Jump to content

User talk:Sjb72/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Luke Heron

Stephen -

I saw your note - I am happy to help the author. This is just not a good subject to work on. The subject is a non-notable self-promoter and the article should be deleted. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 04:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I must admit, my gut feeling is that the article will be deleted (but I am happy to be proved wrong). However, I must thank you for offering your help to Myra; it is clear that she wants to help Wikipedia, and having experienced editors like your good self channeling her efforts in the right direction can only be for the best. Thank you! Stephen! Coming... 11:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

I believe I found a sockpuppet of Trans4mers. Yashman21 has been making very similar edits to infoboxes. BOVINEBOY2008 12:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Only just seen this, and I'm afraid (short of blocking the user once he/she has been sufficiently warned), that's all I can do. I have no experience in dealing with sockpuppets, so your best bet is to report the user(s) at WP:SPI. As a general rule, it is always best to make reports on an administrator's notice board rather than on an individual admin's talk page. Some admin (like me) aren't in a position where they can be on all the time, so notifications like this can go un-noticed for a while. And even if I did see this notice immediately, not having any experience in socks, I would not be much use anyway. Not that many admins are well-versed in sock-puppetry, but those that do will look at the sock puppet alert board.
If in doubt, go to WP:ANI where there is a list of places you can file reports. And if you can't find a suitable noticeboard, file it on WP:ANI; I think admins would rather incidents get reported in the wrong place (where they will point out wher to file such reports in future) than not report it at all. Sorry I can't be any more help. Stephen! Coming... 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Having just written this, and then gone to the SPI page to see if anyone else has reported it, I see that you already have! LOL! Stephen! Coming... 15:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Stephen. After seeing the edits, I found s/he had already been sockpuppeting for a while. Anyway, thanks for your help! BOVINEBOY2008 16:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 13:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Parralox question

Why was Parralox removed? We have articles and been featured on Perez Hilton's website, Popjustice.com, Electroqueer UK, Electronically Yours UK, signed to German Label Conzoom, have 4 official releases with another 6 planned over the next 6 months. We have toured internationally! Our music has been featured in several episodes of the "Life After Lisa" webseries based in Baltimore, USA. Our Electricity CD was #1 best seller in UK MSN Charts in September 2008. The articles were all cited to the best of my ability, yet some one considered this vandalism of wikipedia and the page was removed! There are other bands with far less credentials on Wikipedia, yet they still remain. Is this some sort of prejudice against electronic music, or because I'm Jewish? Please explain. I have been accused of Vandalising wikipedia - I find this to be a very extreme accusation! www.myspace.com/parralox www.parralox.de

Johnvonahlen (talk) 09:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. First of all, please can I suggest that if you have a question about why something was removed, by spouting claims of prejudice and the like is not going to win you any friends. Please have a read of WP:CIVIL and Assume Good Faith.
I am not familiar with this particular article; I have had a look at the old pages, and I can see that it was deleted as a result of a deletion discussion, which can be viewed here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parralox. If there is another page associated with it (or maybe Parralox spelt slightly differently) that I deleted, could you please indicate what one it is?
If you firmly believe that the page should be restored, the correct route to take is to ask for a deletion review. You can find out about how to do that by reading this article: WP:DRV. If the band meets the requirements of BAND, then it will be restored. However, I see that you are in this band, which indicates a conflict of interest. I recommend having a read of WP:MFA#things to avoid which recommends why you should not write an article about your band.
If you require any more assistance, please feel free to ask. Stephen! Coming... 11:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I have had a look at your talk page, and I cannot see any sign on there that you have been accused of vandalism, either recently or in the past. The only message I can see on there (aside from the two "talkback" notices) is a notification that Parralox was being nominated for deletion. Stephen! Coming... 15:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Really21:Thanks

Thanks for reminding me. I do like good messages.Really21 (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Really21

No worries, glad to be of service. Stephen! Coming... 11:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Black Cat's Maro

My thanks to you for helping to save this redirect from the onslaught of deletions by ascertaining its' notability. I believe at the time, the Apostles of the stars were a section and while the members were listed in bold, my efforts to get them more specific sub-headings for each of the characters for more easier redirecting was denied. Thanks for updating it, it's nice to come back and see that a more organized sense has prevailed at the Black Cat character list and that notable characters have received mention. It is unfortunate that in some cases parentheses must be used, but when a person or character does not have a surname then there's no alternative but to use them to disambiguate, yes? Tyciol (talk) 13:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 06:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Re from AIAV

Re from your comment here:

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=next&oldid=307329952

What constitutes vandalism (i.e. the fact that he removed the tags and removed the redirect multiple times not constitutive of vandalism)? I stopped watching the pages so he probably already changed the articles to his liking (i.e. made 2 articles that are the same and removed all the needed tags which is incorrect). Furthermore he clearly is using multiple accounts but he is doing so not because he got banned so I am not sure if it deemed as reportable. Anyway if there is no where else to report the incident then so be it, I just wont be spending any more time worrying over the article and I thought my best bet was to get administrative attention to it. Cheers. Calaka (talk) 10:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

There are several places to report the user's actions to; it is unfortunate that WP:AIV was not the place. AIV is for persistant vandals and spammers who are active and have been sufficiently warned. The edits you describe are edit warring (constant reverting of edits) which whilst disruptive is not strictly speaking vandalism. In cases where there is a dispute over content (which includes removing tags, redirects, etc) you need WP:ANEW. For suspected sockpuppets, you need WP:SPI. If you suspect conflict of interest, you need WP:COI/N
In an ideal world, all wiki administrators will be experts in all fields of wiki admin work. However, you find that admins will tend to specialise in one or two areas, and concentrate their efforts there, and direct people to the places where other admin experts will hang out. I could not look at the articles and determine which is the "right" version in an edit war. Likewise I do not have the checkuser tools to determine sockpuppetry. This is why I pointed you to the area I thought it was best reported. At the top of all these pages (including the AIV page) there is a box which contains all the useful boards for reporting to the right people. Stephen! Coming... 11:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the very good reply. It is much appreciated! Keep up the great work! :) Calaka (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
No worries. And thanks for your work too! Stephen! Coming... 15:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Chess.com

Hi Stephen

Thanks for the message. I only made a change to the Chess.com article - it was not one that I submitted. I can try to help clean it up. I'll keep a note of any references that I come across.

