User talk:Alpha Quadrant/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Removal of notability tags

Three times now (once, twice, and thrice!) you have removed the notability tag from the Civilization (Star Trek: Enterprise) article. The first two times you did so with no notification for other users in the edit summary. That was slightly underhand and I would appreciate you not doing so again.

Also, notability does not come from sourcing the plot, for which the episode is its own source. WikiuserNI (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is the reason I did each action:

• 1) The notability tag was redundant to the no references tag. I removed one of them because having both of them on a page is considered tag spam
• 2)I was removing the current tags so that I could add new ones that better identified the problem with the article.

• 3) I cited the article with third party reliable sources and tagged the page with appropriate cleanup tags. The notability tag is for unsourced articles or articles without third party sources. I have proved notability with third party sources, but the article is not well written. I intend to rewrite the article soon, the tags best describe the problems with the article. Adding unnecessary tags just increase the size of the backlog. I hope this explains why I removed the no-notability tag. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 22:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

edit is very rude. I did not sneakily remove the tag, I removed it while fixing the article. If you see a issue in the way the article is written please fix it. I am working to fix this article and do not appreciate the adding of tags to the article. I am aware of the problems and I am trying to fix them. Adding of tags is disruptive. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you remember (you commented, so I believe you should) but I have suggested that the Enterprise articles be merged to a general list of episodes. That is how I'm remedying the situation. ::And the General Notability Guideline is pretty clear, notability is supplied by significant coverage in publications not affiliated with the subject. Simply citing the plot does not provide for that.

And thirdly yes, removing something without any edit summary or rationale is quite sneaky. I see you've noted on the talk page for that article that you're "maintaining" but do not own the article. Your comments above show how you really feel about the article, that I'm not allowed to complain about its current state as it would disrupt your work. Fortunately, Wikipedia does not function like that. WikiuserNI (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

That is not what I said, I said that I am working to fix the article and do not appreciate your Wikipedia:Tag bombing. That is all I said. I am fine with you helping improve the article, I actually welcome it. Adding tags while I am trying to fix the article is annoying, I believe the topic is notable and that is why I am trying to fix it. I added my name to users currently working to maintain the article because I am adding to the article, hence the edit summary "maintain". --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Throwing accusations like that does nothing to help the article or Wikipedia in general. Check the Civilisation talk page, looks like I'm not the only one who felt that way about your removal of the tags. Tag bombing could only be applied to me if I hadn't gone to the bother of starting talk on the Star Trek Wikiproject talk page and the episode list talk page. WikiuserNI (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

You are tag bombing. A quote from WP:Tag Bombing: "Tag bombing can be used as a way to promote a point of view". You are trying to promote the deletionist point of view, that only subjects that have 25 or more sources should be included in wikipedia. I have supplied 4 reliable third party sources and two of them give background information on how the episode was conceived (I haven't added it yet I just placed the references in so I could work on it later). --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

STRAW MAN ALERT, STRAW MAN ALERT! (lol) Applying simple labels like "deletionist" will not progress the discussion. Would you mind awfully not doing so.

I've checked the sources provide; one is a plot summary from IMDB, hardly reliable or notable. The second is, again, plot summary from Startrek.com, not independent to the subject at hand, not providing notability. The third is (and I hope you noticed) a parody of the plot. The fourth is an episode review and, lets be clear here, the reviewers idea that certain characters ape those from other series. That's not production, that's a side by side comparison. WikiuserNI (talk) 10:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Please have a look at the Manual of style for television before you make any further edits to the Civilization (Star Trek: Enterprise) article. You're not doing anything that suggests it should be retained as a separate article at the moment. WikiuserNI (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I know, I read it. I am currently working on the article. I know it doesn't look great right now, but it should after I am done. Have a great day :). --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Request to restore archive of Honor Rally

Could you restore ongoing discussion?The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I archived it because the 171MB long argument between the six of you kept overloading my browser, and also does not help the mediation process. As I am neutral in this dispute --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, editors are getting tired of the warring and we are approaching a consensus, but one of the main problems is scattered discussions. The CBS estimate is now being accepted as scientific, and we may just be getting beyond it and on to the issue of the controversy over crowd sizes. Wish us luck.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Happy Alpha Quadrant's Day!

