User talk:Rossami

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  1. thru 22:05, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. thru 23:22, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. thru 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. thru 12:36, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  5. thru 19:33, 25 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  6. thru 04:44, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  7. thru 21:01, 7 Sep 2006 (UTC)
  8. thru 07:09, 30 Nov 2006 (UTC)
  9. thru 05:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Merry Christmas

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 05:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 05:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFD

... :O It was a mistake. There were quite a few discussions which East deleted, I closed all of them during the same edit and got that one mixed up. Seeing as it was a mistake, I'll let another admin decide the action. Thanks, Rossami. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 14:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citations for Queen bee

I see that you don't think that citations can be found for bee lore, "because it is so old." Actually, the information dates to the 1800s, and sources can be found. Do you have access to JStor.org? AnteaterZot (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: IESVS NAZARENVS REX IVDÆORVM

Hm, you do make a good point on the subject, I didn't think in regards to people copy-pasting it in upon seeing it, which is likely. If you wish to redirect it to INRI, then you can. Wizardman 14:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Styrofoam1994

Just so you know, I am not a sockpuppet of User:Rws killer as you said here, nor am I any reincarnation of anybody else. Styrofoam1994DiscussionContribs 02:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: history check

I see, so miss 2003 comes asking my advice. So now the tables have turned! Eentervestink, no? (OK, so I'd make a lousy Bond villain, but an ok Doctor Zoidberg maybe?). Elementary though: I just looked up the history on your user page and hit the 500 button. Piece o' cake. -- Kendrick7talk 04:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, if you want to know how I decided you were female, that costs extra, unless I'm wrong.... -- Kendrick7talk 04:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah well, was only a WAG. Bad bluff! -- Kendrick7talk 17:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No

"Removing trivial examples of "people who said no". (Not that the people are trivial - what they did was very important but not because they used that particular word"

I just re-added the political no's section: these examples of "people who said no" I think are important because they said the word "no" or advocated to use it. The art section could be deleted for the same reasons you mention I think. Best regards, --Brz7 (talk) 11:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks and a day off sounds great

I'm back form reading and responding to your wonderful message. A dinner and weekend off is a great idea. Thanks. --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

I saw your note about deletion on WT:CSD. I thought I would point out, since I don't think it's a well known fact, that the server admins say they reserve the right to purge (or lose) deleted content at any time. So deletion should not be thought of as a sort of archiving, but as moving pages into a "recycling bin" that the server administrators may empty when they please. There has been at least one incident in which a large amount of deleted content was lost, I believe, before I came to WP. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re: Wikipedia talk:Silence and consensus#Oppose

Hi Rossami,

I’ve seen you around for a long time and you have my respect. I wouldn't worry about wrong feet. I do try to write to the point, to not mince words, as it seems to be more effective even though it can seem abrupt.

My point had some subtlety (If one were to call a poll, yes, polls are usually bad, but if one did, as shown with WP:A, and non-admin rollback, then the evidence is against the notion that silence implies consensus). Your response gave me the impression of non-sequitur. Nothing to get excited about.

Trust is interesting, I agree. Wikipedians, as a rule, trust other wikipedians, with the exception of vandals and trolls. My feeling is that attempting documenting trust won’t do anything positive for the project. However, see Wikipedia:Trust network and Jimbo on trust metrics. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revert without comment

Hello, Rossami ... I do not understand why you reverted my edit that added italics to "e.g." and "etc." in Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion ... did I violate some obscure point of WP:MOS? —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 06:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you did. And while you may have had good intentions, you are editing from an IP with a history of vandalism. Summary reverts to edits made from anon IPs have, unfortunately, had to become the norm in order to keep the level of vandalism under control. Rossami (talk)
Then please indicate the nature of the violation, and please document this alleged "history of vandalism" from the IP that I have been using since 19 December 2007 ... BTW, the edit summary of my contribution was much more informative than your summary revert. :-) —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 22:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello ... I'm still waiting for answers, or don't you communicate with anon IPs? —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 01:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
To be blunt, no. We try to assume good faith but there are too many are vandals and trolls who have been eager to waste my time. If you want to be more active in the project and to be taken seriously, create an ID and login. Rossami (talk)
Will you talk to me now? I mean, what's the point of the {{User Alternate Acct}} template if editors like you choose to ignore it? And just what part of Not a topic for conversation did you not understand??
Once again, "What history of vandalism?" and "What part of WP:MOS did I violate by adding italics on the abbreviations e.g and etc.?" (Since I used an Edit summary when I did it, it can't be called "vandalism".) —The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk · contribs) 12:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girlfriend (7th nomination)

