User talk:Backslash Forwardslash/Archive 4

⁂ Main Talk - Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 ⁂

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Backslash Forwardslash. 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.

Archive 1

→

DEFAULTSORT

I noticed that you have been making changes to DEFAULTSORT tags. The way I understand it, you should not use characters with diacritical marks in DefaultSort tags. The system uses these to sort, so they should be converted to regular characters. Bubba73 (talk), 04:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, I wasn't aware of that. ∗ \ / (⁂) 04:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not certain about that, but see Wikipedia:DEFAULTSORT#Default sort key. Bubba73 (talk), 04:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

RfA

Hey \ /, thanks for your note. I am now more amenable to the thought of doing an RfA than I was a few months ago when you mentioned it before, but I think I'm going to be pretty busy for the next couple days, so is it all right if we hold off on this until around the weekend?

In the meantime, I will do some thinking about whether or not to go ahead with it. On the one hand, I don't see any harm in applying now. On the other hand, I think my main use for the tools would be helping at DYK, doing CSD/AIV, and occasionally editing protected templates...but lately I have been too busy to be very active at DYK or with CSD, so it might not make so much sense for me to have the tools if I won't have time to do much with them until around mid-May. (Then again, I guess getting them a bit early wouldn't hurt, either.) I believe it's been about a month and a half since I've been in any sort of dispute (another run-in with Ottava Rima in mid-Februay), which some people might think is a bit recent but who knows. Anyway, I guess I'll spend a couple days thinking about whether I'd rather run now-ish or May-ish, and then get back to you...does that sound all right? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking it's probably best for my sanity if I wait until early May or early June (the gap in there is because for the second half of May I　will be on an adventure and probably won't be on WP much). Is it ok if I shoot you a message when it's a better time? In any case, if I do run, I would definitely like my nominee to be you, so thank you very much for the offer, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Visiting my girlfriend in Buenos Aires (where she's studying)...but she probably won't be happy if I sit around on the computer all day ;) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Archiving help

{{helpme}} I was going to set up User: ClueBot III to archive this page, but I can't work out the template. I'm up to /Archive 4. ∗ \ / (⁂) 12:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi \/, dunno if this helps; I use MiszaBot (talk · contribs), and recently set it up. Code follows; I also had 1 manual archive before I started, so set the counter to '2';

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 2
|algo = old(100h)
|archive = User talk:Chzz/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=User talk:Chzz/Archive Index|mask=User talk:Chzz/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no|template=}}
{{archive box|auto=yes}}

Chzz ► 12:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems more manageable. ∗ \ / (⁂) 13:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar

Hehe, thanks. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 12:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

re: WP:RS check

Hi Backslash. This one is hard to judge, in my opinion, and I don't think I am knowledgable enough to make the call on whether it is or isn't reliable. I'd advise posting a note at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Sorry I'm not able to help further. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Test

Pointless thread for arch test Chzz ► 01:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

RE : Revision history

Replied on my talkpage. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 04:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Review

Hey there \/, I'm doing my long overdue review that you requested... The good news is that I didn't see any thing that you nominated for CSD that was clearly wrong. There were several where I felt that your rationale was wrong. Here are just a few examples:

I noticed that you nominated a page with a bunch of pictures for deletion today as a G3, it was eventually deleted as a G1. IMO both of those were the wrong criteria, I personally felt it should have been deleted as A1/3---but it definitely needed to be deleted, so the exact criteria isn't all that critical.
Another page asks the viewer to PLEASE COPY N PASTE THIS URL INTO YOUR BROWSER AND SEARCH US. IM SURE WERE WORTH THE EFFORT PPL. It gives the a website to click and you tagged it as G3, it would probably be better labeled spam/advertising.
You nominated David Erman Wrestling for deletion per A7. The problem with A7 is that the article claimed to have Kurt Angle, Triple-H, The Miz and several other notable wrestlers... if ANY ONE of these wrestlers was actually signed with the production, it would make the DEW instantly notable as they are some of the biggest names in wrestling. That being said, none of them are signed with DEW, thus G3 is a clear rationale. The roster is from the WWE, not DEW.
Another page included the line, He was very retarded and love gay hot anal sex with men. You nomed it as G3, G10 would have been better.
Another page enjoys long walks with randy(long haired white trash) in trailer parks again, G3 should have been G10.