Thanks! P&BPixieandbenji (talk) 11:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, my mistake. Have fun with your editing! Stephen! Coming... 11:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

My Contributions

Excuse me, Mr. Stephen. I am sorry for vandalizing pages of List of pages broadcast by Cartoon Network, Tamera Mowry, Tia Mowry, list of TV ratings. I will never do it again! I promise! Please forgive me! Don't worry! I don't want my edit history to be revealed! I don't want to see it anymore! I will follow Wikipedia's directions! Ok?

User talk:216.164.36.110

Let's hope so. Stephen! Coming... 15:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

My Contributions

Besides, Mr. Stephen, I will respect the authorities of this website. I don't want people to see my edit history! All right? I want the edit history/vandalism/contributing pages gone! Dead! Empty! Please? I don't want RCN Corporation to look for vandalism, the negative contribution to the Mowrys and Cartoon Network. I don't want them to investigate this! I want to be good, Mr. Stephen!

User talk:216.164.36.110 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lev369 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Concern

Mr. Stephen, I don't mean to bother you again but I needed to tell you that I was the same guy who signed in a new account after a week of vandalizing pages. I like to not see my edit history page again and I want it gone never to be seen again. Are you all right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lev369 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi! It is possible for administrators to delete parts of the page history, but this is only generally done when personal information or libellous material has been given out (see WP:SELDEL). We generally don't do it for general vandalism, part of the process involves deleting the entire article and doing just a partial restoration. Even if it is deleted from page history, administrators would still be able to see that in the section "Deleted Contributions", which isn't visible to non-admin.
However, I shouldn't worry; one of the Tenets of Wikipedia is assume good faith, so if your edits are sound and not vandalism, then the chances are no one will go looking to see what you did in the past. Also, the edit history you are worried about is under an IP address; if you look at your contribution history, you will only see the edits you did since you created your account, and this will continue to be the case as long as you are logged in. Yes, an administrator could find out what you did in the past if they do a bit of digging, but if your contributions are fine from here on, then there will be no cause for them to do so, so you can consider yourself starting with a clean slate. Happy editing!!! Stephen! Coming... 07:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Another Concern

Mr. Stephen, prior to editing as Lev369, I vandalized pages of Tia, Tamera, TV ratings, Cartoon Network, without a user name. Please tell the administrators at RCN Corp. AND Wikipedia I'm sorry and that I learned my lesson. Please! I'm asking and begging you! May God bless you! Please delete my past week negative vandalism contributions immediately! God bless you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lev369 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

As an administrator, I accept you apologies. As for me apologising on your behalf to RCN Corp administrators, that is really something only you can do. As I explained above, your old edits are history, and provided that you don't vandalise any more, that is not something that is likely to cause you any problems. There really is no ned to keep apologising. Just put it all behind you and move on. Stephen! Coming... 12:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Respect

All right then, Mr. Stephen! I understand. Take care of yourself, your family, and friends, and each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lev369 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 06:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Generally, I'm concerned.....

...about 202.47.69.212. I see that he is making abusive behaviour on our talk pages here, but really, when he puts that unsourced material into Kidzania Jakarta about their security bracelets, I wouldn't think this as abusive behaviour. This is not WP:VANDALISM as I speak, but more of an unsourced material only. Please talk with the one that reverted his edits. Regards,--BoeingRuleOfThe9th-700 (talk) 11:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I have dropped a note on the editor's page about using edit summaries, and I have also dropped a note on the anon editor's page about their abusive behaviour. Where you think an editor did something wrong, like not using the correct edit summary, there is nothing wrong with you having a quick word with them; sometimes going directly to them rather than going via a third party is more effective, and less likely to annoy the editor. There is the risk that the editor could see that he is being "snitched" on, and get cross in the process. I'm not saying this is going to be the case here, but you might want to consider that should ever the need arise in the future. Stephen! Coming... 12:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, what about the Kidzania Jakarta edit? The one reverting it considered it as vandalism, however, as I have told him about the IP's innocence, it was just a simple mistake, rather than vandalizing the page.--BoeingRuleOfThe9th-700 (talk) 13:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't reverted the edit, as it is original research, and does not add anything of value to the article. As I said before, I did make a comment to the reverting editor about use of editing summaries. Whilst the summary may not have been the best, the text did need to be removed. Not all good faith edits should be kept. Stephen! Coming... 14:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know that. And according to the concern, the absence of any reference makes it as the only reason of why it had to be reverted. It's not vandalism, as you said.--BoeingRuleOfThe9th-700 (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like we are both in agreement then. So unless there is any other matter that I have missed out, I would say this is resolved. Stephen! Coming... 15:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Closed! Case is resolved!--BoeingRuleOfThe9th-700 (talk) 13:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Mediaoflpu

I ended up blocking them before you posted your last comment... I think that, it's not just about copyvios (the warnings were blanked even though they made one more edit afterwards), but this seemed like another educational institution trying to promote themselves yet again on WP; it also reflects in the name (i.e. PR of LPU). -- Mentifisto 09:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries; I thought it was a borderline, and decided to err on the side of caution. I agree with your assessment. Stephen! Coming... 11:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

My turn to give you a barnstar

The Working Man's Barnstar
For beating me on finishing that Kidzania Jakarta edit case BoeingRuleOfThe9th-700 (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Cool, thanks! Stephen! Coming... 16:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandal policy?