User:Alpha Quadrant has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Alpha Quadrant's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Alpha Quadrant! Peace, Rlevse 00:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I honored, thank you very much :). --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 03:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Reverted your revision [1] to Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/CATS_Classified

I do not believe that this article reads like an advertisement. If you disagree, let me know.  Aaargh  01:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That article I marked as a advertisement because it used the word "our company" and uses the word "features". It sounded like borderline advertising. Should I have used the NPOV instead? --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 02:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I know how to use a watchlist, thank you!

 Aaargh  03:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Codendi article

Hi, Thanks for reading the proposed article about Codendi and giving me your feedback. In your comment you ask me to give sources. I thought I have done it because at the end of the article I mention reliable sources. These are not enought ? If not, could you specify what is needeed please ? Sorry, I'm new in Wikipedia. Thanks again ManonM —Preceding undated comment added 13:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC).

I have added comments next to each reference regarding their problems. Your sources also need to be cited. See Wikipedia:Articles for Creation/Reference example for a simple way of citing your sources. If you need any help, please just ask. Thanks, --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 14:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanations. I updated the sources according your remarks but I really cannot create the links to the websites. I have no idea why ? Do you know ? Thanks again ! ManonM —Preceding undated comment added 16:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC).

Hi Alpha ! After all I managed to cite my sources in notes paragraph. It is better now ? Thanks for your confirmation that is ok. ManonM

Nice job on the references. One thing I think needs changing is the "Features" section, which is a bit promotional. I would remove the list of features. It is kind of interesting to know what the software has, so I think you could turn the list into a paragraph or so on what is "included" (I would use that word as it is a neutral word) in the software. Also, can you find a newspaper article, either a online or offline. Or perhaps a non-self published book (a book where the author did not pay the publisher to publish it) on the subject. These tend to carry more weight. Finding one of these sources is not required for it to be accepted, but if someone ever nominates the article for deletion it would help save it. I hope this helps --Alpha Quadrant [[User talk:Alpha Quadrant|<font color

Thanks Alpha you help me a lot ! What about renaming the paragrah "Features" in "Included componants". It is neutral, no ? Also, I did not find yet a book mentioning Codendi but my reference n°2 to the Journal du Net (Net newspaper in English) is a very famous online newspaper in France. See Alexa information. What do you think ? Cheers ManonM

Yes, renaming the "features" section to "Included components" would be neutral. The Journal du Net source appears to be very reliable and well known. However, could you please look for a second news article? It would greatly help the article, and make it less likely to be nominated for deletion. It is not required that you do, it will just improve the article's chances. Some users are a little, um, bias about software articles. They think that companies try to use wikipedia as a place to advertise their software. I have seen a few software articles that are very promotional, so I know why these users feel this way, one software article I've seen even included a phone number with ordering information. So the more neutral the article is, and the more reliable sources, the better. Thanks --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 18:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand the issue. Ok so I'll changed the name of the paragraph.

I found other articles in other french newspapers :

• Codendi 4. 2 beta release and several other articles about Codendi on Programmez Alexa information about Programmez website ,
• Lutèce d'Or award on LeMondeInformatique Alexa information about LeMondeInformatique

Are they interesting sources ? ManonM —Preceding undated comment added 18:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC).

Yes, I believe these sources will do nicely :). Good job finding them. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 19:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Great ! I made the modifications we agreed on the article. Any idea when the article will be validated ? Thanks for your help. ManonM —Preceding undated comment added 07:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC).

Thanks for put Codendi article online. ManonM —Preceding undated comment added 08:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC).

