Welcome!

Hello, Miami33139, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Kingturtle (talk) 01:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSD#I9 tags should only be used in clear cases of copyright infringement. If a user uploads a free-licensed image sourced to a commercial content provider, then I9 deletion is warranted, likewise for watermarks and images you can trace to commercial websites via google image search. If a user claims copyright on an image and you are merely suspicious, then make a report at WP:IFD or WP:PUI. Thanks, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted most of the pics of consoles since his little "L" thing was obviously concealing a watermark, but I'm not aware of any principle that says that game screenshots have to be self-made by wikipedians, or that there is any benefit to doing so. Non-free is non-free, and IGN doesn't hold any copyright in those games regardless (they're using the screenshots as fair use themselves). —Random832 05:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By choosing which elements of the game to include in a screenshot, the characters, weapons, graphic elements, etc, IGN has created their own intellectual property interest in the image. IGN does claim copyright on these images, not just fair use. Further, since IGN is writing about the game, and Wikipedia is writing about the game, IGN would claim our use is infringing on their competitive, commercial interest. We can claim fair use against the game designer because we do not compete with them. That isn't true for IGN. IGN presumably also has direct permission from the game designer as well. Wikipedia can't steal content from commercial publishers. Miami33139 (talk) 06:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't claim copyright of a videogame screenshot by adding a watermark. IGN, GameSpot, and many other sites add these watermarks for promotional purposes or to identify the source of the screenshot. The publication logos used in these watermarks are indeed copyrighted, however the process of adding these logos as a watermark creates a derivative work that is bound by the original copyright of the game. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We, at Wikipedia, say you can't claim copyright of a videogame screenshot by adding a watermark. The game sites disagree. They have paid employees who have gone through some effort to create the screenshots, to create a derivative work (which they may have full legal permission from the software company to do). Presumably, one of these companies could see Wikipedia as a publishing competitor, would not take kindly to Wikipedia blatantly re-distributing their effort for free, and would take legal action to protect their intellectual property interests. I would not want to be the lawyer defending Wikipedia in that case and Wikipedia doesn't want to be in the business of creating legal precedents. Miami33139 (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to suggest moving this to WT:NFC when I noticed you have already done so. I've left a reply there. As for the general tone of discourse, please be mindful of the no legal threats policy. No single editor here speaks for the Wikimedia foundation and I presume that you are not a legal representative of any gaming site. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I regret to inform you that your recent rollback request was denied. The full reason is listed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback/Denied/June_2008#User:Falconkhe, but I was concerned by some of your reverts without summaries. All the best, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have finally created a WikiProject for Indiana Jones! Check it out. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 04:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I saw that you removed the {{prod}} template from School of Rock 2: America Rocks. If you look at the notability guidelines for future films, it says to hold off on creating a stand-alone article until filming is confirmed to have begun. The future films department also suggests merging the content to a broader article if necessary, so would it be possible to redirect to School of Rock#Sequel? —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you tag an article for proposed deletion, as you did with IPhoneBT and Pod to PC, please provide a reason why you think the article should be deleted, e.g. {{subst:prod|put your reason here}}. If you don't do this the deletion request is likely to be declined by the reviewing admin. I have put reasons into those two articles as I agree that they should be deleted, so you don't need to do anything there, but please bear this in mind for the future. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I have done so in the past. Thank your for reviewing this. Miami33139 (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The comments you removed were to discussions on the talk page. They weren't in archives, they weren't disruptive. I happen to disagree with their content, but dealing with disagreement is the function of talk pages. Pseudomonas_(talk) 19:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TALK, "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views."

The anonymous comments did nothing to discussion changes to the article except make a drive-by claim of bias and their personal anecdotes. Miami33139 (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Miami33139. Thank you for your work on patrolling pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I just wanted to inform you that I declined to delete Sipie, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion under criterion G11 because of the following concern: G11 only applies to blatant advertising. No notability or no edits are not valid reasons for speedy deletion either. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion and especially what is considered Non-criteria. In future you should rather tag such pages for proposed deletion or start an appropriate deletion discussion. Regards SoWhy 10:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is continuing movement to speedy delete non-notable bits of software and cruft because of the sheer amount of it. You declined to and that is ok! I have been going through some lists of software finding which are non-notable. The ones that are particularly minor and ignored I put speedy tags on. Disagreements are OK, that's why speedy requires multiple eyeballs. Somewhat questionable stuff gets a PROD. That is our process and it works. Thanks for the note. Miami33139 (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you have tagged a number of well-known software products for speedy deletion. In all the cases I can find, not only do their articles claim notability, but in fact the software is widely used and known (including things I am personally familiar with). Speedy is completely the wrong tag for these cases. Moreover, while AfD would be more appropriate, few if any of them appear likely to be deleted were an AfD filed.

I also noticed some AfD nominations by you of companies that appear to be notable, alleging WP:ADVERT, basically. In none of the cases I noticed does this claim seem to be true. I'm sure all the article you have tagged in either way could be improved, but the deletionist sentiment you seem to have here seems off kilter to me. That said, the AfD process is what it is, and presumably multiple editors will weigh in on any such nomination; consensus works to decide individual nominations. LotLE×talk 22:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are removing PROD, [1]. PROD is not speedy delete. Miami33139 (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. If I remove any other such tags, I'll be more clear in my edit comment. In any case, I definitely object to deletion of any of the articles you have tagged as {prod}, since they all seem notable. At the very least, all of them need discussion before deletion, and I doubt any would actually be deleted if discussion takes place. Have you missed the fact that WP:NOT#PAPER?! LotLE×talk 22:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really wonder why you are engaging in these disruptive deletion efforts. You might take some lesson from the fact that almost every single thing you try to delete reaches overwhelming KEEP consensus. For god's sake, you nominated Xfce (though admittedly withdrew it later)!! It appears as if no degree of notability, citation, article quality, or just plain "WTF!" stops you from nominating deletions. LotLE×talk 22:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That I nominated Xfce shows just badly the article was written to not make it obvious. No, my deletion attempts are not overwhelmingly keep. It's closer to 80% delete. Software is not inherently notable or important. Show notability for these things. Miami33139 (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To LoTE's defense, your AfD nominations don't exhibit you having taken the steps you are claiming others didn't in order to improve them in accordance with notability guidelines and other reasons you cite toward getting them removed. Not everyone can be expected to make Herculean efforts and dig through every nook of the internet for thorough references but just the same spending less than 15 minutes using Google isn't really covering the full extent of effort that could be used to salvage some of the material in desperate need of it. --99.186.111.95 (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Showing notability and providing verifiable references to reliable sources is the burden of those wanting the inclusion of information into Wikipedia. My searching for any sources at all is a convenience, not a requirement. Miami33139 (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking claim[edit]

It is true that I've bookmarked your changelist. Since so much of your recent activity has been wacky AfD or Prod nominations of worthwhile and notable topics (particularly on software products), I indeed want to be sure to take a look at such nominations. Unfortunately, some previous inappropriate nominations by you only received two or three comments, which sometimes isn't judged well by closing admins.

