User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk archives for User:Moonriddengirl (current talk page)
<< 1	< Archive 12	Archive 13	Archive 14 >	14 >>

Contents 1 "DJ Sassy" Page 2 Zodiac Pages 3 A Not So Silent Night 4 The COOKIE MONSTeR ate the cow 5 Re: Cheers! 6 Requesting an Editor Review 7 Thank you! 8 Rfb participation thanks 9 Thank you for the cookie! 10 Wind Dukes 11 Faulty G7 requests for articles 12 thank spam 13 TDR (journal), etc 14 Block 15 Peter Schumann 16 Ron Gatepain 17 Recalling deleted pages 18 Ron Gatepain 19 Thanks for the Tip 20 Please help sort this all out 20.1 The other issue with Grant 20.2 Speaking of Socking... 21 Ron Gatepain 2 22 Thanks! 23 Ron Gatepain 24 Thank you! 25 Thanks... 26 Vanquish Credit Repair Company Information 27 Notability guidelines for bands 28 Tiptoety 29 Yuri Nazarov 30 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:AllKillerNoFiller.jpg} 31 advice with CSD 32 Co-occurrence network article by newby Johnfravolda 33 danny welbeck

[edit] "DJ Sassy" Page

Hi,

I'm contacting you about the Wikipedia page for DJ Sassy, which has undergone a number of edits over the last few months and has also been the subject of a discussion about possible deletion of the page.

My name is James McLeod and am Sassy's website administrator and DJ booking manager and have carried out a number of the recent edits at her request, including the addition of her current website biography information. If you wish to confirm my identity, please feel free to email me at administrator@djsassy.com or bookings@djsassy.com

I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, but having read the comments about the edits and possible deletion of the DJ Sassy page, I am starting to understand the kind of editorial policies that are applied, and I appreciate that the style of some of the material that we submitted earlier this year may have been overly-subjective. We are quite prepared to limit the information that we put on the page to that which is more objective and more readily verifiable, and over the last five years or so I have accumulated an archive of press articles, internet pages, and other information that could be used on Sassy's page.

However, Sassy and I do have concerns about some of the information which was added by you to the page, and which I have therefore tried to remove. The first is the inclusion of Sassy's full name and the town in which she lives at the start of the article. I appreciate that this information can be found on the internet if you look for it, but we have strong reservations about making this so highly visible : a Google search for DJ Sassy lists the Wikipedia page right near the top, with her name and town clearly displayed in the search results. Sassy is in reality quite a private person, which is why there are relatively few press articles about her, and she has in the past been the victim of stalkers : this has been very distressing for her and is something that we are keen to avoid in the future. If you could agree to not include Sassy's full name in the Wikipedia page that would be a big help, and if we could also just say that she is from London that would be quite acceptable : Bromley is a London Borough after all, and she spent much of her childhood in South London.

We also have an issue with the Sol Campbell story. Although it is widely known that Sassy and Sol dated, the story presented in the newspaper was not accurate and so we do not believe that it should be included on the page. Indeed, the paper did subsequently print an apology over some of the points made.

I would be grateful for your feedback on the above. Our biggest concern is the identity issue, which Sassy is very concerned about, to the extent that she would consider asking for the DJ Sassy page to be deleted from Wikipedia. I very much hope that this will not be necessary and that we can work out a mutually acceptable way forward.

I look forward to hearing from you soon, and would appreciate it if you could not modify the page again until we have been able to discuss these issues further. Thanks.

AquilaUK (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

If she is such a "private person" maybe she does not need a promotional page on one of the world's top websites. And if she is such a celebrity, her real name should not be a secret. And someone who works for her should not be editing the article about her, because that is a conflict of interest. FairmontMN (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me to discuss this, Mr. McLeod. :) It's not necessary to confirm your identity, as we appreciate constructive feedback from anyone. Also, we do appreciate your announcing your affiliation, and we respect your concerns. We don't have any desire to cause injury to Sassy, but only to make sure that her article remains within guidelines. Identifying information about birthplace can, I feel, be comfortably removed according to our biographies of living persons guidelines for security concerns. We try to operate from a presumption of privacy, and it is neither widely disseminated nor related to her notability. You have requested that I not modify the page until we've discussed the issue further, and I would very much like to reach consensus with you on these issues, but I will make this change as I feel certain you will agree. :) If you object to the change, please let me know, and I will restore the current version until things are settled.

As far as her name is concerned, the editor who contributed just above my response does have a point about her celebrity status. Her last name is widely referenced in sources, including the IMDB. However, "Saskia" is not used as widely as "Sassy". Would changing the name to "Sassy Porter" to accord with the majority of sources be acceptable to you? If you feel that even the use of the more widely used name is dangerous, I will be glad to ask for additional feedback from the biographies of living persons noticeboard to see if other editors experienced in these kinds of concerns feel that we can appropriately remove it. If they do not or if you don't wish to go that route you may, as one contributor to the conflict of interest noticeboard suggested, wish to consider requesting deletion. (You seem very Wikipedia savvy, so I mean no insult in the offer, but if you choose to go that route and have difficulty formatting the request, I'd be happy to help.) I believe as I argued in the last deletion debate that she is notable enough for inclusion, but I do not believe that she is so notable that we should fight to retain the article over her objection. (Just to explain what I mean by that: obviously, there are some individuals who would rather not be on Wikipedia because the incidents that made them famous are not pleasing to them. This would be the case with highly publicized criminals, as a single exaggerated example.) I won't make that change until I've heard further from you about it.

It took me a moment to understand what you meant by the Sol Campbell story, as evidently you have been mistakenly removing the article above it, which is a review of the television show on which Sassy appeared. That interview was provided simply to substantiate that Sassy is notable enough for an article. It isn't necessarily related to her notability (since it says little about her career but only discusses her dating), and I have no concerns that its removal would unbalance the article. If you would like the 2004 interview (this one) removed, let me know and I will take it out.

Finally, I would like to note that I mean no disrespect in referring to her here as Sassy. :) I'm trying to address her as you (and she) evidently prefer here as we attempt to reach an understanding about the article's contents. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and feedback : all very useful. I must confess that I am still quite inexperienced with Wikipedia, and am certainly on a steep learning curve now, but it's all interesting stuff.

Thanks for changing Bromley, Kent to London. That is still accurate, but less specific, and also probably much more useful to an international audience.

I appreciate your comments with regard to Sassy's full name, and the uses of Saskia and Porter in various other sources. I will talk to Sassy about this, but I am almost certain that her preference would be to not include her real name (in any of its forms) in the Wikipedia page. In practice, everyone in her industry always refers to her as DJ Sassy (or DJ Sassy P or DJ Sassy Pandez), so I don't believe that including her real name adds any value. If you could possibly seek additional feedback on this from other editors I think that would be useful, and then we can decide on the best way forward from there.

As for the deletion of the references, I think that this is probably where my inexperience with Wikipedia shows itself. I understand the basic concept, but it gets complicated when one reference gets used multiple times on the page. My intention was to remove the reference for the Sol Campbell article, so if you could do that for me I would be grateful. I did also want to remove the reference for the Poor Little Rich Girls review, as I do have some alternative references for this which are much better, although I'll need to make sure that they are still valid first.

I do have various other references which can be used to support this page. Some are links to websites, others are scans or PDFs of articles and flyers from Sassy's DJ events, and some are video clips of her at work. I can make a selection of these available via links to her website if that would be helpful.

Assuming that we can resolve the remaining issues with Sassy's Wikipedia page, I would like to understand the best way to carry out future updates, given the perceived "conflict of interest" status with this page? I have read through the Conflict of Interest guidance page, and am not entirely clear on exactly how it would work for me. But we can discuss that more later.