Your welcome. Is there anything else I can help you with? :) --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 13:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thanks for jumping into a contentious article and doing some small, but bold, cleanup. You also pointed-out some disruptive editing in a polite manner. Noleander (talk) 16:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you :)--Alpha Quadrant ^talk 16:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User:Diafygi/Impeach/Userbox

Hello Alpha Quadrant, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Diafygi/Impeach/Userbox, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not blatantly an attack page or negative BLP. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Question

How is Great Patriotic War more neutral than Eastern Front (World War II), German invasion of the Soviet Union, Operation Barbarossa, World War II, Second World War, or German-Soviet War? --138.217.68.73 (talk) 23:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

For one Great Patriotic war is not the official name of World War II. Another reason is that romanticizes the war making it sound grand, which is not a neutral point of view and misleading. World War II was a terrible war for both the Axis and the Allies. The war is commonly referred to as World War II, not the Great Patriotic War. Using this term would therefore confuse readers. I hope this clarifies. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 23:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You are aware that I was changing it from Great Patriotic War to World War II right? --138.217.68.73 (talk) 23:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops, my apologies, thanks for pointing that out I have rollbacked my edits. I thought you were changing them to say Great Patriotic War. I should have looked more closely to the diff. Again, sorry --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 23:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. --138.217.68.73 (talk) 23:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• A problem with this guy's edits is that he's doing it in a semi-automated way mindlessly replacing the text at times. First of all, the time frame of the Great Patriotic War is 22.6.1941 - 9.5.1945, so equating that with the Second world war, which began on 1.9.1939 and ended on 2.9.1945 is incorrect and leads to this kind of errors. Second, changes like this one ("in the first days of the front") are nonsense. While many references can be replaced without loss of meaning, such a bot-like approach is certainly not the way to do it. --Illythr (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• • Ok got it. Oh, I saw your userpage. Sorry to hear that you have been assimilated. Well my best to you (and the borg, but I'll pass on the assimilation .) --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 22:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• • • I We are now part of The Collective, contributing our distinctiveness to its own. Not a bad experience, overall. ;-) --Illythr (talk) 23:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Question Comment and a Thank You!

Hi Alpha Quadrant!

Thank you for reviewing my first Wikipedia Article (Rick DePiro (aka Ricky Dee). Because I'm pretty new to this, maybe you can assist me. I'd be grateful!

My confusion lies in the fact that I've looked at several other articles that have passed and been accepted and I thought mine was even more complete than those. (I realize I'm most likely mistaken!) BUT, I just want to get this right and not waste your valuable time resubmitting changes that are in ANY way sub-par.

You were kind to mention reasons behind why my article was on hold, namely not using Wikipedia as a source for the "resources" portion (I believe).

One example I looked at several times while writing my article was Guy Eckstine. His page seems to use uses (almost exclusively) Wikipedia sources and yet was accepted.

There are several others like that but they, like Mr. Eckstine, obviously did something right that I didn't. Is mine too long or IF I remove some information would it then be acceptable? Another is James Blake (musician). His page is VERY short but his references are third party yet not major labels or major retailors like QVC, Roland Corporation, the White House, or iconic names like Johnny Cash, Don Costa or Michael MacDonald -- could you please explain because I think I could fix this. one additional recent addition is Al Lewis (singer-songwriter). Would it be better right now to shorten or change Mr DePiro's article to be more like this one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by A&RBoss (talk • contribs) 05:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll GLADLY do whatever is necessary and in learning, I'll write better articles. Please (if you would) help me understand how mine can be more like Mr. Eckstines so that it can too be approved and accepted without any conditions like his.

-- It's probably obvious to an expert like you -- so forgive the ignorance in my question but Im really hopng to get this article right. Mr. DePiro is a worthy source which I know definitely fits Wikipedia's stringent criteria for acceptance, and I'd like to help fix this in any way I can.

Would you kindly look at Guy Eckstine's page for me and help explain why it's a proper page for Wikipedia (which it obviously is) ?

THANK YOU again and thanks for teaching me and helping me out! This is a GREAT site!!