Continuous vandal attacks are subject to block. How about someone who contributes little but a lot of it is vandalism? Is doing it once a week subject to immunity? Yet others are blocked indefinitely for less serious offences if you watch WP:ANI. This is very strange. The vandalism policy should be clarified.

Perhaps a non-sense edit would result in no warning but a short block of maybe 12 hours or 24 at the most. Warnings take a lot of manpower. That's why al-Qaeda may win. One shoe bomber and that results in thousands of guards all checking shoes on millions of people.

Any policy ideas or changes? I saw your comment on AIV which prompted this message. Finland 203 (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

People who GAME the system (do a few bad edits, then stop for a period) are harder to spot, but will eventually get stopped. This is why it is important that if you are reporting someone you know to be a long-term vandal, you include the details on the AIV report, as this isn't always picked up by admins (we are only human, after all!). Unfortunately, long term sporadic abuse from IP addresses is less likely to be dealt with, as it may be a multitude of different users popping in briefly to edit. If you have any changes to suggest, by all means make them at WP:AN or on the WP:BLOCK talk page. Stephen! Coming... 08:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Stonebranch Page

What can I do to make sure the Stonebranch page does not get deleted?

secure files —Preceding unsigned comment added by Securefiles (talk • contribs) 16:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Have a read of WP:ARTSPAM and WP:NPOV. Also, avoid copying and pasting large chunks of text from websites: read WP:COPYVIO. By the way, your user name does look like a business name, in which case it might fall foul of our username policy (see WP:USERNAME) - if it does, you should consider getting a new username. Stephen! Coming... 16:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Resignation

Mr. Stephen, this is Lev369. I have decided to sign out and resign from my Wikipedia account.

~~Lev369~~ (About to quit), 04:41 P.M., September 4, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lev369 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh no. We've lost another customer (WJ32) :(--BoeingRuleOfThe9th-700 (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I know... how will we cope! Stephen! Coming... 16:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
It seems everyone's leaving Wikipedia. What made this a tradtion over the past 6 years? I'm really curious with the fact, since I saw the Missing Wikipedians list, which featured a list of Wikipedians that "checked-out" from Wikipedia, and when I saw the list, this happens every year! I couldn't believe this. I just couldn't. How would nice people like RickK leave Wikipedia for no logical reason? How would people that made unconstructive contributions be allowed to leave Wikipedia? Though that's happening, we've got to keep up, and prevent other users to leave. If we don't, I don't know what's gonna happen with Wikipedia over the next few years. --BoeingRuleOfThe9th-700 (talk) 12:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry about this particular case; he was originally an anon vandal, who then got an account. If you look at his contributions, you can see they are all on my talk page. Stephen! Coming... 11:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I see. But in accordance with WP:RTV, users who were vandals,or those who have been banned are usually not allowed to leave, so why is he allowed to leave?--BoeingRuleOfThe9th-700 (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
He's not leaving in that sense; he is just walking away from his account, never to log in again. Stephen! Coming... 13:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
So it's not WP:RTV, as a matter of these concerns. So unless you've got anything to say, I say that we're in an agreement then!--BoeingRuleOfThe9th-700 (talk) 03:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Why do I keep getting deleted (Stonebranch) when other companies are posting similiar entries

i.e. Sterling Commerce and Proginet. It doesn't seem fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Securefiles (talk • contribs) 18:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Not all companies that have articles actually deserve them; these are all eventually tracked down and put up for deletion. However, in the cases you gave here (especially in the case of Sterling Commerce) have cited numerous third party sources, and as such are notable. There are guidelines about what makes a company notable; you can read it here. Also, the articles are written with a neutral point of view, and not like an advert (although the Proginet article is a bit borderline).
If your article keeps getting deleted, write it in your user space and get it moved across when you are happy it is ready. Also, see about getting help from other editors at WikiProject Business, as they will be able to help you keep it neutral. Whilst you are on that page, have a look at some of the other articles that have been written by these editors. Some of them are now featured articles, and as such are the quality of article you should be aiming for (although that will take a lot of work to get to that stage!). Stephen! Coming... 09:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I have had another look at your article, and I can see that you have stated a small amount of notability (i.e. it is multinational), so it is no longer a candidate for speedy deletion. However, it might not meet notability, unless you can show independant third party sources. Please note that press releases, even if they are published in third party material does not count, and at least two of the sources you quote do read as press releases. Also note that although the article is no longer a candidate for speedy deletion, it could still be deleted by WP:PROD or WP:AFD.
One thing I should have checked with you before - are you connected with the company in question? If so you really do need to declare your connection, or else you may find all manner of problems occuring. If you are connected, it isn't a major issue, provided you are transparent about it. Have a read of WP:COI for more details. Stephen! Coming... 09:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Zeon Ltd

Stephen,

you have deleted my Zeon ltd page? I am the General Manage at Zeon and we own the rights to www.zeonltd.co.uk so could you explain why this has been deleted?