Your work at this point in time at CSD probably wouldn't garner an oppose, but it might prevent me from supporting. I'd have to the see the rest of the body of your work.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. The first one was an article by a serial vandal, who has made hundreds of new pages of similar content with some variation of the title '... is not too particularly fond of NawlinWiki' or what have you. The second one you mentioned I do remember mistagging, it was deleted before I fixed the tag. The rest I fully understand your reasons behind, and I'll keep paying attention when I tag to avoid such errors. Thanks again for the review, I really do appreciate feedback; far too often I find people avoid giving constructive criticism due to concerns about being perceived as attacking. See you around. :) ∗ \ / (⁂) 06:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have that problem ;-) If somebody asks for feedback, I feel that it is only fair to give an honest criticism.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thread to test bot archival

Hopefully this works. :) ∗ \ / (⁂) 07:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Tony Hollingsworth entry

Hi. I have radically cut and altered this entry. Do you think the neutrality and advertisement boxes could now be removed? Peter Elman (talk) 08:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

replied at Peter Elman's talk page. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Rjanag, I get a message the day after my break... typical. Anyway, my internet has been reconnected for an hour, but I'll still be out until the 24th. (Feel free to ignore any messages on my page :P ) ∗ \ / (⁂) 09:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Ladyhawke songs

For every category you create, you should specify parent categories to which it belongs. You can do this by listing the parents near the bottom of the page, each enclosed in double brackets like so:

[[Category:Songs by artist]]
[[Category:Hypothetical second category]]

I've added at least one parent to the category. I invite you to check my work for accuracy and completeness.

I am a human being, not a bot, so you can contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 05:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, and thanks for fixing it. I don't create many categories (first one!), nor do I plan to, but I'll try to remember that the next time I'm involved in categorical creation. ∗ \ / (⁂) 06:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Automatic processing of your editor review

This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 29 April 2009 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding  to the review page will prevent further automated actions. End of line. DustyBot (talk) 07:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

RfA

Ok, I've transcluded it. Thanks for the quick response! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Please change your age, Backslash Forwardslash, as I'm sure you are not 4 years old. Webster6^{Yo, So} 08:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Webster6. I have that userbox as a bit of a joke, I am obviously not four years old. I don't believe there is a reason for removing it - it is quite obviously intended as humour, and we aren't required to provide correct personal information. However, I am open to convincing otherwise if you believe it is truly inappropriate. ∗ \ / (⁂) 10:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem

...Backslash, it was also my mistake with that redirect. Just now I have a limited connection and I'm forced to stay only on Wikipedia (can't use Google etc..) - not very useful for new pages checking. It's better to concentrate on something different, and that's what I'll do :) Sorry for that confusion. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of UtilisateurDodoïste/Brouillon

A tag has been placed on UtilisateurDodoïste/Brouillon requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ∗ \ / (⁂) 11:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You did well. I wanted to create a test page, in my user namespace. I am used to create subpages like "Utilisateur:Dodoïste/*", since the french word for user is utilisateur. I have created it in User:Dodoïste/Brouillon. Thanks. Dodoïste (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

No problems, I can understand it can be hard to shake some habits :). ∗ \ / (⁂) 12:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Fatma Aliye Topuz

Hi \/! Thanks a lot for your contribution. Cheers. CeeGee (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

Unfortunately, my RFA was closed recently with a final tally of 75½/38/10. Though it didn't succeed, I wanted to thank you for your support and I hope I can count on it in the future. Even though it didn't pass, it had a nearly 2 to 1 ratio of support and I am quite encouraged by those results. I intend to review the support, oppose, and neutral !votes and see what I can do to address those concerns that were brought up and resubmit in a few months. If you would like to assist in my betterment and/or co-nominate me in the future, please let me know on my talk page. Special thanks go to Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}, TomStar81, and henrik for their co-nominations and support. — BQZip01 — ^talk

tb

Hello, Backslash Forwardslash. You have new messages at Ttonyb1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shameless thankspam

FlyingToaster Barnstar

Hello Backslash Forwardslash! Thank you so much for your support in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of 126/32/5. I am truly humbled by the trust you placed in me, and will endeavor to live up to that trust. Flying Toaster

