User talk:Cdogsimmons/Archives 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rosie Mendez[edit]

In August 2008, you recognised that the article on Rosie Mendez read largely as a campaign leaflet. Since that time, however, it's become more factual and can hardly be said to venture an opinion at all. Would you be prepared to withdraw your prior stance that the page has NPOV issues? Black Regent (talk) 07:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Michigan v. Jackson[edit]

Updated DYK query On April 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Michigan v. Jackson, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 10:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009[edit]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 21:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia - Luxembourg[edit]

I'm not sure why you are trying to rescue this, there was very strong consensus to delete this article. see here Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_May_20. LibStar (talk) 06:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this on the deletion discusion page, but you should take note:

Comment Cdogsimmons, you have to realise what you are pushing is for a restoration of an article that was incorrectly closed in the initial AfD, then a very strong consensus in the deletion review, you are essentially making a mockery of these 2 processes, because trying to push the existence of the original article means that the whole AfD and DRV process is a waste of time. Why do we bother having AfDs if articles can be restored like this? Please respect Wikipedia processes. LibStar (talk) 07:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


Whatever the outcome of the somewhat odd debate about the disambiguation page, you are obviously free to create an article that is substantially better than the former one (according to Recreation of previously deleted pages). It's probably not advisable to do this right now though. -- User:Docu 15:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I was thinking about that. I think you're probably right about holding off at the moment. It looks like it would be the equivalent of sticking my head into a wood-chipper and I'm not sure that I'm that much a glutton for punishment. An odd discussion though indeed where a consensus seems to have been reached that you're not allowed to try and improve an article. Do I see a case for WP:Ignore? Then again, there was a consensus to delete (which I wasn't a part off and seems to have been dominated by deletionists). --Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emirati–Kosovan relations[edit]

Great work improving this article. I particularly appreciate that you took the time to write new text in the article drawing on the sources you found - this is surprisingly rare in AfDs. Nick-D (talk) 12:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Article Rescue Squad![edit]

Here to help articles tagged for rescue!

Hi, Cdogsimmons, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!

If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you.

And once again - Welcome! -- Banjeboi 23:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

your comments[edit]

what do you think of this? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–Malta relations, they are both EU members which you think is good enough for notability, if you wish to restore, please submit for deletion review. LibStar (talk) 08:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there are at least 150 of these bilateral articles that have been deleted in the last 2 months. you are of course welcome to request deletion review of any of these. however, I think there is community consensus on what makes something notable enough for an article, simply having embassies, a few minor agreements or 1 or 2 state visits has been shown not to satisfy WP:N. And for your information, I have voted keep on occasion and actually created about 10 of these new bilateral articles. LibStar (talk) 07:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Unfortunately I must disagree. While I maintain faith in the consensus of the community, most of the discussions were quite limited (usually to the same people, some who are avowed deletionists). I think the creation of a more concrete policy regarding these articles is in order. I would be in favor of a more liberal policy than you I suspect. I would say one bilateral treaty would be more than enough to establish the significance and notability of bilateral relations. Many of the articles that have been deleted met that criteria and in my opinion should be recreated. I also noticed your fine work in the creation of some bilateral articles, for which I say, thank you and well done.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the key thing about establishing notability in any Wikipedia article is significant third party coverage, in a lot of cases, many of these minor agreements (some are only weak memos of understanding) are not covered anywhere except on a govt website. and yes there are people that always vote keep and some of them rarely provide any reliable sources to back their vote. you should note that many of the deleted stubs were created by 1 user who went on for months cranking out 100s of stubs. thanks for your note on fine work, I am not a deletionist as some may think, and have quietly gone around building bilateral articles and creating new ones. LibStar (talk) 16:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem quite sound in your reasoning. One problem I see for these articles is that there probably is more 3rd coverage than we are giving them credit for because that coverage is in a language we don't understand. If I spoke Icelandic, or if Google Translate worked in Icelandic we might find more out there. I think that I am in part having a gut reaction to Westerners such as myself and yourself erasing articles about countries that don't speak English.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
many bilateral articles are listed in the relevant Wikiproject page for that country which means that those on that taskforce are alerted. In some cases, this alerts speakers of some of these languages. As you might have seen I speak French, so do searches in French when relevant...which includes that infamous Estonia-Luxembourg example. I have also contacted speakers of Romanian, Serbian and Macedonian that I know. Most countries (and I found many of the former Soviet republics) have English versions of their foreign ministry websites given that English is now really the language of international diplomacy in most cases. lastly, your point on Iceland. a lot of publications in Scandinavia are published in both their native language and English, and almost everyone speaks English in these countries. LibStar (talk) 08:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Estonia–Malta relations[edit]