Please do not revert this closure again. The article has been closed by three different admins as keep, and has been at AfD for well over 5 days (which is how long an AfD should be run for) yet you insist on reverting - please don't. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

My closure was not a speedy keep. As Ryan said, it had run for 5 days and it was an obvious keep. If you have a problem with the closure, the correct forum is WP:DRV, not reverting other admins' decisions. Mr.Z-man 17:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
No, you don't revert closures because you don't like them, especially when it is obvious that the consensus will not change, and even more especially in discussions that you participated in. WP:DRV exists specifically for the reason of contesting XFD closures. Mr.Z-man 23:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, so why did the discussion have to stay open for another day when it was obvious the outcome would not change? You could have at least discussed it with me or Henrik before reverting. Mr.Z-man 00:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Honey bee diseases

Hi. I'm sure you noticed the recent response by "Michael Bush" on the Diseases of the honey bee talk page. That first link he offers regarding essential oil treatment does indeed look to be a legitimate and verifiable study, and the bibliography for it lists several more which also appear to be properly peer-reviewed research. While he only supplied those links and made no changes to the article, would you consider making such changes yourself, incorporating one or more of these references into the text of the article (and probably also the Varroa article) to reflect the use of essential oils as a legitimate area of inquiry? Thanks, Dyanega (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Woodworking for Women

A tag has been placed on Woodworking for Women, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. ♫Slysplace | talk 01:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Funny thing that

It's actually just a manual copy-paste, there's no template for it, although I guess it would be convenient to subst it from a user subpage now that you mention it. I never used to put them in (I just ignored the pages that were short by nature), but it got annoying after a while, so I realised the merits. Not sure who started it, I think it was TexasAndroid, but he doesn't seem to do short pages maintenance anymore. I only recently realised that Carlossuarez's long comment is even longer than the one I use, it's just that you can't see all the consecutive spaces :P

Uh, anyway, that's probably more information than you were asking for, heh. --Closedmouth (talk) 06:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice, thanks for that, I'll start using it once the toolserver's recovered from whatever's been bugging it lately. --Closedmouth (talk) 10:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Long comment

thanks. I have been patrolling the short pages for a while now, and whittling them down. I just use a cut and paste, which if you substitute a template is probably equally easy. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

looks good. Good job. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Circular redirects

I mean redirects like A->A or A->B->A. They stall double-redirect bots and, if not are eligble for R1, are eligible for A1. Will (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

A is a redirect page in both cases. In the second case, B redirects to A. And while the software does interpret it correctly, it still appears on Special:Doubleredirects as Foo->Foo->Foo, which stalls the bots. Will (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
User:Sceptre/a is an example. Will (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{Oldprodfull}}

Hello again, Rossami ... please see this talk page and tell me what you think of my newly created Template:Oldprodfull ... would you use it, or update it if you encountered it?

Also, what are your thoughts on my proposed WP:FLAG-BIO protocol?