Lin jia jun

A tag has been placed on Lin jia jun, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. auto / decltype (talk) 04:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I didn't know that was an incorrect spelling of her name - I was just redirecting an article I had placed a CSD tag on (since deleted). Cheers :) ∗ \ / {talk} 04:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw the page, and realized what had happened. It wasn't misspelled, it was improperly capitalized. I didn't realize the terms were distinct. Anyway, the speedy was declined. decltype (talk) 05:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Metaform

The Metaform page you previously nominated for an A7 speedy deletion, it's now supported enough by references? I'm not an admin, but the page doesn't seem to have articles or references outside of magazine reviews and a personal myspace page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.41.18.225 (talk) 06:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey 64. I tagged Metaform on 1 April, wow time flies :). My tag on that article was a mistake - it had made a claim to notability and thus making it ineligible for speedy. From what I can tell, the magazine reviews do constitute non-trivial works about Metaform, as per the notability criteria. In my opinion the magazine reviews do establish his notability, and although it was deleted in an WP:AFD, I do think that it's fine. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Your AWB edits

We don't generally "fix" redirects per WP:R2D. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 12:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Argh, apologies. My redirect policy knowledge isn't that comprehensive. Ah well, I've only wasted my own time. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

RfA

Best wishes with your RfA. :-) I hope all goes well (and you pass). At least we can be thankful that it's calm and without drama (besides something about the age 4 thing). Don't do anything crazy, keep answering the questions reasonably and you should be fine. Cheers, Jamie^☆S93 23:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

In other words, don't go nuts. Good luck! :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You'll pass. Hopefully your FA drives will be going strong still YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 06:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, looks like this one will pass. Good luck with the Admin tools... and still any urge to nominate Melbourne Airport for FA status? Or are you tired of the art? As it doesn't appear to be appearing on my watchlist much these days. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 06:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I would love to see Melbourne Airport improved, but I don't feel I have anything to offer in terms of its improvment. User:Mvjs has done an outstanding job keeping the article up to date, but it is still dogged by prose concerns. I can copyedit, but I'm a bit too close to the text to make any substantiative improvements to the prose. The article would need a committed copyeditor, willing to put a good weeks worth into improving the flow. Unfortunately, I don't have the time. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

All the best for your RFA which is "likely" to pass :D -- Tinu Cherian - 10:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You look awfully close to WP:100 at this point. :-) Jamie^☆S93 23:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

With a tally of (107/10/6) it looks like your RFA will pass in about 7 hours. Enjoy the tools and good luck. –BuickCentury Driver 09:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Scared me with all the red! That was my previous, unsuccessful RfA. Nonetheless, thanks for the kind words. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Account creation

Regarding request #30585, it would appear that declining this request as too similar would not be appropriate, as the possibly conflicting username has no contributions. Please take a little more care in future. If there was another reason for declining this request, please let me know. Stifle (talk) 13:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I declined it as the guide recommends that if an account is similar to that created within the last year, it should be marked as Similar. While I think one year is a bit excessive, 8 months is probably at the limit as to what I'd call a 'recent creation'. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I should probably see about amending the guide then. Stifle (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

La Pobre Viejecita

Hi, B.F. This is a poem by Rafael Pombo. His Wikipedia article states that he died in 1912; therefore, his works are in the public domain. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I was multi-tasking beyond my capabilities and hadn't thought to look for the authors article. I'll remember that the next time I come across a similar article. Apologies for the inconvenience. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 11:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations...

.... new admin! --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 12:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Just missed... :P Congrats btw -- Tinu Cherian - 12:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Gah! I tried to tag an article with a speedy and was shocked to see I had deleted it! :D Thanks. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

May be fastest person to apply the buttons just after the RFA :P ,Dweller we are waiting your declaration here :D -- Tinu Cherian - 13:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Congrats Backslash, you'll do well :) weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 13:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, mate, you thoroughly earned the position. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the ranks of admins

Hello. Please forgive the tortoiselike speed of the arrival of this message. It seems I'm having to crank the internet by hand.

I've closed your RfA as successful at 110/8/6. Congratulations on receiving your shiny new mop and a "good reason" place in WP:100.