Thanks

Simon

simon_gilham@zeonltd.co.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.70.227.238 (talk) 06:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the page was a direct copy of the web site, and the Wikipedia copyright violation policy is very clear on that matter. If there is nothing on the page (or on the discussion page) that indicates that it has been posted with permission of the copyright holder, then it is to be deleted. However, even though you have indicated that you don't mind it being used, it will not be restored in its current form.
The problem is that the article reads as an advert, and as such it would be deleted as spam - pelase read the spam policy for more details. As there was no indication on the article about the company's notability (see WP:ORG, it would also be removed. Also, there is the matter of you writing an article about your own company; whilst this is not necessarily an issue, it isn't encouraged. If you are open and up front about your connection, then your edits can be critiqued accordingly. Please have a read of the conflict of interest policy.
I hope this answers your question. Stephen! Coming... 09:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Alternative account

Hi, StephenBuxton. I really need an alternative account right now. How can I assume administrators that I'm using the alternative account for proper use only?--BoeingRuleOfThe9th-700 (talk) 06:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Have a read of WP:SOCK#Legitimate uses of alternative accounts. Stephen! Coming... 08:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I just created one, and I have applied the rules to this issue. However, I'm yet to be clear about this. If I login to the alternate account, and edited Wikipedia without any purposes for vandalism with that user, will this also mean that I'm a sockpuppet?--BoeingRuleOfThe9th-700 (talk) 05:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That I'm not too sure about. You would be best asking at WP:AN. Stephen! Coming... 11:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hyperpotamus

Hi Stephen. You seem to have recently deleted an article on the artist Hyperpotamus. Would it be possible for you to undelete it? He is a Madrid-based artist, he is brilliant, I have bought his CD (which I now, like many, rarely do), and we have written about him in an alternative newsweekly I contribute to. I really think he belongs here.

Cheers, Tiffany

p.s. I could add source material if that would be helpful.

As the article stands at the moment, it isn't in any condition to be undeleted. However, I have copied the text, and created a sub-folder for you in your area so that you can work on it to your heart's content. When it has been fully sourced and notability has been established, give me a shout, and I'll see about moving it to main space.
The article can be found here: User:Catatoniatoday/Hyperpotamus. I would recommend that you have a read of WP:notability, WP:CITE and WP:BLP. If you have any questions, please ask! Stephen! Coming... 18:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

Switch to new user

Hi, Stephen. I'm announcing the retirement of my current account, because of the following reason: Switching to a new user I created just last week. Other reasons can be seen talk:RuleOfThe9th here.--BoeingRuleOfThe9th-700 (talk) 11:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Stephen! Coming... 11:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I have just seen the reason you gave (it did not show up on your original link above), and I am not happy with the accusations made. I have commented on your new talk page. Stephen! Coming... 16:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I had a WikiStress while typing on my user page regarding the issue, and I have decided to maintain my current account. However, use of the second account will remain active. In the meantime, I will take a WikiBreak.BoeingRuleOfThe9th-700 (talk) 10:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Interaction

My only thought regarding your deletion of what you considered to be a personal attack (I didn't read it) was that it would be really great if you could read up on reflexive pronouns and use them correctly. Ta. 120.152.109.20 (talk) 12:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL! I shall consider me self cautioned. Stephen! Coming... 12:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Departure notice

Stephen, this is me, RuleOfThe9th. I'm leaving Wikipedia, can you delete my user pages? Thanks,--BoeingRuleOfThe9th-700 (talk) 09:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like your user page has already been deleted, but your talk page deletion has been turned down. I recommend that you use WP:MFD for getting that deleted. However, it is blanked. I have deleted User:RuleOfThe9th/Userboxes/Kidzania for you. Stephen! Coming... 15:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.--7107delicious (talk) 13:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

AIV

I've yet to figure out how SPI is supposed to work. AIV and ANI are my only options because of the confusing fusion of the former WP:SPP and WP:RFCU processes (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#KamenRiderDouble).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, I have yet to even work out how to spot a sock, let alone report it! As for dealing with them... let's just say I am happy to leave it to those who know what they are doing. Stephen! Coming... 09:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Another barnstar....

The Anti-Flame Barnstar
Stayed cool while resolving that incident invloving you and Mikhailov Kusserow. I apologize, as I have accused you improperly. 7107delicious (talk) 11:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Apology accepted, and thank you. Stephen! Coming...

Your Facebook page.

Which one is it? I searched for you on Facebook and resulted with four Stephen Buxtons. Which one is it? The search returned five results. Which one is it, then?--7107delicious (talk) 11:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Your IP address

I've seen the talk page of the address you told me on your user page, and it looks like someone has been using it for disruptive edits. Who could have done it? You?--7107delicious (talk) 11:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Might be someone at work. I put it on there, as I was curious to see if anyone else at work used Wikipedia. Stephen! Coming... 11:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it is. Sometimes, an anon editor may edit Wikipedia with an IP address, but visually, their edits are nothing but insipid and blatant comments of someone or something. This happens in educational institutions and some large companies.--7107delicious (talk) 10:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coochie rolls

FYI, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coochie rolls. Cunard (talk) 08:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. Stephen! Coming... 11:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Atlas888

You replied Content dispute. Consider dispute resolution. Last edit was sourced, so hard to describe as BLP violation. Stephen! Coming... 15:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
FYI, my comment to your reply. The latest change was sourced to a blog (not WP:RS) (also note I was unable to open the referenced URL), and contained materiel saying she (being Jewish) has stated that she considers "Jews racist" (not WP:BLP, clearly). Prior edits were unsourced and appeared to be deliberate errors. I discovered only through vandalism patrolling - I am not an editor of that article and my only interest in its content is that it be well sourced and meet guidelines. --4wajzkd02 (talk)
In BLP cases, it is always best to err on the side of caution and revert; I have no problems with your approach there. When I looked at the URL for that last edit, it did appear to be a bit less a blog and more a news article. However, I accept that anyone with good HTML editing skills can make things look more authorative, and I might have been erring on the side of caution a bit too much the other way.
What I would suggest is that if someone adds a reference and you can't view it, it is hard to know that it is vandalism. If you are in doubt as to the validity of the source, by all means revert it, but explain your reasoning why on the talk page. In an ideal world, someone else will check, the original editor can state their case, and this would encourage discussion and hopefully move to resolution before reaching content dispute. I appreciate that this does not always happen, but one can at least try! LOL! Stephen! Coming... 09:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

The departure of a great Wikipedian happened today

Hi! :( Just would like to inform you that we have lost one of our greatest editors, Neurolysis. Have you met him/her before? He left a {{Retired}} template on his talk page.--Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 10:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you care to any of the victims of the Padang Quake?