Hi, sorry for the delayed response. In this case I think it might be best to take a break from the AfD(s) for a while. I know from experience that those bilateral relations discussions can get quite heated. In any case, I'll watchlist those pages to keep an eye on any progress. Cheers, –Juliancolton | Talk 04:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bilateral AfDs[edit]

I always do a google search and check foreign ministry websites where available. you are mistaken. secondly having embassies or not is only an indicator of notability. if they don't have embassies, I don't assume no notability. it is purely your opinion that many of these pairs have significant relations. I can tell you most that I nominate do get deleted. this is achieved through consensus in AfDs not your personal opinion. LibStar (talk) 07:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm glad to hear it. Now that we've eliminated that possibility as a cause for our contention, I guess we can focus on the real issue at hand. I do think that many of the countries associated with the articles you've nominated for deletion have "significant" relations. Bilateral relations between nation states are significant. I'm sorry that you don't agree, but you're welcome to your opinion. I do hope that you take care in the future to give such significant subject matter the benefit of the doubt on wikipedia and continue to conduct thorough research.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

notability tags[edit]

because all those articles lack significant references (or have no references except embassy websites). Notability is marginal at best. but I've added tags to alert all that these may be considered for deletion (as per what the tag says) if no significant sources are found. LibStar (talk) 05:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've already given you the reasons I've put the tags there. If you prefer I can put them all up for AfD? LibStar (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the tag itself is a flag that the article needs more work, but I'm happy to nominate them all for AfD. I will do so in the next few days. LibStar (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no obligation to do that, and I think Wikipedia automatically creates an alert to article creators. haven't you noticed that 90% of those I nominate were created by the 1 now banned creator. Please stop requesting me to do this and that. I'd appreciate if you spent your time improving articles not requesting me everyday to do things. LibStar (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
if you are a major contributor or creator the article should be on your watchlist in any case. LibStar (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will only listen to your point on alerting creators if you go to the nominators here and post the same remark Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Current_discussions. otherwise continually singling me out for special treatment will be noted. do not ask me again about this issue. LibStar (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not nominate all articles on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Current_discussions. please notify all the nominators there as well. If you continue like this, I will ask you not to post on my talk page again. LibStar (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Ashcroft v. Iqbal[edit]

Updated DYK query On June 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ashcroft v. Iqbal, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass 14:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Notifications[edit]

If a nominator fails to notify an article creator, you are perfectly okay to notify the article creator's yourself. No one could reasonably accuse you of canvassing if you do so, because the AfD instructions outright recommends that nominators do that anyway. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Ashcroft v. Iqbal[edit]

Updated DYK query On June 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ashcroft v. Iqbal, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

20:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

trade agreements[edit]

yes I did say that, but if you're looking for a basis for a deletion review on articles I nominated that isn't going to stick. those that have been deleted failed WP:N, particularly significant coverage test. I would further clarify that I would never nominate if a free trade agreement existed because that's the highest level trade agreement that requires years of negotiation usually up to the level of the country's leaders. it naturally follows that this would be well reported in the media. If a trade agreement does exist between 2 countries and is not widely reported in independent sources then it fails WP:N. It's a bit like how one editor said to me that even if a writer won 10 international awards but there was close to no coverage of this, then it fails WP:N. LibStar (talk) 01:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:France-PNG[edit]

Thank you for letting me know. It really annoys me when people list articles for deletion and don't inform the author. An article I wrote was once deleted without me ever knowing it had been nominated. Very frustrating. Aridd (talk) 08:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IGNORE[edit]

I know you quoted this in the Estonia-Luxembourg case. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ryulong#.22Ignore_all_rules.22. It could not be applied to Estonia Luxembourg given the strong consensus of the deletion review and that this issue was controversial in nature. This advice can be helpful when addressing uncontroversial or unanticipated situations in which the project can best be helped by avoiding the unintended consequences that would occur by applying the literal wording of a policy. However, "ignore all rules" should not be used to circumvent a consensus decision about the application of a policy. thanks LibStar (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/France – Papua New Guinea relations[edit]

This AfD debate which you participated in, with 9 arguments in favor of deletion and 4 in favor of retention, was just closed by an admin as keep. I've opened a DRV on the matter here [1].Bali ultimate (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rescued[edit]

