User talk:SilkTork/Archives/Archive 23

This 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.

Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 90% done with only 226 articles remain to be swept! As always, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. With over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 4 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. As an added incentive, if we complete over 100 articles reviewed this month, I will donate $100 to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps participants. I hope that this incentive will help to increase our motivation for completing Sweeps while supporting Wikipedia in the process. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your stellar work in my behalf. It is greatly appreciated and I hope I live up to your expectations. I am trying very hard. Warmest good wishes for the New Year to you and your family. —mattisse (Talk) 16:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for moving the information from the main Judaism article to the more topic-specific article. BTW, did you know that the information in new articles less than a week old, or articles expanded less than a week ago, can be nominated for Wikipedia:Did You Know? I think there's a lot of information in this article that would warrant a nomination. --AFriedman (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Anne. Yes, I am aware of DYK - User:SilkTork/DYK. It's an attractive and useful project, which does encourage people to create new articles or improve stubs to an acceptable standard. I don't use it as much as I should.

I'm not sure about personally nominating it for DYK, as I feel I didn't really write Origins of Judaism, I just moved some material from one place to another in response to the {{split}} tag. I have been working on the backlog on Category:Articles to be split - and very often I can see why nobody has engaged with a request, because some of the splits can be quite tricky!

If you wish to nominate Origins of Judaism yourself for DYK, that would be fine. SilkTork *^YES! 11:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I've nominated the article for DYK because it seems like an awfully important article to share on the main page. See Template talk:Did you know#Origins of Judaism. What do you think of the hook? --AFriedman (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting hook - I'd click on it! SilkTork *^YES! 23:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) --AFriedman (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jujutacular. By consensus an AfD runs for seven days. Forcing an early closure was seen to be inappropriate unless it met the criteria in Wikipedia:Speedy keep or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. This AfD was originally closed on the same day it opened, therefore it has not had seven days for people to consider the matter. The reasoning behind keeping an AfD open for seven days are varied, and include the sense that people may pile on initially to either iVote for a delete or keep, but that opinion can change when others join the discussion with information or views not initially presented. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_an_AfD_discussion_is_closed for more info. If you have any further questions, please get in touch. SilkTork *^YES! 22:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that the original close was early and innappropriate, the fact that it has been listed on the AFD queue for 8 days now with 1 delete !vote meant to me that consensus was clear. If you do feel that strongly though I will not interfere. Thanks for the kind note. Jujutacular ^T · C 00:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I know what you are saying, because it looks like it has had 8 days - but for 7 of those it was a closed listing and people would not have looked at it. It's a minor thing anyway, and will no doubt end up as a keep, but I do feel strongly that we need to keep an eye on AfDs being closed too early, and to let people know that it is no longer acceptable. There was a period when early closures got out of hand, and we had to clamp down on it, so it's worth keeping an eye out to make sure we don't start slipping back! Regards again. SilkTork *^YES! 00:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

On returning with a fresh mind, you were right to revert my close. I'm sorry this turned into a little mess, I see that it has since again been closed. However, I will take the lesson to heart. I haven't been around for very long and I probably still have a ton more to learn. I'll add it to my list . Thanks again for the calm demeanor when correcting me. Happy editing! Jujutacular ^T · C 19:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