If you do, tell me of anything you've donated to the victims, or to any Padang Wikipedian, which also seems to be a victim of the disaster.--Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 10:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I'm sure your motives are completely above board, please can I draw your attention to two policies - namely WP:CANVAS and WP:SPAM. Dropping notes on people's talk pages about donating to charity is not going to win you any friends, and at worse, may result in blocks. Also, who I choose to donate to or not is entirely my affair and no one elses. Stephen! Coming... 11:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, according to these two links, not only a donation, a PM is also something adhering to WP:SPAM. Asking personal questions can result in WP:SPAM as well, if the question adheres to games, anything outside Wikipedia. Whoa, I think I'm getting that Uw-spam4im warning. I asked something about your Facebook page. Warn me if necessary.--Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 11:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to put a formal warning in, just consider yourself a bit wiser now, and try to stick to Wikipedia related articles.
On a completely unrelated note, could you vary the number of colons (::) you put at the start of a line when replying? It makes it easier to follow threads. The usual method is the first person to reply would use one colon, the second two colons, the third three colons, and so on. If it gets indented too much, then someone usually starts afresh with "(outdent)" at the start of their text. Thanks. Stephen! Coming... 11:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

Re: CSD Declined

With that CSD thing, it was an accident - I was looking through them but I accidentally pressed the OK button. Sorry, hope you were listening! RoryReloaded 11:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! RoryReloaded 11:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

Here for a permission for an alternative account

Hi! I was wondering, if I can make a secondary account. Unlike previously, where I converted my current user from an alternative into a main account after having to switch (with the last long lines of "the incident"), I would like to secure my current account on two computers:

1)My home computer


2) HIGH SCHOOL INDONESIA

for the following reasons: Security of account. Warm regards,--One moment, Reciever | Thank you for your instructions. 13:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

That probably will be ok - have a read of WP:SOCK#LEGIT, where it suggests naming conventions for your alternative account. There is a recommendation that you also notify a WP:CHECKUSER if you think that your account could come under scrutiny. I would also suggest you make sure that both accounts have separate passwords with a high strength - have a read of the password strength article. Also, when using your alternative account, make sure that cookies are disabled, and/or that it does not remember your password details. Stephen! Coming... 10:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

I-am-the-shit-ism

Hello-

I saw that my post was very quickly deleted while I was adding additional references and adding the hangon to the page. This is a commonly used slang term and description in the automotive modification world (you will see that my examples are directly from that area, in which I currently work).

Please allow me to complete the posting by putting it back up for 30 minutes. If at that time your criteria has not been met then you are welcome to take it back down without my protest.

Thanks, Gabe

I would suggest that rather than write it in the main space, create it on your user page. The Article Wizard has that option. Once it is fully sourced and written, it can be moved into the main page. Stephen! Coming... 17:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

Rollback (TW)

Hey, how's it going? Doin' fine here at Wiki, fighting vandalism? Well, it was just a matter of time that I asked you about my rollback feature on Twinkle. Will this feature be revoked from a user if even a single rollback is improper?----Boeing7107isdelicious|Sprich mit meine Piloten 10:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The occasional infrequent error probably wouldn't cause any issues, but repeated instances are likely to get it revoked. I've accidentally used rollback, when I wasn't even intending to revert an edit. In that instance, I immediately reverted, and dropped an apology on the user's talk page. Stephen! Coming... 12:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I actually put some small notices while rollbacking. I am not fighting vandalism by much, but I did look for some disruptive edits ready to be rollbacked.

Back to the topic. The notices state that if this rollback was done in error, I apologize. Sometimes, I had to rollback contents that are originally researched.----Boeing7107isdelicious|Sprich mit meine Piloten 13:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking rollback (the function described on WP:ROLLBACK), undoing the edit, or is it some function within Twinkle? If Twinkle, then you had best ask a user who has that; I don't have that function. If you are using WP:ROLLBACK on non-vandalism edits, then you should stop immeditately; that function should never be used on non-vandal edits. I think the main reason for that is because the edit summary is automatically filled in for you, and does not give you the opportunity to put your own edit summary. Stephen! Coming... 16:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Twinkle.--Boeing7107isdelicious|Sprich mit meine Piloten 12:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: the quiz you left me

Where should I answer your questions? Here, or on my talk page?

On another note, responding to your quiz will take two days. My laptop will not recieve internet connections momentarily, which will disrupt my WikiWork. Schones,----Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN 10:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

If you could put your answers on your talk page, that would be great. You don't have to do them all in one go, and you can answer them in any order you like. Stephen! Coming... 12:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Alright! I'll answer them.----Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN 06:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

User:7107delicious

You seem to be trying to nudge 7107delicious in the right direction, so I'll leave you these to deal with:

  1. Despite the previous warnings, they posted "clerk" questions at WP:CHU (see discussion here)
  2. left a warning about not signing comments with a title of "December 2002" (and the warning itself seems spurious)
  3. warned an editor who hasn't edited since 2007 about their username
  4. warned an editor who has been here since 2005 about their username

Apparently they are blocked on their home wiki already... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for pointing those out; I agree that his edits are getting odder and odder, and whilst I will try and get him straight, I'm not sure how effective I will be. Hopefully the quizzes (this, and future ones) will help. BTW, the last link about being blocked on their home wiki actually goes to the "December 2002" post you previously mentioned. Is that correct? Stephen! Coming... 16:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, sloppy cutting and pasting. I fixed the link. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Cheers. I'll see what I can do. Stephen! Coming... 17:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I've posted a set of voluntary restrictions that should keep him out of immediate trouble whilst I help him understand wiki policy. I have made it clear to him that if he follows the restrictions, I will help him, but if he doesn't, he is on his own. I have also pointed out to him that if he carries on the way he is, he is likely to receive a ban or a block. Hopefully that will be the wake up call he needs to realise that his editing is a huge cause for concern. Stephen! Coming... 18:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Stephen. That seems like a reasonable and good faith approach. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I have created the solemn application on my talk page. However, you do realize that "December 2002" was caused by a date error on my brother's computer. Other than my laptop, I used that for editing. I am currently editing Wikipedia sporadically, under the grounds that I lack understanding of the Wikipedian policies and guidelines.----Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN 02:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Additionally, you can apply this at WP:ANI if you could. You can always open another discussion (remember the seeking attention thread?), and simply state my lack of understanding, per above.----Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN 02:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's a barnstar you deserved

The Resilient Barnstar
Good work, remained disciplinary, but threw absolutely no temper on reminding so. --Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN 13:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi!