I have created a "rescued" tag that shows the shows point in the afd debate where concerns brought up are met. You have the tag that shows when ARS was notified, but I think the point where the concerns bought up in the AFD are rectified is a better insertion point. What do you think? See here and maybe you can adjust the wording. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have time to help add references to Bahamas–Russia relations? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Rescue Barnstar[edit]

The Article Rescue Barnstar
I am honored to present you this Barnstar for your continued and fine work to Malaysia–Sweden relations during its AfD and in consideration of the major improvements since the article was first nominated. It's now well sourced and nicely encyclopedic. Nice work under pressure even as the clocks ticks to zero. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You took on one of the most difficult tasks presented by the project: attempting rescue of an article when it was forced to be done by AfD, even though AfD is not intended to force an immediate WP:Cleanup, and if sources can be shown the AfD should then be withdrawn. AfD often begins an adversarial relationship between those trying to improve something and those who could frankly care less... and personally, I find the AfD process to be one of the most WP:Disruptive in the entire project even though it is not supposed to be that way. That you continue, even through arguments minimalizing your efforts, is worth a pat on the back and a wikibeer. Keep up the good works. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Credit where credit is due. And might you care to assist me in something? I took this article which had been sent to AfD and did some work to bring it to this current state. Any further work you think it needs? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finally[edit]

A project I started back in October 2007 to create all the rest of the articles for the List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 113 is done! Just got the last one created! Some of them still need work, but they all exist... Dreadstar † 17:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks very much for letting me know about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–Tunisia relations (2nd nomination). Have a nice day! Cool3 (talk) 03:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring article[edit]

Hi, restoring an article that was twice deleted as here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Estonia%E2%80%93Luxembourg_relations&oldid=295418084 is very inappropriate to say the least. Please don't do something like that again. I'm not going to file a formal complaint this time but if anyone else chooses to I will comment in it. Drawn Some (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for contacting me, it is interesting that you are trying to restore an article so soon after it was deleted. but if you want my opinion, your draft version would need substantially more coverage to justify an article. the relatively small trade, and listing of treaties which haven't had wide coverage don't get it over the line. that's just my opinion. LibStar (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking that this article really didn't get a fair shake. It got pigeonholed as a disambig that everyone hated (myself included) after the first Afd so the second Afd to delete it was almost an extension of the first. I also think it should have occurred to people that "protecting" the page in that state was against policy (you're always supposed to be able to improve a page up for deletion) and basically a death sentence for the article. Really, this article has only functionally had one Afd that was horriblly mismanaged, which actually discouraged people from trying to improve it instead of encouraging them to do so.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the whole process just soaked up everyone's time, might I add if Docu closed it correctly the first occasion the whole saga would have been avoided. LibStar (talk)
The bit about the Sirk window fall seemed to be given odd prominence. Edison (talk) 03:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Cdogsimmons. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Notabiltiy at Wikipedia[edit]

Here at Wikipedia the subject of articles must be notable, not only verifiable. Your opinion that your personal standards are met isn't good enough, it violates consensus and it is disruptive for you to continue to ignore notability guidelines such as at the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatia–Lebanon relations. Please review WP:NOTE and associated guidelines on notability. Thank you. Drawn Some (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answered at your page. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Cdogsimmons. You have new messages at Drawn Some's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comments on Docu's RFC[edit]

Please see this [2], in fact out of those 92 editors the majority of them I have never seen at a bilateral AfD. LibStar (talk) 09:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

proposal at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Law#Proposal:_New_Wikiproject.2C_offering_free_legal_research[edit]

Hi Cdogsimmons,

At the above page, I've made a proposal for making Wikipedia more useful for lawyers/students/judges/professors (by challenging Wexis head-on) and I'd like to invite you to read and comment. Thanks. Agradman appreciates civility/makes occasional mistakes 21:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Finland–Slovenia relations[edit]

 Done. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Toothing[edit]

Can you peek at Toothing? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RTL[edit]

There is a discussion at Talk:List of Re-education Through Labor camps in China#In quest for "Judong" or Wikipedia Laowai Handbook?. Since you have been involved in editing this list, you may be interested. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Malaysia–Romania relations[edit]

Sorry, but no, I don't have any sources for that... and personally, besides maybe knowing that they've established diplomatic relations and have foreign embassies in their respective capitals I didn't know any more than that... On the other hand, I'm under the impression that your interested in "Country X - Country Y relations" type of article, am I right? Good luck with these articles!... --Vlad|-> 07:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying participants[edit]