While it is an inactive page, I think if you were to read Wikipedia:Notability (software) (and just WP:NOTE in general) it might lead to a more sensible pattern. Unfortunately, there is no really good guideline now about notability of software, but everything you have nominated is way over the line to clear notability. Simply because an article is currently a stub, or has other writing problems, does not mean that the topic is non-notable. Rather than do all these harmful nominations, you might try spending a few minutes on researching a topic, and add some appropriate citations or whatnot to them. LotLE×talk 01:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Most of my nominations cannot demonstrate that this is true and they are being rightfully deleted. So stop claiming these things are inherently notable. There is nothing inherently notable about software.

Earlier last week I started working backwards through a list of media players. I've skipped over dozens of subjects already because they are very clear what they are covering. In many cases though, it is not difficult to write some UI code around a toolset, blog about it, then get a brief mention on another blog or review site. This stuff is not notable and I'll continue to nominate things that do not appear to meet our standards. I'm not afraid of being wrong and I'll gladly withdraw when shown it. I welcome corrections. If you want to follow my edits then stop accusing me of being arbitrary, capricious or bad faith., You'll need to do more than claim something is notable. Show multiple reliable sources independent of the subject or GTFO.

Also, I'd welcome discussion to revive Wikipedia:Notability (software) into a usable guideline. It is a failed guideline now because it is horrible. Miami33139 (talk) 02:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and why is it horrible? practically begging the question there riffic (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be interested in working with me (and anyone else who is interested) to give these a good reboot and see if we can reach consensus? §FreeRangeFrog 00:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I've practically begged several people to do so. Miami33139 (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle did not nominate this page correctly. I removed the listing from today's AFD page, so you can retry nominating it. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are in violation of our WP:V policy see specifically WP:BURDEN. You cannot keep returning challenged unsourced material to articles. Please revert your edit. Notnotkenny (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've accidentally blocked your account. I quickly unblocked you, and noted in the summary that it was in error. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to drop you a note to let you know that following me around to undo my edits without discussing them with me may or may not get you into trouble -- it all depends on whether an admin sees it as "wikistalking" or not -- but calling the edits, which are quite useful and have a specific purpose (as explained here), "despicable" isn't going to help, since it could potentially be seen as a personal attack. Were I you, I'd consider reigning myself in.

In any case, please do enjoy yourself: I'm sure it's a lovely way to while away the hours when there's nothing good on television. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 00:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you ever do get around to making constructive edits to improve the encyclopedia and want any advice, please feel free to call on me.

Ed, your talk page history is very full of people telling you that your enforcing your personal aesthetic sense on articles about spacing and image sizes is against long-standing basic Wikipedia guidelines. I remove whitespace from all articles, not just ones where you put it there on purpose. Miami33139 (talk) 00:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vaya con Dios! Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 01:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest you guys work this out on your own. Diffs, not mere accusations are your friend. Where is Ed adding whitespace? I do see some reverts Miami made without discussion. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With a few exceptions, all of Miami33139's edits which refer to "despicable" or "hateful" whitespace are reverts of my edits without discussion. Specifically: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. (Some of these aren't immediate reversions, they remove long-standing edits which I introduced into the articles.) Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 21:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and as Miami33139 knows, the purpose for my "despicable" edits is explained at User:Ed Fitzgerald/spacing. They have a specific and well-defined legitimate purpose. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 21:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rebut[edit]

I am not labeling Ed's edits as despicable. I am labeling whitespace as despicable. Ed is twisting the words of my edit summaries to make me a bad guy.

It does not matter how many diff's Ed can show. Ed is purposefully violating the Manual of Style to match his personal aesthetic.

Wikipedia:MOS#Formatting_issues "Formatting issues such as font size, blank space and color are issues for the Wikipedia site-wide style sheet and should not be specified in articles except in special cases."

Wikipedia:MOS#Invisible_comments "Check that your invisible comment does not change the formatting, such as introducing unwanted white space in read mode."

I am not the only one who does not like Ed's one-man crusade to add whitespace. That he has gone so far as to write an essay of self-justification after dozens of other editors have asked him to stop is all the evidence necessary to recognize his editing is a personal crusade. Complaints on his user page are so common that Ed headlines his talk page, "if you have come here to complain..." His essay is dismissed in its entirety by the above statement from MOS: issues of layout "are issues for the Wikipedia site-wide style sheet."

Ed does not know what other users browse the internet with, which is why this issue keeps coming up on his user talk. His assumption that his does not cause problems is his assumption, which he continues to assert as right even after users repeatedly stated to him that the issue causes them problems.

It is not a coincidence that I, who removes whitespace from all articles[16], will run into problems when I encounter articles where someone has purposefully added it. I did not intend to see out Ed's editing, but Ed's editing directly conflicts with what I automatically correct. There is a button for whitespace removal in one of the Wiki-dev approved javascript editing tools, which is generally what I used, until I encountered Ed's whitespace-on-purpose comments. (That there are automated tools, written by our wiki developers, to remove whitespace goes a long way to define that whitespace is unwanted.)

For reference, a handful of "please stop adding whitespace" comments from the last couple months [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23].

Miami33139 (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little busy at the moment to respond to you in detail, but if you think your time on Wikipedia is most profitably spent by following me around and undoing my edits, that's an unfortunate personal decision I can't really do much about.

However, you might want to talk a look at WP:LAYOUT, which says in this section:

It is usually desirable to leave two blank lines between the first stub template and whatever precedes it.

Which is a clear indication of the allowable need for the adjustment of article layouts using blank lines. The very same logic applies to navigation templates for precisely the same reason.

I'd also note, per your repeated edit summary, that the "whitespace" I'm introducing -- which is, in actuality, nothing more than one extra blank line -- is not "unwanted", it's quite deliberate, and solves a rendering problem in Internet Explorer, the browser used for over 60% of internet interactions, as per User:Ed Fitzgerald/spacing, a page I once again suggest it would be beneficial for you to read.

"Whitespace" is a problem when it interrupts the text on a page because of faulty formatting or layout, which is why I go out of my way to correct those problems when I come across them, but it cannot be our goal to eliminate every speck of whitespace from an article, since it's the artful balance between text and image and non-used areas which creates a pleasing visual presentation. Therefore, there can be nothing automatic about the non-deliberative elimination of blank lines which have been purposefully inserted to help separate one element of the page from another, and stop them from slamming into each other in our eye.