Happy Editing! — 72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 14:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I would not remove the template if I saw it on a page but I probably would not use it personally. It has too many parameters and specific grammar requirements that all have to be gotten right. It would be too much work when all that's really needed is a short sentence and perhaps a hyperlink.
I also dislike the recent pattern of colored boxes at the top of the page for all things deletion-related. In too many cases, that creates an appearance of controversy and dissent where none really exists. Your template is consistent with the established pattern, though, so that's not a complaint against your template specifically. Hope that helps. Rossami (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Thnx for the feedback ... it gives me a POV that I had not considered (that's why I've been soliciting comments :-) ... actually, using {{Oldprodfull}} with no arguments produces "a short sentence and … a hyperlink" ... you don't have to supply all of the parameters, and it "does the Right Thing" based on what parameters are supplied ... I thought that the original nominator could add the "default" boilerplate to the talk page, and then Some Other Editor who seconds or contests the PROD can fill in the other fields.
To be honest, I thought that one of the bots could generate it when initiating a PROD, but I'm using it manually to "stress the robustness" of it. — 72.75.72.63 (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't notice that you also asked for feedback on the Flag-bio proposal. I think you have some good principles behind your recommendation but taken together it looks like a case of instruction creep. For example, why would I both tag the discussion page and tag the article (with either prod or the speedy-template)? One or the other ought to be sufficient.
Notification of the original editor is courteous but can and should not be required. Notification fo deletion proposals has been discussed many times before. There are both practical reasons (such as the inability to truly identify the "author" of a page with more than just a few edits) and philosophical reasons (most importantly being that any such rule creates a misperception among new editors that they somehow own their article).
There's nothing wrong with your process if those are the rules that you want to follow. I don't know how successful you'll be getting others to adopt them, though. Rossami (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Copy that ... I'll work on the introduction ... in a nutshell:
  1. It is intended for articles by newbies who are still unfamiliar with Wikipedia procedures and policies.
  2. Flagging either the article or the "author" should be sufficient, but the reality is that it isn't; (a) newbie's might not have their new article Watchlisted automagically, and (b) tags on an article will evaporate when it is deleted, but the flags on an editor's talk page may reveal a pattern of creating NN articles.
  3. Yes, identifying the "author" may be problematic on older articles, which is why it says "because you are either the author or a recent contributor".
  4. Good Catch ... I must add a link to WP:OWN and a caveat for the newbies. :-)
  5. I've found these boilerplate stencils Very Handy when I flag articles, and having individual WP:FLAG-xyz protocols takes the "memory" out of using Flag-article and Flag-editor.
Again, thanks for the feedback, and may I suggest that you just try using Oldprodfull the next time you PROD an article, or contest a PROD ... if you find that it doesn't slow you down, you might find that it's handy for leaving a paper trail. — 72.75.72.63 (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Redirect/Deletion Reasons

With regard to my addition of D8 - "If the redirect has been left behind by a page move and its removal is required in the process of uncontroversial maintenance", I think your concern may be misplaced. You're certainly right to say that "Redirects are created by the pagemove process for a reason." However, there are circumstances where redirects are simply no longer needed and their removal isn't contested or controversial in any way. See the entries at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 February 13#Template:Jctnoaccess→Template:Jctint/noaccess and below for examples. Would that kind of situation perhaps be better resolved by referring to WP:CSD#G6? IMO, it would be useful to have a similar "housekeeping clause" in Wikipedia:Redirect/Deletion Reasons. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] EOL: "I revert this IP because this IP was already reverted earlier"

Hello,
Yes, I was reverted earlier : here, which seem to have done a mistake on his revert. (My edit aimed to make the article more clear : 2 systems of defense : a/ the Sting ; b/ the "Bee Ball")

Then you reverted my edit on Encyclopedia of Life. My sources come from the respecting websites and are not hard to check : you can first look on the wikipedia entries Wikispecies, Encyclopedia of Life, and on the respectives websites.

A better question is : where should go this table ? I think this table should go in an article "Web encyclopedy of life projects", listing the current main projects, ans their respectives fearture. I'm not an english speaker, so I don't dare choice a name for this.

Your help is welcome. 140.122.97.4 (talk) 08:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You say it is answered at length

But this is not true, I have looked over the page, it goes back four years. The most intelligent debate has the least response. You dont have to defend the policy because you have the reigns. If you enter a sly remark every once in a while you will get a nice big barnstar, and yet, I still havent found any reasoning from the holders. If this has been the subject of tireless debate it is archived. You dared to insult me, provide the link I seek, allow me to see the debate as invalid. Not a difficult request. Thank you
ThisMunkey (talk) 13:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This debate raged across many pages, not merely the one page's history that you're choosing to look at. It's all there in the archives.
If you want to change the policy, do your homework. It's not my job to do it for you. And if you want people to be polite to you, consider your own words first. You started this discussion in about the most adversarial way you could. You can't now complain when people write you off as a troll. Rossami (talk)
It was all on that page all the way back to 2004 and the answers were not very good at all. I continued my adverse method and got a good answer. You do your homework!!
ThisMunkey (talk) 11:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-vandalism tools

