User talk:Olaf Davis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 RFC: Request for move 2 Thanks for the grammar help- Thank you 3 Angelo Hastings 4 PHH 5 Cannibal Holocaust 6 Espanola Valley High School 7 Thanks 8 Creation of cosmos 9 WBOSITG's RfA 10 Editing on page Samrat Hem Chandra Vikramaditya or HEMU 11 Delayed DYK nom True Scotsman 12 RfA thank-spam 13 dyk 14 Matt Mahurin 15 DYK 16 SS Prinz Friedrich Wilhelm 17 Spanish Destroyer Furor article 18 dyk nom 19 Re: AAAA 20 DYK thanks and suggestion 21 5/26 DYK 22 Thanks... 23 RfA thank you spam 24 Fairouzeh 25 Teuchitlan tradition 26 review 27 DYK

[edit] RFC: Request for move

Thanks, Olaf; i've already had my say (at length that even i, who likes to hear himself talk, find tedious!) and moved on, and i'm just glad at this point not to be asked to do a move i disagree with.
--Jerzy•t 16:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the grammar help- Thank you

Thanks for the grammar help- Thankyou. My grammar was never really a strong point for me. I moved the page to Dr Manmohan Singh Scholarship for correct grammar. Regards.--James smith2 (talk) 16:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, You know me too well :-) Oh rivalries, oh rivalries between us Cambridge and Oxford dons when will they stop. I think we are too competitive. By the way thanks for the helping hand.--James smith2 (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Angelo Hastings

Hi

You might want to compare this page to that of Chuck Norris. Looks pretty much like vandalism, don't you think ?

MuppetLabTech (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh... I was just coming here to point that out to Olaf. You beat me to it! Rob Banzai (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PHH

Since I'm not allowed to remove the Speedy Delete myself, your attention to this topic would be appreciated. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cannibal Holocaust

Hi Olaf. I saw your comment on the talk page to the anon. He/she also tries to intimidate editors who reverted his/her edits as in here. Dr.K. (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Espanola Valley High School

See if the overlap problem is fixed now. Aleta ^Sing 16:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

You have indeed successfully located me. OrangeDog (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Creation of cosmos

Hi NawlinWiki. I just placed a PROD template on this article, and then discovered that you'd deleted it less than ten minutes later. Aren't PRODs supposed to remain in place for five days? If you were in fact deleting it under the speedy criteria, your deletion summary did not give that impression. Olaf Davis | Talk 12:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This was a religious screed in violation of speedy category g11, prohibiting blatant advertising. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I suppose your deletion summary was a typo, then?

More importantly, I don't think G11 applies to advertising an opinion or position, just a company or service. WP:SPAM says "Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual", but I can't find anything there that would apply to this article. What do you think? Olaf Davis | Talk 12:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you really suggesting that an article that started "For those of you who have always wondered about evolution, the theories laid by these scientists are definitely wrong.", and continued by quoting Genesis, needed to be kept for five days? It could not have been made into a salvagable article -- at least not one that's not already exhaustively covered by Creationism and the like. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, see WP:SNOW: "For example, if an article is deleted for a reason not explicitly listed in the criteria for speedy deletion but it would almost certainly be deleted via the article deletion process anyway, there's little sense in undeleting it." NawlinWiki (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not proposing undeleting it - for precisely that reason. I just wondered what your reasoning was, since I was surprised to see as article deleted under PROD after five minutes not five days. Olaf Davis | Talk 13:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I'm not suggesting it was salvageable: that's why I used a PROD, which is for uncontroversial deletions. But however obvious it is that something needs to be deleted, it can't be speedied unless it meets a specific criterion. I didn't think it met any of them, including G11, so I PRODded it instead. If you think my interpretation of G11 is incorrect, could you explain why? I'm always happy to be corrected on misunderstandings of policy. Olaf Davis | Talk 12:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Category g11 states: "Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." I'm interpreting the "entity" here as Christianity. If you disagree with that interpretation, that's your prerogative. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