For now, we need to sort out the issue of Sassy's real name being on the page. I'll speak to Sassy and if you can get some additional feedback from other editors then we'll see how we can move forward from there.

Thanks for your help. AquilaUK (talk) 19:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You may be new, but you're picking it up very quickly. :)

The reference is re-listed because it is re-used for information. This is a common practice. This particular article is more scrupulously referenced than many because of the previous questions about sourcing. At the time this article was considered for deletion, there were no sources at all, except to her website, which is not usable in large degree.(Sources connected to the subject can be used to add detail to an article, but not to verify notable material. This is the case, obviously, because we find it far easier to rely on sources not connected to the subject for unbiased and accurate information.) Everything that could not be substantiated had to be removed. This isn't because it's necessarily untrue, but simply because verifiability is core policy. Wikipedia's users must be able to locate the source.

Staying on the subject of sourcing, other references could be useful. You should probably read over the verifiability policy linked just above and the reliable sources guideline for the kind of thing Wikipedia looks for. Flyers are probably not usable, but websites are great, if they meet the standards. I know it can be very hard to find websites that do. I spent considerable time searching for those when I was investigating her article. It can also be hard to tell if they do. If you're not sure if something qualifies, please feel free to discuss it with me. If I don't know, either, I'll try to find out. :) Articles in print sources can be good also, but they are a little bit problematic for a couple of reasons. You presumably can't post them on her website for copyright concerns; we can't use them from her website for the same reason. :/ If they are published on her website with permission, which would eliminate the copyright concern, they would still not be regarded as being quite as reliable as they might be, since they would presumably have been cherry-picked by the subject and might not reflect a balanced view. I would feel comfortable using them to source biographical information, for instance, but not critical reception. (In other words, we could source her height from them, but we wouldn't necessarily note on their basis that she is considered "the best DJ ever", even if they said so, because these hand-picked sources might not reflect the majority view.) All that said, the publication information on them (or some of them, if there are many) can be added to a "further reading" section, which could be useful to readers who want to learn more about DJ Sassy.

In terms of sourcing currently present, I have removed the Sol Campbell article. As I said above, it is not connected with her notability. Wikipedia is not meant to be a collection of external links, anyway. We're more interested in sources and items that can give more depth of understanding to our readers about the notable aspects of the subject. I've also removed the review of the TV show, after some consideration. It is related to her celebrity, and we do, honestly, have to watch out for article subjects and those related to them attempting to control negative information in articles. However, it's a review, and there are no other reviews linked or listed in the article. As it stands, it's just straightforward biography. If the article contained a lot of promotional reviews, then this critical (frankly, downright nasty) piece might be necessary to maintain balance, but it's not. As I said at the COIN noticeboard, it was only included in the first place to help demonstrate that Sassy met the notability guidelines by being widely referenced in published sources.

I believe this leaves us with two questions: the issue of the name and the matter of how you may participate in the article in the future.

In terms of the former, I will wait to take action until you've spoken with her. It may make a difference to some responders to know whether she is herself requesting this. It may not. But it's better to have that information. I do want to make sure you realize, though, that even if other editors believe an exception to the style guide would be appropriate in this case, her name will still be readily accessible from the sources, including the IMDb, which is listed among the references and so is visible on the page. Her name is out there, whether an exception is made here or not. The only way to keep it off of Wikipedia, so long as the references include it, would be to seek deletion as I mentioned above. (And then, of course, it would work only if the article were deleted; this would be judged by the consensus of contributing editors.)

Finally, the way to request updates in the future is to note them on the article's talk page. I've taken on the responsibility of monitoring the article since I contributed to saving it from deletion, which means that I will most likely notice if you post on the talk page and help you if I am able. Other editors may also respond. (I'm not sure if you're aware, since you're new, that every article has a "talk" page just as every user does. If you haven't explored the tabs, you may not have discovered Talk:DJ Sassy.) As an editor with a conflict, you can place {{Request edit}} (complete with brackets) above your proposal, and an uninvolved editor will review your requests and implement them as long as they are within guideline. If you don't get a response within a relatively short time, you could wander over to the help desk and ask for assistance there. Be prepared, though! People will scrutinize your suggestions. :) Wikipedia is so heavily used for promotional purposes that its editors can be extremely paranoid about it. This is less likely to be a problem for you, as you are being so reasonable, but you might want to read over the essay suggesting how to comply with the COI guidelines for more ideas.

If you do decide to make any changes to the article yourself, please be sure that they are non-controversial. You're welcome to remove vandalism, for instance...and we do get a lot of it. The COI guidelines you've already read talk about the kinds of changes that are non-controversial. The vandalism policy I've linked may also help. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zodiac Pages

I understand, on re-reading, on the page you commented on was slightly notable.

However, you had no reason for two of the other Zodiac pages - they had no notablity at all. Rob Riv (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:CSD#A7 doesn't require notability. It requires a suggestion that the subjects may be important. If you feel the subjects are non-notable, you are welcome to consider other deletion processes, but the speedy deletion criterion is deliberately worded to prevent deletion of anything but the most clear-cut cases. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That states "to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable." They do not give a reasonable indicastion of why they might be notable though. Rob Riv (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. You're welcome to take them up to AfD, where they can be judged by the notability standards, which as the A7 criterion notes, is far more rigorous. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now that I've finished what I was working on above, I can address this more fully. Though you're logged in now, I presume that you're the IP editor who tagged The Zodiac, Zodiac (band) and Zodiac Records. I'm not sure from the above which page you agree was slightly notable, so I'll address briefly all three. Zodiac Records is not eligible for speedy deletion by WP:CSD#A7 because it is not an article about a company, but a list of companies with the name. While not technically a disambiguation page, it serves the same purpose, to help people quickly reference various entities of the same name. Even if it were an article on a company, and subject to A7, there is an assertion of importance in the phrase "featuring legendary punk pioneers". The Zodiac may or may not be notable, and I agree that the article is overly-promotional, but it claims that their album was "a cult classic". This is an assertion of importance. It also claims that one of its members was later member of a notable group, which is an assertion of notability. Zodiac (band) claims that the group "was extremely popular in the USSR". It also asserts four albums, at least two of which seem to be on notable labels. I do not know how much scrutiny any of these claims would survive, but they are credible claims, if unsourced. WP:CSD indicates that "These criteria are worded narrowly, so that in most cases reasonable editors will agree what does and does not meet a given criterion. Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead." Further down the page, under non-criteria, the policy specifies that "Articles that seem to have obviously non-notable subjects are only eligible for speedy deletion if the article does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." These do assert importance/significance, so reasonable doubt exists. AFD not only subjects the articles to more rigorous investigation, but allows the feedback of other interested articles who may be able to substantiate or refute these claims. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

With Zodiac Records, the mention of "Johnny Thunders & Wayne Kramer's Gang War" as being "pioneers", the band itself isn't doesn't have it's own page. If there were pioneers like the article suggests, they most likely would have their own page. Hence I concluded that that didn't assert notability in itself. Next, to my knowledge for the "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" - there is no point that accepts "cult classic" as sufficient notability. I've been in a band that is considered quite cult in a particular area for example - for the same reason we would not be considered notable enough though. Also [:Zodiac (band)]] only mentions one album being on a notable label - I can't see references to any other releases on notable labels. Even still, that doesn't assert notability under the "Criteria for musicians and ensembles". Hence why I concluded these were open and shut cases. Rob Riv (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I will seek for other methods of deletion then.Rob Riv (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

←That sounds like a good idea. :) They aren't open and shut cases for the purpose of CSD, I'm afraid, although they may be for AFD. For instance, you say, "there is no point that accepts "cult classic" as sufficient notability." A7 says it "is a lower standard than notability; to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable." If an album is a cult classic, then there may be widespread coverage in published sources. It might be notable. It might have sold enough to go gold. It might be notable. It doesn't have to prove or verify it in order to survive CSD. It just has to suggest that perhaps it could. CSD, again, is deliberately narrow, only intended to address the most obvious and blatant cases. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Not So Silent Night

I'm still leaning towards a G7 here, so I've undone the redirect. It was a short-lived Christmas album on a non-notable label, and I doubt anyone would search for it specifically. Also, I doubt anyone would create a new page for it, seeing as nobody's even touched Ty Herndon in ages. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The COOKIE MONSTeR ate the cow

. Hi just to make sure you’re not too hungry, I would’ve given you milk – but the cow just died and I tried to milk the bull but it kicked me in the face. *sob*. Anyway, enjoy the cookie!! Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 01:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! :D Sorry about the cow/bull thing. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Cheers!

