Archives

October 2004 - December 2005 January 2006 - December 2006 January 2007 - December 2007 January 2008 - February 17, 2008 current discussion

Quick, let's delete the front page!

No seriously, thanks for contributing at my RfA which ended 68/0/0. I'm amazed and humbled by the result, and the warm and supportive comments that went with it. I've put the pic of Tiger here because although I know not everyone appreciates lolcats, to me it illustrates the possibility of taking things seriously with a light heart. I will try to do so, and remain open to the being slapped down if I do start being impossibly pompous. Thanks Pedro :  Chat  for your generous nomination, and also to Master of Puppets for ripping off his thankspam without so much as a by-your-leave. To all who contributed - especially the eventually withdrawn (but very interesting) neutral and oppose - thank you! Now it's off to new admin school for me, before I dare do anything for real... Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 11:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for letting me know! It seems that there was a change in the API that removed the API call the script used to use, replacing it with a newer one. I think I've updated it to use the newer method; bypass your cache, and let me know whether it works now. --ais523 13:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please help... its quite easy. Not sure adding a cleanup box to a one minute old article is very helpful. Victuallers (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you can find the discussion here. Icestorm815 • Talk 19:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be safe to tag this for speedy under notability or even advertising. Google turns up nothing but a MySpace and another questionable source. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 22:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on my talk page. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 22:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you possibly slow down with the AFDs? Many of those articles could probably be salvaged, but we don't have enough time to do the research if you're nominating several every hour. Thanks, Zagalejo^^^ 23:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Zagalejo. I do, however, appreciate your comitment to clean up Wiki. Scipio Carthage (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, the majority are either deleted, on their way to being deleted, or are because I was not completely aware of the policies for certain types of articles, like radio stations or schools. Once I submitted an article for AFD and realized this mistake, I stopped submitting these types of articles. Look at my AFDs from my first ones and move forward through time and you will realize this. Gary King (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We created this page today, and read the terms. We would like to dicuss this further as we feel that although we do not meet all the requirements in a short period of time we may manage to meet them all.

If you aren't sure whether an article should be kept or not, consider improving it youself, or tagging it as {{Unreferenced}} or {{Notability}}, or whatever the main problem seems to be, and perhaps another editor will be able to improve the article. Only take an article to AfD if you are sure that it should be deleted. --Eastmain (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

right. It helps to be able to say where you have looked for sources, ad failed to find them. See WP:Deletion policy. Eastmain & I certainly often dont agree about deletions, but we --and others-- do agree you are not doing this carefully enough. DGG (talk) 09:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I declined the CSD. A7 only applies to articles on people and organizations, not genres of music. Suggest AfD. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 07:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw your AfD notice on my talk page - actually I did not create the Dave best article - I just tidied it up a little. I see that someone has attempted to redirect to the band article -- I'll fix that and all should be good.--ukexpat (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Glabrousness, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.: Thank you! :.