O grief! I give up! I can see that someone glancing at the AfD would assume that it's had it's time, and is a straightforward Keep. There's the possibility of starting afresh with a new AfD, but the result would just be the same, so this is one to let drop. I think if I need to reactivate an early closed AfD in future I'll make sure to leave a clear note so that people can see what has happened. Thanks for letting me know. SilkTork *^YES! 21:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the long closing rationale here. Given a range of opinions and the likelihood of many eyeballs, it probably diverted several questions/deletion reviews. tedder (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It was an interesting case. WP:OneEvent can be difficult to interpret. Harper Lee, for example, is noted for having produced just the one amazing book (and because of that Mocking Bird is suspected of having been written by Capote!). Should her article be redirected to To Kill a Mockingbird? Of course not - people are curious about the writer of such a book - will want to read about her life before, during and after the book. Will want to know what influenced the book. What else she has done. Etc. More material than can be usefully placed in one section of To Kill a Mockingbird. The same can be said about Russell Hantz - though there is this argument of transitory importance. Would future generations be interested in reading about some guy who didn't win a TV game show? Because the event is recent, people are curious, and they may come to Wikipedia to find out more about him. But how much space should we give to transitory curiosity? It's on ongoing and pertinent question, and one we will continue to engage with as Wikipedia develops! I think some cases are quite borderline. SilkTork *^YES! 09:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what should be done now an AfD has been closed. I can't add further to the discussion. When User:Cnilep nominated Alric for AfD, the user also nominated Husa of Elmham. Although the discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alric was about Alric, it also covered both AfD nominations. Since the Alric article has been deleted, shouldn't the Husa of Elmham article also deleted? Please reply here on your talk page. Scrivener-uki (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You're correct. I've now tidied up. SilkTork *^YES! 17:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent work on the Gower. I know you have dipped into the Glamorgan article, but I would appreciate any help you could give to the article as we may be going for Good Article status. As someone with an interest in the beautiful part of Glamorgan I would appreciate if you could keep an eye on any errors made on the west coast. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I lied, I think all of Glamorgan is beautiful. FruitMonkey (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I've had a quick look and made a few suggestions. Follow those suggestions, nominate it for GA, ping me, and I'll review it. I tend to be quite a fussy and exacting GA reviewer - but as long as work is being done I will help out and drive the article to GA standards within my ability - I do get involved and do some of the manual work, hunting down references, adding detail, correcting mistakes, etc. And I am always open for discussion, as any review is going to be subjective and open to interpretation. And I have an interest in Glamorgan as I am a Swansea Jack. I live in Kent now, but I do pop back to Swansea now and again. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 00:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Which subsection of WP:ENT did Hudecki meet that you closed the AFD as keep? Noone ever supported the claim that he met WP:ENT. THF (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It was WP:CREATIVE 3 that I referred to as applying in this case. I mentioned WP:ENT in my comments as an example of the sort of precision that such guidelines can bring to AfD discussions, because the matter of guidelines had been raised, and WP:ENT had been bandied about. I can, however, see that my comments were not entirely clear on this point and a misunderstanding is possible - I'm not sure, though, that the potential for misunderstanding is enough for me to go back and alter my wording. What do you think? SilkTork *^YES! 08:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see him meeting WP:CREATIVE, either. Wikipedia has never given articles to storyboard editors and line producers. THF (talk) 14:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

He directed the Roseanne Barr animated series Little Rosie, which meets Creative 3: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work". The assumption is that Little Rosie is significant because we have an article on it, and I mentioned in my comments that the notability of Peter Hudecki is dependent on the notability of Little Rosie - an article that doesn't clearly assert the notability of its topic. However, I was not going to second guess that article's notability - a quick Google threw up some information - so it would need a wider discussion. If you wish to challenge the notability of Peter Hudecki I would suggest that you first take Little Rosie to AfD to establish the notability of that article. If people feel that Little Rosie is not notable, that would leave the way open for another AfD on Hudecki. SilkTork *^YES! 10:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I see you are deciding on the AFD. Let me add some analytical points. I'm not advocating delete or keep at this point as I am neutral. Comments to follow in minutes.Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec):I have decided the outcome, and am writing up my rationale at the moment. The consensus of several discussions is that 2009 Barack Obama visit to China should be merged to Sino-American relations - and I support that. The consensus for 2009 Kevin Rudd visit to Japan is to delete, and I will go with that. Do you feel your points would have an impact on such an outcome? SilkTork *^YES! 20:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because there are already complaints that Wikipedia is Ameri-centric. The fact that we keep some information about the American president but discard similar information about the Australian PM.

I'm more concerned because it shows that the notability guidelines are being followed with varying compliance, some more than others. That's bad when there is unequal application of the guidelines. I'm not sure how to improve the guidelines to address that problem.Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If you're not already aware of it, then Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias might be of interest to you. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 10:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I see you are deciding on the AFD. Let me add some analytical points. I'm not advocating delete or keep at this point as I am neutral.

Possibilities: Obama-keep, Rudd-keep. This would be in line with things that have a lot of references qualify for articles but fails the notability guidelines for events.

Obama-keep, Rudd-delete or Obama-delete, Rudd-keep. This is hurt Wikipedia by showing that there is a different standard, either pro-American or anti-American. Both visits are not earthshattering, both to major countries in Asia.

Obama-delete, Rudd-delete. This would be in line with the majority of the discussion about fixing the notability (events) guidelines that events need to meet quite a few criteria. These two articles meet the criteria for having widespread coverage (international, including in the press of countries not involved). However, it fails several of the criteria for WP:EVENT.

Obama-merge to Sino American relations, Rudd-merge to Australia Japan relations. Possible compromise.