See my comment at NW's talk page. If he does not restore it, i will. DGG (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

or more exactly, pursue the question of such deletions. the discussion is on my talk page. DGG (talk) 02:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: the rest of the conversation, below, is copied from DGG's talk page, here. Olaf Davis | Talk 11:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you think there was a better speedy delete category to use? And if not, after looking at the text of the deleted article, do you think there was any conceivable argument (1) that the article should be kept on Wikipedia as it was, or (2) that it had any potential to be improved into an acceptable article that wasn't already covered by Creationism, Creation-evolution controversy, Book of Genesis, or similar articles? If so, I'd like to hear the argument. If not, are you arguing that the article should have been kept around for 5 days because "rules are rules"? If so, I disagree, see WP:IAR (a policy I hardly ever cite, but it seems appropriate here). NawlinWiki (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there was any speedy delete category to use. It had been nominated for prod, and that would have done just fine. Or if someone were stubborn enough to remove the prod, it would be a snow afd. When I became an admin I undertook to follow the rules; you've been an admin longer than I, but that does not exempt you either. Either restore it, or I will. DGG (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• You didn't address the second part of my question -- is there any conceivable way that this could be made into a useful, non-duplicative article? If not, it's just silly to repost it purely for the sake of process. Per WP:SNOW: "For example, if an article is deleted for a reason not explicitly listed in the criteria for speedy deletion but it would almost certainly be deleted via the article deletion process anyway, there's little sense in undeleting it." Rather than reposting such a doomed article yourself purely for the sake of process, why don't you go to Wikipedia:Deletion review? If there is actually a consensus there to repost the article, I'll be glad to do it then. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

two eds have now asked you. Thats enough reason. SNOW is an essay. WP:Deletion policy is policy. There's a difference. I am not interested in trying to keep the article, but in trying to persuade you that it is a good idea to follow the rules. DGG (talk) 23:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Two editors, neither of whom actually wants to keep the article. And yes, WP:SNOW is not policy -- but WP:IAR is policy: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I assert that deleting Creation of cosmos, as quickly as possible, improves Wikipedia, and that there is no way in which keeping the page, even for 5 days, could potentially improve Wikipedia. You haven't argued otherwise. Also, see the following from Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means:

• "The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should perhaps be ignored."
• "A rule-ignorer must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged." I believe I have done that by pointing out that Creation of cosmos, as a blatant religious tract, does nothing to improve the encyclopedia. Nobody, so far, disagrees with that.
• ""Ignore all rules" does not stop you from pointing out a rule to someone who has broken it, but do consider that their judgment may have been correct, and that they almost certainly thought it was." I don't mind you asking for the explanation, but insisting that I repost the page is elevating the letter of the rule over its spirit, and ignoring the common purpose of building an encyclopedia.
• ""Ignore all rules" is not an answer if someone asks you why you broke a rule. Most of the rules are derived from a lot of thoughtful experience and exist for pretty good reasons; they should therefore only be broken for good reasons." As explained above, I believe I had a good reason here -- I wasn't just ignoring the rules because I felt like ignoring the rules. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I recognize that you had a reason--you wanted to quickly delete a bad article. I disagree that it was an adequate reason. If IAR is the only way to get an article out of WP, thats one thing; if IAR is the only way to get rid immediately of something actually acutely harmful, that would be a good reason, though I doubt that it would ever be necessary, for I can't imagine what is acutely harmful besides vandalism and BLP violations and other libel and copyvio, and we already have rules for that. I don't necessarily insist you repost the page--but you really should stop deleting via speedy against the explicit deletion policy and then justifying it by IAR. I think a valid use of Deletion Review and insisting on a repost is to stop people from doing that. Of course there are other ways. How about, for example, my trying to persuade you that it casts discredit on all the policies when experienced admins ignore them? that is discourages newbies when their material is deleted and nobody can point to a specific policy based written reason why? that its unnecessary altogether, for I don't think you can give a reason why 4 more days there would hurt the encyclopedia? The unfair treatment of editors--even ignorant ones, even POV ones, on the other hand, that does the encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't consider the quick deletion in this case unnecessary. I think that having an article full of stuff like "There is an excellent proof of the creation of the universe. It is called "The Word of God". Let us see what the Bible has to tell about creation." is harmful to Wikipedia, even for one day. It violates numerous core policies, such as WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:SOAP. But I will take to heart your caution about deleting articles out of process, and will be very careful in the future. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

thanks, that what I was after. I agree it was harmful, just as any bad article is,and everyone agrees it is better off deleted. I'll gladly support SNOW at AfD for article like this. DGG (talk) 03:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Looks like I missed the meat of the debate here, but I'll add a couple of closing comments. Nawlin, I accept that you had a reason under WP:IAR. Personally I disagree in this case and would have left it, but I accept that you had a sensible reason. Part of my concern was that when I first saw you delete it with 'PROD' in the edit summary, I thought maybe you'd just rushed it through without really thinking - which I see now is not the case. I'd also echo DGG's comment about scaring off newbies if we appear to ignore policy, though I accept that this particular newbie may not have been the most likely to contribute constructively.