While you are offline, you told me that I was supposed to stay away from most talk pages unless it is a Wiki-related issue. Well then, what about a Deo Volente, and a test at the sandbox?----Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN 02:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll clarify the restrictions on the mentor page. Stephen! Coming... 10:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

Jorge Cerdán Lara

I was just investigating this article which you deleted. According to the Adolfo Ruiz Cortines article, he was a governor of Veracruz, Mexico (i.e. a State Governor). Thus he would seem to be sufficiently notable to sustain an article. I fully agree that the article needed wikifying and referencing, but I don't think it should have been deleted simply because its creator is now indeffed for vandalism. Would you consider restoring the article and tagging it with the necessary tags, and maybe notifying WP:MX so that their members can attend to the issues? Mjroots (talk) 14:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I was going to say no, but it's Friday, so I'm in a good mood ;-) Stephen! Coming... 14:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I've restored the talk page, and added to the comment at WP:MX. Looking at the article, it may well be a hoax, but let's give WP:MX members time to rewrite the article before going any further. If there's no improvement in a reasonable timespan then I'll not object to a speedy or afd nomination. Mjroots (talk) 14:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Cheers - I forgot about the talk page! Stephen! Coming... 14:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

AIV - 96.237.134.44

I noticed that you this AIV report as stale. The IP is back on the talk page, posting essay and forum type posts. Would you mind reviewing this again? Thanks! Ravensfire (talk) 17:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You really need to go to WP:DR (or WP:3RR if they kep reinserting the same material). I haven't got the admin experience in such matters to be able to be able to deal with it appropriately. To be honest, it shouldn't have been reported to WP:AIV in the first place, as the edits were not vandalism or spamming. Stephen! Coming... 17:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Gotcha - thanks for the response! Ravensfire (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

User:7107delicious

Thanks for letting me know you are mentoring him / keeping him out of trouble. That puts my concerns at ease, i will happily leave him in your very capable hands. Good Luck ZooPro 22:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The Guidance Barnstar
I award you this Barnstar of Guidance because you have the patience of Jimbo, that is far more patience then i could ever hope to have. I wish you good luck in your mentoring. ZooPro 03:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

As per User:7107delicious comments on his own talk page i have given him a final warning for personal attacks. I will apologize to you as i can see how hard you are working to ensure he turns out to be a good editor. I will no longer respond to this user and as such do not want anything more to do with them. I will let you get back to trying to help him. ZooPro 04:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The thing I posted on my talk page was rather of a personal question. However, you do realize that sometimes, I post in a rather rough tone. Note this: How many personal attacks have I created? Let Stephen answer this. This is not a threat.----Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN 04:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
7107delicious, it is your tone that you need to be careful with. Bear in mind that with text, sarcasm, irony, or anything else that would indicate that you are not serious does not come across. Also, getting defensive is not going to help. The easiest way to diffuse a situation is to apologise if any any unintended offence was taken. Stephen! Coming... 10:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Quiz

Since you left me a quiz on the mentor's page, I think it's about time that the mentor gets "mentored", by asking you a simple question:

An editor's edit count suggested that he/she is making edits on user talks completely unrelated to Wikipedia. What do you do?

If you do not understand the question I've posted, ask me to clarify the question. Schönes,----Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN 02:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

What I would do is look and see if the user has made useful contributions, or is solely using Wikipedia as an alternative to a social networking site. Depending on what I found, I may give a formal warning, or just a gentle nudge in the right direction. In your case, I have seen someone who wants to improve Wikipedia, particulalry on the Indonesian articles, but doesn't understand (yet) all the policies. I also saw that you were getting people annoyed just by simple mistakes and misunderstandings, which is why I stepped in and offered to help. Stephen! Coming... 10:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

Notifying of speedy deletions

Yeah, I forgot about it. Sorry about that and thanks. --  Θakster   17:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Stephen! Coming... 17:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPA and apology note on User:ZooPro's talk page

I've read the guidelines, and now I understand the simple principles of talking on someone's talkpage.

As you are currently offline, and that I have decided to step back into Wiki and mentoring, I would like to let you know that I left a personal apology regarding the incident. However, I will not be online for at the latest until December 6,2009 and at the earliest, November 30, 2009. Cheers,----Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN 07:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, and that's good for posting the apology. Let me know when you're back, and we can continue with your mentoring. Stephen! Coming... 10:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

ARC

I archived your talkpage, thanks to the link you gave me there. I might consider rewarding you another barnstar! Cheers,----Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN 07:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I have undone the archiving, and deleted that archive page. Please do not edit other people's talk pages in this manner. I have a perfectly good archive-bot that comes along and archives things for me. I know you mean well, and I am willing to put your action down to over-eagerness to do good. However, others may not look upon your actions so kindly.
Also, I would stop giving out barnstars to every little action. Again, I know you mean well, but giving out barnstars to every little action is partly why I suspect some people are viewing as you treating Wikipedia as a social networking site. Whilst Barnstar recognition is nice, I would rather you concentrate on your mentor exercises than shopping for giving out awards. Stephen! Coming... 10:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I was just practising to archive a page though..and I'm back.----Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN 05:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
And now that you have read WP:TALK and WP:TPO, do you understand why I reverted your edits?
Where is your signature, Stephen?