Hello. That vandal warning was added through WP:TWINKLE - you can see what options I'm using for it at User:McGeddon/monobook.js. Let me know if you've got any further questions. --McGeddon (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Relatedly, you seem to have warned the same user twice in the space of a few minutes, for edits that preceded the one I'd already warned them for. It doesn't make much sense to give escalating "please stop" edit warnings when there's no sign that they've even logged back in to read the first one, yet. --McGeddon (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re: Wikipedia:Notability (schools)

Yes I should have put more in the edit summary. I did the "reverted good faith" version and figured that would be ok? Obviously not. Anyhow, I feel in my opinion that there was no consensus to archive the page as you did. It was all just your decision to do so as far as I could tell? At least I could find no discussion on it on the talk page, so I made the decision to revert your edit. I am one of the people strongly in favour of adopting WP:SCHOOL as a stand alone guideline (as apposed to full blown policy). I did at one stage tag it as such but that edit was reverted also. I honestly believe the guideline is a big help when we are discussing school articles at AfD, and in fact can cut down on the time factor there in these school based dicussions. Cheers, Sting au Buzz Me... 05:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The recent removal of the high school/secondary school criterion has been reverted. See Wikipedia talk:Notability (schools)#High school/secondary school notability. Your comments are requested and appreciated. Truthanado (talk) 14:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Governor's Schools

Your removal of Governor's Schools in the Wikipedia:Notability (schools) proposal was interesting, as you cited that it is only a regional term for Virginian schools. The Wikipedia article is in fact wrong as the term is used throughout many various states as seen in this list by The National Conference of Governor's Schools. I would ask the term be reinstated as they are considered to be the highest public schools in the states they operate in. Zidel333 (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of Simple Machine

Hi Rossami

I feel my work on the Definition of Simple Machines is approaching the grey area between summary and synthesis.

The length and explanations of the source-based research begins to be so long that it might indicate that it is more than source based research.

I need your advice : should I extend my research and then submit it to Scientific American for peer-review and publication, or is the peer-review of fellow wikipedians like your self enough to warrant a placement on the Talk page and eventually on the Article itself ?

Jesper Jurcenoks (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] rant

i dont start the undoing post war its U who started it behaving like its ur private property if u define urself fully so as i (read it in talk page) . u cant declear result b4 ressolving issue . listen if u behaving like kid and again undo it b4 fully ressolv the issue . i will again and again and again undo it againg dont wast wikipedia's bandwith . --Blogsd ! 18:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] postvfd

thanks, but can you do the doc inclusion like on the other pages so in the future a moron like myself who might stumble upon it (because it's what came up in google) can find the proper one? --TIB (talk) 04:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Specious

Hi Ross,

Your explanation of the "specious" situation seems to be thorough and accurate. I don't see the need to make any changes to your synopsis. I like your essay "On redirects"; I couldn't agree more.

Neelix (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ross,
I'm not sure where else we could post a discussion. Would the help desk be an appropriate place? It says that it's only for questions about "using" Wikipedia. That may mean no editing-related questions.
Neelix (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ross,
That's a good idea. The Deception talk page is an appropriate place for the discussion. I actually typed "specious" into the search bar directly, so I didn't follow any path.
Neelix (talk) 10:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

The nonsence added to pulley was added by a classmate of mine, somewhere in this school. We all have the same ip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.107.179 (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability (Schools)

Your recent edits:

  1. (cur) (last) 03:32, 14 April 2008 Rossami (Talk | contribs) (4,927 bytes) (revert new bullet 4. Many schools have cooperative programs with industry. If there truly is a "unique program", it will be fully covered in independent media and meet the primary criterion.) (undo)
  2. (cur) (last) 03:31, 14 April 2008 Rossami (Talk | contribs) (5,083 bytes) (revert new bullet 5. Notability can not be inherited. Winning a championship may be evidence for the students winning, but is not evidence of notability for the school.) (undo)