I'm tempted to patronise you by suggesting some reading you might like to do, but I assume that like most of us, you read a fair number of manual pages before your RfA. If you find your memory rusty, while you can of course resort to reading the guides again, I can also strongly recommend asking for help from other admins experienced in that area. An idea some find helpful is asking another admin to review some of your tooluse early on, either before or after you press the button.

Anyway, thank you for offering to help and running the gauntlet a second time. --Dweller (talk) 13:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks like there is quite a bit of reading on the road ahead. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Congrats! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

\o/ - Dank (push to talk) 14:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! Just missed !voting :( Shubinator (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Well done YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 03:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Just don't go crazy with the tools! Although I'm sure you won't! ;) Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 03:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations for earning your new mop! Use it diligently, and no deleting the main page (wink)! Royal broil 04:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Have we ever had an admin do such a thing? Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 04:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:IDIOT :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Aren't some clever! Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 05:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Vaccination

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Hope you fare better than the last kid who got vaccinated :/ Benders Game 14:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Well done

Congratulations BF - nice to see you get through your RfA and gain the buttons. Looking forward to seeing you on the track.--VS ^talk 22:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow

I am surprised that you gave my brother, User: Joe Cool 72 another chance (I just found out what he did). If he ever puts up articles about patent nonsense again, do not hesitate to block him.

Hcps-hoytca (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No problems. Maybe you can convince him to edit constructively? :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

is from many resources and not a presonal opinion

you better edit it with your correct information rather than deleting it. right ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdthegreat (talk • contribs) 01:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to delete it, I have placed it up for community input using a process called Articles for Deletion. Other users will then discuss whether the article should be deleted, or decide that the article is worth keeping and improve it. Rather than leaving a note to me, provide input at the discussion here. Also, you might want to stop adding {{hangon}} to the article. The article isn't nominated for speedy deletion and by adding that tag you are re-adding it to the queue. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 01:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Since your successful RfA you've been all over my radar blocking vandals, deleting attack pages and generally just helping keep Wikipedia free of junk. You are much appreciated! t'shael ^mindmeld 04:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Why thankyou. I'm slowly getting used to this adminship business. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sysop icon

Sorry you didn't agree with the icon on your page. I took a chance hoping you wouldn't mind, but if you don't want it there I won't put it back. Have fun. –BuickCentury Driver 10:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't really care, just I don't find those icons that attractive. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Think Spirits

Hi: you declined my speedy tagging of this with the comment "no advertising here". For what it's worth, and for the record, I had tagged it as A7 ("an article about a company that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject") - not as G11 (promotional). I wasn't say the page was advertising, but when I tagged it the article said only "A liquor distribution company located in Australia. Imports the following brands PAMA Pomegranate Liqueur and Sagatiba Pura Cachaça", and I didn't see any assertion of importance there. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. I had gotten it confused with the previous tag placed on the now deleted version of the article, and the creator had left a message of that vein on the talk page. Apologies for my selective reading. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries! I'll have a trawl around for sources and see whether notability looks plausible for this one. Thanks for the quick reply. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Re-adding a speedy tag

Hi \ /, Congrats on your RFA. I noticed in your note on Wikiwikikid's talk page, you said "... while there isn't anything 'wrong' with readding a contested speedy ...". I could have sworn the db templates or WP:CSD specifically said the tags are not to be re-added, but I can't find that wording now. Either it's been changed, or my memory is faulty. The best I can find is the WP:Deletion policy#Speedy deletion: "Renominations: Either a page fits the speedy deletion criteria or it does not. If there is a dispute over whether a page meets the criteria, the issue is typically taken to deletion discussions." (emphasis mine). Just curious if you know whether this has been changed relatively recently to be less black and white or not. In practice, I was fairly sure re-adding a disputed speedy tag is actively discouraged. Anyway, glad you agreed with my inital declines, and let me know if you have any additional insight into whether this used to be more formal or not. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Certainly discouraged, but it's not absolute 'don't do it' and there may be a time where it is fine to re-add a speedy tag. PROD is the tag which is 100% don't re-add, but speedy is discouraged. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been looking at old versions of WP:CSD and {{db}} from last year, and even back then they don't say what I thought they said, so it appears my memory is the problem after all. Maybe you're right, I might be confusing this with PROD. Anyway, thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Dan Benayer

I nom'd Dan Benayer for CSD as a G10, which you declined with a comment of "not negative tone and sourced."