Thank you for the cookie!Kitty53 (talk) 01:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

When I thought about passing the cookies around, I thought of you. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting an Editor Review

Hi, you opposed my last RFA at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gary King a few weeks ago. I have decided to open an Editor Review at Wikipedia:Editor review/Gary King so I could receive a new assessment for my recent activity on Wikipedia. I would greatly appreciate it if you could take the time to look over my recent contributions and point out areas where I could improve. Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 04:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll certainly be happy to take a look. :) I'm just getting online this morning (in my part of the world), but I'll dive in after my brain is fully engaged. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Sorry, I meant to write you earlier, but thank you for your compliment on my talk page! I hope that what I wrote helped him a bit! BWH76 (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rfb participation thanks

Hello, MoonRiddenGirl.

I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. I especially wanted to thank you for the thought and care you took in both making your decision as well as craftingyour support rationale; I am very appreciative of both. Although our joint efforts with Coppertwig may not result in a successful outcome this time around, I look forward to collaborating with you on potential RfA candidates in the future. If you have any further suggestions or comments as to how you think I could help the project, please let me know. Once again, thank you for your support. -- Avi (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for the cookie!

This is a big thank you for the cookie, Moon Ridden Girl!Kitty53 (talk) 03:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the hug! It was my pleasure. :D You were the first person I thought of. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wind Dukes

I know that Wind Dukes of Aaqa was previously deleted, and I created a redirect at the time. However, it looked like someone had created a new version of the article later. I don't know if that makes a difference - I know that just pasting the same content from an AFD-deleted article is worthy of a speedy delete, but does that apply if the article is completely rewritten? BOZ (talk) 13:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) The question is whether the new creation addresses the concerns that led to deletion in the first place; as WP:CSD#G4 indicates, "any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted". Otherwise, any article deleted through AfD would have to be renominated if it were rewritten, even if the concerns that led to deletion remained. If you want to create another redirect, or if you'd like me to restore the redirect you had created, I don't see any problem with that. It's unfortunate that sometimes people do write over redirects not realizing that non-notability for a stand-alone article has already been determined. If you want me to restore the redirect, let me know. The deletion of the article was not meant as a reflection on your edit. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.  :) Could you please restore the redirect then, and possibly the talk page? (it should be D&D|class=redirect in brackets, if it wasn't something else) BOZ (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. It's done. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! :) I could have just recreated the redirect, but to be honest I didn't even remember to where I had redirected it in the first place. ;) BOZ (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Faulty G7 requests for articles

The G7 tag for Victor I. Petrik was placed by Huggle in what I figure was supposed to be a simple revert due to the removal of the hangon tag so two for two there. Next up, The joy formidable. This was an issue to me and still is as it's just a bunch of links and again was a result of the tool.

I'm saying it's the tool because I'm not that unaware or working too fast to notice when someone didn't blank the article as a request for deletion but marks it as such anyway. Feh, I'm sticking to more manual means of CSD in the future. treelo _talk 14:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Problematic tool use. I can relate to that. :) I've never used Huggle, but I've heard that there are issues with it. I'm keeping an eye on The joy formidable to see if it is developed further. If it's not, it's a prime candidate for A3. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] thank spam

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations. Thank you again, VanTucky

[edit] TDR (journal), etc

The one reference/link goes to a page where you have to pay in order to get access. I fail to see how it doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria as an advertisement. I also specifically said to the author on their talk page how to work on improving the article so that it wasn't an advertisement. If I'm in the wrong than I'm more than happy to help improve the articles somehow but, not on my own. Thanks for your time. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. WP:CSD#G11 serves to delete blatantly promotional articles. This article may have been created simply to draw attention to this journal, but the information is neutrally presented enough that I do not feel it qualifies as spam. As that guideline indicates, "Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website". While the link is to a subscription site, I don't think that the link itself is enough to push the article into "spam" category, given the lack of sales-oriented language. Note that Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Explanations indicates that G11 is for use on articles that "Cannot be salvaged into a proper encyclopedia article on a notable topic". I'm not convinced that this is the case here. Your advice to the creator on his talk page seems quite proper. I see that DGG, who evidently declined another G11 tag on one of these articles, has provided more there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Block

Hi, why did you block user WorkingInPartnershipProgramme? Which part of policy are they breaking? Did you ask them to change their username before you blocked them? Did you see that other editors were working with that user, talking about COI and helping the user to add content to the encyclopedia? Dan Beale-Cocks 14:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I blocked the user for having a username "related to a 'real-world' group or organization" and using it to edit an article about that organization. The name was reported at Usernames for administrator attention, and I agreed that its use was inappropriate. As the blocking template indicates, username blocks are not punitive and are not meant to reflect badly on the user, but given his edits it was necessary for him to choose a different username. (I must add that he seems to have done so, given this.) I did indeed notice (and read) the conversation on the user talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't find that phrase in the policy. I can find this "Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited,". Please note: WiPP is not a 'group' or 'organisation'. Dan Beale-Cocks 15:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I wasn't quoting policy at you. I was answering your first question, explaining my rationale. I didn't run down the line answering it point by point. From the policy, various points: "Wikipedia does not allow usernames that are misleading, promotional, offensive or disruptive...Promotional usernames are used to promote a group or company on Wikipedia. Administrators may issue username blocks under the following circumstances: * Usernames that are clearly unacceptable for use on Wikipedia, but have no obvious disruptive intent may be blocked indefinitely, but the block should affect only that account (disable autoblocks, and disable "prevent account creation"). If your account has been blocked for this reason, don't take it personally; it is intended to disable the username you chose, not to prevent you from contributing. Please read this page carefully and choose a more appropriate name." I did a soft username block, disabling autoblocks & prevent account creation. I will grant that WiPP is not in itself an organization; my use of that word above is wrong. I should have said "using it to edit an article promoting a group or company". There is, of course, a managing group for WiPP, WiPPAG. I perceive the name as unambiguously promotional and clearly unacceptable for use on Wikipedia.

I'm not sure if you're watching the talk page of the related article, so I figure I'll point out that I've left you a note there responding to your concerns about speedy deletion. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Schumann

Thanks for your assistance and effort to be an impartial sifter of the facts. While the article is clearly still a stub, I feel you were effective in removing the blatant ideological bias and misinformation when I was ethically bound not to do any edits. I posted a blog entry http://ianthal.blogspot.com/2008/05/update-to-when-wikipedia-renders-one-un.html so that my readers can get a better idea of how to deal with these sorts of disputes in a constructive and civil manner.IanThal (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. :) I'm happy if I was able to help. I hope that the article will be expanded neutrally at some point and please do let us know if you see additional problems with it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Gatepain

Hello Moodriddengirl

Thanks for the guidance. I have now rewritten the article which I hope conforms to your style. I attach a couple of articles taken from the web which I hope will indicate that Ron meets your criteria for an academic. It was designed as a link from the 168th Pioneer Regiment as it was he who formed two of the Regiments Squadrons. He was also responsible for the introduction of Distance Learning into the Royal Logistic Corps. If this is acceptable I will then insert the appropriate links. Though I would appreciate any further comments.