I think I understand why you reverted the archiving. Misinterpertation.--Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN 01:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

More a case of this is my talk page, and I have things set up to run it the way I wish it. Other peoples' talk pages are not places for you to practice things. Stephen! Coming... 12:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Opinion or Advice About New (and existing) Article

Hello, Sjb72. You have new messages at Yunchie's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for the advice about the above template.

Since you have been so helpful, I would appreciate your opinion or advice about a couple of article issues that are in front of me.

One involves a branch of my One Potato, Two Potato project. Producer/actor, Sam Weston's link leads to a redirect to an article about Anthony Spinelli. I inserted the redirect after I discovered that the two are the same person. It is unclear to me at this point when and for what reasons he used either pseudonym. It seems that Spinelli is the more used, as he has two children with that surname. It appears that at some point after his early work in One Potato, Two Potato, he found success in the adult film industry, as a director and producer. In fact, it seems that he is somewhat 'legendary' in those circles.

My question is two-fold. First, I would think that it is better to broaden the scope of his article to include more of his career, leaving the 'pornographic' aspects as a significant portion of it. (i.e. 'Early Work' & 'Success in the Adult Genre'). Secondly, unless it is a matter of style, I am inclined to prefer that the reference to the genre of work be 'Adult' rather than 'Pornographic'.

Next, I wonder about the inclusion of his filmography, and the Wiki standards for filmography inclusions. It seems a little redundant to include it when it is sourced to imdb. From what I have seen, there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus, with some prominent actors not having any filmography, and others with selective or complete listings.

And finally, on a completely different note, I am interested in creating a new article about an author. I have already edited an article, Pop Chalee, basically cleaning up the third reference, and creating a red link for Sally Eauclaire. Sally is the author of several books about photography. Her work on these books can be considered to be an important contribution to the acceptance of photography as fine art in the 1970's & 80's. From that, I would expect that she would be considered 'notable'. (or at least there would be a good argument in favor). I know Sally from our days as newspaper editors in the 70's, but have not been in contact for over 25 years. Therefore, I am not really sure how to proceed, other than to create a basic article around her publications, one of which probably deserves an article of its own.

Again, thank you very much. Any advice will be greatly appreciated. Yunchie (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I'll advise as best as I can, but I should point out that I have limited experience as an editor on Wikipedia, preferring instead to do anti-vandal work and article deletion. I'll do my best to point you to areas where people with more experience will be able to help you.
First off, if you look on the talk page to Anthony Spinelli, you will see that it falls under the scope of the Pornography Portal. If you go there, you should be able to see how they prefer to refer to adult film entertainers (I have no idea). If you mention on the project talk page that you are expanding the article, then you might be able to encourage others who are familiar with his work to come and help, or at the very least, offer a constructive critique.
As far as inclusion of filmography, I think it is helpful to include it. If you check out the Wikipedia Manual of Style, there should be something there about filmography.
Finally, it sounds like there is a case for Sally Eauclaire having an article. A couple of guidelines I would recommend you having a read of are Conflict of Interest and use of "peacock" terms. In the case of conflict of interest, I really don't think there is an issue here, but it would be helpful to declare on the talk page of the article you create that you did know her.
As far as Peacock terms are concerned, I would hazard a guess that (given your credentials as an editor above) you are not likely to use such terms in your article. However, it is all to easy to let things slip into an article. As it states in the guidelines, don't say that someone is important, demonstrate why they are important, and let the facts speak for themselves.
There seems to be a project for practically every hobby, career, location, et cetera on Wikipedia, so it is likely that there is one for professional photography. I'll have a look and see if there is. In which case, you should be able to get the article on Sally included in it, and you might even get people to help expand on it.
Something else you might wish to consider - after you have added references to the new article, if there is something in there of note about Sally, some interesting little tidbit, you could see about submitting it to the Did you know section on the Main Page. That would really encourage people to read it. Stephen! Coming... 20:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, the filmography information is on WP:WORKS, and there are a number of projects on photography: Portal:Photography. Not sure which project Sally would be included. If she no longer does photography, then history of photography might be the place to include her (people like the late Patrick Lichfield is included in this project). Stephen! Coming... 21:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks (again) for the good advice. You are correct, conflict of interest is not an issue, nor would it be even if not so much time had passed. Regarding the 'Peacock' term of 'important', my goal was to sell you on the possibility of notability. When I was writing it, I recalled trying to decide on its use, as I recall seeing a reference to it at some point (years ago). I am in complete agreement with the example that you cite. Yunchie (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Article Improvement ??