I really hope the notability guidelines problem will be fixed in a few days. There's currently a problem that we in the process of fixing. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you give me the text of 2009 Kevin Rudd visit to Japan to maintain in my userspace? Obviously consensus does not favor its inclusion now, but that may change someday and I'd like to preserve the content. Everyking (talk) 01:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I have used the new incubator scheme - Wikipedia:Article Incubator/2009 Kevin Rudd visit to Japan. This makes the article available to more people, and seems appropriate in this case. SilkTork *^YES! 10:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Some work has been done on the article in reference to your suggestions. Could you provide further guidance to aid improvement. Cheers, FruitMonkey (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Rather than engaging in a discussion of the preferable structure of The Kinks, you abruptly failed its GA nomination out of what appears to be pure petulance. Very poor form, my friend. DocKino (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I cannot work with you, and I do not wish to work with you. I have withdrawn from engagement in that article because of your edit warring. I find your attitude unpleasant. I note I am not the only one. I doubt if my comments will change your attitude as it appears that others have mentioned it to you, and you continue to adopt a non-consensual and belligerent approach to editing. As I am a volunteer, I have decided I would rather not volunteer my time where and when it becomes unpleasant. That I have withdrawn from the review does not prevent it from being re-listed and someone else reviewing it. It just means a slight delay. If you are unhappy about this, then reflect on your approach to the issue you were not happy about, and consider how engaging in the discussion on the review page might have been more helpful. SilkTork *^YES! 20:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, 5.4 was your proposal! As I've just said to Jehochman, if I didn't act and do something, a 70% 'CDA' would have been polled yes/no at RfC, which (whether agreed with or not) looks like it could well be against the broader consensus. Do you agree with that? I personally saw the meat in your proposal as Bureaucrats judging by consensus, but the "rule of thumb" figure is important too of course - people will naturally focus on it. I envisioned a 70% RfC being ripped into on technical grounds (ie not being comprehensive enough, fair enough, or properly representing discussion consensus) - actually druring the polling of it, which is disasterous for any proposal if it is also true. I think that the relative silence at the draft page over the past week was/is likely to turn into quite vociferous criticism at the poll itself. That Motion to Close may have failed, but it said an awful lot, as has the lack of general input since Jan 4th. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

That's been a long drawn out proposal. I'll take a look. Silence from the community doesn't mean lack of interest, it can mean lack of anything constructive to say. SilkTork *^YES! 09:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course. But the big problem for me is that when something like this finalisation poll is made (which has been clearly debated and lead up to), people who could have easily said something about it earlier, suddenly and vociferously complain! It is very frustrating - and that realy is to say the least. What develops simply develops - if people are not part of it of the preceeding discussion, then they should be more philosophical and constructive, and far less 'prammy' and petulant when they see something they don't like. To complain so loudly at a hardly-disasterous development - that could have been different if the comment came beforehand - is simply bad show. Wikipedia in this way is unremmitingly poor, I find. It is no wonder things collapse so much - there is little sense of solidarity, and and ever-present rumble of sedantry stamping feet.

One thing is for sure, the post Jan 4th debate it became fully clear that just 'running' with your 5.4 at 70% would not have been based on any clear consensus. Comments after the poll seem to be bearing that out.

Is your confusing 'Query need for poll'section something for people to put a signature next to? (it seems you don't like these things being called 'polls' - but that is confusing matters here, and is prejudicing the finalisation poll accordingly). If not, I'm moving it into the comments section, and out of the polling space. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I have commented further. I hope that my meaning is clearer this time. SilkTork *^YES! 19:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously every reviewer interprets the rules and guidlines and sets his/her own criteria and it's not up to me to hinder the passage of an otherwise well written article to GA. However, comments from others are explicitly invited. Perhaps I am closer to understanding why the nominator refused my original offer to do the review. --Kudpung (talk) 13:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments are invited and welcomed. The more people that get involved the more rounded and balanced is the outcome. Thank you again for getting involved. SilkTork *^YES! 17:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll refrain from interrupting the reviiew with any further comments on the reveiw page (and from any further help on the page itself) - it wouldn't be fair to the major author of the article - but this week-old discussion (in two parts) on a collaborator's page may elucidate my theory on this and demonstrate that I do not entirely disagree with you at all, see: User talk:Wotnow#Malvern GA, failing... , and User talk:Wotnow#GA reviews. See also:
How to present citations: Each article should use the same method throughout. If an article already has citations, adopt the method in use or seek consensus before changing it.

• Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to present citations
• Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citation templates and tools
• Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to format citations

The guidelines I have linked to are somewhat contradictory when taken with the italics above. In the case of Milford haven there was no established pattern.--Kudpung (talk) 02:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you again. I haven't looked at your links, though I agree with you that some people find it very helpful to have all the citations in an article lined up in the same format. I am less fussed personally. As long as there is a link to the source (and preferably to an online version that I can consult with ease) I am personally quite happy. I tend to use citation templates myself, but only because I have the software for that - it is a matter of clicking on the source and it is done.

I would rather people get a source link into an article than get confused by complex templates and not bother - after all, with the wonderful mix of people we have working collaboratively on the project, there are those who find the sources, those who write the content, and those who like to format the templates. There are a few who do everything, but most of the volunteers here find something that interests them, and which they are good at, and concentrate on that. We shouldn't ask people to do so much that they are driven away.

And to get back to GA criteria. Templating the references is not a requirement. I sometimes mention it if the nominator/editor intends to take the article forward to FA, so they are aware of what they need to do. Or I'll make a comment if someone says templating sources is a GA requirement; people do sometimes confuse the requirements for FA with GA and therefore have inappropriate expectations of the work required for GA listing. It is not uncommon for people to apply FA requirements in a GA review, and some editors appreciate that. It's each to their own, and much of the GA criteria are open to interpretation anyway. As long as the article is improved, and people are motivated by the process, then it's all good. SilkTork *^YES! 08:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed response; It's a shame you didn't follow the links - you would have found that I am agreeing with you. However, I am recovering from being severely burned by having to change the format and use templates prescribed by a GA reviewer for over a hundred links before an article was finally accorded its GA. One thing is sure - I've certainly been discouraged from offering any further help on Milford Haven. And that's not really the point, is it? (especially when it concerns experienced contributors).--Kudpung (talk) 10:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I am concerned that you have been discouraged. I have broadly and sometimes specifically agreed with your comments, though I may have clarified certain aspects. I welcome your opinion and would encourage you both to continue commenting on the review and to get involved in editing the article. Those involved in the Good Articles project do not encourage ownership of articles, and so always encourage a wide involvement of people in the building of an article. And from what I have observed of the main contributors to Milford Haven they are open, friendly and co-operative people who have the aim of improving the article rather than getting a badge for themselves. If you want to discuss what has discouraged you either here or by email I will be quite happy. SilkTork *^YES! 11:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

What discouraged me was getting ticked off for starting to verify and clean up all the refs - not a particularly exhilarating task, and very time consuming. I thought the article was worth it because the refs are in such a mess. I'm not a newbie here, but I'm not a maintenance editor per se, although I'm quick to tag anything I see (after doing anything I can for it on the fly of course). I micromanage a county project, and take articles one by one and improve them without wanting a badge. The GA success with Malvern, Worcestershire proved what teamwork can achieve with the right motivation. We are all experienced Wikipedians, and in retrospect we felt that the criteria imposed by our reviewer may have gone OTT. Nevertheless, we do not regret the experience, since it set standards for the rest of our work on the project's articles, and for all our work on the Wikipedia. That's probably why the Milford Haven people rejected my offer to review their article! --Kudpung (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The GA process is very much in line with the whole Wikipedia process - it is open to everyone, and people put into it as much or as little as they are able. I am very supportive of the process - I have done quite a few reviews and enjoy the experience. A GA process may be started and stopped fairly easily. If an article gets failed, the nominator can try again. If an article gets listed and somebody else doesn't feel it quite matches the criteria, it can get delisted quite easily. The main aims are that articles on Wikipedia improve, and editors are motivated to improve articles. Sometimes things don't work out well for one reason or another, but this is not that common. I don't like hearing that people have been discouraged - sometimes it can be due to misunderstandings. I am aware that my own communications can be abrupt and to the point. I aim to be neutral and business like, but that can sometimes be read as cold, or even critical. Now and again I do make the effort to say something positive and encouraging - but not as often as I should! It sounds like you have taken positive points from your experience, which is very good. It's worth bearing in mind that we are all equal here, that we are all volunteers on a charity project,giving our time on what we feel is a worthwhile and serious project. And that we are doing it because we want to - we get some pleasure or satisfaction from it. But we are all fallible. And we all make mistakes. As long as people are working in good faith and with a positive and collaborative attitude, we can forgive them most things. Don't expect too much of your fellow editors, and you won't be too disappointed. And I've yet to meet the person who even claims to know all the policies, guidelines and procedures (given that they change every day, it is quite impossible!) Keep well, and keep editing. SilkTork *^YES! 18:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 02:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I am to write this for you since you are the user who decided to delete the article Jayen Varma and the rules say you must be asked first for a review of the action. The majority of votes were to delete. I am worried because it was discussed mainly in the India related topic. Unfortunately this has nothing to do with India related matters. The musician is well known in the western countries. Bass player's are not much noticed in India. That could be the reason why Indian bass players names are not in news and in wikipedia. But there are hundreds of western bassists here even though many of them don’t have reliable references (in many cases). Please look at Jazz_bassists. I also have noticed that you have been to rock concerts. Yes, rock bassists may be more notable. But this guy is known in the west to be faster than Robert Trujillo of Metallica and the bassist of megadeth James Lomenzo is his big fan as well. I don’t know how to give a review application to get the article replaced. May be you can do something. --Musicindia1 (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Thank you