It's exactly the same principle as when you requested this edit on the "Clarify me" template, only in your case the mash-up was horizontal, and needed a space or a comma, and in the instances I'm fixing, the mash-up is vertical, and requires an additional blank line. (You might also want to take a look at WP:BUNCH.)

Incidentally, when necessary, I check out my edits with Firefox, Opera, Chrome and Safari, so I'm quite aware of how other people see them. I'm also aware that after over 27,000 article edits and, as you quite accurately describe it, only a "handful" of questioning comments, you are the only editor who has taken it as a personal mission to undo these edits, the only purpose of which is to improve the encyclopedia. I'd request once again that you stop.Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 01:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC) through 09:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to know I'm not the only one that the whitespace bothers. Honestly, I don't mind the links-navbox ones so much, but the Table of Contents-First section is too much. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 20:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Awm 128387 nadzab.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Awm 128387 nadzab.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Awm 128387 nadzab.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 04:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Miami22139,

I see you created a redirect page, and i think it was meant as a way to use the redirect template you created in the STU-I. This id of course a fine option, but in case you want to create a direct link (Mostly when there are only two different meanings) you can utilize the {{otheruses4}} template. I switched the redirect template on the STU-I with {{otheruses4|a secure telephone|Stu as a common name|Stuart}} to create a direct link. Have a look if you like/wanted to do this. Otherwise, feel free to revert this edit :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I declined CSD G4 because I couldn't find the deletion discussion. But then I found it. =) However, I still can't delete it because the current Exaile article isn't "substantially similar" to the deleted one - the article is basically rewritten. If you still feel strongly about this, please take this to AfD, but I personally feel that would be pointless - Exaile is a rather well-known player and there's probably plenty of third-party media coverage by now. If I can find a linux.com review easily with 30 secs of googling, who knows how many else are there out there... the previous AfD seems a bit ridiculous. But that's just my opinion. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I re-read the discussion, and it seems to me that I can't exactly level a whole bunch of additional sources to the article after all. Especially if the ones were already covered in the AFD discussion. In this light, pleading that the articles being different would be unilateral foot-stomping on my part. I have deleted the article. If I were in crankier mood, I'd cry for blood and DRV, but I settle for glooming and groaning about changing times. (linux.com articles aren't enough to establish notability? What kind of world do we live in?) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: notability[edit]

I'm thoroughly confused by this statement of yours. If we don't have specific notability criteria for stuff, then the article subject is at least supposed to fulfil the General notability guideline - that is, there should be significant third-party coverage. Linux.com (at the time the article was published, when it was run by SourceForge) was (and still is) independent of the creators of Exaile and had editorial gatekeeping. The article was non-trivial, which would count as "significant" per GNG. That, corraborated by the fact that the software is (by rankings such as Debian and Ubuntu popularity-contest, and other sources) one of the major media players, means that the player should be at least mentioned somewhere.

I frankly don't get the rest of the comment and the comparison with hot-dog carts. If the hot-dog cart gets local media coverage and it's well known to the residents, it probably should be covered somewhere. Yeah, the rest of the world doesn't care. But the locals do. By the same analogy, for the life of me, I don't know why the heck we even have an article about New York City in first place - it's some damn town in America, why should I care about it? What, millions of people live there? Well, they're not even European and we have millions and millions of people here, why should we care? ...see where I'm getting at? I remember when Jimbo was peeved when people nuked Mzoli's on the exact same flimsy pretenses.

As far as article being just a listing of features - well, what else do you expect the article to have? Not every media player has a cute mascot or a juicy remote execution exploit incident that turned half a million computers into spambots. (Hypothetical examples, both, but I hope you see where I'm going at.)

You know what? The Exaile article has been deleted a few times and people have started to rebuild the thing. This is a symptom that there's a demand for information in some form. After I've posted this reply, I'm going to go undelete the article, then replace it with redirect to List of Linux audio software#Exaile with {{R with possibilities}}. I'm only undeleting it because people may want to use the material in the deleted article to write an article that complies with our notability criteria. I'm only doing this because I honestly believe this is the perfect compromise solution, and I believe it avoids duplicate work.

I'm sorry for being so emotional about this. These are just things that shouldn't need explaining. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

stalking is a two way street.

This article was prodded as it isn't based on reliable sources. I deprodded. Unless it can be sourced better the prodder will probably send it to Articles for Deletion. Some rewriting based on reliable sources wouldn't go amiss; I'm struggling with finding sources focussing on this aspect of the Terminatorverse. Fences&Windows 19:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, the previous article was deleted mainly because of a request from the subject saying that the article was inaccurate (even though it was "officially" deleted for notability reasons). The subject requested that there not be an article - see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive70#Sally_Boazman. What I would do is post to WP:BLP/N pointing out your new article, and asking for suggestions on whether it should be restored. And yes, feel free to use the code on my page - I adapted it from someone else's anyway! Black Kite 09:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Miami33139, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Canola (software) has been removed. It was removed by GeneralAntilles with the following edit summary '(Removing deletion notice, I will improve this article to be more useful, and Canola is certainly notable)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with GeneralAntilles before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)[reply]

Hello, Miami33139. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Tothwolf (talk) 06:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you revisit this article which you nominated for deletion? (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UMSDOS)It is now a very different animal.  pablo_hablo. 19:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Miami33139, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Aufs has been removed. It was removed by SF007 with the following edit summary '(used in xandros and archi linux seems to make it notable. at the very worst make it a redirect)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with SF007 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)[reply]

Miami, please note that I tagged Flagellate (disambiguation) (which you had previously PROD-ed) for Speedy Deletion with {{Db-disambig}}, as "it is an orphaned disambiguation page which lists two (2) or fewer topics and whose title ends in '(disambiguation)'". The proposed deletion tag has been left in place in case the speedy deletion is rejected. Cheers, -M.Nelson (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Basket of Puppies 03:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been gone this week and this complaint expired in my absence. This is a complaint from someone upset that I sent some of their favored material to a deletion discussion. It concerns my work removing whitespace. Whitespace should be handled by the global CSS template, not editors. Whitespace removal is an automated feature of several javascript editors available from the Wikipedia preferences menu. I ran into Ed Fitzgerald while working on semi-automated detection of visual whitespace not caught by the automated editors. Ed was manually inserting whitespace to satisfy his own aesthetic. Numerous people over several months asked him to stop it. Ed was blocked for it because he would not stop it. The blocking adminstrator essentially told Ed that his task, even if was wanted, was Sisyphean given the number of articles on Wikipedia and the presence of automated tools that would revert it. Ed continued making style changes of his own design, and another user (not me) did a mass revert of several hundred of his articles at once. Ed flipped out, got blocked again, and decided to leave the project. Ed seemed to be an excellent content contributor. It is too bad his obsession with a personal sense of style led to his frustrated exit.