Sincerely

A&RBoss --A&RBoss (talk) 05:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I would not recommend using that article as a example. It was not reviewed by articles for creation members. If this article had been created after March 18, 2010 it would be required for it to be deleted a a unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Guy Eckstine is considered a policy violation because it is not sourced, and does not follow the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). There are a couple things to fix in your submission, the submission is a bit promotional please try and make it more neutral (see WP:NPOV. I also suggest that you shorten the lead, also known as the opening paragraphs. See the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) for details. The last, and most important thing that needs to be fixed is the references must be cited. Please see WP:AFCRE for instructions on how to cite sources. I hope this helps. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 18:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Adopt-a-user reminder

Hello, I have completed a general cleanup of the adopter information page for the adopt-a-user project, located here. During my cleanup, I have removed several inactive and retired users. In order to provide interested adoptees with an easy location to find adopters, it is essential that the page be up-to-date with the latest information possible. Thus:

• If you are no longer interested in being an adopter, please remove yourself from the list.
• If you are still interested, please check the list to see if any information needs to be updated or added - especially your availability. Thank you.

• You are receiving this message because you are listed as an adopter here.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Netalarm (talk) at 03:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC).

Yes I am still active in the program. I just added my name a week and a half ago and have offered to adopt two users. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 03:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I just had the bot deliver to everyone to make sure that new users always have someone to go to. However, I did notice that you marked yourself as an administrator? See here, where I removed it. Netalarm^talk 03:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Woah, thanks for fixing that. I thought I was setting my status as "adopting". I didn't notice that it said admin. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 03:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem :p We all make mistakes sometimes. Even bots... it seems to be stuck on a user's talk page. Anyway, happy editing! Netalarm^talk 03:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Alpha Quadrant. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle.
Message added 00:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reply on the same talk page. Like the picture in the editnotice. --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 01:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tag at Barbie: A Fashion Fairy Tale

I've removed your speedy deletion tag from Barbie: A Fashion Fairy Tale, but I'm a little confused as to why you added it in the first place - the article wasn't about web content and is an entry in a series in which all other entries have articles. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The article doesn't have any reliable sources. I couldn't find any third party sources and I was trying to decide which A7 tag to use. There isn't a unremarkable movie CSD tag so I used the tag that was closest. I know that the other barbie movies have articles, but they also have sources. Sorry for the confusion. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 20:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah. You may wish to review the criteria for speedy deletion, A7 is for articles that don't indicate importance, not for articles that are unreferenced. As noted in the criterion, "[t]his is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources." Also, for future reference, A7 only applies to a "real person, individual animal(s), organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content." It does not apply to movies, albums, etc. Have a good one. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see, A7 doesn't apply to movies. Ishould have used PROD or Xfd. Sorry about that. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 20:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Re Fabio Campana

I declined the speedy delete. Composer of eight operas is an assertion of notability. Note also that he was a red link at Wikipedia:Music encyclopedia topics. Always a good idea to check incoming links before nominating for speedy deletion. I've added another reference and expanded the stub slightly. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Your right, the composer is on the list of most wanted articles. I'll be more careful when tagging. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 20:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Mitchell Landzaat

By now your speedy deleted request about this article is already contested and removed by Phil Bridger. But seeing the list of movies he played in and worked on, I wonder why you nominated it in the first places. Can you explain that? Eddylandzaat (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It is sourced with unreliable sources. As it is a BLP I nominated it for speedy deletion. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 22:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable? Because Mitchell has sent me some information that I could not yet confirm from independent sources you want to throw the whole article away? Are you kidding? Eddylandzaat (talk) 02:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I reacted a bit emotional but I still think it was a dodgy decision. On the other hand you forced me to start my research again and that lead to some improvements of the article. Eddylandzaat (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Mentor Request

Hello! I am a student at Syracuse University taking a course that works with the U.S. Public Policy Wikiproject. I am planning on working on the stub "Food Quality Protection Act" and am looking for a mentor to offer some guidance in terms of editing, format and quality. Let me know if you would be willing to help. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clairestum (talk • contribs) 19:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, it would be my honor to mentor you. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 21:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful. I am working on re-writing the lead for the article and plan to have a rough draft in my sandbox on my user page by the end of tomorrow. I will let you know when I have it up! Thanks again, I am really looking forward to getting started. - (ClaireStum —Preceding undated comment added 04:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC).