Regards

831squad

Talk may lead to student research: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-16302220.html

Sailing on board Fred. http://www.fredolsencruises-civilisations.co.uk/lecturers.php?page_id=25

Ron Gatepain – Writer and Lecturer Ron Gatepain TD, BSc, MPhil, MEd, MBEng, FCIOB, FASI, MRICS, MCMI, MIfL, PGCE, LCG (b. 1947) is a Chartered Surveyor, Corporate Building Surveyor, Chartered Builder, Corporate Building Engineer and Architectural Historian. Lecturing Currently Ron is a visiting Lecturer at the Bishop Grosseteste University College, Lincoln, England on their Heritage Degree courses. Having in the past been a visiting lecturer for the Nottingham Trent University and Loughborough University and numerous colleges. He is a Director of Gates MacBain Associates a Construction Education and Training Company and carries out engagements as a guest speaker on cruise ships for P&O, Fred Olsen and Saga speaking on History and Architecture. Business Experience He was for a number of years Managing Director of a Property Development Company and was a director of a number of companies with interest in retail, manufacturing, services and the entertainment industry. Military Service He served with the Royal Marines between 1965 – 1972 with 45 Commando in Aden, 41 Commando in the UK and Norway and on the Assault ship HMS Intrepid. He has also served with the Reserve forces in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force Regiment and the Territorial Army with the Royal Pioneer Corps and Royal Logistic Corps retiring in 2000 as the Commanding Officer of 168 Pioneer Regiment with the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. He is now a member of the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association Committee. External Commitments He is involved on the committees or with the delivery of training for the Chartered Institute of Building, Institute of Highway Incorporated Engineers and the Association of Building Engineers. Books • Successful Property Development, RIA Publishing, 1995, IBSN 0 9525897 0 2 • Management for the Professions, RIA Publishing, 1996, ISBN 0 9525897 1 0 External links • www.gatepain.co.uk • www.gatesmacbain.co.uk 831squad (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for putting some time into developing this in your own words. :) I've had to remove some of the text from your sourcing area above because even on article talk pages we can't copy text from other pages for copyright concerns. That doesn't mean that I can't evaluate them, though, especially as the links are there.

I need to note first that though I am an administrator on Wikipedia, there is no single person who can tell you that text is acceptable. I can advise you on developing the article to what I would be an acceptable standard, but I can't ensure that other editors would not have problems that might lead to its being proposed for one of the deletion processes. Content and the suitability of biographical topics is guided by specific guidelines, but community consensus is used to determine whether or not a specific article "fits".

Okay, that out of the way: This link seems like an excellent source, based on what I can see of it. This one, from the cruise line, is likely to be perceived as promotional, since the cruise line is not independent of the subject in that it benefits if its lecturers are perceived as notable. Any chance you can find more like the first? I tried doing a google search on "Ronald Gatepain", but all I came up with was cruise-related hits. "Ron Gatepain" got a few more, but I didn't see anything else that I could propose. More independent sources may be necessary to verify notability. Your sources do not necessarily need to be online. If you have access to newspaper or magazine articles, journal profiles, you can incorporate those as well. The first thing is to indicate that your subject is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. The second thing is to prove it, which we typically do by proving that other notable sources are talking about him.

So, sources in hand, you should really state that your subject is important and why in your opening sentence. What you have right now may read a bit more like a resume than a typical encyclopedia entry: "Ron Gatepain TD, BSc, MPhil, MEd, MBEng, FCIOB, FASI, MRICS, MCMI, MIfL, PGCE, LCG (b. 1947) is a Chartered Surveyor, Corporate Building Surveyor, Chartered Builder, Corporate Building Engineer and Architectural Historian." If it were my article, I would start off with, "Ronald Gatepain is a renowned architectural historian.<ref>citation</ref> A chartered surveyor, corporate building surveyor, chartered builder and corporate building engineer, Gatepain is a prominent lecturer and guest speaker...." You want to front and center the facts that make this gentleman encyclopedic. Other material is background and would probably go into a sub-section. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recalling deleted pages

I read where you can copy deleted pages and move them to my userpage. I am asking if you could do this for the following three articles:

East Carolina Pirates football, 1970-1979 East Carolina Pirates football, 1980-1989 East Carolina Pirates football, 2000-2009

Thanks, PGPirate 13:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The contents of those articles now sit at User:PGPirate/Deleted. I've put them all on one userpage for convenience. You can easily see where the pages originally ended by looking for the neutralized categories. Since we don't use categories in userspace, I just dropped a "tl" in front of it to keep it from expanding without erasing it. Hope this helps! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Gatepain

Thanks Moonriddengirl, I will see what I can come up with and get back to you. 831squad831squad (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the Tip

Hi -

Thanks for the tip. I have been doing speedy deletes for ages and you are the first person to give me this tip of putting it on the users page. I will do this in future. Also thanks for the notenglish pointer as I looked for something like this and couldn't find it (did he look long enough you say....!!) BustOut (talk)

There's a ton of stuff to keep up with, I know. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please help sort this all out

Hey I was hoping you could help sort out the situation between myself (Grant.Alpaugh (talk · contribs)), Kingjeff (talk · contribs), and Otav347 (talk · contribs) about the 2008 Major League Soccer season article, and all of the templates on that article, namely Template:2008 MLS standings - Eastern, Template:2008 MLS standings - Western, Template:2008 MLS standings - Overall, and Template:2008 MLS Scores, as well as 2008 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup qualification. The disagreement stems from the issue regarding the format of games as Home-Away or Away-Home and standings as W-D-L or W-L-T. I agree the disagreement is small, but it has caused quite the controversy. The discussion is mostly at Talk:2008 Major League Soccer season and Talk:2008 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup qualification, though the Open Cup conversation has been almost entirely copied to the MLS article's talk page. The discussion has also spilled over into our talk pages as well. While it would be nice if you could weigh in on the issue of the debate, I would mostly like your opinion about the tone of the discussion, mostly between myself and Kingjeff, as I believe many of his comments to constitute violations of WP:GOODFAITH and/or WP:NPA. At the beginning of the discussion Otav347 began to take the discussion down a personal tone, I called him on it, and he promptly apologized and has endeavored to keep things civil as much as possible from there on. Kingjeff, on the other hand, has made this debate much more personal, resulting, I believe from an edit to UEFA Champions League 2007-08 on April 15th or 16th in which he shrunk certain names of teams in the competition to a smaller font, which I reverted as vandalism, but he later explained was because on some resolutions the names were appearing in two lines, causing the bracket to deform. He made a comment on the talk page of another user I had been collaborating with at the time (PeeJay2K3 (talk · contribs)), I referred to it in my conversation with PeeJay, and Kingjeff accused me of following him around the WP. It was at this point that he collaborated with US - Jimmy Slade (talk · contribs) during his fit of vandalism to my userpages. I didn't think it was as big a deal then, but now almost a month later, he's begun attacking me again, making me out to be a coward on my talk page, accusing me of trying to own articles when I explicitly did the opposite, and generally defaming my character. I've repeatedly asked him to change the tone of his remarks and refrain from making not-so-thinly-veiled personal attacks. Most frivilously, he's brought allegations of sockpuppetry against me and everyone that voted along with me because my roommate reverted the templates in question at my request, similar to his request that Otav continue the edit war because he would be unable to do so for 22 more hours. I've been upfront about the fact that my roommate uses the same IP as I do as we're in an apartment and hooked up to the same connection. He didn't create an account, but he didn't need to to make the edit. He acted in good faith, as did I. I realize I've thrown a mountain of stuff at you, so if it takes you a day or two to respond, that's fine, but I would appreciate a response, especially as you dealt so well with the US - Jimmy Slade issue before. Thanks again, and have a great day. -- Grant.Alpaugh 06:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. It certainly is a lot, but I'll be happy to help if I can. It's morning time in my part of the world. Since it seems complex, I'll set aside some time to look through it this afternoon. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Whenever you can get the time. -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm actively working on it right now. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've been reading through it all, and it is pretty messy. In terms of the content dispute, I'm afraid that I am absolutely the wrong person to chime in. I had no idea what W-D-L or W-L-T meant, and while I've figured it out, I think you'd probably be better off getting participation from people who already know such things and what conventions are used where. While I am an administrator, this gives my opinion on ordinary content disputes no extra weight, and my inexperience in the topic should reasonably give me somewhat less. If your efforts to reach consensus on the subject have stalemated, I believe you might want to consider neutrally requesting additional feedback at a relevant policy or (another) wikiproject. Be sure your request is neutral, though, to avoid giving the appearance of canvassing. Alternatively, you might consider "requests for comment", which may or may not invite additional input.