In the sense that Ed is gone, I have "won" the content dispute (as alluded to in the complaint) but I have been gone several months as well. There is no reason not to remove the unwanted whitespace in a semi-automated fashion regardless of Ed's presence. Eventually an automated process would hit these articles and remove it if my own semi-automated process does not. This has already happened in many cases. Miami33139 (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Miami33139, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD templates you added to a number of articles were removed:

• PROD removed from Quod Libet, by User:Arite, with summary '(Removed the dated prod header - more references to main site etc. now)'
• PROD removed from V9fs, by User:12.185.46.2, with summary '(This page had information I needed, and v9fs isn't so obscure that it can't be described in Wikipedia.)'

Please consider discussing your concerns with the relevant users before pursuing deletion further. If you still think the articles should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may send them to WP:AfD for community discussion. Thank you - SDPatrolBot (talk) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

You're the most unusual inclusionist I'm come across - your prolific deletion nominations would tend to place you well away from being an inclusionist! I noticed that aside from deletion nominations, most of your edits seem to be formatting. My advice is to slow down on the deletions and consider more carefully if any of those articles could be sourced, expanded, or merged. There's nothing like content creation to get a richer experience of editing Wikipedia. Fences&Windows 00:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to be considered an inclusionist, but I do not favor articles when they do not make a claim of notability. Please see this article as my attempt to create new content where previous content was deleted as a showing of my good faith effort to source and expand an article which needed it: User:Miami33139/Sally Traffic. This fixed article should be back into the project as soon as a Deletion Review discussion has been completed. Miami33139 (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would add also, that by number of edits, it appears to not be much more than formatting. Properly sourcing articles can take several hours but only produce a few edits, but format fixing can be done several hundred in a few minutes. Miami33139 (talk) 01:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read Somebody Else's Problem and Wikipedia:Somebody Else's Problem because it is quite clear from your contribution history that instead of fixing articles that can be fixed, you prefer to prod, AfD, and even follow other editors around undoing their edits. I cannot find any software articles that you've significantly contributed to/improved but I can find dozens upon dozens that you've attempted to have deleted without bothering to check for sources or attempting to improve. This goes completely against WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE and is not the sort of behaviour that built Wikipedia. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a nice essay, but Wikipedia:BURDEN is policy. If you are so desperate to keep articles on obscure file systems and data structures you'll need to stop pounding sand and start sourcing. Miami33139 (talk) 01:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and as usual, instead of addressing the concerns raised, you yet again attempt to lead a discussion in a completely different direction and attempt to turn it on the editor who raises concerns with your editing. I'm not sure why I even tried as given your history on Wikipedia it is indeed akin to pounding sand to expect anything different from you. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop wikistalking my edits. Consider this a Uw-4im warning. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could I not say the same to you, following my PROD and deletion proposals? Please, stop being paranoid. It is likely since I am asking unsourced software articles to be removed (which I have been doing for most of a year) and you are contesting deletions of software, that we are destined to run into each other. You have twice brought your accusations to the ANI discussion board and been mostly ignored. Your contribution history is public. I often look at other editors contributions for other things I may be interested in. This is not stalking. Miami33139 (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your prods show up in Category:Proposed deletion and also the WP:COMP workflow. I tag those that I see untagged so others who have time to look for sources (since you have already stated that you do not) can work on improving those that should be improved. I also occasionally unprod those that are ineligible for prod or those I feel can and should be improved rather than be deleted. I also tag AfD'd articles when I spot them but there are also a number of other editors who handle that task, so while I still see many of the articles in the WP:COMP workflow, I don't patrol those quite as often.
You've already stated at least twice now that you check my contribs. Where this becomes wikistalking is where you intentionally undo my edits, [24] AfD articles I'm attempting to improve, [25] and follow me to XfD discussions (recent examples include [26] [27] [28]).
I assure you the AN/I reports did not go completely ignored and as far as User:Ed Fitzgerald's edits go, if I were you I would leave them be and instead focus on article creation instead, since I've seen that you can do that too (such as with Sally Boazman, linked right on your talk page). While some of Ed's changes, such as the addition of a hard <p> between the last section and the navbox are no longer needed, some of his other changes do actually fix display issues that you may not be aware of (note that I'm not claiming all of his additions are required, but some do actually fix valid issues).
To be perfectly honest, I'd much rather spend more time improving/merging articles rather than patrolling proposed deletions and if you decide you'd like to lend a hand, merging and redirecting many of the articles you prod would in many cases be a much better choice than prod/AfDing them.
--Tothwolf (talk) 22:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I think an article needs to go, I am going to send it to AfD, regardless of who removed the PROD template. This is not about you. If I think I have something to say about an AfD discussion where you have commented, I am going to make it. This is not about you. If you think merging or redirecting is the way to handle a proposed deletion, you are welcome to merge or redirect it. If it is at AfD, you are welcome to propose it and I may change my nomination to agree with you. It is not about you or your edits, but the content.

I am looking at deletion discussions and always have. I have been actively proposing undersourced software articles for deletion for the better part of a year. This is not stalking and I have no intent on targetting you. As you also look at deletion discussions and attempt to organize and source software articles, our paths were, and are, bound to cross. We have a different point of view but I am not out to get you. That is the essence of stalking and it is not true. Nor are my discussions and deletion proposals bad faith, and it is very incivul of you to suggest they are, as you have done repeatedly.

I will say I was mistaken for the edits on 'What wp is not' as I was previously told redirects across namespaces were always unwanted. Opinions on this vary over time, apparently. The process handled it in the end without either of our involvement.

"I assure you the AN/I reports did not go completely ignored" is vaguely threatening. Are you threatening me?

Ed Fitzgerald's whitespace additions cause display issue problems for numerous people, as evidenced by his talk page archive. I will continue to remove unwanted whitespace, as others already do. Many automated scripts detect it and remove it automatically, there is no harm in me doing it manually. I suggest you not dredge up Ed's dispute in his absence. His content additions were wonderful, but he grew increasingly frustrated that the community did not agree with him on style issues. He was not able to reconcile his personal sense of aesthete with the collaborative editing process. In the end he was blocked for revert warring and on his return he resorted to name calling and other forms of lashing out. That is too bad, we lost a good contributor, but his dispute is not your dispute.

