This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I agree fully with your comments, after the revamp. I think the article itself fine, but I just don't see notability, hence why I didn't choose to keep it. We'll have to see what happens now I guess. :) Best, Rudget. 22:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed - odd that after nominating it for deletion, I'm wavering towards keep while after adding some references you're thinking delete! Proves it's a very borderline case I guess. Wouldn't like to call it but will lose no sleep either way! Thanks again for your rescue attempt though. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 01:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --Elonka 04:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I hope I was able to update the article sufficiently so that it is no longer a candidate for deletion. You might wish to check out Justine Cooper's presentation from the 18th Consumers International World Congress on The Ethics of Drug Promotion. I have not incorporated any of the content of the presentation in the article since I did not see a way of maintaing a neutral point of view if I added that material.
Thanks Dan, I'm sure the article is safe now (and quite right too). Having added the link for Justine Cooper's presentation, I'm not sure that much of the content can be (or even need be) added to the article. But I'll have a look and see if there's anything to be added. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 14:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The contest department has completed its ninth month of competition. The top scorer this month is Blnguyen, with 22 points, followed by Dreamafter, with 8 points, and Redmarkviolinist, with 6 points. Blnguyen also remains the overall leader, with 162 points in total. All project members are encouraged to submit the articles they're working on as entries.
Blnguyen has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his efforts in improving the quality of articles related to Vietnamese military history, including the creation of numerous A-Class articles.
Woodym555 has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his outstanding work on topics related to the Victoria Cross, notably including the creation of featured articles, featured lists, and a featured topic.
Although the drive is officially closed, existing participants can continue tagging until January 31 if they wish, with the extra tags counting towards their tally for barnstar purposes.
We'd like to see what lessons can be learned from this drive, so we've set up a feedback workshop. Comments and feedback from participants and non-participants
alike are very welcome and appreciated.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.
Note: This newsletter was automatically delivered. Regards from the automated, Anibot (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Understood - I have changed it to a redirect page using Wikipedia markup - you'll see what it looks like if you click 'edit this page', in case you have to set up any redirects yourself. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 12:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank u very much for your support for my request.--Anand Ramkumar.S (talk) 12:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't have tagged it for CSD A7 like User:Guldenat did, but in my opinion it certainly classifies as a A1 article. If the article would at least provide a little more content to the reader...that would be something. In its current form it really just more of a statement than a article. I followed the link provided by the original author, I really couldn't find anything to work with on their website :-/ Regards LightAnkhC|MSG 11:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I just saw that you found something. Alright then :-). Regards LightAnkhC|MSG 11:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I can quite see why you tagged it, and on an unforgiving day I'd have done the same. But I thought that a club established over 100 years ago might have some history, and a quick look at their website suggests they have had players representing Munster - the most senior level in GAA sport (confirmed by the GAA website.) So I'm going to try and see if it can be rescued - but please do flag it for AfD if you still doubt its suitability - just give me an hour or so to see what I can dig up. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 11:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that there's any need to take it to AfD :-) LightAnkhC|MSG 11:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank You Kim for your addition to the page and for not deleting it. My wikipedia skills are limited at the moment. With more practice I should be able to improve. Again many thanks. --Buhbsu (talk) 11:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome: it was interesting working on a subject that I essentially knew nothing about! If you have more facts (ideally with references) about the club, stick them in and I'll help format the article. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 12:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Request For Rollback
I have fullfilled your request. As you are an experienced user I won't give you any spiel on what not to do! If you have any queries on roll back drop me a note. Thanks! Pedro : Chat 12:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks Pedro. I shall try and use it carefully! Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 12:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome. One minor point - I wouldn't use rollback for good faith edits (per your request) - this can be seen as a bit rude - your contribution history seems you only really use it for vandalism so I have no concerns. Pedro : Chat 12:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Understood. What I meant for good faith edits was the facility I currently have (I think it's with Twinkle) to choose :[rollback (AGF)] || [rollback] || [rollback (VANDAL)] options when I'm looking at a diff. But I'll make sure I use the new button only for vandalism. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 12:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