This list is supposed to be a list of things which indicate the school is likely notable. It is not meant as a substitute for the primary criteria. Rather, it is meant to 1) give new-article creators something to think about before they waste time creating an article that can be reliably sourced but whose claims to fames are dubious, and 2) give editors a reason to go search for citations and improve the article if someone writes an article about a notable school but forgets the references. Notability is always subjective. The lower on the notability scale a school appears to be, the more effort a new-article creator will have to go to in order to avoid AfD. The higher on the notability scale a school appears to be, the more likely an unsourced article - which by definition should never exist - will be improved rather than AfD'd or PRODded away. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Company‎

Hi, Rossami. I saw you unprotected this template stating that a one day edit dispute doesn't justify indefinite sysop-only protection. Just to clarify, it wasn't protected because of a dispute, but because it is a high risk template transcluded on over 10,000 articles. Just wanted to make sure you were aware. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 23:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this, thank you for lowering protection, I'll apply changes shortly if one of you wishes to re-protect. In any case, I do have this watchlisted, so I'll catch any inappropriate-ness. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 06:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bobsledders

Hi. Thank you for the message. I have tried in the past to convert these pages into redirects, including I believe articles written by this editor in particular, but they're always almost immediately reverted. If they go into AfDs, I've only seen one instance where an athlete was successfully converted into a redirect - and even then, the editor tried to recreate it a few months later by adding some unsourced and unnotable facts. I re-converted it into a redirect and the user agreed not to recreate it, but I imagine that if it had been contested, a new AfD may very well have overturned the previous one. People will always argue keep and claim that "there could be sources", finding flaw in your searches no matter how thorough. In the last article that I AfDed (a non-sportsperson who didn't even have the "all Olympic athletes are notable" clause), not a single source or notable claim was added to the article, but everyone argued keep on speculative grounds and I was accused of "recentism" and "google searching" despite the fact that I also searched library and academic journal archives. I imagine that it's not worth my time to AfD the bobsledders, as it's very easy to argue a foreign language bias in most of those cases, despite Google News Archive searches in foreign languages.

I guess I'm just frustrated is all, but maybe that's just because I'd rather have 10,000 well-referenced, clearly notable, well-sourced articles than 1 million "so and so was a skier who came 47th at XXXX Olympic Games" and nothing has else has ever been written on him. I just wish that people would pay more attention to the fact that the onus for source-finding is not on the nominator for deleter, but on the person who adds the content. Even with the hoaxes I've deleted, I've had to prove extensively that the person isn't real - technically you're not even supposed to prod hoaxes - so a person can add half a dozen hoaxes in a few minutes that take a lot of time and effort to delete. If a good faith source-finding effort has been made, that should be respected, rather than becoming a rallying call for everyone to seek out the biases and flaws of the searching method. Cheers, CP 17:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to Crap (word)

Please see the discussion at Talk:Crap. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 07:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just FYI re NOT#PLOT

I did capture what I added yesterday to User:Masem/notplot though its far from essay quality at this point. --MASEM 05:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fact

Problem is, {{Fact}} is putting these pages in Category:Articles with unsourced statements. Therefore they need attention to come out of that category. I usually run against talk pages about once a month, at month end, this time there seem to be a lot of Fact tags picked up that haven't been before, which is odd as neither Fact not Fix have changed. I am, however, replaceing many of the tags where there is a "mention" rather than "use" with {{Fact}}.

I will have another think about how to deal with this.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 06:50 1 May 2008 (GMT).

[edit] Origin of the notability concept

Hey Rossami. I've been doing some Wikipedia archeology, digging around in the guideline histories trying to find where the idea of notability being based on independant coverage of the subject came from. It looks to me like the idea bubbled up from Notability (people), where you first suggested it on this talk page amongst some other ideas, and then you added it to the guideline a few days later in this edit. Where did the idea come from originally? Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks mate, I'll follow the WP:CORP lead. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm no expert on merges, but it looks like kind of a mess back there. The article you mention that preceded WP:CORP seems to have been Wikipedia:Companies,_corporations_and_economic_information/Notability_and_inclusion_guidelines, but I can't find its edit history before the merger with WP:CORP. Some of the talk seems to be at Wikipedia_talk:Companies,_corporations_and_economic_information/Notability_and_inclusion_guidelines/Archive but the discussion imples that the criterion is already present in some form. Do you happen to know some way to access the article edit history that I'm missing or earlier discussion? Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. Here's where I'm at so far: User:Ryan_Paddy/Origin_of_primary_criterion_for_notability. Have asked Uncle G if he has any leads. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What's an RfD?