I'd appreciate your opinion. I've expanded the article about Michael Shane. All of the information is based on, and basically re-written from his obituary, which I have referenced. I am working on getting The New Yorker reference, which might add some facts, but I am wondering what the best tactic is to reference what I have. At its most basic level, I figured that the obituary provides a reference to the date of death, so that is where I placed it. However, the information that I gleaned from it seems to border on 'original research' without being specifically referenced. Perhaps I just don't understand yet, the concept of writing/editing in an encyclopedic manner? For example, if I were to add details from another source, how would that information be referenced if it is woven into the article? Yunchie (talk) 15:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how to best answer this. My thoughts here are that if you are repeating information from the obituary, then that can be classed as your source, and it is therefore not original research. However, if you are making assumptions from what is written in the obituary, then that can be classed as original research. Unfortunately (as I have found elsewhere) that if something you know is true (because you have spoken to the person concerned) but cannot find any sources to back it up, that is classed as original research (not sure that applies to you, but I thought I would mention it). Have a read of the policy of WP:OR if you haven't already done so.
Something else you should be aware of is the dangers of relying too much on one source - you may inadvertantly start infringing on copyright. Again, because of your experience, I would hazard a guess that you know about such matters, but it would be remiss of me if I didn't at least remind you.
As far as the article is concerned, it is coming along nicely. If you can add a reference to the bit about how he got his part in the film (even if it is the obit), then I would say that would be a very good candidate for WP:DYK. Stephen! Coming... 16:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Your reply sort of answers my question, but also sort of, does not. In this case, so far, I have only the one valid source, the obituary, which I would classify as either a secondary or tertiary source, as it is certainly more than one level removed from the fact. i.e. the reporter/writer got the facts from someone that knew the subject. My question was how do I reference the facts that are gained from the source, when they may be spread, or woven into the article with facts from another source? It doesn't seem realistic to note each instance.
In this case of only one source so far, I can see how it can be a potential infringement. There are only so many ways to re-write the small amount of facts from the obit, so it could easily be argued to be a 'derivative work', and thus an infringement. If however, the resulting article was created from numerous sources, it would be far more difficult to define the derivation. However, keeping in the spirit of repeating sources, it is really impossible to avoid a derivative infringement, because as soon as I begin to include my own interpretation of the facts, it becomes 'original research'.
Also, thank you for the title correction on the page. I thought about that at the time, but without studying the style, and my long absence from any sort of editing, I guess I reverted to what I am used to, the NY Times.
Regarding your rearranging of the filmography table, I have had a discussion with another editor about the Wiki standard for filmographies, and we seem to agree that it needs to be in a table format, however, I am not sure if it also needs to be separated between film and TV credits? Waiting for a response on that, but I will probably create the table shortly. Yunchie (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
With anything that gets cited, there will have been original research somewhere along the line. If you start quoting Darwin's Descent of Man, you will be quoting his original research. That is not a problem - in fact that is exactly what Wikipedia is all about. We are reporting on someone else's research that was written up elsewhere, and citing where it came from. So quoting events detailed in an obituary is not a problem.
A lot of what is in Wikipedia comes from obituaries... for example, look on the article about the film Jaws, and see what was cited for the explanation as to why John Williams chose to use a tuba?
It is possible to use one source multiple times. I'm not quite sure how to do it, but it is something to do with giving the reference a name, and then using the named reference in all subsequent occasions. As you gather further information, you should be able to expand the sources, and even use multiple sources for one fact.
(found it - WP:REFNAME Stephen! Coming... 23:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC))
As for tables, I am not the best person to ask about construction! However, I would say that if his body of work is quite small, you could probably get away with one table for both TV and film appearances.
If you have a look online, there may be other reviews of One Potato which you could quote, or cite. Stephen! Coming... 23:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

A7

First of all, I speedy tag a lot of articles, by odds of probability, some are going to be rejected. But I see a number of problems with the A7 criteria/process, which unfortunately, never see the light of day due to the fact that I'm not an admin.

  1. A7 doesn't care whether the claim is valid. For example, a band could claim to have won an award that doesn't exist from an existing notable publication or they could have claimed to have won an award that they simply did not win. Basically, by lying and/or puffery a writer can exempt his article from A7.
  2. A7 doesn't care about the article. A number of these articles are largely incoherent, not formatted, and generally unreadable. They add nothing. Their existence on wikipedia harms its credibility and they should be gone as soon as possible. Just because a vague claim of notability is buried somewhere in that steaming pile of text doesn't mean that the article belongs.
  3. But what about PROD? What about AFD? PROD is a joke - the creator can remove it! What's the point of that? The only way to successfully PROD something is to "sneak" it in after you think the creator has forgotten about it. That's not in the spirit of what it was intended to do and really just a sign that nobody cares about the article. AFD was a good process when it was created but now it's overburdened. Many AFD's go a week without a comment. Many editors who do comment don't read the articles and simply parrot the editors ahead of them. Many AFD's last 10 days or more. In the meantime, the article is sitting out there getting indexed by the search engines and mirrored by the mirror sites. Not enough people participate in AFD because it's a tedious, semantically-challenged, and bureaucratic process. This is the 21st century. We can do better.

I will try to read articles more closely to find any verifiable claims of notability, but I think the powers that be need to seriously look at creating a more coherent process to quickly decide what gets through the door and what doesn't belong. -Drdisque (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that it is frustrating that articles that appear obvious candidates for deletion aren't deleted. It may appear obvious to us, but to the author(s), it might not be. So we use AFD/PROD to give people the opportunity to prove that the article should exist. In some cases though, they can. Had these been speedied, then the article would never have had a chance to prove itself. There is an excellent essay on this that you might want to read: WP:WIHSD. Another one is WP:A7M.
If there are particular areas of CSD that you would like to change, then start a discussion at WP:CSD. In the meantime, I appreciate you looking a bit closer at articles for their claims of credibilty. Thanks! Stephen! Coming... 10:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

Tongal

Would you please be so kind as to provide me with a copy of the Tongal article that you deleted earlier. I believe that it can be rewritten to adhere to the encyclopedia qualifications. Thank you for your time.

Fightonfortroy (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC) 12/1/09 fightonfortroy

 Done A few things that will need addressing; have a look on your talk page. Stephen! Coming... 08:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Consider this...

as a small note. I did file a RfR on WP:CHU, and I was wondering, if the restrictions say that I cannot request naming as well. You told me that I should stay away from WP:CHU. Sure, you were right about removing my note, but what about the RfR? - Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN 13:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem about you requesting a name change; only about you trying to carry out clerk actions. Stephen! Coming... 16:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Additional message.

I need some assistance in reviewing pages that somehow meets the criterion for deletion, either speedy or AfDed. As a user under mentorship, I need assistance. - Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Stephen! Coming... 16:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sjb72/Archive_3&oldid=1166522397"