No worries. I know you will. Probably won't be long before it will just be another tool in your arsenal ......? Pedro : Chat 12:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Damn. I knew somebody might bring this up some time! I don't know how much I really want to put my mouth in the lion's jaws, having seen the chewing up some people get. Maybe I should see how I get on with this one button before asking for a load more? Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 12:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Heh! Yeah it can be daunting. Honest advice - If you want to go for it, give it another few weeks. Use the rollback tool wisely (I guarantee now, that within a few weeks we will start seeing RfA fails based on inappropriate use of the tool). Keep doing what you're doing. You've got just under 4k edits and I know it's a bad thing but you probably want to be up around 4.5k to balance "experience concerns". If you're interested, hit me up in late February, and if you wish I'd be delighted to nominate you. So far I've nominated or co-nominated three editors, who have all passed, so my success rate is pretty okay!! Let me know if you're interested. Pedro : Chat 15:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
(Undent) Thanks Pedro, between you and me (and everyone else who reads my talk page...) I had already decided that I'd say 'no' to any offers of nomination until I had (1) at least one good article to my name and (2) at least 4,000 edits. My edit count may be a little low because I now use the Preview button a lot. Also my 'preferences' tab suggests that I've actually made over 5,300 edits, but as I tag loads of pages for CSD I suspect that several hundred of the 'missing' edits are speedy tags on deleted articles.
I've now taken Wicca to GA status, so I'll wait until my contributions stack up a bit further before getting back to you with a masochistic request... Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 16:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank You Kim for your addition to the page and for not deleting it. My wikipedia skills are limited at the moment. With more practice I should be able to improve. Again many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buhbsu (talk • contribs) 11:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
My RfA
Yeah, I'll probably apply again for adminship around April or May. By that time people should have no valid reason to oppose if I keep my work up. Thanks.--h i ss p a c er e s e a r c h 17:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I was patrolling recent changes, and found this article. The article had originally just this: page under progress, and no such thing as myspace link(s)!!! So, i thought the person writing the article was serious about it, and was actively contributing at the moment, ergo replaced the "page in progress" title with the more formal {{underconstruction}} tag. Well, it seems this page is created for the sole purpose of destructive humor and vandalism. I will be tagging it for speedy deletion shortly. Thanks for informing me.20:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
RfA thanks
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which I withdrew with 5 support, 14 oppose, and 9 neutral. Thank you for your comments! Whether it was a support, oppose, or neutral, I likely got some good feedback from you. I will probably do another RfA in the future, but not until I work out the issues brought up.
I never realized there's a barnstar for creating good new articles? Thanks for the barnstar, I really appreciate it! Cheers Kim! Jagged 85 (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
DYK
On 16 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Adelaide Johnson, 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.
Thanks for the tip! I will read the article and try to make mine more.... lengthy and useful before I create them. Foxfoil (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah. Sorry about the wrong post! HAve I got it right now? Foxfoil (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
You've got it! And adding a : or more times before your comments will indent one or more times (as I've done with these.) Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 17:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Re:peer review
Thanks for reviewing me. though the edit i made to Michael Crafter when i added "This however is false, and anyone who believed it is stupid" was a mistake, when your on RV patrol the edits start to mix together. Still you gave me some great feed back, thanks. Cocoaguy ここがいいcontribstalkReview Me! 21:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I've read through the article carefully and it seems very clear and accurate to me in its treatment of Wicca. Any more emphasis would be undue weight, I think. I made one tiny, tiny change in a word: scrying is, I think, integral to Wicca (several Wiccan rituals describe it) but not exactly central - I mean, it's by no means the most important activity a Wiccan would ever undertake. With that subtle exception, I see no problem with the text as it stands. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 22:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! I really appreciate getting a stamp of approval from a Wiccan on this. This article stirs up passions for some reason, so getting a firm grounding was vital. Hope you enjoyed it! Serendipodous 01:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:SEA badge.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Fair use rationale added. (How nice would it be if the template came up automatically when you hit fair use, so you didn't have to get these warnings and go back and re-edit...) Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 22:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Indian Decentralization AfDs