Anyway looks like we're all happy to draw a line under this at this point. Thanks for remaining civil throughout. Best, Olaf Davis | Talk 08:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WBOSITG's RfA

[edit] Editing on page Samrat Hem Chandra Vikramaditya or HEMU

Dear Mr. Davis, I thank you very much for your help in re-editing above mentioned page at around 11.00GMT on 15th May 2008. Your timely help motivated me to write/put the remaining citations, and I got going.However, today again some body fiddled with in-between and edited some sentences.I again make a request to sort out the problem with 'Starting of Vikramaditya Dynasty' portion of above page. The edited portion is there,but in the main article some sentences are missing and even on 'save page' only part of write-up appears on screen.

Thanking you in anticipation,

Sudhir Bhargava sudhirkbhargava@gmail.com INDIA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.130.89 (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. I've had another look at the page, and I think I've fixed it. There was a broken <ref> followed by a broken </ref>, and someone had fixed the former but not the latter, which caused more text to disappear.

While you're here, can I suggest that you register for a user name? It looks like the computer you're editing from has a dynamic IP, which makes it slightly hard to see which edits are yours and which aren't in the page history of the article. A user name would clear up that problem, as well as bringing other summary of benefits. Just a friendly suggestion though: it's up to you.

Anyway, best of luck working on the article. Olaf Davis | Talk 19:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Davis, Thanks again! You rightly pointed out that I have a dynamic IP and it bocomes confusing at times.I am registering right now! Sudhir Bhargava —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.130.134 (talk) 11:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Delayed DYK nom True Scotsman

Hi Olaf, thanks for your patience and support -- the May 11 dyk nom of True Scotsman is cleared for nom here[1]. The decision was "keep" as noted by Sandstein so do I put this hook onto another date (when it was expanded perhaps?) or can I leave that to you or Sandstein to take care of? Thanks again, Julia Rossi (talk) 07:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Julia. I've just added the hook to the next DYK update. Judging from the other DYK participants who came to support it at AfD I doubt anyone will object to it's being a day over. Just to clarify: do you think any of the article's other contributors put in enough work to need crediting for the DYK? Olaf Davis | Talk 08:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, Bridies had 8 article edits plus one talk page, very helpful with refs and [[User:Jmackaerospace|Jmack] had 14 and image -- I had a bunch but it was part of getting it together for Jmack who seemed at sea for a bit. Helpful others gave one edit each. Look forward to it and thanks for your positive help in all this -- he'll be overjoyed, Julia Rossi (talk) 10:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've credited them as the writers and you the nominator. You're very welcome for the help, and congratulations to the three of you on a good article, hook and DYK! All the best, Olaf Davis | Talk 13:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Olaf, for all your trouble -- *beaming*  : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thank-spam

Thanks Olaf :) Gatoclass (talk) 09:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

More than happy to support; I'm confident you'll continue to be an asset to DYK and the whole of Wikipedia. Congratulations! Olaf Davis | Talk 13:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] dyk

See what I can do if its not done yet Victuallers (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Look's like Bedford just beat you to it, but thanks anyway! Olaf Davis | Talk 16:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Matt Mahurin

Olaf, thank you for noticing my Matt Mahurin biography and the compliments you added to my talk page. I will be adding articles here about contemporary illustrators, as that is a subject I am very familiar with. You are very kind to take notice. I have just arrived here and am still trying to become familiar with best practices. Your encouraging words are very rewarding. Rezimmerman (talk) 00:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Thanks, I've changed it based on your suggestion. Can you take a look and see if I did it right? It's my second DYK update and I'm particularly nervous about it (after messing up the first one, but I fixed it quickly so there wasn't too much damage done!). Cheers, PeterSymonds (talk) 09:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me! Olaf Davis | Talk 09:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Though having said that, I also noticed that you must have updated before another edit I made, adding links to the Operation Hyacinth hook. My changes are still on Template:Did you know/Next update. I think I had an {{inuse}} up on the next template page so maybe in future it'd be helpful to check for that so you don't upload in the middle of copyediting? No worries though, it's not like anything went really wrong. Olaf Davis | Talk 09:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay, sorry about that. I've copied the hook over to the template with the links, and copyedited a bit. I saw the {{inuse}} template but when I checked back I swear it had gone, hence the upload, so I should be more observant! Thanks for dealing with the user talk DYK notices! :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 09:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that probably was my fault then. I removed the {{inuse}} for a moment to check what the template looked like on the Main Page, and you must have checked back while it was gone. Isn't DYK fun! Olaf Davis | Talk 09:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't actually have to do that, the "inuse" tag does not appear on the mainpage so long as you post it above the hook code (which begins with a "{|" and ends with a "|}". Gatoclass (talk) 09:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It does, however, appear on Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (Next DYK) even if you put it right at the top. Or am I doing something wrong? Olaf Davis | Talk 10:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Does it? That's odd, it's never done that with me. I always put the tag just below the "Suggestions" header and above the open brackets "{|". Where do you put it? Gatoclass (talk) 10:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah - having looked back at the history, I realize I'd put it above the <noinclude> - which would explain it. Thanks for reminding me to check. Olaf Davis | Talk 10:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem :) Gatoclass (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SS Prinz Friedrich Wilhelm