The sockpuppet case is almost certainly going to dissolve in regards to all but the IP address. The contribution history of the editors suggests no connection. You indicate that the IP is your roommate and that the reversion was done at your request. This may be a problem. Please see the definition of "meatpuppet", if you haven't read it before. You should not ask someone else to make edits that might seem designed to help you circumvent WP:3RR. (Not even if the other guy has done it, too.) Even if your roommate made those reverts without your request, the action would be problematic. In the section after that, "Roommates and sharing an IP address", people with the same IP are advised to act as though they are one individual when editing the same article. Given this edit, made at 00:08, 13 May 2008, it's obvious that you knew that further reversion of your own was a bad idea. I suspect, since your roommate made the first of his reversions at 00:14, 13 May 2008, that you were unaware of the nuances here and that his edits might be counted as a 4th revert against you. I do not know how those admins who address checkuser & sockpuppetry cases typically handle cases of what seem to be unintended meatpuppetry. I see that The Rambling Man has advised you to just wait that one out, but I'm not sure if he was aware that you are connected to the IP. You may want to ask his further feedback in light of that. If I were the editor in your situation, I would be inclined to explain what happened at the sockpuppetry and check user pages and make clear that I now understand that this is not recommended.

The question of civility here is by far the most challenging for me to address. There have definitely been instances of incivility, and the tone of your interactions remains hostile. I take it that the incident you referenced above, here, was the start of the personal antagonism between you. That was unfortunate. The vandalism guideline offers specific examples of what vandalism is and is not. Without evidence of bad faith, edits should not be presumed to be vandalism, as this is against WP:CIVIL in itself. This is why the first level of the vandalism warnings, {{uw-vand1}}, does not explicitly use the term. It is not used until evidence appears to confirm that edits were made maliciously.

Probably most editors who have addressed vandalism on recent change patrol have encountered instances where they've inadvertently labeled good faith edits as vandalism. On those instances where it happens, it's good to express the reason for your assumption, as you did here, but probably also helpful to apologize for not assuming good faith. It seems that this label must have made the other editor angry, and I fear that this and this only exacerbated that situation. It is more difficult to address incivility when it seems to have existed on both sides, even if you are interested in changing the tone of your interactions now, and so it may require more patience.

I have asked the user to please avoid personal comments about you as the dispute is resolved and the sock puppet allegations investigated. In spite of the nature of your dispute, I hope that he will respect that request. Given the factors here of your history with this editor, I would recommend waiting to take further action until the sock puppet case resolves. At that point, only if the problem persists, it might be good to seek input from neutral editors at "Wikiquette Alerts", which may resolve the situation short of |RCU. Meanwhile, again, you may wish to seek wider community input on the disputed issue, perhaps WP:RFC.

Good luck, and please let me know if you'd like to discuss this further. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

He says one thing then does a 180 when it suits him. I'm not the only one who has seen this. As far as the sock puppet case goes, the main issue is with the IP Address. The IP Address has only 4 edits in which all 4 were reverts which just happens to agree with Grant. As far as the other users are concerned, it's more of suspicion of Grant. I have had 2 users that have said that the IP Address reporting is ligitimate. Kingjeff (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The other issue with Grant

This issue is regarding Template:2008 MLS standings - Eastern, Template:2008 MLS standings - Western and Template:2008 MLS standings - Overall. I feel that it should be under the format of W-L-T should stand until the issue is resolved because Wikipedia:How to edit a page says "...Before engaging in a major edit, a user should consider discussing proposed changes on the article discussion/talk page..." and "A major edit should be reviewed to confirm that it is consensual to all concerned editors. Therefore, any change that affects the meaning of an article is major (not minor), even if the edit is a single word." We are onl discussing it now, after the fact. Grant feels that W-D-L should stand until the issue is solved. Kingjeff (talk) 01:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't change the meaning of the article. This is clearly an issue of style, rather than stubstance. It went uncontested for more than a month. In my view that constitutes an effective status quo. If someone had contested the change when I made it, then fine, but that's not what happened. During a content dispute, the article should remain as is, unless some overriding issue is in play like WP:BLP or similar. No issue exists in this case, so until consensus is reached, it stays as is. -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's still a major edit Grant. The table is a big part of seasonal sports article. Kingjeff (talk) 02:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

But it didn't change the meaning of the article, which is what your above quotes say. I made a stylistic change, nobody said woop, and it stayed that way for a month when you started to contest it. Since it was stable for a month as W-D-L, I don't see how we can change it without a consensus to do so. -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Since this is a new sub-thread and now involves several people, I'll respond here. Kingjeff, I would like to point out that while people should consider and it is encouraged, it isn't required as per the policy at WP:Consensus. The initial change is not so much the problem at this point, it's that discussion has broken down and you (plural) seem to be either engaged in or on the verge of an edit war. :/ I noted that you, Kingjeff, have already brought up the matter for wider participation at the proper wikiproject, which is what I would have suggested doing. It seems that no clear consensus has emerged from that, though.

I understand that the big debate at this point is what version the page should be in as the dispute is settled. Ordinarily, it is the burden of the person who wants to change the status quo to provide evidence that consensus is for the change. The problem here is that neither of you can agree on which is the status quo. Kingjeff feels that the statusquo is what existed prior to the change a few months back. Grant feels that as the change was uncontested, it is the new status quo. The problem is that both of your perspectives could be perceived as correct by Wikipedia process. Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle talks about the fact that once a version is challenged, there is no consensus version.

I personally think that the best thing that you can do is focus less on which version is up on the page for now and instead seek wider feedback to permanently resolve the issue by inviting another related project or perhaps by initiating an WP:RFC. These are not always quick avenues for getting feedback, but I hope that on a sport's related topic you might find people more responsive. I've most often seen them used on more heated political topics, which people tend to shy away from as "no win" scenarios. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

But I think we need a decision one way or the other. Kingjeff (talk) 03:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean for what version will exist on the page until the matter is settled? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to add that this probably it for me for now. It's nighttime in my part of the world, and I have to shut down. I'm already watching my typo count rise and my clarity fall! The point here is finding consensus—not necessarily something you like, but something you both can live with. In the case of the for-now version, there are many ways you could do this, including something as simple as agreeing to launch an Rfc and using the version selected by the first responder. This is, after all, a temporary situation until resolution can be achieved. If the pages continue to be embattled, you may also consider requesting page protection, at which point—if the request is granted—the matter will be arbitrarily settled, as the responding administrator will freeze the pages in whatever version they exist at that moment anyway. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speaking of Socking...