Er, Claire also asked me to mentor her. I have three other mentees, so I'm happy for you to do it if you prefer. Please let me know. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I can mentor Clairstum. I currently have one mentee, but he/she is inactive. So that would be just fine. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 02:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Welcoming new users

Hey there- I noticed you were welcoming new users with welcome templates in the new user log. I just wanted to point something out that someone did likewise to me.. it's preferable to only welcome users that have made some sort of (presumably non-vandalism) contribution, as opposed to users whose 'contribs' link is redlinked.

There are many thousands of users without any edits. It is widely accepted (but not required!) that users with no edits should not be welcomed to save on server resources and also because most templates start with "Thank you for your Contributions" (or similar).

— Wikipedia:Welcoming_committee#Users_without_any_edits

Now it's your turn for a plate of cookies. :) Blehfu (talk) 17:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, it's purely formality, but feel free to add your name to Wikipedia:Welcoming_committee/members. Blehfu (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I didn't know there was a WikiProject for welcoming new users. Thanks for telling me about it . Best, --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 17:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• And thanks for the welcome. Listen, you have rollback, I don't: please have a look, if you have a minute, at King Pine. The article has been turned into a spam-only area, and possibly User:King Pine Ski Area needs to be hardblocked for their username and/or their spammy conflict of interest. Thanks again, 207.157.121.92 (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that user is definitely associated with the article. I have rolled back the edit, warned the user, and reported the user at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. I noticed you are doing a great job fighting vandalism. If you get a account you can use a tool called WP:TWINKLE, which reverts vandalism quite a bit faster. If you have any more questions, please ask. Best, --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 19:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• • Thanks! 207.157.121.92 (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect closure of ACC request

Just to let you know you incorrectly closed request 53208 as "Taken". Usernames on Wikipedia are case sensitive so "FOOBAR" is not "Foobar". FunPika 20:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Would it not be considered impersonation? If the other registered user ever decides to edit then it may cause confusion and one editor will require a rename. It is safe to create a account so similar? --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 20:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Removal of header from Protector of Wiki

[2] Please don't do things like that, in particular with edit summaries that imply minor corrective actions which this clearly was not. Pedro :  Chat  20:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, got it. I was fixing it by removing the rude message POW had on there. I was trying to think of what I should write for that summary. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 20:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

"Rude" is a bit subjective. I agree the talk page header is not overly desirable, by any stretch, but given how many editors have seen his page and there's no big ANI debate over it, I'm inclined to simply leave it alone. Likely to create more heat than light by removing it to be honest. Happy editing/ Pedro :  Chat  20:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, your probably right. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 20:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

On a related note, could you clarify why you removed this? Netalarm^talk 21:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Because it was rather uncivil. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 21:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe the comment itself was uncivil. The user is merely asking for a reason / clarification on why something was deleted. Also, "vandalism" shouldn't have been used as an edit summary there, since the user was legitimately attempting to communicate with another user. Netalarm^talk 21:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

So uncivil as opposed to vandalism. ... as per your edit summary [3]. Please - stop doing that. Twinkle, rollback etc. can be removed via your .js, permissions or otherwise depending... so - don't misuse the tools. Pedro :  Chat  21:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed the incident on Mike Rosoft's talk page and want to re-emphasise what's already been said above: you need to read WP:VAND and make sure you know what constitutes vandalism, as opposed to heated discussion or potential civility issues. And you also need to bear in mind that if you misuse twinkle by marking edits as vandalism when they clearly are not, the tool may well be removed until you demonstrate that you are capable and willing to use it properly. PS: Sorry, there seems to be two issues covered here and the comment flow is confusing, so maybe this has already been resolved. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it has been covered. I thought that PoW's edit to that talk page was vandalism so I reverted it. The other two editors knidly suggested that I review WP:VAND so I did. After reading it, I determined that I was incorrect and it was not vandalism. Sorry about this. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 23:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was considered talk page vandalism thats why I reverted it. Ok I won't repeat it. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 21:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm afraid it clearly isn't vandalism but thanks for your above. I'd prod you to read up a bit more on the meta stuff around WP. No big deal. Cheers, and happy editing. Pedro :  Chat  21:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