I think it should be very easy for us to acknowledge that we edit in similar areas, believe different things about article cleanup and notability, and just acknowledge that and move on. We can engage each other in the resulting community processes without name calling, accusations and canvassing, can't we? We will each make the decisions and edits we wish to make, but in the end it is up to the community to decide questions like deletion. We will step on each others toes, apologize, and dance away to do it again. It isn't personal. Miami33139 (talk) 02:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. The edit summary at DYK caught my eye! Best UK radio voice was probably Joanna Gosling, though, when she was at Independent Radio News... Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 20:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. Joe Chill (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		Your insight at AFD is an excellent new point which is most welcome in this sadly stale debate. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[[29]], [[30]], and [[31]]. if it is, that is not cool at all. Theserialcomma (talk) 11:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, no it wasn't canvassing in my opinion Fritzpoll (talk) 12:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing history with User:Tothwolf is under discussion at the incidents noticeboard - you may wish to come by and address the concerns raised, and I strongly suggest that you do Fritzpoll (talk) 12:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I wasn't notified. How rude. Joe Chill (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that - I was surprised that Tothwolf hadn't sent notifications, and bluntly forgot that he implicated you as well. Should have done it at the same time - apologies. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even though we currently don't seem to be getting along too well, I appreciate your recent efforts with some of these articles regarding merging. The {{mergeto}} template has a {{mergefrom}} counterpart also, which should be applied to the target article. You can find an example on ext2. The template documentation should be able to fill you in on some of the other optional parameters such as how to specify a section in the target's talk page about the merger discussion.

You may not be aware of this, but many of the IRC-client and related articles you are prod/AfDing were planned to be merged and redirected into a larger article anyway. Having these deleted does not really improve or change things since this was already in the works. In the larger scale of things, it doesn't matter if they are deleted as they can still be undeleted at any time to allow them to be merged or to have additional references added to help deal with any issues of notability. If you genuinely wish to help with this task the WikiProject that is working on this really could use a hand as we are all working on it part time, one small part at a time. The large task has been cataloging and sorting these articles to figure out where each part should ultimately go.

--Tothwolf (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i posted a query for clarification on the original admin's page here: [[32]]. Theserialcomma (talk) 04:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Miami. Curios about a recent redirect, something about a Perl script. There are some GFDL problems with flat-out redirecting (I have no clue what they are, I'm just told :-p)

So I guess I'm asking what the problem with the perl script article was (and a gentle reminder that these things should generally go through some process) Xavexgoem (talk) 23:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is not a GFDL problem with redirecting articles.

No, there is no some process for WP:BOLD. Miami33139 (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's be bold, but be careful :-p Again: why did you redirect the article? The philosophy behind it. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A perl script is not notable. Miami33139 (talk) 00:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks for the explanation :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments here: Talk:ATunes —Preceding unsigned comment added by GlenPeterson (talk • contribs) 15:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I follow your case at ANI with interest. your work is essential for wikipedia to maintain its reputation of containing articles of notability status. some folks think they can post whatever they want on wikipedia? why can't they use facebook? bruv, i support your work. continue. don't be dragged back. nominate anything contributed in bad faith for deletion. thank you again. stand your ground. Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 10:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On October 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sally Boazman, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 12:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Ricks Spring at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've left another comment there. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Wikistalking my edits. Unlike User:Ed Fitzgerald I've kept documentation and have no intentions of putting up with the type of disruption you seem to enjoy causing for editors that you do not like. If you continue in your efforts I will not hesitate to reopen the AN/I discussion and if necessary take it to ArbCom. Multiple editors and admins have told you repeatedly to disengage and I suggest you do so. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to describe how any of these edits constitute stalking you. Miami33139 (talk) 03:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i am trying to approach this delicately without naming names (i think you know who i mean), but a certain editor has been canvassing multiple admins/editors about you and other editors. they did not get what they wanted from that drama-filled, time consuming ANI (in fact, it backfired for them), so they keep bringing up the situation to random editors/admins, accusing you of meatpuppetry and other bad faith accusations. this is tantamount to harassment, in my opinion, but i don't know what can be done about this. all this drama from this one person is just absurd. if you look through their diffs, i count at least 5 separate canvas attempts that start out as 'blah blah irrelevant stuff; oh by the way, you should know about this ANI situation with these meatpuppets'. Theserialcomma (talk) 00:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you often delete messages from other people's talk pages because you don't think they care? Shii (tock) 00:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be badgering too! Shii (tock) 02:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For getting Evil reptilian kitten-eaters from another planet worked into an AfD discussion! --kelapstick (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input into the AfD for Bose stereo speakers et. al. As you may have seen, the result was No Consensus. I have started a discussion to find consensus on merging all of these articles together. Feel free to contribute your opinions here. Thanks! SnottyWong talk 23:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Bose wave systems, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bose wave systems (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Hounding of Tothwolf and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Jehochman ^Talk 14:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ramdrake waited 26 hours to ask you for a link to one such "entire book on the subject" (the term "disguised as a human"), or at least a reference. Now I suppose he'll want an answer right away.... — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 20:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't see that particular comment for 26 hours. As long as there is an answer before the DRV closes, I'm fine. If not, the point is probably moot anyway. Such is life.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, aren't you glad I asked?--Ramdrake (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You want fries with that? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 01:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: So I see. It was not noted as such in the deletion log. I also see that the original CSD was one of those short-circuited ones and not closed by the deleting admin either. I think it would be best to let the second AfD run its course. If the consensus is to delete, then the article will be deleted and the db-repost tag would clearly apply instead of being slighty hazy gray. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: My guess is that it is going to be a very quiet AfD. There was very little participation in the first AfD and very few edits outside of the original author on the current version of the article and the previously deleted one. The company does not appear to be some cultural phenomenon so is not likely to garner much interest. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Manning (talk) 02:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Miami33139

I received on my talk page a notification from you about the speedy deletion of the above page. I think you have the wrong person; I was not involved in the creation of that page, and have no opinions about deleting it. :) --GrahamDo (talk) 09:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sympathetic towards Tothwolf. I was the one that called him paranoid and I still think that. He annoys me more than any other user that I have come in contact with. Joe Chill (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying editors that you have mentioned them in an arbitration case is a good idea. However, in the Tothwolf case you appear to have notified only certain editors that you have mentioned and your wording ("Even one sentence that says the characterizations of your existing statements are correctly representing your opinion would be helpful.") is not neutral as you are suggesting not just that you want them to comment but how you want them to comment. Dougweller (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

..for the advice. Sach (talk) 08:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me where I can read more about the upcoming change you wrote about? Sach (talk) 05:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Sach (talk) 06:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you have read the article in question, but most of it is information about the software. Why is it required that information about a software be from "3rd party sources"? All of the sources are individually verifiable. Perhaps there should be more inline citations on history, but that should be used under the {{refimprove}} tag.