Thank you for participating in my 2nd RfA and supporting me! My RfA passed unanimously at 79 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral. I would like to take this opportunity to thank AndonicO and Rudget for nominating me. I also want to thank LaraLove for persuading me to keep going after I failed my first RfA. To be really honest, I am surprised that my RfA passed without any oppose or neutral. Being an administrator means more responsibilities, especially when I'm now an administrator on both English Wikipedia as well as WikiSpecies. I promise everyone that I will use the tools effectively to serve the community. If you need help on anything, don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page and I will get back to you as soon as possible. Last but not least, remember the motto for Ohana: "When it comes to family, nobody gets left behind." Once again, thanks for placing your trust in me to help the community. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Hello. I'm confused by this edit and the edit summary that went with the edit. At first glance it seems like the edit summary and the edit are incongruous. Let me know what you think; thanks. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also see that you closed the AFD as a non-admin on an AFD that wasn't obviously a keep or a delete. Can you please explain why you closed it as "keep"? Thanks. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I replied on my user talk page. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see you've been helping out on the AFD backlog. That's great, but you need to be a bit more careful with the process. As per WP:DELPRO (and echoed in WP:NAC), the removal of the AFD notice should not be marked with as a minor edit, and in the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Owner earnings, it also looks like you missed adding the AFD result to the talk page. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 'minor edit' edit summary was pre-populated, and I should have changed it to something more descriptive. You are right. I've also added the AFD result to that Talk page. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It looks like you left out the addition of the closure notice on the talk pages for articles. I was going through and fixing them when I came across Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martha Samuelson. You closed this as a keep, but there does not appear to be a clear concensus for keep. The nominator, and one other editor indicated Delete (2 !votes delete), and one other editor indicating a redirect or delete. There is one keep, and one weak keep from established editors. And there are two keeps from a single purpose account which should not hold much weight due to the conflict of interest noted with the IP address belonging to the company of the article subject. I don't see how this possibly be considered a clear concensus to delete. And as per WP:NAC, non-admins should leave these for an admin to close. Regards -- Whpq (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored it back to normal. Gary King (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gary King. It's been agreed at Wikipedia:Bot requests that the simplest way to fix the unsatisfactory categorization that you performed automatically is for you to run AWB to tag these articles as Category:Categorization needs to be reviewed which I've just created for this purpose. Can you handle the tagging? Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've tweaked my message, but I'd also like to know if you'll do it or not. Pichpich (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on a few things right now, including a WP:FAC review, but I'll get right on it ASAP. Gary King (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok great. There's no real rush if you're too busy with the FAC. I just want to know that you'll do it eventually. Pichpich (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you tried to get Friedman through FA review. I too am interested in making this a featured article. Let me know if you need help working on this. I am pretty busy right now, but I will do what I can. Remember (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gary, thanks for promptly addressing my comments. I tend to review FACs from a reference, citation, MOS point of view, so I've largely ignored the prose. The copyediting should take care of any outstanding MOS issues. There are four editors I recommend for review: Karanacs (talk · contribs), Awadewit (talk · contribs), Qp10qp (talk · contribs) and The Rambling Man (talk · contribs). SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) is excellent for MOS issues, and Pagrashtak (talk · contribs) can advise on the inclusion of fair use images. I've written a few featured articles, so if you want any advice on anything just drop me a line. I look forward to supporting this article, and I see you've got a few editors willing to give you a hand. Best of luck, PeterSymonds | talk 19:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've archived my comments. PS, Sandy is the Featured Article Director's (Raul654 (talk · contribs)) delegate, ie. she promotes/archives nominations. Therefore she doesn't like to comment on articles that haven't reached a consensus. She recommended Epbr123 (talk · contribs) to review against the MOS instead. PeterSymonds | talk 21:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright thanks, I will contact that person. Gary King (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it OK with you if I bring Sri Lankan Student Short Film culture into the same AfD? It's the same author, same subject, same notability issues. I'm really not sure myself which way I'll vote - there just may be notability lurking under all the promotion (self-promotion, I'm sure), but somebody would have to do a lot of work to get an acceptable article; and the way he is behaving, continually removing the AfD template, he's liable to get blocked soon. JohnCD (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead. Gary King (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait and see how your speedy goes; if that's turned down, I'll add it to the AfD. JohnCD (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The account has been blocked, too, after I just reported it. Yay, one vandal down, many more to go! Gary King (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gary! Interested to hear that I've been recommended as a reviewer, but glad to be of service where possible! I'm certainly no Nobel prize winning reviewer(!) but I'll definitely give it a go. May be a day or so before I can bring in the full damage but I'll do my best. It looks good from an overview but immediately I'd suggest merging the single sentence para's and using an en-dash to separate year ranges (per the WP:MOS). I'd also avoid bullet point lists as WP:FA tends to shy away from that sort of thing. Anyway, just a quick couple of pointers. As Arnie said.... "I'll be back....." The Rambling Man (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, they are all great suggestions. I will go through each one and make sure that they are carefully applied to the article. Gary King (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like things have taken a funny turn - a {{POV}} template has been added to the page which, until its resolution, means the FA is doomed. I suggest you work with the editor(s) who take objection to elements of the article as it currently stands and hopefully resurrect the chance of promotion. Otherwise I fear the worst.... Bearing in mind I'm no subject matter expert, let me know if I can help. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I think you might have messed up in a recent WP:AIV report. Malaka Dewapriya, the account you reported, does not even exist. Please fix, and put the correct username. Thanks! - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, fixed. Gary King (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you notice that he has two user names - he started out as Srilanka short film (talk · contribs) and then switched to Srilankan short film (talk · contribs), so if one is blocked you may need to block the other as well. JohnCD (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch - reported the alternative account as well. Gary King (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary. I'm afraid that article is well outside my area of knowledge (now if it had been Milton!). It looks like it has some reviewers now, so please forgive me if I pass. All the best with it. qp10qp (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've just said delete in this debate, but it is not a vote, so you need to state your reasons for your position to be given weight. Tyrenius (talk) 04:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the comments in this debate? You might consider withdrawing your nom, so it can be closed as a speedy keep. Tyrenius (talk) 04:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully with 40 supports, 13 opposes, and 4 neutrals. For those of you who supported my RFA, I greatly appreciate it. For those who did not, I'm also thankful for your constructive criticism. If you need some advice or have some pointers for me, you know where to reach me! A special thank you to Majorly for all his time and effort he has placed in my nomination. Once again, thank you all for your helpful comments. Now off to new admin school! Cheers, Icestorm815 • Talk 01:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for assessing this from an economics perspective to add to my assessment from a statistics perspective. It appears you set higher standards for quality than me, or maybe we're judging different aspects, but either way that's fine! Regards, Qwfp (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop vandalizing PHP or you will be blocked. --MisterWiki do ya want to speak me?, come there! - 23:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. --MisterWiki do ya want to speak me?, come there! - 23:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good. --MisterWiki do ya want to speak me?, come there! - 23:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. I'm off out today so if I don't finish the review before I leave then I'll finish it tonight. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 08:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a modified script in User:Jwanders/monobook.js that works for me. Just don't use the "Autoformat article per MOS" button. --jwanders^Talk 18:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've copied it over to another page for now since yours is on your monobook.js page and you might change it later on. It works for me. Gary King (talk) 21:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you recently created a redirect page for Harry Girvetz, pointing to Milton Friedman. From what I can tell via Google, Harry Girvetz (1910-1974) was a professor of philosophy at UC Santa Barbara and a liberal activist. There is no mention of him on Milton Friedman's page. I'm puzzled by the redirect. Kestenbaum (talk) 07:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His name must've been removed from the article, then. Anyways, I would consider the person non-notable enough to deserve his own article. It was a red link, so I redirected it back to the only article that linked to it. Gary King (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our friend is back, as Malakadew (talk · contribs). I have put {{uw-coi}} on his talk page, but haven't got time to do anything else about it just now. JohnCD (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our friend is now blocked indefinitely (again). Nice catch on your part, once again. Gary King (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has introduced another of his films Transference-short film which I have AfD-ed.JohnCD (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article François-Marie de Bourbon, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of François-Marie de Bourbon. Magioladitis (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Gary! When you uploaded the image, you should have seen a large warning that looked like the text at {{AutoReplaceable fair use people}}. However, I've taken a closer look and decided to restore the image since Milton Friedman is deceased. Please write a fair use rationale for the image within the next week. Thanks! east.718 at 01:24, February 25, 2008