Can you take a look into this, this, this, and this for me? I'm pretty sure this is a direct attempt to manipulate polling and falsify consensus, which I never had my roommate do. All he did was keep the site from being changed before consensus was reached. This qualifies as sockpuppetry, and the IP account should be banned, and Kingjeff should be warned, no? It also strikes me as quite silly since the issue has already been resolved in his favor. -- Grant.Alpaugh 20:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure there's a connection. The IP seems to be a shared IP account that has a history of editing that goes back to 2006 (see [1]). At a glance, I don't see any commonality in editing, and this IP is registered to a bank in Ohio. I can't tell where Kingjeff was from, but his spelling suggests the UK and his wikiproject involvement would seem to support that. Obviously, what happened here is that somebody copied the top name in the list and built a new identity and timestamp around it. Do you have reason to connect this with Kingjeff other than the fact that he had supported one outcome? As you say, it would have been a quite silly thing to do, given that the issue had already been resolved in his favor.

A checkuser would need to be done to determine that this is Kingjeff and would only be effective if he had logged in from that shared computer. The IP might be blocked for a brief time if there were a match, but IPs are not "banned" per se. Brief blocks are generally regarded as better, since IP blocks can hurt many individual. Kingjeff would possibly be warned or blocked for a short time, but he claims he's left Wikipedia anyway, User:Kingjeff. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this for me. It just struck me as fishy, that's all. I didn't want to create a federal case out of it, which is why I brought it to you and another admin to look into before taking the next step. I appreciate the attention. Nice work as always. -- Grant.Alpaugh 01:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Happy if I can help. :) I do have access to some information you may not, like some info on the IP. Anyway, I can't be sure it's not him, but without further development would probably let it go. It could be nothing more than an IP editor who wanted to "vote" under his own name but didn't know how. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Gatepain 2

Hello Moonriddengirl, I have had another go at the article on Ron Gatepain and would appreciate your comments as to weather it is now okay to submit.

Ron Gatepain – Writer and Lecturer Ron Gatepain is a renowned architectural historian [1] [2] and construction educationalist. A Chartered Surveyor, Corporate Building Surveyor, Chartered Builder and Corporate Building Engineer, he is a visiting lecturer at the Bishop Grosseteste University College, Lincoln, England in Heritage Studies and has delivered courses as a visiting lecturer at the Nottingham Trent University and Loughborough University [3] [4] and numerous colleges and private training companies throughout the world [5]. He has also written and developed distance learning and webbed based training material for educational institutions and the British Army [6]. He appears on cruise ships as a guest speaker and subject expert in History and Architecture delivering talks on famous building of the world [7] [8].

Involved with numerous committees and with the setting of professional standards with regard to the planning and delivery of training for the Chartered Institute of Building, Institute of Highway Incorporated Engineers and the Association of Building Engineers [9][10].

Gatepain is a director of Gates MacBain Associates, a Construction Education and Training Company providing consultancy, education and training for the construction industry worldwide [11].

Military Service Ron Gatepain served with the Royal Marines between 1965 – 1972 with 45 Commando in Aden, 41 Commando in the UK and Norway and on the Assault ship HMS Intrepid. He has also served with the Reserve forces in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force Regiment and the Territorial Army with the Royal Pioneer Corps and Royal Logistic Corps retiring as the Commanding Officer of 168 Pioneer Regiment in 2000 with the rank of Lieutenant Colonel [12]. He is currently a committee member of the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association.

Books

• Successful Property Development, RIA Publishing, 1995, IBSN 0 9525897 0 2
• Management for the Professions, RIA Publishing, 1996, ISBN 0 9525897 1 0

External links

• www.gatepain.co.uk
• www.gatesmacbain.co.uk

References: 1. http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-16302220.html 2. http://e-voice.org.uk/vanl/calendar/item/1359339 3. www.gatesmacbain.co.uk 4. Successful Property Development, RIA Publishing, 1995, IBSN 0 9525897 0 2 5. http://leadersme.com/php/courseSeminar.php?cid=44&coreid=6&linkid=10 6. Management for the Professions, RIA Publishing, 1996, ISBN 0 9525897 1 0 7. http://www.fredolsencruises-civilisations.co.uk/fck_pages.php?page_id=7 8. http://www.fredolsencruises-civilisations.co.uk/lecturers.php?page_id=25 9. www.ciob.org.uk/filegrab/1MinutesofAnnualGeneralMeeting160408.doc?ref=822 10. Op.sit Ref 3 11. Ibid 12. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/168_Pioneer_Regiment

Many thanks, Regards, 831squad 831squad (talk) 00:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is definitely better. I wish I could tell you clearly that it would pass muster, but I'm afraid I cannot certainly say. The article more clearly indicates what makes him notable, but most of the references still come from sites that have something to gain by promoting Mr. Gatepain. (This is promoting an event, this is promoting a seminar, this and this are promoting cruises. Wikipedia:Notability (academics), a notability guideline that may be useful here as Mr. Gatepain is a lecturer and historian, indicates as point #1 of possible notability criteria "The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources." Sources that serve to benefit by promotion of Mr. Gatepain would not likely be considered independent. The Scunthorpe Evening Telegraph remains your best source and so far the only one that I can confidently say supports notability.

Hmm. Let me try from a different angle. It's indicated in the bio that Mr. Gatepain has authored two books. Are there reviews of these books in any newspapers, magazines or industry journals that you know of?

One of the major problems you're running up against with this is that even if Mr. Gatepain is notable enough for inclusion by Wikipedia's standards, he may be challenged for inclusion. As that notability guideline says, "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources exist; see Wikipedia:Verifiability." If I were you, I would try to find a few more disinterested sources covering Mr. Gatepain before attempting to secure an article.

I am one of the regular volunteers at "the drawing board", which is where contributors may go to get feedback on article ideas before creating them, but if you'd like to also bring this up there, I will leave your question for one of the other volunteers to respond to. It's possible that one of the other regulars there can give you some different ideas for establishing and verifying notability here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for taking the time out to respond to my message. Am glad that the delete tag has now been removed and article restored. Am trying to collect more material before posting it on wiki at which point your help may be needed. Thanks again for the very helpful points on how to seek help with editing. Take care Bonhomie1 (talk) 05:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Bonhomie. Thanks for your efforts, and please feel free to let me know if I can be of assistance to you. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Gatepain

Thanks Moonriddengirl, I appreciate your response and suggestions and am quite happy relying on your opinion. I will see what I can do re other sources. Regards 831squad 831squad (talk) 09:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Talk:Thiru Kumaran now gone, but Thiru Kumaran still there. Is it also to be deleted, or should it be changed to a simple redirect to Thirunavukkarasu Kumaran?--Shirt58 (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a simple redirect. :) I deleted your version on your request and created a new article to serve that purpose. (here) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add the below

The Southern Marsupial Mole-shaped and arguably somewhat dubious Barnstar of helping me out.

to your awards page!--Shirt58 (talk) 14:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL! That's lovely. :) I've never seen one of those guys. I must go read the article! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

(I am, by the way, still laughing out loud, literally. It has been so added. I love it! Than you!) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're looking for the cutest Marsupials, you can't go past the Mountain Pygmy Possum--Shirt58 (talk) 14:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I grant you him. Cutest marsupial I've ever seen. :) I am a fan of cute & unusual looking mammals in general. This guy has a high squee factor, too. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

My goodness gracious me, someone's crossed a teeny weeny kangaroo with an angry Chihuahua!--Shirt58 (talk) 12:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

So many cute critters in the world. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks...

...for not speedy deleting Celine! You preventing me from having a bad Wikipedia day...if those are possible? --Krushdiva (talk) 00:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, indeed, they are possible. :) I've had a few. Articles are often tagged far too soon for A1 or A3 concerns. :/ CSD policy recommends against deleting articles too soon if they appear to be incomplete, but particularly zealous new taggers don't always seem aware of that. Anyway, I'm happy if I was able to help prevent you having a bad day. I hope any reviewing admin would have done the same. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vanquish Credit Repair Company Information

Can you explain why these entries were allowed, any mine was deleted?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Loan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ditech

Each of the above entries offer some sort of advertisement about what these companies do, why can't I be granted the same consideration?