On 24 May 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SS Prinz Friedrich Wilhelm, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish Destroyer Furor article

Olaf: Thanks for your kind offer to nominate my Spanish destroyer Furor article for "Did You Know?" I have taught myself how to add citations, ad have done so. If the article now meets the selectio criteria, I'd be honored if you would nominate it. Thanks again! Mdnavman (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)mdnavman

Hi Mdnavman. Unfortunately "Did You Know" only accepts articles created (or significantly expanded) within the last five days - see the selection criteria here - so Furor has missed its chance. But, if you write any other new articles soon you think would make interesting hooks, please do let me know or nominate them yourself. Best, Olaf Davis | Talk 08:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] dyk nom

On 24 May 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alexander Wilkinson, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Victuallers (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: AAAA

AAAA is a class in the New Mexico Activities Association. There are 5 classes ranging from 1A-5A and it depends how big of a school it is.. Example: Espanola Valley High School has 800+ students so it would be a AAAA school, if a school like Cibola High School which has over 1,500 students it would be classed as a AAAAA school. For more info go to the New Mexico Activities Association wiki page or nmact.org.

... ThomasSalazar _Chat?! 10:34 MT, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Thomas. I've made AAAA in the Espanola Valley High School article link to the relevant section of the NMAA page, which hopefully should provide people with some context. Olaf Davis | Talk 08:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK thanks and suggestion

Hi. Thanks for the DYK message on Uncommon Sense.

One thing I've noticed with DYKs is that the actual updated dyk hook gets lost and forgotten over time. I've therefore created {{UpdatedDYKmessage}} as a way to include that information when adding a user talk page note. If you like it, maybe it can be adopted for the other DYK message templates.

Format is {{UpdatedDYKmessage|[[day month]] [[year]]|New article|...that there's this really interesting fact?}}

Which gives (of course, I haven't subst'd it here)

On day month year, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article New article, which you created or substantially expanded.

...that there's this really interesting fact?

Have a look at my user page for some examples of how it looks in practice. All the best. GDallimore (Talk) 14:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi GDallimore. Thanks for the suggestion, and sorry it's taken me a while to get round to answering it. Your idea about preserving DYK hooks is a nice one. It does however make the template rather bigger, and I do quite like the current slim one. This may just be my fear of the unknown talking, though. It's possible we could slim it down a bit since there's some redundancy in giving the article title twice, but I don't know if that'd be unclear for people who don't know about DYK.

Apart from that though your design is good. I'd suggest putting a narrow blank column in the middle to prevent the texts running together as they do a bit on your Four Nights in Knaresborough one. Either that or having one below the other like here, but on the whole I think I prefer yours.

You're probably right about this having been discussed before. Perhaps someone on the DYK project will remember it - I will go and bring it up there and see what people think. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've mentioned your template in this thread, so we'll see if any older DYK regulars remember similar discussions or have comments to make. Oh, and I added a column to your template - what do you think? Olaf Davis | Talk 16:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 5/26 DYK

On 26 May 2008, Did you know? was updated with facts from the articles Operation Caesar, and Hispanics in the United States Navy, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bedford ^Pray 00:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks...

for your vote of support on my RFA. I appreciate all the votes of confidence and hope not to disappoint! BTW, congratulations on all those DYK you are creating!! --Slp1 (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, I'm sure you'll be an asset. Also the thank-spam that showed you'd actually glanced at my page was kinda nice! Olaf Davis | Talk 20:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thank you spam

Hi there - thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed 69/10/3 yesterday. I will put the tools to good use and hopefully justify the confidence you had in me. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fairouzeh

Dear Olaf, Thank you for your help in editing. Thanks to you I was able to upload my essy about my beloved village "Fairouzeh" in Syria. I realy appriciate your help. --GeorgesNasserDeeb (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Deeb

[edit] Teuchitlan tradition

On 1 June 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Teuchitlan tradition, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 08:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] review

Hi Olaf - I've started working as a DYK reviewer for the last couple of days, and I am concerned that I'm nitpicking and not being well-grounded in policy when commenting. I'm trying to help, and I don't want to end up causing problems. What is your opinion, and how can I improve? Vishnava _talk 20:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Olaf, no hurry whatsoever. Vishnava _talk 16:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On 7 June 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article History of the University of Bristol, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Royalbroil 05:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)