Firstly, I think that given the article's statements about the subject's drug abuse, his links to "organised crime and prostitution," and accusations of sexual assault and theft... well, imo, they do cause the subject to appear in a negative light. Secondly, if you'd looked at the references, you'd see that none of them backed up the accusations--in fact, some of them never even mention him.

Anyhow, this is just to say that I've sent it to AFD, where I expect it will go away, just later rather than sooner. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I declined because the article wasn't entirely negatively sourced, only the controversies section was 'tainted'. (Blame it on my poor edit summary) I did search the resources and couldn't find a mention of his name, and cut it down to a stub removing the negative aspects. This subject may have been notable, so I kept up the bio stub with a notability tag so that his notability could be 'investigated'. Sorry for the confusion, I didn't explain myself as well as I could've with that edit summary. :\ \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Feel like declining an unblock request?

If so, please see user talk:Bookbros. ;) t'shael ^mindmeld 23:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind. VirtualSteve has just done so. Thanks anyway, though. :) t'shael ^mindmeld 23:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks a lot for deleting my subpages. Thankyou. --Srini vas G P hani 06:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 06:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

And mine. :) t'shael ^mindmeld 22:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Which parts of Black Rock Congregational Church do you consider to be non-neutral? All my information is cited in the citations given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crixxx (talk • contribs) 04:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Crixxx. If you read the template, it says "A major contributor to this article appears to have a conflict of interest with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page." I don't have time to go through the article and check for neutrality, but that tag is there to inform readers of your conflict of interest, and to notify other editors that the article needs checking. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The editors seem to have plenty of time finding fault with the article and slapping critical banners on it but little interest to actually do anything about it, as they have failed to do in the past. I, however, do have such an interest, as the originator of the article and will make the changes you advise, as I have done recently.

Bavarian Pigeon Corps

Hi there. I think it's a bit too soon to move Bavarian Pigeon Corps to the DYK queue while we're still figuring out vital aspects of the hook. Bavaria (or the German Empire of which it was part) did not have an enemy over whose lines to send pigeons in 1903. The image info from the German Bundesarchive say that recon pigeons were used during the First World War. Manxruler (talk) 11:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I'm replacing the hook now. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 11:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

That's good. It's a really nice and unusual article, but I feel that we should get all our facts straight before putting it on the Main Page. Also, the photographer-bird might make for a good illustration photo for its queue. Manxruler (talk) 11:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I can understand that. For some reason I didn't notice the dialogue going on below the tick :| \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 11:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Congrats

A little late but congrats on your adminship. Well done. Best regards -- Samir 22:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Joseph R. Rios III

There was no personal attack, it was just news that is reported around the world, please restore. Xodó (talk) 09:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I deleted it because it was a negative biography of a living person. This is a minor incident which has not been fully confirmed in a court of law. If you wish to recreate it, please be aware of Wikipedia's neutrality policy and our biographies of living people policy. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not a minor incident but one that raises world wide attention, just google it. I had just repeated what you read everywhere in the news so there is no indication of any lack of neutrality. Xodó (talk) 09:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The page is not neutral, it had taken one aspect of the incident and ignored the viewpoints and perspectives of others. Nonetheless, I have restored it and nominated it for further review at a process called Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. You are welcome to discuss the article at this page. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Feel welcome to add more aspects or to suggest where else to include the information. Thank you for following the rules. Xodó (talk) 09:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

Please see User talk:MSGJ#Question 2, regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've replied there. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Actually I had already declined a couple of those Pizza requests (e.g. User:Pizza1512/Userboxes/Bris/BGS) because they had transclusions. It didn't seem fair to delete them without at least informing the users that they would have a redlink on their userpage. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Understood. Sorry. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've restored them. Cheers, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD/RfA

Heh, nice catch. Those TLAs tend to blur together after a while... ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 15:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Email recieved from User:TownDown

I just got the following email from TownDown: Hello, I also believed that the block is justified with "Hayden120", but the other admin "Backslash Forwardslash" said that he doesn't see a serious amount of edit warring on that page, and he was leaning towards an unblock, and curiously both are from Australia. Sometimes I believe the nationalism really matters in Wikipedia because when I see that it is when the users are from the same nation, but "Hayden120" committed WP:Etiquette, judging my knowledge and how I wrote the english language. I think 24 hrs blocked were justified, but he tells lies all the time, for example he told me about a previous consensus justifying his reverts, but there wasn't a consensus, or even a other user reverted him because of it, so anyway, I also requested to lock the article. Please tell me what do you think?