I don't know what you're talking about either. I like that mobile Barnster. But I have no recollection as to how it pertains to you. Strange. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I used it for my Talk page. Your signature looks vaguely familliar. And I have awarded Barnstars. So - that's all I recollect at the moment - but WP can be a strange place sometimes. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    • OK. Now I understand. Give me another moment please... Ludvikus (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Revisionism is a disambiguation page. Please go to it and check each Page it's supposed to DAB. You will see the problem(s) if you try to put in {{otheruses}}. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sapere Aude

I noticed you were involved in the debate over "Sapere Aude". I've tried to put up a more encyclopedic article, (thought I'm not a skilled wikipedian), I hope this is good enough to remain.--71.63.245.222 (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit that I was skeptic but you did it. You wrote a draft that goes well beyond merely lexical content. Thank you. Rossami (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Guido (slang)

Not quite sure why you keep removing this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SingularX12 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

While I still do disagree, I will let this go as I am still learning the ropes of Wikipedia and you are far more senior to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SingularX12 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects on DAB pages

Hi Rossami,

In response to your removal of redirect links from crap (disambiguation), I presonally don't care, but according to WP:MoSDAB#Piping:

This guidance to avoid piping means that a link to a redirect term will sometimes be preferred to a direct link, if the redirect term contains the disambiguation title and the redirect target does not. For example, in Delta (disambiguation), a link to the redirect term Delta Quadrant would be preferred over its target, Galactic quadrant.

Hoof Hearted (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet

Thank you for blocking SwitchbladeSam (see User talk:SwitchbladeSam. I believe this person is using other names/IPs to make unconstructive edits. Please see Special:Contributions/CheeseQualopec and Special:Contributions/69.121.114.17 and probably Special:Contributions/PsychWardMan for similarity in edits and articles edited. The articles are quite distinct, such as Alex Trebek, St. Francis Hospital, weekend, psychiatric hospital, funny farm, and List of Now That's What I Call Music! albums. These constant edits have been driving me crazy on the latter item, and I'm just not sure what I can do about it. Thanks. --Wolfer68 (talk) 22:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Notability (schools)

Want to discuss that deletion on the article talk page? I agree with your edit summary, but my point covers things like your average national news school shooting or the like that brings the school into national recognition for weeks or months at a time, or the school having the worst academic record in the state 5 years running. Those are pretty clearly things that make the school potentially article (or at least stub) worthy. How can we word a point about "sufficiently newsworthy to have become notworthy"? Loren.wilton (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] archive box collapsible

I wish I knew why. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfD

I have nominated Deletion policy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. -- lucasbfr talk 06:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments there (I didn't know about the 2006 discussion either till just now). I've speedy deleted it per G4 and with your implicit consent. Daniel (talk) 14:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
To be honest I'm a bit puzzled by the huge amount of restores you did. While XNamespace redirects to the WP space are (no longer ?) R2 speediable, having them around will only create confusion, and hinder our reusability by external providers by creating hundreds of "fake blue links". The numerous RfD discussions about these have invariably ended in a delete decision. I don't think creating approx. 60 RfD discussions about these is doing a service to the other processes needing attention. That the deletions were out of process is one thing, but our policies are made to be descriptive of current practices, not adding an unneeded layer of bureaucracy :). -- lucasbfr talk 16:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Those redirects were never speedy-deletable and often are not even regularly-deletable. Many of those redirects are leftovers from pagemoves of pages that predate the creation of the separate namespaces. Many of them are heavily linked both in our own history and even externally. Deleting those redirects breaks the links and destroys the tracability of our own history. When I weigh that against the theoretical difficulties that some mirror might have reusing our content, frankly, I care a lot more about our readers and editors. If you look at WP:CNR, you'll see both sides of the argument and a fairly clear conclusion that the last time we seriously considered the question, we still didn't know what to do about cross-namespace redirects. The one conclusion that's clear, however, is that speedy-deletion was clearly inappropriate. These redirects need to be individually weighed on their own merits and discussed based on the unique facts of age, usage, etc. So, yes, an RfD is an appropriate use of our time. Rossami (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cop