-Tom Shawgo 21:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)21:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)21:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The basic reasons why some articles are allowed to remain while others are deleted are set out here. Primarily it boils down to the fact that Wikipedia is large, and sometimes problems are discovered in one article but not immediately detected in another. Sometimes there are additional factors to be considered that may make one article a candidate for deletion by one process and another not.

In terms of the articles you mention, I see that E-Loan has been tagged for promotional text; I'm really a bit surprised that it hasn't yet been addressed. It does have some neutrally presented information in it, however, and WP:CSD#G11 is for articles that would need to be completely rewritten to become encyclopedic. There are, of course, other considerations with some of those you list. Apple Inc. is a neutrally presented article with many references to verify notability and attribute claims. (Similarly, see this.)

If you would like to establish an article on this company, please read over the guideline on promotion and the notability guideline on companies. The rule of thumb there is noting whether the company has received significant or widespread coverage in secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the company (excluding company PR releases and information solely available on the company website—these sources may be used for additional information after notability has been established by secondary sources). All material must be attributable and presented neutrally.

If you are closely associated with the company, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends that you do not create or edit the article yourself, but instead consider proposing its creation at requested articles or at a related article or relevant WikiProject. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability guidelines for bands

Hey Moonriddengirl,

You are obsolutly right about me being a bit confused, im sorry to have wasted your time. Im trying to achieve something unique in music and i hadnt explained that a tall well in previous desription.

Now having read the criteria i am unsure if we do qualify. Im gonna tell you what we all about and see if you think we maybe are some sort of wierd sub section. if we are not then that is totally cool.

For ten years me a three school friends have worked hard at becoming an indiependant outfit that relies only its guile and own recource to record, tour, sell merchandise and raise money privatly (ie outside the normal of what bands usually aspire to do. IE get signed to a major, get an advance, go on a support tour and become famous. We have always wanted to do it differently. Noel Gallagher from Oasis was kind enough to let us use his large studio to make an album ourselves (he hasnt let any band our size use it) and we were asked by various big bands and big names to come play on tour etc with them.

We put together a new bizz model for how to achieve all the goals Majors do but with a much more favourable leaning towards the artist. It worked and we got backing to set up and more importantly have total artistic control over WE MAKE THINGS records. We are the guini pigs in a sense i guess but we do intend to further sign other bands etc.

We have had loads of great press and solid radio since releasing our 1st Single here in UK and altho it didnt chart (because we simply dont have the mustle behind us) the second single looks good and the album set for release in June has already got an offer from one of the biggest labels in Japan. we are set to do three main festivals this year Glastonbury, Bestival and Secret Garden party.

As i said before i totally realise why putting us in might open the flood gates but with XFM playlists and major support tours both iminent and already under our belts i thought i would at least write this opus for your perusal.

Biggest Best

Wemakethings (talk) 08:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. No time wasted. :) By confirming to me that the {{hangon}} template was unclear, you showed me that I needed to try to fix it. You're not the only person to have ever placed the "hangon" tag on your talk page. That's our mistake, not yours. (I presume that's what you're talking about. The article had already been deleted by another administrator when I responded to your "hangon", so the article itself took no time at all. My response to your note certainly wasn't a waste of time; I'm happy to help if I can. Anyway....)

In terms of notability, the exciting words there are "loads of great press". If that's the case, then your band meets the guidelines under criterion #1: "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." (You should probably re-read WP:MUSIC to see the footnoted exclusions there.) Can you assemble enough examples of that to demonstrate that you meet that criterion? As I mentioned on your talk page, college newspapers would probably not be helpful here, but city newspapers would help. Something to consider is depth and breadth of coverage. Listings of playdates would not help, but reviews would—especially if you have them from different regions you've toured. (You might qualify under criterion #11, too, "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network." It can be hard to demonstrate that one, though.) Whether or not the sources you have meet the depth and breadth standards can be a little difficult to determine. Sometimes if a band is borderline, their article will wind up in a deletion debate for other Wikipedians to consider whether or not the coverage qualifies. Again, more is better. More from different places is better still. :)

There is a problem, though, with your writing the article yourself. Our conflict of interest guideline strongly discourages this, since it can be hard for those involved with ventures to write neutrally and to avoid "original research", that is, information you may know to be true but not be able to prove. It's recommended that you instead propose the article at "requested articles" or seek assistance at the talk page of a related article or WikiProject. Neither of these are necessarily fast processes, but if you have solid sources that will definitely help. The quickest way to proceed there is probably to write the article in user space (if you choose to do that and have trouble figuring out how, please feel free to let me know, and I'll be hapyp to help). Once the article is written and sourced, it will be much easier to ask someone from, say, WikiProject Musicians to have a look at it to make sure it's okay. If they agree that it is and that there's no conflict, it can then be moved to article space.

Whether your band currently meets notability guidelines or not, it sounds from what you say as though it's about to. Congratulations to you, and I'm glad that your integrity is paying off. :) If you decide that you don't meet guidelines at the moment, more than likely the conflict will not matter for long. Music fans tend to be enthusiastic participants at Wikipedia, and I suspect that somebody will create the article for you. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks so much for this. i think im gonna leave it to someone else and your words are lovely. maybe you come catch a show sometime. biggest best Wemakethings (talk) 09:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tiptoety

"Brooke shields herself from the brutal reality that is her life by finding solace in meaningless material goods and the never-ending pursuit of more and more wealth. But, little does she know, all the beachside condominiums and all-night free-for-all's cannot ease the ever-growing pain she feels at the end of each pointless and purposeless day, a pain that will never be satisfied by her decadence, a pain that will remain until the day she dies."[2] --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yuri Nazarov

Where's the source for the award? This user has been consistently adding misinformation to articles, so I don't trust his statement that he won an award. Where he does add references, they don't say what he says they do, especially re people's ethnic backgrounds. Harry the Dog WOOF 15:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It's at IMDb. But even if it weren't, unless it is a blatant hoax, it is not a candidate for speedy deletion. Speedy deletion is for clear cases only. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that IMDb is not a reliable source. Won't take it to AfD as you and another editor think it should stay if it can be improved, and that's OK by me. Harry the Dog WOOF 15:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

IMDb is regarded as reliable for some things, though not for biographical information. If it weren't reliable at all, we wouldn't have templates to help us use it. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:AllKillerNoFiller.jpg}

Thank you for uploading Image:AllKillerNoFiller.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

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

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

General appeal: I've asked at media copyright questions for feedback, but haven't received any yet. If any drive-bys should happen to be able to figure out what about this one is confusing the bot, I'd be grateful for the assist. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved. Failed to substitute the template. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] advice with CSD

I appear to have a fairly tenuous grasp on what qualifies as CSD A7. Do you have any advice of how to determine whether someone or something is notable? If you want to see what I've been doing, you can look at my patrol log. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) I've answered the one below since this is a bit more involved. I'm delving in. I'll get back with you as soon as I can. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Just adding that I am looking through your contribs and forming a reply, but my internet activity is blipping in and out. I don't think it'll take much longer, unless I have to keep rebooting my modem! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I am asking you to do me a favor (i.e. help me). If I was angry at you for taking a while using your time to help me, that would be unbelievably selfish almost beyond reason. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL! It's almost there. :D I'm wrapping. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here goes. I'm sure you already know some of this, but I'm trying to be thorough. :D

To escape speedy, an article does not need to prove notability or even necessarily assert notability as Wikipedia defines it. It only needs to include information that suggests that its subject could be notable. If an article suggests there is something unique or important about its subject, it's probably not an A7 candidate. Similarly, if deletion of an article on the subject ("schools" as the explicit example) is likely to be controversial, it's not an A7 candidate even if it doesn't suggest that it's important. Also, A7 only applies to people (individually or grouped, as in bands, clubs or companies) and web content. It does not apply to sub-categories of those, like books, software, albums, products, etc. There does seem to be a bit of a gray area around web content. Personally, I would apply it, say, to a youtube video even though I could not technically apply it to, say, a VCR tape. Is it fair that "Billy Hates Vampires is a youtube video made by Billy Sniggs, age 12, and Bobbi Jo Hardey, age 10" is speediable while "Billy Hates Vampires is a VCR video made by...." isnt? Probably not. There've been efforts to add products to WP:CSD#A7. If we can find good wording for it, I'm all for that, especially when it comes to non-notable products released by non-notable individuals. Makes no sense to me that even if the band is speedied, its garage tape needs to be PRODded or AfDed. But, currently, that's the way consensus goes on the issue.