I would be willing to WP:Userfy the article to User:Musicindia1/Jayen Varma for you, and to - on a very low level - assist you to research if there are enough appropriate sources to bring the article back into mainspace. Given that there has been a recent ArbCom case about poorly sourced BLP articles, in which it was decided that unsourced BLP articles are aggressively deleted, I would put a time limit of 30 days on the article. If acceptable sources cannot be found within that time frame then the userfied article would be deleted. SilkTork *^YES! 13:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• I will work on it

Thank you so much for your great thinking. I will work on it . --Musicindia1 (talk) 14:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have done it. You may now work on the article - User:Musicindia1/Jayen Varma. SilkTork *^YES! 14:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Pl look in to it.I just made the page with some changes. This does not have claims for fastest bass playing. He is accepted as a fast bassist undoubtedly. He has a unique style to play slap bass. But I have not written it as a unique style( to make it neutral).Please do advidse me to make it reappear in the main page without further deletion. Thanks a lot.--Musicindia1 (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have looked, and you haven't added any reliable sources. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Unless you can find a reliable source that writes about Jayen Varma the article cannot be moved into mainspace. If you read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and still don't understand what a reliable source is, then please let me know and I'll try to explain. SilkTork *^YES! 19:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

a lot for taking the time to work on it. I checked what you said. I also find that most of the musicians in the international music have their own youtube channels and also pages in communities with their usernames. That may not mean that the musicians are self promoting. It may be like having their websites operated by their fans and friends. Being a great fan of jazz music and musicians like him, I believe that he uses only myspace and also facebook. And he is currently doing concerts in Mumbai and north India. He has an international convention in February http://www.theaea.org/cec_cac/cec10/index.htm . The video count you said is true. Till recently it was named just jayen varma. Only recently it was named World record Fastest Bassist. And the video was uploaded in 2008. The other one is in 2006 and one is a Lead Guitar Video and the viewers will be high for that. Please be helpful for some more time. There are some other links also here. Like http://paradise4tourist.com/world-copyright-summit-cinevegas-film-festival-nxne-north-by-northeast-music-film-festival-cinema-expo-international-american-black-film-festiv-3 He at least holds a place in the music world along with other bassists who have massive promotion and so he deserves a place in Wikipedea along with them. Please be helpful just like you said to replace the article.Thanks again.--Musicindia1 (talk) 06:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• I am trying hard to explain why it is to be kept Dear Admin,I hope I am not disturbing you. I am really in to it searching. I appreciate your efforts and sincerity to look in to it and saying opinions frankly. I also searched for many musicians, and see that they all have internet communities and accounts in their username for promotion. At the same time they have massive promotion personally, fan based and commercially for news articles and also to sell music and tickets. Everyone has big fan base. The musician in question has also a very good fan base in India, USA and Europe. The article in English was in tact. It was distracted only when I translated it in to Malayalam. OMG! I am worried because I am not able to explain properly why the article is to be replaced, after causing a clean article to deletion. I have made some more changes in the article to make it simple. Let this article be a beginning stuff, so that in the years to come it may be expanded. With more references. Please look in to this bass player’s article Todd Coolman. I know that other article’s presence is not a valid reason. There is no dispute about Jayen Varma’s place as a good bassist among international bassists and also in google search(even if its promotion or not). He may be confident as fastest or one of the fastest and he performs it as well. Please do bring this simple article to main page so that users will add more reference in future. I AM TIRED.Thanks again--Musicindia1 (talk) 08:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Dear Admin, I am still looking for reliable sources according to WP. I came across many. But cant recognize which is reliable and which is not. I also saw an article Yard (beer). This is a world record where the reliable record awarding authority is noted as Record Holders Republic. I have noticed that you have also done few edites in it. I don’t know if you are remembering it. In many cases this authority has been reckoned here. Notability as a bass player is visible in google search, news in archive, blog of the permanent editor of Indian express and other reliable blogs and also american blues news. kindly see if the article can be replaced in the simplest form. I am sorry to trouble you again. Thanks again.--Musicindia1 (talk) 10:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The more I look into this the more I see an attempt by Jayen Varma to promote himself by adding links to his youtube video on various sites. His own website has no press at all, and lists a series of responses from musicians he has contacted, who have left him supportive messages such as "NEVER GIVE UP HOPE!!!!" - which indicates that he has not yet had much success. He has no record contract, and apparently no management (other than himself). The only work he has done is play a concert or two with Aparna Panshikar. Given the lack of genuine work he has done, the lack of recordings, etc, I am curious as to where you heard about him. SilkTork *^YES! 11:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thats too much. If you are prejudged to this subject, there is no meaning in me seeking your help. Let time show you the truth. So please do one last favour. If someone search dor the article Jayen Varma in wikipedia, all the deletion history is shown now. Can you please make it away from public view( I mean the deletion history) Thanks for all the favour. --Musicindia1 (talk) 11:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I am reporting honestly to you what I have discovered, and I have spent some personal time researching this. Given that what I have found indicates that Jayen Varma is an unknown musician who is attempting to promote himself (which is an honourable thing to do), but who has not yet achieved any measurable success, not even a record contract, it would be inappropriate to have an article on Wikipedia. I wish Jayen Varma every success in his career, and hope that he does well. When there are press reports on him, and he has a record contract, please get in touch with me and I will gladly assist in creating an article that will be robust enough to remain on Wikipedia.