Thanks for cleaning up the page. In case you didn't see it, this was not a redirect to Cop, but to Cops. This make sense? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I can see why you missed that. Yes merging would definitely be a good idea, and I believe WP:DAB#NAME agrees. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] APR Formula

Thank you for the clarifying the inclusion of instructional or "how to" material in the encyclopedia. The formula itself does not necessarily require segmentation into monthly payments, but you are correct in your assumption that it does require segmentation into defined and equal payments. Jeamsler76 (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion/Redirects from foreign languages

Hi. I have a question because you are the most expert in redirects I know. About the Redirects from foreign languages. Did we end up in something at the end? I think we did and we could proceed and form it as Wikipedia's policy. Am I wrong? -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the historic names and I think you did a wonderful job with that. Your idea to start a more centralised discussion was brilliant. I am not familiar in working with guidelines and essays, so I have to read a bit about it. The whole thing came into my mind after a discussion in here Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 May 22. We certainly need to promote this essay a bit and we need an easy-to-remember shortcut. I'll try to think of something but I am not very good in these things. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Talk:The weather in London

I'm well aware of that page's history. Please take the page to DRV if you feel I have deleted it inappropriately. Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, from the Deletion policy, "If a page has been speedily deleted and there is disagreement over whether or not it should have been, this is discussed at deletion review, described below." And, "However, such undeletions without gaining consensus may be viewed as disruptive, so they should be undertaken with care." --MZMcBride (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lord Bloody Wog Rolo

Hi there, I'm just letting you know that I removed the 2 categories you added regarding Germany as Rolo had no German connections. I am rather curious to know why you thought he did... Rozziew (talk) 04:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Ooops! I'm a goose - wrong editor... sorry about that... Rozziew (talk) 07:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IC

I thank you very much for your time, and Its niice to be awnsered when you dont quite have the knowledge to ariculate yourself correctly. Your answer shows me that there are things which I would need to read up on further (e.g. meiosis) before I can make a conclusion in my own mind, and I guess there needs to be quantitative data involved (which is quite difficult to get). Thanks for pointing me in the right direction and thanks agian for bothering to decipher what I have written.86.140.39.142 (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unsuitable redirects

Would you kindly review the last few pages created by user Banned? Is this a case of redirect vandalism? ~ smb 20:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed and speedy-deleted as vandalism. Thanks for the notice. Rossami (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I see nothing about redirects among the types of vandalism. Perhaps you can provide with a link describing why the pages I created were vandalism? Thanks. Banned (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand your position, but there is nothing on those pages about so-called "re-direct vandalism". Can you please refer me to some sort of material explaining why redirecting North Coldland to Norway is vandalism? Banned (talk) 08:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About the "vandal" making up hoax "voting schemes"

In an AfD, you wrote:[1]

  • Comment. We had a vandal a while back who was making up "voting" schemes and writing hoax articles about them. He was finally blocked for his vandalism but in some parting comments, he asserted that we had not yet found and deleted all of his hoaxes. (He used a number of IP and sockpuppet accounts to carry out the vandalism.) I have not yet had time to research this particular article but I would urge all participants to be particularly skeptical about unsourced or poorly sourced articles on the topic of voting. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've only been particularly active with voting methods articles here since September 2007, and I hadn't noticed the vandal you speak of. Can you recall who he was? Yellowbeard is claiming that this was User:Sarsaparilla, but that user did not create any hoax voting schemes. He did create two articles of marginal notability, but, in fact, we have many, many voting systems articles of possibly less notability that he had nothing to do with, and he never used sock puppets except for block evasion; he did have multiple legitimate accounts, one after another, never returning. The problem with sourcing in voting systems articles is a major one, particularly when it comes to theoretical systems which may have been very extensively discussed, their properties (i.e., methods of analyzing votes, compliance with criteria, etc.) are well known, but there may have been practically no print publication. The study of voting systems has become an internet phenomenon. As an example of an article where there is plenty of marginally-sourced material, see Schulze method. This method has, now, plenty of reliable source, but the article predates that, and there is verifiable material there -- from mailing lists and private web sites of known experts. Anyway, do you recall who it was? Thanks. --Abd (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It's useful at this point to know that it wasn't Sarsaparilla. --Abd (talk) 23:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CORP and malls, comment

thank you.Myheartinchile (talk) 06:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD help