Notifying all the participants of a previous AfD seems to be a bit much. I notify the authors. In this case, the author is banned, so I didn't bother. But I've never made it a practice to notify all the participants. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

trying to save articles[edit]

Whilst you are quite entitled to try to rescue articles, I think your best chance of doing it, is actually finding some significant third party non trivial coverage instead of persistently arguing over process. LibStar (talk) 05:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that is purely your opinion. I see no problems with renominating. I presume you would prefer no articles to ever be renominated? LibStar (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

X-Y relations commenting on !votes moratorium.[edit]

I'd like to propose a voluntary moratorium on commenting on others peoples !votes in bilateral relations AfDs. At this point, I don't think there's anything to be gained from such comments--obviously no one is convincing anyone--meanwhile, the acrimony rises and uninvolved editors are discouraged from weighing in. See this masterpiece for a prime example. So how about we just don't comment on each others' votes? This moratorium would not cover general comments, i.e. those which aren't indented under and/or in response to a specific !vote (e.g. [3]), but these should be kept to an absolute minimum. I intend invite all of the "usual suspects" to join this moratorium. I've missed someone, please invite them. Please discuss, and ideally note whether you intend to abide by this here. Thanks. Yilloslime TC 17:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

barnstar[edit]

Interesting use of barnstar, although not the first time I've !voted keep at a bilateral AfD. I look forward to seeing you !vote delete occasionally on bilateral AfDs. In some instances you have tagged for rescue when zero attempt has been made to rescue them in 7 days, perhaps you need to really think if some are worth rescuing. LibStar (talk) 00:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

curious about "List of United States Supreme Court cases"[edit]

Hi,

I'm really impressed with the work done by y'all who created the "List of United States Supreme Court cases by Volume". It's a wonder of the world. I'm just curious to know how you did it! Agradman talk/contribs 04:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Israel denies such an attack took place. We should not present allegations as facts.) (undo)[edit]

  • You deleted a news item on the grounds that Israel had disputed some details. (Of course agressors often deny aggression!)

Firstly, you gave no evidence that Israel has in fact disputed it However, even if they have, this was a 'News' section. The BBC had reported it as such: it should have been left as a valid news item.

86.14.251.87 (talk) 05:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It says in the story you actually provided (The BBC article) that Israel disputed that such an attack took place. I don't deny that the allegation that the attack took place exists. But the facts have not been confirmed. Your insistence that we present that allegation as fact reveals your point of view.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009[edit]

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 08:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Belated [barn]star[edit]

File:1RXS J160929.1-210524 b.jpg The belated (barn)star
This (barn)star traveled 500 light years to commend you on your work on Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 04:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

invitation to WP:Hornbook[edit]

By the way, I didn't foget to invite you - I just didn't want to cheapen the barnstar with the appearance of bribery.

invitation[edit]

WP:Hornbook -- a new WP:Law task force for the J.D. curriculum[edit]

Hi Cdogsimmons/Archives 3,

I'm asking Wikipedians who are interested in United States legal articles to take a look at WP:Hornbook, the new "JD curriculum task force".

Our mission is to assimilate into Wikipedia all the insights of an American law school education, by reducing hornbooks to footnotes.

  • Over the course of a semester, each subpage will shift its focus to track the unfolding curriculum(s) for classes using that casebook around the country.
  • It will also feature an extensive, hyperlinked "index" or "outline" to that casebook, pointing to pages, headers, or {{anchors}} in Wikipedia (example).
  • Individual law schools can freely adapt our casebook outlines to the idiosyncratic curriculum devised by each individual professor.
  • I'm encouraging law students around the country to create local chapters of the club I'm starting at my own law school, "Student WP:Hornbook Editors". Using WP:Hornbook as our headquarters, we're hoping to create a study group so inclusive that nobody will dare not join.

What you can do now:

1. Add WP:Hornbook to your watchlist, {{User Hornbook}} to your userpage, and ~~~~ to Wikipedia:Hornbook/participants.
2. If you're a law student,
(You don't have to start the club, or even be involved in it; just help direct me to someone who might.)
3. Introduce yourself to me. Law editors on Wikipedia are a scarce commodity. Do knock on my talk page if there's an article you'd like help on.