Done. Good luck with the article! east.718 at 01:29, February 25, 2008

You have previously expressed an interest in undergoing the Admin coaching program. We're currently engaged in a program reset to help things move more smoothly in the future. If you are still interested in the program, please go to Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching and re-list yourself under Current requests, deleting your entry from Older requests. Also, double-check to make sure coaching is right for you at theCoachee checklist; WP:Adoption or WP:Editor review may be more appropriate depending on your situation and aspirations. We should get back to you within a day or so, once a coaching relationship has been identified. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 07:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am pleased to announce that you have been paired with User:Sephiroth BCR as an admin coachee. You now have two important tasks to complete:

1. Introduce yourself to Sephiroth BCR and explain to him why you want to be an admin.

2. Once he has confirmed the relationship to you, edit Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching to move your name to Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Status to record the match.

Given the limited coaching resources of the Admin Coaching project, if you plan to take a Wikibreak of more than 30 days, please notify your coach or myself so that we will know not to tag you as retired and give your spot to another user. Remember that adminship is not a big deal and that it may take multiple RfAs before one becomes a sysop, even for highly qualified, coached, editors. Also, remember that while admin coaching will help you prepare for the mop, there is no guarantee that completing this program will ensure passage of an RfA.

Congratulations again, and happy editing. MBisanz ^talk 08:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gary. I would be happy to be your coach for your attempt to become an administrator. Due to the rather late hour here (US Pacific Time), we'll get into the finer points of your contributions and what you should start working on at another time. That said, I'll indulge in a brief review going off your post on my talk page concerning the areas you wish to focus on as an administrator. If you wish to be involved in administrator-related areas such as WP:AIV, WP:AFD, and WP:CSD, my biggest recommendation is simply to start participating in them. Genuine interest and experience are what the people at WP:RFA are looking for, and participation is really the only way to achieve both. For vandal reporting, AfD reporting, and speedy deletion tagging, I've found WP:TWINKLE particularly useful, and would highly advise using it for the aforementioned tasks. How you wish to participate is ultimately up to you and how you wish to apply yourself in this regard. Watching a thread for recent edits, watching Special:Newpages for CSD tagging, or going down the lists of AfDs to participate are general ways to begin applying yourself. Firsthand experience instills more lessons than mere lecturing. Anyhow, I'm off to bed, and I'll get to some other things I want to cover for your future run later. Do be aware that attempting to become an administrator is a time-intensive process, and it may take months and possibly multiple RfA tries (although the latter is what we're naturally trying to avoid here :p) before you actually become an administrator. Don't worry though, a brief look at your edits gives the appearance you're going in the right direction, but I'll delve a little deeper later. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]