I'm sorry for dropping this on your doorstep (again), but could you educate me what did wrong here Thought I had all my ducks lined up correctly, but obviously not. ~ smb 11:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou. My brain must be slowly rotting away. What is the exact code I'm required to enter on the log page? I've tried following the instructions carefully, but the process isn't working for me. ~ smb 17:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Ta for your help. Really. ~ smb 23:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] edit conflict

oh, ok, no problem. I had only made a few changes. I'll just go back on a few hours and check more redirects --Enric Naval (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

ok, I'll review it a bit now --Enric Naval (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I sorted a lot, and striked out a few, and labelled some as WP:CRYSTAL. I'll leave the few remaining unsorted to other editors. Cheers, and keep up the good work! --Enric Naval (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hashmi redirects

Many thanks for taking the lead in the Hashmi redirects we are considering for possible deletion (I've been working on removing extraneous categories myself - 20 gone and I have about 10 more on my watchlist for more (likely) erasure this coming weekend). It took me about four hours to check out about 80-85% of the redirects on the list for possible striking... whew! B.Wind (talk) 08:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Pardon me if I boldly put a few of the most grievous ones up to "prime the pump" - I'll note them on the list (like "Aar Aar Chur Chur" and "Jay Kay Rowling"). These I would have put up even if we were not reviewing the entire list of redirects (the number of categories I tagged for speedying is now close to 45 - since there are three category redirects in the list, I won't try to push them through... not until there seems to be some feeling as to what to do). Also, if you wish for me to prepare a block to present for RfD, I'll gladly do so - it would be best to put it together as a thematic block, as you've done with that massive list - and limit the block to no more than 15 at a time. This way it won't look so overwhelming and it would give the editors a chance to view them one-by-one, unlike the recent Wikiproject and space symbol redirects). B.Wind (talk) 07:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion policy

Hi, Kotniski's further edit more completely expressed my objective. I wanted to make it clear that deletion of an article is a last resort. In the case of copyright violation, removing the copyrighted material may leave a viable article, or the article can be rewritten etc. While this was precisely stated for some offenses it was not for others. I hope that this is a good solution. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DRV for Real_World/Road_Rules_Challenge:_2008

Rossami, you suggested to overturn the G4 deletion of Real_World/Road_Rules_Challenge:_2008 because it was an invalid G4 (the previous article had only been deletde through speedy and Prod). However, I think you missed the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real World/Road Rules Challenge: The Duel IIn which was closed only hours before the G4 deletion. Could you revisit the DRV page please? You are of course free to consider the G4 article sufficiently different from the AfD'ed one to overturn the deletion anyway, but I had the impression that at least part of your "iverturn" was based on "no previous AfD" (which would have been a valid argument if that AfD hadn't existed). Fram (talk) 06:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] False Sockpuppet Accusation

Rossami, I am writing to request help in mediating a matter involving a false accusation and the tarnishing of my reputation. I am a new user and my first post was here: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_May_23 regarding a Zulupad page. At the end of the deletion review log User:Shalom had the following to say about me:

"Housekeeping note: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Omeomi - There is legitimate suspicion, but no solid proof, that User:Cyber Shepherd may be a sockpuppet of User:Omeomi. Regardless, Cyber Shepherd has no edits outside this DRV and his userpage. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)"
Unless User:Shalom would like to prove or disprove this suggestion that I am a sockpuppet of User:Omeomi by conducting a checkname or performing some other verification test, then I feel that
User:Shalom should rescind his accusation. User User:VanTucky also cast his doubts about my existence as a real person. Can these users either prove their case or redact their statements?

If this is not the correct place to request this kind of help, I apologize--I am new to WikiPedia. However, I am a real person, I do work at Teachers College, Columbia University, and I do intend to (attempt) to create and add positively to WikiPedia. Please help with this matter or least instruct me where a more appropriate forum for this kind of grievance might be. Many thanks. --Cyber Shepherd (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)