How does Pedro always reply faster than me... =P. Yup, reading up on policies/guidelines/and what not will help you around here. Cya around! Netalarm^talk 21:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll read thought WP:Vandalism again. I suppose I have more experience with Articles for Creation than discerning when certain times when something is vandalism. Its easy to identify obvious cases, but sometimes it is hard to decide. Maybe after I'm done reading I'll go practice on Huggle. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 21:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

Thank you for you interest in my talk page. However, I think it may be best to ask before archiving another editors talk page, especially when you archive all discussions on the page. There are a few recent posts there that have not been answered yet! 220.101 talk^\Contribs 09:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

oops, sorry. I thought it would help. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 13:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

No damage done, but after I returned the September section there was another answer to a post from 3 days before. You wiil likely find many long talkpages about Wikipedia (some like them that way!). There are more important things (articles) that need your attention! - Happy Logical Editing! - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 16:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Additional Help?

Hello, Alpha Quadrant--

I appreciate your help as a reviewer with regards to my recent submission (Jorge Cruise) to Articles for Creation, but I was hoping to get a bit more guidance as to how to further edit the article. You mentioned that it was not written in the tone of an encyclopedia article, but given the formal tone of the piece, I wanted to know specifically in which places it seems too colloquial to be encyclopedic. Also, I would appreciate knowing which parts you feel are not neutral, as nothing appears to me to blatantly promote (or demote) the author or his works. Additionally, I was wondering which terms were thought to be "showing off the subject." I only employed scientific terminology in explicating Cruise's diet philosophy (and thus they did not appear to be extraneous to me) and any scientific terms are also linked to other Wikipedia articles for those who do wish to learn more about any of the scientific principles.

Thanks again for all of your help, and I very much appreciate your extra assistance on my first article!

--Sad squirrel (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Particularly the Life and Education section of the article. The use of words such as encouraged and struggled. These type of words err on the promotive side. I hope this helps. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 20:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Template text

The text of the template "This account may be blocked due to abusive use of one or more accounts." It says exactly a way that satisfies any concern. In this case the user was already independently disruptive enough so that particular account got blocked first on it's own, and then the admins started to notice the socks and blocking them. Sockpuppet investigations take some time usually and the original account was so disruptive "it got there first" to have that block reason. Since then there would be 5-8 indefinite blocks based on just the confirmed socks, there could be many more the admins don't know about so the template is crucial to provide a stepping point for future investigations. Hobartimus (talk) 16:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

So the template is there because we are not certain that the users are not connected. OK. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 16:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Assessment with Wikiproject: U.S. public policy

Thank you for assessing with the PPI, assessing with this project will probably be different than assessing with other projects in Wikipedia. It's different because the many of the articles are stub, start, or C class, and we are not working to assess long lists of articles, but will have multiple reviewers assessing the same set of articles. We are looking for Wikipedians who want to take a more in depth look at assessment and help define what is article quality. Please go to the WP:USPP Assessment page to find more details and your assessment page with the first group of articles for you to evaluate. Thanks and happy editing, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

What did you find unconstructive about the New York City ethnic enclaves edit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.217.91 (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC) -Very relevant update of demographic and ethnic enclave info, if you read carefully.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.217.91 (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Revert on Most vexing parse

Hi Alpha Quadrant.

I don't think that this edit qualifies as simple vandalism. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback II

Hello, Alpha Quadrant. You have new messages at Talk:Bedwyn railway station#What on earth!!!.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Redrose64 (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Renaissance Learning

According to those who opposed my failed RfA "over 67,000 schools in the USA use their software" ought to be enough of a claim of significance or importance to reject an A7 speedy on this article. What do you think? — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Woah, the article I tagged for deletion with huggle was unsourced and written in all caps. I have reverted my tagging. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 21:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Good deal, glad I asked. Thanks for your support at the RfA, by the way, I truly appreciate it. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Revert