Just thought you should know, as there might be an underlying problem here that we should take to AN. Your thoughts? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 11:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not a problem for me, that's why I just said the term curiously, you know, I watched others discussions in the past and I don't know why but I always see that on their userboxes, I'm just saying no judging. I'm sorry for bothering you. --TownDown ^{How's it going?} 11:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hayden120 is Australian? News to me :) I was leaning towards an unblock because it did seem a bit harsh, but I wasn't planning on an unblock anytime soon. There could be some past history, but I didn't notice it when I was quickly looking things over. I was also mildly surprised to see TownDown be unblocked - don't edit warring parties get equal treatment? Anyway, I won't be doing anything administrative, since my impartiality has been questioned. As for AN, that may be needed if there is indeed something concerning in the history between TownDown and Hayden.

TownDown, I do find it odd however, that you would make an assumption. Reading that message I do get that you were inferring I was not completely impartial. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well not necessary impartial, I wrote that like a pure coincidence, using the term curiously, I'm sorry but my intention wasn't that, and I am surprised to see that you wanted to block me too?, I didn't revert more than 1 to Hayden120, and Hayden120 reverted me more than 1, and users and I explained him since the first time why don't change the map, because the previous consensus on talkpage/archive3, meanwhile he was reverting it again, that's why I went to reported him, and also because he was judging my knowledge or authority and how I wrote.--TownDown ^{How's it going?} 12:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not that you revered Hayden once, it's that I can count three reversions of three different users edits ([1] [2] [3]) yet only one post to the talk page ([4]). \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

In 24 hours for the first offense?, (09:19, June 8, 2009) to (09:32, June 9, 2009), but Hayden120 reverted 3X in 24hrs.

1.- 01:50, June 9, 2009

2.- 05:35, June 9, 2009

3.- 20:47, June 9, 2009. [5][6][7]. Well the block is justified but no the unblock.--TownDown ^{How's it going?} 12:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hayden120 shouldn't be unblocked because the three-revert rule in 24 hrs.--TownDown ^{How's it going?} 12:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

WT:DYK

I would greatly appreciate it if you try to assume better faith next time instead of referring to users like myself as "immature" (see [8]). We're all trying to better the encyclopedia here, but pot-shots like that doesn't help any. Thank you, MuZemike 16:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Backslash Forwardslash. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 June 9.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert Awol

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert Awol, I'm curious how you came to a conclusion that there was a consensus for deletion. Reading the arguments, it seems clear to me that the consensus was trending toward merging the information into another article, rather than outright deletion. Powers ^T 13:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Obviously the edits of User:Sfadisneyfreak didn't have that much of an effect on the outcome, as with User:Junglenav.. While their opinions were noted, they used extremely weak arguments and didn't add that much to the discussion. We then have User:Tyrenon, who nommed as not needed a separate page, and was beginning to lean towards a merge, however User:Edward321 disagreed with merging, as a 'unlikely redirect term' and 'barely worth merging'. We then had User:Whpq and User: Eusebeus, who both voted delete with no comment on the merge, and yourself, with a straight merge. In my opinion, there was consensus for a deletion over a merge, but I'm happy to provide the deleted article to you if you wish to merge the content. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I considered asking for the deleted article, but for GFDL attribution purposes, you would need to restore the article history if a merge is to occur. That would effectively overturn your decision to a merge. I'm fine with taking that route if you are. Powers ^T 13:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The net result is the same, I'm willing to let it be merged as you are an editor in good standing. See User:LtPowers/Albert Awol. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Award!