Regards, 

Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 21:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States FA-drive[edit]

Sorry for spamming you, but in light of the impending shift of the Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States, I'd like to get this article up to FA status within the next few weeks, and ready for the front page by the time the Court starts its fall term. Any help or advice you can provide would be appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: There's weird vandalism at Current Events[edit]

Someone has taken care of it. Thanks. --candle•wicke 22:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter (September 2009)[edit]

The Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
Issue 1 (September 2009)

Content

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 31 August 2009[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 15:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct way to revert vandilism?[edit]

I wonder what the right way to revert vandalism is? There were two edits to the "Roe vs Wade" page and I don't understand how to undo them so that it says "reverting vandalism" like you correctly did to the edits a few days ago. When I view the history of the page, there is an undo link, but I don't see how to mark it as vandalism.

Then the other question is: should some action be taken against the IP address/annon user here? All that IP address has ever been used for is for vandalism. If so, what is the correct process? Then lastly, can the Roe vs.

Lastly, can the Roe vs. Wade page just be locked? There hasn't been a single edit for several months that wasn't vandilism (as far as I can tell looking through the history). This makes it impossible to see what productive edits or information people might have had. The revision history is totally useless! What is the process for locking a page? Can I just go and do it? Jeff Carr (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Iceland–Latvia relations[edit]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Iceland–Latvia relations. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iceland–Latvia relations (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed here too[edit]

Belarus–Croatia relations --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for providing a comment at Talk:North Carolina v. Alford. Care to give input at Talk:Alford plea, and/or at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Cirt? Cheers, Cirt (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Romania - Sri Lanka[edit]

I would suggest you put any useful information here Foreign_relations_of_Sri_Lanka#Romania. on your point of recent agreements, any bilateral article needs to consider the whole context, given that international trade of Romania greatly increased after tha fall of communism and joining the EU, would it be natural to expect the 2 countries would be having more agreements? or perhaps they really don't have a notable relationship. some relations sit nicely in foreign relations of X articles. I am not opposed to that. LibStar (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I'd like to see the article restored in its own right since it passes notability and verifiability requirements (in my opinion). Merging would be a good second option, something that is suggested before nominating an article like this for deletion by the way.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with merging is that when people were doing just that, many of the merges were subsequently reverted. When one comes to expect that his/her merge efforts will be reverted, it's a huge disincentive to continue the work. So AfD becomes the next most logical thing to do... Yilloslime TC 23:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
there is nothing stopping anyone adding the few key facts into the foreign relations articles (ie a few agreements), if there is consensus to redirect/merge in AfD then we do that. LibStar (talk) 23:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

also all treaties are agreements but not the other way around. lots of bilateral agreements are not under international law nor legally binding. LibStar (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's true in general. Treaty provides: "A treaty may also be known as: (international) agreement, protocol, covenant, convention, exchange of letters, etc. Regardless of the terminology, all of these international agreements under international law are equally treaties and the rules are the same."--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
not all international agreements are legally binding. see p.8 of [4]

Two specific terms related to the concept of customary international law require further attention. The first one is ‘soft law’. This term does not have a fixed legal meaning, but it usually refers to any international instrument other than a treaty containing principles, norms, standards or other statements of expected behaviour. Often, the term soft law is used as having the same meaning as a non-legally binding instrument, but this is not correct. An agreement is legally binding or is not-legally binding. A treaty that is legally binding can be considered as hard law; however, a non-legally binding instrument does not necessarily constitute soft law. The consequences of such a non-legally binding instrument are not clear. Sometimes it is said that they contain political or moral obligations, but this is not the same as soft law. Non-legally binding agreements emerge when States agree on a specific issue, but they do not, or do not yet, wish to bind themselves legally; nevertheless they wish to adopt certain non-binding rules and principles before they become law.

LibStar (talk) 03:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

as the nominator of the original AfD, I'd appreciate if you inform me of the deletion review especially as you are openly criticising my nomination. LibStar (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review[edit]

I hope you accept the outcome of the deletion review. LibStar (talk) 13:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Service awards proposal[edit]

Master Editor Hello, Cdogsimmons/Archives 3! I noticed you display a service award, and would like to invite you to join the discussion over a proposed revamping of the awards.