Combining them is fine with me. The only reason I listed them separately is the last time I did that, no consensus was reached because so many had different ideas about the different articles even though they were closely related and of similar quality (at least IMO). Thanks. -- Dougie WII (talk) 12:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Dougie. I'm talking to the original editor, who now seems to be just about getting the hang of using his talk page and I'm hoping I can help him work out how to contribute. He's obviously trying to be productive, but just hasn't got the hang of how a Wikipedia article looks and feels. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 12:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I am creating this Talal alanasi page because his is president of Safe United Organisation (SUO) and member of BlueStar Group (BSG) and also he is the designer of the Iraqi Future Flag. so why did you delete this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArabSky (talk • contribs) 10:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello there, it was not me who deleted the page but I did tag it for deletion. It was then deleted (twice!) by administrators SGGH and Pegasus. When I tagged it, the article was 2 lines long and made no assertions of notability. There were no sources to indicate how important the person was/is. I'd suggest re-creating the page in your own user space, say at this page, where you can work on it and make it moRre substantial before you publish it to the main space. I think I put a template on your user page with some suggestions about links to advice on improving articles: have a look at those and if you need help to create a n article that will survive here, just let me know (leave a message here.) PS: if you end your messages with ~~~~ you signature will appear - like this - Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 14:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
RfA thanks
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which was unsuccessful with 19 support, 18 oppose, and 5 neutral. I have signed up for admin coaching and will retry later on in a couple more months.
I hope that by performing more edits on Wikipedia in the next few months that I could possibly change your mind by my next RfA, possibly around May 2008. I understood that the mop isn't intended for a 21st birthday present (or else we'd have some many drunk mops on Wikipedia. All jokes aside, I hope you had a chance to review my answers for question #8 on my RfA. I hope the answers were satisfactory and partially answers your concerns regarding my uncertainties regarding WP:CSD. - Jameson L. Taitalk ♦ contribs 05:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
RE:Term Paper
Thanks for the reversion! Marlith (Talk) 02:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Seconded, and for the others. I WP:AGF with User:Boykovladimir, spending some time clearing up the mess and userfying the created articles. I'm deeply unamused to discover that my efforts were wasted and that he's just a spammer. -- John (Daytona2 ·Talk ·Contribs) 22:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's frustrating when assumptions of good faith prove to be unwarranted. I think with this user we can now assume the opposite, unless he proves otherwise. He doesn't seem to have stopped his spamming, so I'm keeping an eye on him and the sooner he gets escalated warnings the better, as far as I'm concerned! Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 22:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Category:Hurling clubs in County Limrick
D'oh , will rerun AWB and speedy the typoed category , thanks for highlighting that .Gnevin (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem, glad to catch it early! Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 21:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
GoRemy
I disagree with the GoRemy SD on the grounds that millions of people watching his videos should be de facto notoriety. GoRemy's YouTube page is really both primary and secondary source in that the artist has some control over content but not over the following statics:
A-R-A-B: The Rap
02:56
Added: 1 year ago
Views: 1,792,021
McDonald's: The Rap
02:49
Added: 8 months ago
Views: 2,019,058
Hey There Khalilah
03:03
Added: 7 months ago
Views: 1,975,595
Two Percent Milk: The Rap
02:22
Added: 1 year ago
Views: 957,830
Warcraft: The Rap
02:27
Added: 10 months ago
Views: 846,627
These I think testify to GoRemy's qualifying as a WP:BIO#Entertainer that 'Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.'
The fact that his video submission was played at the Dem Pres Debate seems notable, despite his real name not being used. Can a nom de plume not be a notable entity? - Operknockity (talk) 13:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
To answer your last question first - I think not, unless there is incontrovertible evidence that the nom de plume and the actual author are, in fact, one and the same. But more fundamentally, I think the problem is that YouTube is simply not a reliable source for Wikipedia. My own view would be that until a third party (say a newspaper, book or magazine, or widely broadcast TV or radio programme) refers to the notability of GoRemy, then s/he is not notable in Wikipedia terms. This is only my own view of course, but the deleting admin seemed to agree with me on this occasion. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 21:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
But I'm only using the nom de plume. I'm not claiming it is anybody specific RL and don't think that should be required. I leave that for a future researcher to determine.