To remove all record of Jayen Varma from Wikipedia you would need to apply for Wikipedia:Oversight. The reasons for removing all records are given on that page, but I don't see that they would apply in this case. There is no "non-public personal information", no "potentially libelous information", and no "copyright infringement" that I can see. However, if you feel the article does meet the rules on that page, you need to read Wikipedia:Requests for oversight and make the request by email. Keep well. SilkTork *^YES! 12:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• This was my request I requested you to remove only the colored box containing the details This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference. alongwith the liks to the history. Thank for being good again in your words--Musicindia1 (talk) 12:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I cannot do as you request - I do not have the rights. You need to make an email request as explained at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. Good luck. SilkTork *^YES! 13:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you. for all the help.Regards--Musicindia1 (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. I will remove User:Musicindia1/Jayen Varma from your userspace for now. Get in touch with me when Jayen Varma gets a recording contract and there are some reviews and interviews in the music press, and I will help you build the article. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 19:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• At he same time I hope I can approach some other admins(like you had told me before. Thank you.--Musicindia1 (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You can contact one of these admins: Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. Good luck. SilkTork *^YES! 10:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Issue 2 (January 2010) Previous issue | Next issue

Content

I think that essay has been around a good while, and is respected enough to possibly be made into a guideline, and I would support such a proposal; however, I restored the tag to simply say essay, as I couldn't see any discussion on the proposal, nor any attempt to draft such a proposal and get support. When an essay has been proposed as a guideline and then doesn't get consensus it may be tagged as {{Failed}}, which then confuses people who wonder if the essay's contents are no longer valid. I have known edit wars over the placing and removing of {{Failed}} after a proposal for guideline didn't get support. If you wish to put together a proposal to upgrade the essays status to guideline, let me know and I'll support it. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 12:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I am in favor of limiting the {{failed}} template to project pages mostly in which consensus widely opposes the proposal. It ends up on lots of proposals that simply have gotten no comment over a period of several months, and I oppose that because there is no deadline, and finding people to comment is not easy. Sebwite (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally I'm not in favour of using {{failed}} at all. It feels like a punishment for those who dared to attempt to improve Wikipedia, and it's entirely inappropriate to slap it on a long-standing essay. But some people use it, and will edit war with those who remove it. Sad, but true. SilkTork *^YES! 17:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, if you feel that way, you can propose it under TfD. Maybe not for deletion, but to discuss its uses. Sebwite (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a good point! I'll put it on my list of things to do. SilkTork *^YES! 17:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)