		Wikipedia Administrator's Award
		You have been an Sysop for a little over a week and you have been doing a great job at administrative tasks. I just want to be the first to tell you that. Congratulations, OtisJimmyOne 14:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. A week already? :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it time for a reconfirmation already?---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Show-off! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

NB deletion

I should stress I am reasonably happy with the outcome of your decision to delete Beale (I might well have called it as delete) but I would take issue with some of your summary? I agree the review is not a vote but at a count it was only 15-10 in favour of deletion. Several long standing low contributing editors had falsely been marked as SPAs and there was evidence of canvassing both ways, off wiki by Beale and on-wiki against him. What I was less sure about though was the implication of your wording that in these conditions the onus was on people voting "keep" to explain what notability they saw: all the notability claim was there in the article (at least when I got to it) and it was a question of subjective judgement whether it met WP:NOT as a mixed bag of whatnot without onus on one side to produce further evidence? --BozMo talk 18:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi BozMo. I was referring to the one or two keep votes that didn't do anything to address the delete voters concerns. See User: DGG and User:Andy Dingley's votes. While I don't expect every keep vote to be an essay, when there is significant debate over one or two aspects of a subjects notability I would like to see some acknowlegement of the debate raging up the page. Simply saying 'he's notable, clearly' doesn't really help or sway the consensus the same way as 'He's notable because of x' or 'I agree with x's claim that y makes him notable.' You could say that is implied, but I didn't discount those votes - they merely had less weight. Also keep in mind some of the arguments of User:Mywikieditor2007, labeling the AfD as legalism also isn't as strong. Of course the deletes had rationale-less votes, but there were less of them and the ones that where there numbered as high, if not higher than the keeps. I hope this explains it to you - I don't like writing essays to close AfDs, but I hope the reasons behind the closure have been clarified. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. In the end life is too short to waste much of it over marginal decisions. And closing AfDs is a thankless task you do well to take on just after getting the mop. I haven't closed one for a year or two but in the past I guess that the fact that 75-25 was no consensus meant keep we kept loads of very non notable people. We shouldn't have, so your decisiveness is no doubt a good thing to have. --BozMo talk 21:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

GB3DR‎

Just curious, but what did you find in GB3DR‎ that expressed any semblance of notability? There was nothing but directory-style information. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on radio stations or repeater stations, so I thought having a week for someone with such knowledge to work it out would not be a bad idea. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Article deletion: Rohea

Hi there. It seems you decided to delete my article about our company Rohea. If that's a true consensus of administrators, I accept the decision. However, I'd like to bring a few things up.

The first two 'to be deleted' flags were set by other moderators just after I had submitted the first draft of the article. My mistake was to submit an unfinished article, but still, the result you deleted was a greatly improved version with references, more neutral form and such.
Our company is linked inside Wikipedia from another article (about Qaiku). That article is not generated by us and, therefore, it is considered relevant by a significant number of people outside our company. I think it would be generally interesting enough to provide some information about the company behind the link.
There are other small companies similar to us in English Wikipedia. Why are we the ones who get deleted?
In my opinion, the article was not biased. The facts were accurate and there were references to independent (and respected) sources.
Our company is the 'only' meaning for the word 'Rohea' I've ever heard. So could it be any more relevant to this topic :-).

ps. I'm not very familiar with the discussion methods of Wikipedia. I hope this message reaches you in proper way. (TomiS80 (talk) 07:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC))

Hi TomiS80. Firstly, thanks for taking the time to write me a message. The article was deleted under A7 of the speedy deletion criteria, as a page about a subject that did not demonstrate why the subject is notable. All entries on Wikipedia have to conform to a notability policy, which dictates what makes a company, organisation or in your case, a website, worthy of inclusion. While there may be many other articles about similar companies, we don't tend to like using that argument in deletion discussions, for reasons listed on the previously linked page. The link on Qaiku also bears little indicator to whether an article should be kept, as you can link to just about anything if you tried. ;)