As for YouTube not being a reliable source, I am opening that discussion here and invite you to come and discuss! Thanks - Operknockity (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
RfA thanks
I am not one for sending round pretty pictures, but after my recent RfA, which passed 68/1/7, I am now relaxed and this is to thank you for your support. I will take on board all the comments made and look forward to wielding the mop with alacrity. Or two lacrities. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Adoption?
Hello! I'm not sure if I'm doing this right (hence the need for adoption. :P ) but I saw you on a list of potential adopters and really liked the look of your page. I don't plan on being a super huge wiki editor, but I would like someone who I could come to with questions and stuff. Are you available? Browncoatamanda (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Browncoatamanda, I'd be absolutely delighted to adopt you - anyone whose first ever edit is to offer a very useful reference to an article, and who appreciates Firefly, is doubly welcome! If you want to go ahead, what I'd suggest we do is set up a page in your user space - say Adoption page - where we can keep all our conversations. That way you'll have them all in one place rather than spread across one or both of out talk pages. The as to how we proceed - either you could just use me as a source of advice, and come and ask me if you have a question, or if you'd prefer I could set you some tasks to go and try out, and you could come back and we'd discuss how you got on. Which do you prefer? I can also keep an eye on your edits, and offer unsolicited advice if I see you struggling with something, or can suggest a shortcut to you.
I should let you know my limitations: I'm not very good at Wiki mark-up: these pages look good because I stole (well, borrowed) them from another editor and just straight copied the code. The technical stuff is really beyond me, but I do know about writing articles, sourcing, and procedural stuff like nominations for deletion etc etc.
I edit every day, not all day because I don't edit from work, but will get back to you within a day at all times except holidays. My first bit of feedback would be to use ~~~~ at the end of your talk page posts, to make your signature appear - like mine at the end of this paragraph. Get back to me about how you want to do this, and we can make a start! Best wishes - Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 08:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the speedy reply! As you can see, I'm not a daily log-inner (yet!). I like the idea of making a dedicated page and I saw a tutorial on how to do that, so I'll get it set up as /adoption like you suggested. I also like the idea of a few tasks to try out. I feel like wikipedia is such a huge place and all the things I'm interested in are already covered so heavily and well that I'm not sure where to start. Oh, and thank you for the feedback on my first "edit." I wish I could've formatted it myself but I was a little lost with the footnote and all.
If it's okay to steal code, I'll be set! ;) I saw some really cool talk pages and whatnot but wasn't sure if it was bad ettiquite around here to just swipe away. While I think that kind of formatting is interesting it's not my primary goal to know how to do it, so I'm not too worried about your limitations in that area. I don't see myself as being extremely high maintenence and I usually won't be waiting by the computer and refreshing or anything. :) Browncoatamanda (talk)
hi
This is not cool. I see that you already discussed a speedy tag with the now non-active creator of this article so i consider your new speedy tag as sneaky. if you think this entrepreneur is not worthy of his own entry in wp, please go about the wikipedian way, such as an afd tag. ephix (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello there. You're quite right: I did have an exchange with the originating editor of this article, the last diff of which looked like this. I had tagged the article with {{db-bio}} and he had removed it. At the time I didn't feel his removal of the tag was justified, but I didn't want to enter a revert war so I just tagged it as needing references and left it alone.
Then recently I was looking through my talk archives and clicked on the Eyal Hertzog link to see what state the article was in. As no references had been added in 8 months, and the article was no better than when I had first stuck a CSD tag on it, I had no hesitation in tagging it again. How is this sneaky? The tag is there for all to see,it's not hidden away from view. If the original editor is inactive and unable to see a CSD tag, he's unable to see an AfD tag either. I believe the article meets criteria for speedy deletion, but will propose it for AfD instead.Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 23:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
On further reflection and a quick Google - I'm sure it would be kept at AfD as there are clearly some reliable sources. So I shan't waste anyone's time there, I'll just leave it alone with the {{references}} tag on it. It's a shame that someone who knows and cares about the topic can't add the sources I found, which would improve the article straight away. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 23:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