If you have any opinions on the proposal, please participate in the discussion. Thanks! — the Man in Question (in question) 04:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Hello Cdogsimmons! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 943 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Henry Bramwell - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter[edit]

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
Issue 2 (January 2010)

Previous issue | Next issue

Content

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

removed comment from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Australia–Kosovo_relations_(2nd_nomination)[edit]

Cdog, I've removed your comment from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Australia–Kosovo_relations_(2nd_nomination) regarding group nominations, as it didn't seem pertinent to the discussion. Your comment is a valid one, I just don't think that this AfD is the correct place for it. As it concerns one editor's behavior, it would be better to raise the issue on that editor's talkpage, rather than adding to the clutter at this AfD. I think we can both agree that what we really need in these discussions are some outside opinions, but I think that filling the page with off topic discussion is only going to discourage new voices from getting involved. I'm not going to edit war over this: I hope my removal of the comment stands, but if you or someone reinstates it, I will not re-remove it. Yilloslime TC 01:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just restored it when I got your message. I see your point but I think it's pretty relevant to the situation.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is it relevant? If an editor is trying to decide whether they think Australia–Kosovo relations should be kept or deleted, how does your comment and the discussion that follows inform their decision? You are raising a procedural point, rather than an issue that bears on this article specifically. Also, your comment strikes me as a bit of red herring: Libstar has not been on spree of nominating of X-Y relations for deletion--unless I'm missing something, this is the only one that been nominated in the last 2 or 3 weeks. In other words, your comment seems to be prefaced on there being a large number of these AfDs, when in fact there is not. This might have been a timely comment several months ago when there were several nominations every day, but to raise the issue now--especially in this forum--seems like an unnecessary distraction. Would use be willing to move the comment and ensuing discussion to the AfD's talkpage or put the discussion in a hat? Yilloslime TC 02:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thanks Yilloslime, this has hardly been a spree of nomination of bilaterals. and to somehow characterise my nomination as such is trying to influence others that people should vote keep based on the nominator as per WP:ADHOM not the merits of notability. LibStar (talk) 02:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, Listar, you have been on a spree of nominating these articles for deletion in the past. How many have you nominated for deletion? Over 100? The comment is relevant because it's generally on point, that this article and these articles as a class should be kept for two reasons: (1) it's burdensome to have to re-debate all of these articles (which is of course what we have done) and (2) the majority of these articles could be said to be generally notable and should be kept on the basis that they are generally encyclopedic. Should the remaining relations articles (that have not been previously deleted) be created, I have no doubt Libstar or someone else would nominate a large number for deletion (it has been constantly pointed out that there are potentially over 20,000 of these articles). There are simply too many to debate sufficiently one by one and it's always the same arguments. So I don't think it's unfair to say delete them all or stop nominating them.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes over 100 but that's over say a 9 month period, and I stand by that, some are simply not notable at all, not even Richard Norton has tried to save some. I don't think it's unfair to say delete them all or stop nominating them nice not so subtle try to stop people nominating, it's not going to work. if we nominate all, that is rather ridiculous as the most notable like Canada-US, US-China, US-Russia, Japan-China. a proposal was put up to delete all by the obsessive stub creater Groubani (talk · contribs) but that was defeated by those who wanted to keep everything. so we are stuck with individual nominations, so live with it. LibStar (talk) 02:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an editor doesn't go to strenuous efforts to save articles you seem so intent on deleting does not mean that the subject matter is not notable. It means some of us have real lives, families to look after, jobs to go to. The argument is a practical one. It obviously wasn't made strenuously enough in the first place. (Where was I? speaking of which, could you perhaps direct me to the place that argument was made previously? Thanks.) --Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It means some of us have real lives, families to look after, jobs to go that is irrelevant. WP is a totally voluntary project. you remind me of one person that seriously wanted all AfDs for a certain topic put on hold because they were going on vacation for 2 weeks. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say it's irrelevant. RAN is obviously one of this project's finest editors, but we can't presume that just because he doesn't weigh in means an article's worthless. The guy's not omniscient.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

new article?[edit]

Australia and Aruba have signed an agreement. perhaps they deserve a bilateral artcle now? [5] LibStar (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds promising. Both island nations. Both colonized by European countries. And obviously formal relations exist in the form of a treaty. I would fight to save such an article and expand it. That information could certainly be added to Foreign relations of Aruba which I think we can both agree is woefully inadequate.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, since after reading up on Aruba a bit more, it appears that it is an autonomous region within the Kingdom of the Netherlands, I would say this is probably not deserving of its own page. I suspect Australia – Netherlands relations would meet existing notable requirements easily.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would totally agree that Australia-Netherlands should be created. LibStar (talk) 00:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people[edit]

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

  1. Proposal to Close This RfC
  2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cdogsimmons/Archives_3&oldid=1166515744"