On a related note, you may wish to read about editing with a conflict of interest. It is clear that you have some relation to Rohea and with such a clear link it may be difficult for your arguments for including the article to seem sincere and indifferent. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. And thanks for the quick answer. I'd still like to point out a few of things. Yep, I definitely have an interest of having the Rohea page there. I'm not trying to hide or deny that. But isn't the quality of the content the one that counts? (there were references and such). And I tried to rip of all the 'advertising-like' pieces of text. I admit it is naive to use the fact that there are other small company pages in Wikipedia as an argument to get ours there too, but I also find it quite naive to resent pages created by people with so-called conflicting interests. What difference would it make if I just asked my grandma or some random people from the street to create the same page with the same content but without the straight connection to the company in question. I could even pay him/her if I would really be nasty. I think all statements in an article should be referred like in any academical article. That should be the only thing that counts. And this is what I tried to do in my article too. But anyway, I see there is lots of discussion going on in Wikipedia about these topics, so I'm not wasting anymore of your time (and mine) after this. If getting deleted is the only outcome after 4 hours of work, I can't say I'm too happy and, thus, just like to conclude that the deletion policy this strict doesn't really encourage creating content (of any sort) to Wikipedia. But maybe you guys have enough of it. (TomiS80 (talk) 08:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC))

I'm sorry you have come to that conclusion, as we do certainly need new content, given that it is within the bounds of the notability policy. However, the current deletion does not mean the work is 'banished' from Wikipedia; if the company gains more interest and coverage it may well have an article about it in the future. I can email you a copy of the deleted article if you'd like to be prepared for this possible eventuality - just let me know either here or via the e-mail function. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Hello, Backslash Forwardslash. You have new messages at Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Some shameless thankspam!

User:Colds7ream/RfA

G4

You should double-check your deletion of Toon Zone. CSD G4 specifically requires an article to be substantially identical to a deleted version. My version was significantly different from the one previously deleted. I'm assuming this was an honest mistake. You can still nominate it for a normal deletion process if you have concerns.

And just so you know, it's common courtesy to notify the creators of an article when you delete it. Thanks, sorry for the hassle. --Morning (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Just my unsolicited two cents: from what I can tell, the article has more references than the original, but doesn't address the problems raised in the original AfD, and so while it's superficially different than the original it still has the same problem. Therefore, I'm not too upset by the deletion. If you want, though, Backslash or I could restore it and put it to AfD instead; I can tell you right now, though, that I would have to immediately !vote "delete", as most of the references appear to be nothing more than picking any article or website that happens to mention ToonZone at all, and don't really demonstrate real notability. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Morningpulse. I seem to have read 2008 as 2009, but I'm still not convinced on the restoration. Your created version has much less content that the version deleted in 2008. I am happy to restore it and take it to AfD, but I don't think it is likely to pass. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 20:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Morning (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to do this? --Morning (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You wanted it restored? I guess we didn't realize you were actually asking for it. I will restore it and start the AfD, since I'm online right now and I think it's nighttime where Backslash is. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well it wasn't a valid deletion (as "has the same problem as a previous version" and "shorter than a previous version" are not criteria for speedy-deletion). That should be enough reason to go back and do it correctly, regardless of your opinions on whether it'll pass AFD. --Morning (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Now at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toon Zone (3rd nomination). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. --Morning (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Daniele Montana

Re this article; I note that you declined the speedy tag on the basis that notability had been asserted. My own thought was that the notability was being asserted on behalf of a film in which he appeared, rather than for the individual. I don't particularly mind one way or the other, but I'm wondering if there was a criterion other than WP:PORNBIO that you were using to cover this situation; I'm trying to get the boundaries of WP:PORNBIO clear in my mind, because I do a lot of new page patrol and find that adult film companies (and enthusiasts) are anxious to add articles about individual performers. Your comments would be welcome. Accounting4Taste:talk 13:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I must ask - adult film enthusiasts? :)

I wasn't looking at WP:PORNBIO when I declined the speedy. There have been many articles on actors who's only real 'claim' to notability has been there appearance in one film, especially given there is some claim of awards. (Validity of such I'm not quite certain) I don't feel comfortable deleting articles which may have a possibility of passing at AfD, so I declined it simply so that someone with more knowledge in the area could take further action. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 22:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL Well, enthusiasts is the polite word I would use; children might read this. Thanks for your comment; I understand where you were coming from and appreciate knowing your point of view. If I do decide to do something, I'll invite you to express yourself further, if you'd care to. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

WTF

i was adding the sources to my page and you deleated it Alec more fan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC).

I think you're at the wrong page. Someone else deleted your article. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Adoption

That's fine with me. Sorry for not being around, been busy with my exams, but they finish on Tuesday. Am I still ok to send any questions your way?--Lotsofinterviews (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to answer any questions you have. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)