As for notability, I could in theory reference a bunch of journals and stuff to gamesatisfy the system (ex.http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/insideBusop.htm?f=2009/november/10/chinwong.isx&d=/2009/november/10) or try and dig for the archive log (don't even know if it exists anymore, was on TorrentFreak) where Vuze's developer stated that they took the Comcast Throttling code from Deluge.

Thanks! ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 15:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I can add "3rd party" sources on the clients features though.....don't really see any different imo. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 15:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Miami33139, I just wanted to drop you a kind note and let you know that you forgot to inform an involved editor in the thread that you opened on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Don't worry! I've take care of it. Just wanted to gently remind you to make sure to do so when and if you open a new ANI thread in the future. Thanks!!! Basket of Puppies 17:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 19:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! BTW, I removed the change of the software notability article from historical to in use. The current version isn't usable which is why it was rejected. There is active discussion on fixing it on the discussion page there. Miami33139 (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The tag was a more accurate summary of the current status of the essay. Essays are not always black or white (either so useful they become official guidelines, or so useless they become tagged as rejected) and can serve a helpful purpose midway between these two extremes. Take a look at what the tag says: {{essay-project-note}}. SilkTork *^YES! 19:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not edit things in my userspace. Stop wikistalking my edits. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tothwolf, I suggest you leave diffs of any offensive edits. That will help Miami understand what you object to, and help outside observers see what you're talking about. Jehochman ^Talk 21:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, although I'm going to include it in the arbitration evidence anyway. [33] --Tothwolf (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are in violation of the user page guidelines by having a deleted article hosted in userspace appear in mainspace categories. You know this because you have removed mainspace categories from user space articles in the past. You revert the edits removing those categories is direct and knowledge violation of the category policy. Miami33139 (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will say one last time, leave me alone. The only way you could even find the page (that I just requested be userfied yesterday) is for you to continue to wikistalk my edits. Stop. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe I could find that page watchlisting WP:REFUNND, where your request is open and public. Remove the mainspace categories from your userpage articles. Miami33139 (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rather unlikely, given that you targeted that specific article (the only one I actually edited in my userspace) as I requested several via WP:REFUND and have not yet removed categories from any of them. WP:DUCK --Tothwolf (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The decision was to merge, so a plain redirect doesn't agree with consensus. There was material there not already in the parent article and I've now merged it. Fences&Windows 02:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from PLS (file format), which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.184.108 (talk) 03:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Miami! We see you have problems, poor you! Well, if you're discouraged in your life or about Wikipedia, you could join our fun new project about Java. We need bright young men like you...
--  Alain  R 3 4 5 
^{Techno-Wiki-Geek} 00:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I removed the speedy deletion tag from this article because the article was not deleted after discussion. The deletion that occurred was a proposed deletion, which means that the deletion was totally uncontroversial and uncontested but didn't have any discussion (unlike Articles for Deletion). Anyone can request that a proposed deletion be reversed at will, or recreate the article from scratch without prejudice. Since nobody actually requested that the article be restored, but instead recreated it, it is still eligible for another proposed deletion if you want to attempt it, or open an Articles for Deletion discussion. Thank you. -- Atama頭 23:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regarding your question about the "comparison of media players" page, it was never meant to be a fork. It's more like a snapshot, where I made some changes which were immediately merged back into the main article. I've done that twice now. --Kjoonlee 07:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you're aware, I declined the speedy deletion of Lowyat.net. The original AfD was sparsely attended and occurred over a year ago. I think it would benefit from the full debate running. Mackensen (talk) 12:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trac&diff=next&oldid=314349594

I almost fell out of my tree when you nominated Trac for deletion. Trac is the most used bug tracking software (with wiki) in opensource. One would suspect that without trac the opensource would fall into a heap. FGS: mediawiki even uses Trac!!!

Someone better save wikipedia's trac entry, I'm not going to, as it will be wonderful to see such an PEBKAC where important wikipedia page gets vandalised by an "expert".

12:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Express Progress OZ (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:Meetup/Miami 3 is coming up in the near future, you are invited to participate. Thanks Secret ^account 18:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, that wasn't much of an Afd discussion, the sw got five stars on Cnet... I'm wondering, would it hurt to try to see if the article can be fixed, rather than speedy tagging it right after the poor guy.. well, illegally recreates it? I'm thinking IAL, but if you want, you could explain DRV to the guy. He is trying to fix it, he just seems a little lost. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_November_15, the article has been there and done that. It just needs to stay deleted until someone writes a sourced article. Attempts over several months have failed, and the addition of one download site isn't going to change that. Miami33139 (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You did notice that it has as a source a Five Star review on CNet, right? and that there were only two deletes in the Afd? Have you even tried to help the guy with the article at all? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is your problem? I think your edits on ESwiki are just childish. In the sense of the reverts

(cur) (prev)  07:40, 14 December 2009 86.152.2.151 (talk) (2,405 bytes) (none of these don't make sense, it's not a product and the article doesn't need sources") (undo) 

It's not a product and it doesn't need sources. Now because you couldn't get your own way you've went and put it up for speedy deletion. -- Jordan "Eck" Samuel (talk) 12:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you are an administrator, so you can restore aMSN article without request. You did a mistake, you can cancel — Neustradamus (✉) 13:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, you're the one making unacceptable attacks on IRC-related articles. Don't comment on my talk page again. -- Jordan "Eck" Samuel (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure your section on the talk page should be there in the sense that because it's evidence. Rather, I think what you should do is to copy the whole thing in its own separate page and link it within your evidence section. This practice has been done before when it's a long section. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Penwhale. I don't mean to be misunderstood. I copied it there because abusive talk like that doesn't belong on any article talk page. It could be anywhere as evidence. Miami33139 (talk) 05:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was that you should copy it into a subpage (either in your own userspace or under the case evidence page) instead of leaving it at the evidence talk page. (It's not as visible.) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not revert Tothwolf's edits, as you are currently at arbcom with him in a dispute. If you believe an edit involving him should be reverted, please bring it to an admin's attention at WP:ANI or a clerk's attention at WP:AC/CN, depending on the context of the edit. MBisanz ^talk 06:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you see the modifications before revert comparison page ? — Neustradamus (✉) 10:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Miami33139 (talk) 11:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So why you revert ? — Neustradamus (✉) 11:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because you added information that was unverified. Miami33139 (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly getting ad personam is not in the Wikipedia standards, but you should take one thing into account. Why don't you add "notable sources" yourself instead of letting other people find them (because they may be worried about losing their favourite article thanks to your help) ? You should be aware that you haven't managed to remove all the questioned articles. Fortunately people have the right to vote... bjfs _discuss 00:45, 22 December 2009 (CEST)

When you create a new page it says right at the very top that unsourced articles will likely be deleted. So what do people think will happen to their non-sourced articles? The author of an article plainly knows more about the subject matter than I ever could, that is why the burden to source an article should be on those who wrote it. Lately all these chat applications seem to be coming up with large numbers of Russian and German sources. I can't read German and barely read Russian. I don't know anything about these sources. I simply could not have added them.