Alpha Quadrant, I am not sure if I am doing this correctly. My attempt is to send you a message on the talk page, so if this comes out wrong, sorry. Yesterday I made an edit to the article "Erin Merryn," who is a public speaker and survivor of sexual abuse, and you reversed it, identifying it as "vandalism." This particular article is rather short and not very informative, by the way. All I did was make a grammar correction and add a brief detail in the biography section, for which I provided a reliable citation. I also changed the statement that she was abused "at age 11" to "ages 11-13." Erin Merryn has written two books, both of which clearly align with what I wrote. How is any of my edit supposed to be vandalism? Please explain. - Sarah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.128.204.110 (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes this is the correct place. I reverted that because:

• A) I there was no edit summary (the reason you made the edit), when you edit there is a textbox above the "Save button". It is a good idea to type one because it helps other editors understand the change.
• B)You did not reference where you got the information. Is Merryn, Erin. Stolen Innocence. (2003) a book? If so please provide the International Standard Book Number so it can be verified.

Many such edits are vandalism, some people add false information to articles. This is why I suspected it was vandalism. I hope this helps. Best, --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 03:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

False accusation

You have falsely accused newbie wikipedian 174.48.178.231 of making a vandalist edit to Ivory. you might want to try to live by your top left userbox in the future.· Lygophile has spoken 11:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I honestly thought that was vandalism. There was no edit summary or reference for this addition. The type of addition typically needs a at least a reference. The current reference does not support it. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 17:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

A very similar problem also with user 92.0.40.192, in relation to their edit of Hazel Blears The warning would seem to be unjustified as far as I can tell.--Shakehandsman (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This was by accident. Yesterday I briefly tried to use STiki and Huggle simultaneously. When I hit the spacebar to continue to the next revision, it also reverted the edit in STiki. I noticed after a few times that the STiki edit changed when I did that. I went back an reverted the edits that I found, but I guess I missed one. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 17:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem, though I would urge a good bit more caution when issuing these vandalism related warnings. If there's any significant doubt you should assume the best of the editor, particularly in relation to new users who might not fully understand the rules. By all means ask people to provide a source, or even revert a change if it really is especially problematic but please save vandalism warnings for edits that really are causing trouble and where their intentions are clearly not to improve Wikipedia. I'd agree with spoken and suggest that edit too was well intentioned and a vandalism warning wasn't at all appropriate. If people get three vandalism warnings they they're likely to be banned from Wikipedia, so you shouldn't be issuing such warnings over tiny indiscretions such as failing to give an edit summary, or a slightly poorly formatted reference. Anyway I hope this helps and good luck in your future editing.--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The thing with STiki is it autowarns the user, and this can not be disabled. If the reverted edit is less than 5 hours old then a warning is issued when the edit is reverted. STiki is a very new tool (just released in August). That would be something that would be good to add to the tool. Best, --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 17:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dream Focus (2nd nomination)

I agree that Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dream Focus (2nd nomination) is leaning towards a keep, which is a result with which I agree ... but the conclusion that it's a "snow keep" is not accurate. I've re-openned it, as there's no harm in allowing the discussion to follow its full seven days. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, you should never close a discussion in which you have participated. I, for example, would close that discussion as delete, because only the people that have argued for delete have made arguments based in policy. The fact that I was one of those people is why I'm prohibited from closing it.—Kww(talk) 19:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Even when there is a snow keep? --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 19:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

There's not a snow keep. You have the nominator holding to the delete, and you have eight editors, including two admins, arguing for delete. Of the keep voters, six of them say that material has to be deleted for the page to be kept, and Dream Focus has made no agreement to actually delete any of that material. One of the keeps is based on the logic that keeping the page will make it easier to ban Dream Focus, which isn't sound logic for keeping a page.

However, even if a "snow keep" situation actually existed, you still shouldn't close a discussion you had participated in.—Kww(talk) 19:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Kww, consensus still doesn't favor deletion. While I agree in that this MFD really shouldn't be closed as a "snow keep" (and Alpha Quadrant should probably review WP:DGFA), WP:SNOW clearly states: "If an issue does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process." so one technically could invoke the snowball clause in closing that MFD as no consensus. In fact, due to all the personal attacks present in the MFD from both "sides", it probably should have been "speedy closed" early as no consensus anyway. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)