article as successful as i can!

Fastlight (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Fastlight[reply]

Why have you disabled Filter 81 again? It's the only effective mechanism there is for monitoring chart insertions.—Kww(talk) 04:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a hugely expensive filter - it takes a lot of time and uses up a lot of conditions. Last week, we were at our condition limit and a lot of bad edits were therefore getting through untouched. We had to disable some filters to lower the condition limit. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand that, and could use some help trying to figure out why it's so expensive. It should only fire if the new wikitext includes the word "chart", and none of that big series of tests should execute unless that is true. The percentage of articles that contains the word "chart" is pretty low. I am fairly dependent on this filter, so it's important to me to figure out a way to reenable it.—Kww(talk) 04:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shirik can help you with that better than I can. I have no objection to restoring the filter if it can be made to run more efficiently. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just blocked Limezest (talk · contribs), but I'm not sure what to do about reporting it, as the SPI case has been closed. Should I add it to the archived case, or raise a new report? JohnCD (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please add ZestyZeal (talk · contribs) to the long list. Jeez! Favonian (talk) 22:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Limezest to todays' report, ZestZeal is already there. JohnCD (talk) 09:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please unprotect the Bombay redirect. Thank you very much!
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  05:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. On April 1, 2010, you blocked an account, as a vandalism only account. Tonight, I came across an account, GONG 399, who has gone about posting the same fictious references to the non-existent Brain And Scamper Show [3] that the Brain accounts was adding. Can you block this sock without an SPI since the same exact, false content is being added by the new account? Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same IP vandalised some articles like the ones of Marius Copil, Jesse Witten and Juan Mónaco. Please block this account: User_talk:Sebiy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabinho (talk • contribs) 11:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you lend your experience on this matter. There is some information here and I'm wondering if it needs to go further (range blocks?). Myself and PrimeHunter are both inexperienced in this area. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The IP accounts are too widely separated to rangeblock, but I'm working on putting something in the edit filters to stop this. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has requested an unblock via e-mail and I've granted it on the condition that they change their username and do not edit the ADP article. They would like to correct some errors so I pointed them in the direction of the talkpage and asked them to provide sources. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Works for me, thanks for letting me know. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted the page "Marriage Strike" for no apparent reason in 2009. I have found a copy of the content and can see no reason why it has been deleted. I have created a talk page for "Marriage Strike" only at this point. If you would like to explain why it should not be re-created please do so there. Gekoman (talk) 01:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NawlinWiki, I feel that my page "War of Ideas" was taken down unjustly. Ive been told by another administrater that I need a citation in the opening paragrah. You say its a copyright infringment. The Strategic Studies Institute does NOT have a Copyright policy because its part of the US Military, hence its taxpayer funded.The following is from their website: Copyright and Reprinting Policy SSI studies hold no copyright. Current statutes prevent the U.S. government from copyrighting intellectual property since that property is paid for by the public and is therefore 'owned by the public'.

Reprinting - Since, at this time, there is no copyright policy, many organizations reprint our studies for classroom/seminar use. We do ask that you write us a message with the number of reprints and their intended use so that we can report this information for budgeting and resource allocation. [[4]] By all means, please check this out.--Friedrich Dusseldorf (talk) 05:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)Friedrich Dusseldorf[reply]

FYI: The article has been re-created (for the third time today). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For an admin whom I feel always has my back in WP:RCP and WP:NPP. You always make my job easier knowing you're online and ready to take the actions needed. Thanks Nawlin! --Non-Dropframe talk 21:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why my article was deleted. i wrote an original and valid article on porn creep complete with references. There was no duplication of any past article at all and that is why my article was deleted. Please take another look at it.

William Edmonds (talk) 01:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for showing me to the page with past discussions but again, that old article has no relation to my new one. That past discussion was about an article written back in 2009 by a different author. They have nothing to do with one another. The content of mind is original and I have provided references. William Edmonds (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It looked pretty similar to me. You should try Wikipedia:Deletion review. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen the original, did you look at them side by side? The old one cannot possibly be that similar, the topic could be similar but not the content itself or the references, The Porn Myth wasn't written until this year and the old article you are referring to was written last year. Can you please review them again. And can you tell me what is wrong with the article I wrote? If it needs more references let me know and I can track some down. I feel it is a valid topic, one that is important for people to learn about. I simply do not understand why it would be deleted. Please explain. Thanks! William Edmonds

Hello! Could you please take a look at the talk page for the Foursquare Day article? I have many concerns about the current state of the article, but my COI is getting in the way. I'd appreciate your help. GreggHilferding (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NawlinWiki (Is nawlin "new orlean?") Anyway, it looks like a vandal that you have indefinitely blocked is back, clearly falling under the duck category. This conversation here might be of interst for you. A vandal is clearly back but I'm not sure if an immediate block or just an assumption of good faith would be best. Thanks Tommy²⁰¹⁰ 14:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sock blocked, and yes, it's New Orleans. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 14:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you redirect this category: Category:SEB Korvpalli Meistriliiga players to Category:Korvpalli Meistriliiga players, because "SEB" is old sponsor name. Look Korvpalli Meistriliiga. (Some bot work is also needed.) Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You need to change the name of the category in each of the 35 member articles, and then create the new category. I know it's tedious, but it has to be done that way. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NW, could you take a look at filter 295? I had to disable it because it seems to just be producing false positives right now, and I don't exactly know what it's supposed to be targetting. Thanks, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd already warned this IP about a lengthy block, based on the single-minded history so I've upped your block to six months. Hope that's OK. Rodhullandemu 23:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• OK by me, we shouldn't tolerate attacks. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]