Editing, including deletion of some content, is an integral part of the writing process.

I am not trying to get rid of all the articles. I want the articles to be on things that are actually important, not some project written in some guys basement, put on a download site, and blogged about. Adding sources is about meeting our minimum criteria, verifying the information to be true (or close to true), and maintaining quality. I am glad to see that some deletion attempts fail. It is unfortunate that sometimes a deletion attempt is the kick in the pants editors need to start complying with Wikipedia writing policy. Miami33139 (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that is a good point, bjfs, and I am glad to see that you are not the only one who thinks so. There is just one more thing I would like to add here - if one cannot understand the language and is alien to this specific language and/or country and/or environment, then how can he/she make any conclusions on whether the subject is notable or not? Realaaa (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is why the burden of proof is on those who want to add (or keep) the information in Wikipedia. All articles are assumed to be non-notable. We must have sources to prove otherwise. Miami33139 (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Miami33139, (un)fortunately you are not quite right. All articles are assumed to be non-notable - please see Wikipedia:Inherent notability. If you do not agree with it, then I am afraid you have so much work left to do to clear Wikipedia from all that non-provable garbage, that I suggest you start doing it right away. As for the That is why the burden of proof is on those who want to add (or keep) the information in Wikipedia - please re-read Wikipedia:Notability#Articles_not_satisfying_the_notability_guidelines article which I am sure you know better then me, especially parts like "look for sources yourself" and "Ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject for advice on where to look for sources" and "use the {{expert-subject}} tag". But it is way more fun and easy to just use the {{notability}} tag, isn't it? Realaaa (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Inherent notability is just a user essay. It may be nicely written but it has no authority. Miami33139 (talk) 01:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, thank you for pointing this out! So - since it has no authority, I suggest that we stop wasting our precious time and start cleaning up the rest of the Wikipedia so everything is "by the book". May I ask you to check Pineapple at first (because I will be busy checking Miami)? Both articles seem pretty suspicious and non-notable (although of course I might be wrong, so we would better to check first). Realaaa (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage you to skeptically analyze all text and verifying sources on Wikipedia. You are welcome to scrutinize any article you have time for. Miami33139 (talk) 02:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that I am too dismayed by your inherent deletionism (as I have seen no examples that prove otherwise). Really, try to use the {{notability}} template more often. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 19:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Removed the vandalism below for you. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 20:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I use the notability template where necessary. I usually tag for notability and source request, wait a month, then prod or afd. Articles which are unusably bad I might prod or afd directly. Miami33139 (talk) 22:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you restore Exodus, Coccinela, Peter Millard, Gossip, ... (All articles removed about XMPP) on my user page ? Thanks in advance, Regards — Neustradamus (✉) 19:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:0:
* ^From:.*Miami33139.*
/dev/null

*plonk*
--Tothwolf (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't place prods like this one [34]. Not appropriate for mainspace. Nathan ^T 20:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I cleaned up one obvious piece of vandalism and one highly likely edit of vandalism on your userpage. If it keeps up you might want to ask for the page to be protected. I hope all is well. 16x9 (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Anti-Spam Barnstar
		To Miami33139, Many thanks for your tireless efforts in keeping Wikipedia clear of spam and other nonsense. --Hu12 (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not edit, hide, or otherwise remove my comments on discussion pages again. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I restored your comment (its removal was an oversight when I restored my comments), however do not edit or otherwise modify my comments in any way or form. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

• User:Tothwolf is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Should Tothwolf make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Tothwolf may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

• User:JBsupreme is warned to refrain from incivility and personal attacks.

• User:Miami33139 and and User:JBsupreme are reminded to observe deletion best practices when nominating articles for deletion, including the consideration of alternatives to deletion such as merging articles or curing problems through editing.

• The parties in particular, and other editors generally, are reminded to observe at all times Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on dealing with harassed editors and on handling conflicts of interest.

• Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After five blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

how long do you think a stagnant article should remain in a person's userspace before it could reasonably expect to become nominated for deletion? i'm a concerned with the implications of a non notable article being deleted, and then userfied, and still being indexed by google. when admins userfy these articles, i think they should automatically add the noindex code and also automatically remove the mainspace categories, but in practice this rarely happens. know where i could propose such an idea to admins? i think userfied articles which can be googled e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tothwolf/List_of_quote_databases are undermining to the goal of a good encyclopedia Theserialcomma (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

as another example [[35]] is not indexed but is userfied and never touched after an AFD. 16x9 (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, 30 days should be a reasonable length of time to allow something like this. See also User:Mokhov/Psotnic. JBsupreme (talk) 00:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the discussion here as you were part of the original afd. 16x9 (talk) 02:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm wondering what the basis was for your removing of some of the definitions for STK in 2009, I can't see what is gained by this. One of the two messages was I have removed the things which are not ambiguous., can you explain what this means? The other message was about importance, I can't judge how unimportant the removed definition was, but again if someone had used an abbreviation like Stk when talking to me I'd like to be able to go to wikipedia and find the definition regardless of how important or unimportant it was.Balrog-kun (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Miami33139. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 14, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 28#Simple Instant Messenger. Cunard (talk) 08:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're on Y Combinator, [36] rejoice! Pcap ping 01:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mabdul/sandbox5, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mabdul/sandbox5 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Mabdul/sandbox5 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. mabdul 14:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Last November, you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Its undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider taking it to AfD. The requester listed a number of references, which I suggested he should add to the article. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Please take a bit closer look at things before nominating articles for deletion. Finding that the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game is notable wouldn't have taken much effort. Please be sure to take note of WP:BEFORE. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you! --Regression Tester (talk) 10:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm the creator of Proto and I would like to know what did you mean by "Single reference provided for this new article about a commercial product is not about the product." - that doesn't even make sense... I don't have an account on Wikipedia, so please let me know here. Cheers Miechu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.153.148.200 (talk) 13:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have one reference in the article. "The Humane Interface" That reference is about user interface guidelines you follow, not about Proto, the software you wrote. Find some books written about Proto, the software. Miami33139 (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cmon', there is no book on Proto and I bet there is none about Total Commaner or other file managers... If you'd like some other references here they are: http://miechu.pl/proto/wiki/ProtoOnWeb.ashx . As I understand you want to delete the article about Proto because it's not well known... Personally I think that this is a bad thing to pursiut - if Wikipedia will have only articles that everybody knows about then it's not a good encyclopedia right? What is the point in writing about things that everybody knows?