I wasn't here when it was created, but as I understand it, A7 was devised to help deal with articles like "John Smith lives in Pomona", "My new band is super cool" and "Harold's Hardware is a store on East and Main in Podunkville." We get so much of this kind of stuff that it was determined that having it hang around for PROD or AfD was a waste of time & resources. The limitations were placed to help make sure that we don't get overzealous in deleting this kind of thing, since sometimes John Smith of Pomona could be very important. :) If his article says "John Smith is a famous architect from Pomona", it may not verify notability, but it does suggest that there might be enough there to warrant further investigation. If further investigation doesn't turn up anything, then a PROD or AfD may be appropriate. Typically I go PROD if I'm pretty sure that my investigation was conclusive. If I think somebody else may come up with more, I go AfD. (For example, I would not necessarily PROD an article of borderline notability on somebody from another country if I do not have access to good sources for that country. I'd either start by asking for feedback from the relevant wikiproject or, if pretty sure, list at AfD and notify the relevant wikiproject.)

Looking at some of your specifics, let's take the article on Paul M. English as an example. It claims he is the founder of a website that has apparently received significant attention. It's not unreasonable that he might have achieved notability in that capacity. He's probably not a good A7 candidate. I might be inclined to propose a merger of the bio to the website article, but I see there are one or two other possible assertions of significance there. I'd probably tag it for clean-up if I had encountered it. (I did just now, actually. As a general rule of thumb, I don't place more than three tags on an article. If it's a real mess, I will sometimes use {{articleissues}}.)

Looking at Cactus Jack (band), it is difficult to determine notability because the band is Serbian. It does suggest, though, that the band may be notable in the listing of five albums. Something like that probably warrants wider review.

Looking at Sayang dbsk malaysia, it seems that a number of people agreed with your assessment of the article as an A7 there. Can't say for sure why Iridescent decided to AfD it instead. If I had encountered that tagged A7, I would have agreed and deleted it.

You didn't ask about this, but I would like to make a point about WP:CSD#A1 and WP:CSD#A3. One common issue I see with new page patrollers (which, by the way, I used to be before I got the tools to work the other end) is a tendency to mark articles for deletion as "no context" or "no content" almost immediately after the page is created. I notice that you tagged Andrew Paquette that way a minute after its creation on May 18th. Please hold off with these tags until the creators have a little bit of a chance to add material. WP:CSD notes that creators sometimes work in stages, and we don't want to bite new content contributors by scaring the living daylights out of them a minute or two into their first efforts. They do tend to be puzzled and alarmed, sometimes offended, by deletion tags. I got a got a note from a creator about that very issue just a couple of days ago. I know that on new page patrol, you get into a routine, but it's a very good idea just to keep questionable pages of that sort open in a tab and pop back in on them a little later to see if development is ongoing.

You didn't ask about this, either, but I would like to suggest you re-read WP:CSD#G1. This is an often misapplied tag. You put it on the article Zott a few days ago, but G1 indicates that "This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes." It was deleted by WP:CSD#G3, which would have been the proper tag for hoaxes and fictional material, though this one turned out to actually be cruft of some kind. Evidently its up for merger now.

Anyway, I hope that this is helpful. I've actually noticed your recent tags and been impressed by them. You may be working out some of the finer points, but you seem pretty much on top of things as they go. :) I'm glad that you notify creators. That is so important for so many reasons (just to name two, it (a) helps creators figure out what happened to their articles and (b) helps creators figure out how not to create inappropriate articles in the future; I could name more), and yet so many new page patrollers neglect it.

If you want to talk about any of this any more, just let me know. I'm happy to volunteer my time. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

WOW, you really did a LOT more than I was expecting! Thanks a LOT!!!!!! J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. :) I'm always glad to talk to somebody else who values the project. I give Wikipedia a lot of my time, and I approve of others who do, too. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick question, I tagged Benmatthews90 under G6, as it was obviously made by a new user who didn't under understand how userpages worked. What would you have tagged it as? (I mean, if you wouldn't just delete it... :P ) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I would usually move a page like that to userspace and then tag the redirect for deletion with WP:CSD#R2. Then I'd leave a note letting the creator know what I'd done at his talk page. (That's essential, I think, if you delete the redirect.) There's a template for that purpose, {{nn-userfy}}. I probably wouldn't have used that template on that specific page case, though, since it isn't exactly an autobiography. :) A personal note would be better in that case. I think given how little information it had the way you handled it is fine. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Co-occurrence network article by newby Johnfravolda

Thanks for guiding me in the world of wikipedia contribution.

I have attempted to strengthen the "co-occurrence network" page through the addition of references and links to web pages that employ the concept in presenting information.

There are some things that you may be able to advise me on that I realize now may further improve the discussion of this and related topics on Wikipedia.

The topic of "co-occurrence networks" can be considered a subtopic of "Literature Networks". Another subtopic under this heading would be "co-citation networks". Since both co-occurrence and co-citation networks are very similar concepts, they are probably best discussed together under the umbrella of literature networks.

So my question then is: is it possible to get the terms "literature network", "co-occurrence network" and "co-citation network" all to point to the same page?

Best regards, Johnfravolda (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to help if I can, although you are definitely working out of my field. :) When we want to get terms pointing to specific pages, we create "redirect" page. You start them the same as any article, but their contents consist of:

#REDIRECT [[target page title]]

I'm not quite clear from the above if you're considering moving co-occurrence network to literature networks, although it sounds like you may be. Steps for that are at Help:Move. Let me know if you need assistance with it or if I can help in any other way. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I think your instructions answered my questions on the topic. Johnfravolda (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi again! I have done the major changes I plan on the co-occurrence network page. In that regard, I was wondering when the "tag" might be removed ("This article or section is in the middle of an expansion or major revamping."). Although I do plan to add figures and consolidate information about co-citation and literature networks in general, the page as it stands now has many references to primary work and describes a concept that helps support other wikipedia articles. Does it not merit the removal of the tag now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnfravolda (talk • contribs) 18:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. The tag was placed there as a convenience for you to keep others from deleting the article before you had reached the point where it was ready to stand. I'll go ahead and remove it, but for future reference when that tag is there to represent your labor, you're free to remove it any time. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I will remember that for the futureJohnfravolda (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] danny welbeck

why did u delete danny welbeck's bio. he's a very good reserve team player for man utd and he deserves to have his bio on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oltian (talk • contribs) 15:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. There was a deletion debate about Danny Welbeck at which it was decided that the individual does not yet meet notability guidelines. You can see that debate here. I deleted the version of the article created at Danny Welbeck on 18 May as a recreation of an article that had been deleted following a deletion discussion. In order to start an article deleted following a deletion discussion, the new version must address the concerns that led to deletion in the first place. I also noted that in that version, the language was promotional, which violates our neutrality guidelines. Since that time, I see that you have again created the article at Danny welbeck. It was deleted on May 20 by User:Number 57 for the same reason. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)