Check this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZTreeWin - it only has references that point to the developer and why that one is accepted? Cheers Miechu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.153.148.200 (talk) 09:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please reply since tommorow is the deadline for removal? Cheers Miechu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.153.148.200 (talk) 08:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to propose those articles for deletion if you believe they do not meet our criteria. Miami33139 (talk) 06:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I expect some minimum standards from you, if you are an administrator. Do search for available literature and references before marking any article for deletion. Google for "Epic web browser" and you will know whether it is relevant or not. Don't behave as a retarded hooligan.Drharishc (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a comment about this uncivil post on the user's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you commented on the second Epic browser afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epic browser. — Timneu22 · talk 12:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No regrets...as you sow, so you reap...that's all...i believe that his arguments about article's notability were biased. I honor WP:OTHERSTUFF, but can't keep noticing the bias. The article Epic (web browser) will not be created again, as I have no good faith for those who marked this article for deletion. Let the editor prove his credibility by reviewing other articles like Maxthon, Sleipnir etc. etc.I will no longer be a contributor to Wikipedia. Thanks for all those who supported contributed to this article. Keep deleting...All the best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drharishc (talk • contribs) 12:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My sense is that you are not following WP:BEFORE on your AfD nominations. Is that correct? I've also seen some darn pointy MfDs from you. I'd ask that you please consider A) not evaluating an article by where it is at the moment but by where it can go per WP:DEL, B) follow WP:BEFORE. I asked for something similar above but never got a response. As it's just asking you to follow existing policy and guidelines I don't think it's outrageous. Hobit (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN Miami33139 (talk) 06:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which doesn't negate WP:BEFORE. Given that you have an arbcom statement asking to follow best practices on deletion it seems reasonable to ask you to actually do so. Hobit (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Miami33139

Keep I vote delete on everything. I demand everything have sources demonstrate notability. This is one case where I know something is wrong. Source: [37]

I consider myself an inclusionist Source: your userpage.

Don't be a hypocrite and just say you are a deletionist. I hope you know that too.

I am hypocrite because I am doing exactly that right here. Source: [38]

A bit out of context that quote, but hey, I'm making a point here :) Here is a definition for when you're in doubt:

In its broadest sense, deletionism is a preference for removing articles that are not encyclopedic. For more information on this, see Association of Deletionist Wikipedians. Source: [39]

greets

P.S.: And don't delete this. It's sourced... Ondertitel (talk) 11:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you restored content at Coffee. As you are aware, you are responsible for the content you add, so would you be kind enough to quote your source for the statement "On average, a single cup of coffee holding about 200 millilitres (7.0 imp fl oz; 6.8 US fl oz), or a single shot of espresso—typically containing about 30 millilitres (1.1 imp fl oz; 1.0 US fl oz)—can be expected to contain 375 milliliters of caffeine", please? I can't find support among the sources that I can access, and find it counter-intuitive that 30 ml of espresso would contain 375 ml of caffeine. Thanks, --RexxS (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. You can delete unsource statements at will. The section was commented away and said look on the talk page. The talk page was archived. The material has references. If references do not hold up, then just delete material, feel free. Miami33139 (talk) 23:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not fail to notify its creator that you had done so. The person who created TimeSheet is a total newbie, and you blasted his first creation on a technicality less than 45 minutes after the article was posted. Even if that's not a violation of the letter of WP:BITE its the violation of spirit. Don't worry about welcoming the newbie now. I already took care of it with a plate of cookies. Probably better me than you anyway. Judging by your remarks on the AFD page, you would have used a warning template and turned the guy off of WP indefinitely.--*Kat* (talk) 06:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

—fetch·comms 21:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per this, why are you still following this editor around? Jehochman ^Talk 14:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to note that motions have been proposed that involve yourself on that page. NW (Talk) 18:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification that:
1) Tothwolf (talk · contribs · logs), Miami33139 (talk · contribs · logs) and JBsupreme (talk · contribs · logs) are banned from interacting with each other, broadly construed. This includes things like not editing each other's userspace, not becoming involved directly with each other in discussions, and not nominating articles for deletion which another one has started. This does not prohibit commenting in the same discussion without directly interacting or editing the same articles so long as they are not directly in conflict. They may request enforcement of this restriction at the Arbitration Enforcement board or by email to the Arbitration mailing list; they may not request enforcement or action against each other for any other reason or at any other venue. Attempts to game this restriction should be treated as a violation of the restriction.

2) Miami33139 (talk · contribs · logs) is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Should Miami33139 make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith or disruptive to deletion discussions, Miami33139 may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement portion of the case. The six months starts from the day this motion passes.

3) Remedy 2 (already updated once) is changed to "JBsupreme (talk · contribs · logs) is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Should JBsupreme make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, or disruptive to deletion discussions, JBsupreme may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." The six months is reset to start from the day this motion passes.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 15:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This PROD has been contested. Thank you. Courcelles 10:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Miami,

In October, 2009 you flagged up a Wiki on Red Giant Software, which has no citations, no evidence of notability, some NPOV/advert issues and well... basically the whole Wiki is just a list of products (hence the advert problems). The flag says if notability cannot be established, the Wiki should be listed for possible deletion.

That was almost two years ago. The Wiki has not improved. I stumbled upon it while writing a draft Wiki for GenArts. Suffice to say, 27 references later and I'm beat. I don't want to fix the Red Giant Wiki, based on the notes, I'm not sure it's worth saving (other users seem to have struggled to establish references for notability) and with two years already gone, it's unlikely to be fixed.

I've never actually deleted a Wiki before. It feels kinda mean to delete someone else's work. So I thought I should at least seek your consult. I'm not even sure how exactly to propose it for deletion. What should I do?

King4057 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Hi. :) To modify Template:ProdContested a bit: The article Ii (IRC client), which you nominated for WP:PROD, has been restored. If you do not feel the current article resolves your concerns, you may wish to nominate the article for a full deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.

(Another editor has created a new version of the article which is very similar to the old. I restored the history to alleviate some copyright concerns.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a RfC on the topic of software notability (whether consensus has changed or if the essay needs updating) at Wikipedia talk:Notability (software)#RfC: On Software Notability.. As you previously discussed on the topic I thought you might be interested. :) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 17:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smalltown DJs (2nd nomination). Notifying editors who have participated in a previous discussion about the same topic or similar topic: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smalltown DJs - TheMagnificentist 10:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect HM Queen and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 6#HM Queen until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]