User talk:Decltype/Archive 9

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Your block from an ANI, etc and etc

Hey--

Well. I posted at ANI in response to your indef block on a rather unconstructive new user's few edits. Well... after digging into it a good deal, I had to object, but wanted to tell you personally that I don't automatically disagree with what you did. The ANI poster was being fairly misleading in the first place (probably accidental), since the timing on everything is off, and... well, I explained it all there. Very unusual matter where something apparently managed to sneak by everyone. Oh, and I'll say again that you're completely allowed (and probably encouraged) to ignore me since I'm a non-admin who gets lost in ANI and apparently just confuses people a lot. Even if I were an admin, I wouldn't have touched your block without your input. Trust is good, hm? ♪ daTheisen (talk) 15:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I've read your response, and replied. Unfortunately, I must note that I disagree with your assessment, but I assure you that this has nothing to do with you not being an admin. Regards, decltype (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

:) See, this is what I'd rather people do than spit out in public on any disagreement. It's also why I said I'd never overturn an admin without discussion. Bad karma. A know a few non-admins, for unknown reasons, decide to kill time at ANI, but I make a point of only rarely speaking on a solely-admin matter, so this was out of character. A duck test would lead me to believe they'd be in AIV (at best) the day after a block ended so it's not like I don't understand your rationale. I usually just ask yes/no questions to end postings on ANI so it can basically be deemed dead or resolved after a reply; otherwise I personally contact. Thanks for understanding Cheers~ ♪ daTheisen (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, despite its reputation, ANI serves an important role, and I think it's good that some people, admins or otherwise, are willing to look into disputes and problematic behavior. decltype (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Great News!!!

Unable to resist bacon's temptations, rogue editors have kicked off the Bacon Challenge 2010 before the New Year even starts! This is a fun and collegial event and all are welcome. There are many non-pork articles for editors who enjoy some sizzle, but object to or don't like messing with pig products. This year's event also includes a Bacon WikiCup 2010 for those who may want to keep score and enjoy engaging in friendly competition. Given the critical importance of this subject matter, I know you will want to participate, so remember to sign up today and get started A.S.A.P. ALL ARE WELCOME!!! The more the merrier. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Osborne (writer)

You declined my speedy nomination on this article - feel free to comment on the AfD nom. Thanks! --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 12:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the notification! Regards, decltype (talk) 12:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ulvik Lutheran Church

You might be able to help with some insight at this AfD discussion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Will definitely comment. decltype (talk) 08:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy of Vivek Rajkumar

I did not read the infobox carefully after placing speedy back onto the page during its transition from Mark Seif to Vivek Rajkumar. That was a mistake. Will try to be more careful in future. Thanks -- Raziman T V (talk) 12:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Replying on your talk, since you seem to prefer it that way. decltype (talk) 12:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I came up with this while patrolling. User is making all caps redirects (which dont work) to existing articles. What are the wiki guidelines regarding this? -- Raziman T V (talk) 13:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Redirects that are recently created and not plausible can be speedily deleted under criterion R3. I personally think that no action is needed though, since they do no harm, and I see that the user has been told to stop. There's already a lot of alternate case redirects in the mainspace. decltype (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks -- Raziman T V (talk) 05:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Child of the Sun (Mayte Garcia album)

Hi there, I hope you don't mind me asking here but I remember you granted my page move request of Girl 6 quickly, so I wondered if you could fix another one? It's Child of the Sun (Mayte Garcia album), which has unnecessary disambiguation (it's the only album by that name so doesn't need Mayte Garcia's name in the qualifier). If you prefer, I will list this WP:RM. Nelson58 (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. The fastest way to get the job done is probably just to use the {{db-move}} template on the destination page with the source as parameter, which will tag the page for speedy deletion. That said, I'm of course happy to do it for you as well. Regards, decltype (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Very helpful, thanks. Nelson58 (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a quick word to say thanks for the help you gave on my user page to a newish user wanting help with copyright. JamesBWatson (talk)

Glad to be of help. The process for obtaining permission is notoriously tedious^grammar?, and I admit to having advised editors to use flickr to document that the image was released under the proper license. Of course, this method has its disadvantages as well (flickrwashing, for one). I saw your response on your talk page too, but I very much appreciate your leaving a note for me here as well. Regards, decltype (talk) 12:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Decltype. You have new messages at MLauba's talk page.
Message added 01:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MLauba (talk) 01:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

ER

Hi! I just wanted to say thanks for taking the time to review my contributions in my ER, sincerely, — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 11:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Let me know if there's anything else I can help you with. Regards, decltype (talk) 13:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Jacobite Rising of 1745

WP:MOSCAPS -- "Accepted full names of wars, battles, revolts, revolutions, rebellions, mutinies, skirmishes, risings, campaigns, fronts, raids, actions, operations and so forth are capitalized" Chris the speller (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. I have never heard about the Jacobite Risings. I have performed the move. Regards, decltype (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll fix any dbl rdr. Chris the speller (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Watchlist patrolling

Hello decltype. I'm here to ask if there is a place to propose new systems; I don't know of one. The system is patrolling watchlists. The basic gist of it is that once a change is previewed, the user can "patroll" it; it subsequently disappears from the watchlist. This would help a user keep his/her watchlist under control, especially if it is big. What do you think? Happy holidays, Airplaneman ^talk 21:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting idea. The place to propose such things would be the technical village pump. However, the functionality you describe could also be achieved using a script, in which case you could make a request at WP:Scripts. Regards, decltype (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you; I think I'll list this at the technical village pump sometime soon, once I've come up with a more firm idea about how exactly this would work. BTW, I noticed that you have a double editnotice for your talk. This occasionally happens to me as well; the editnotice is repeated right under itself. I wonder why... Airplaneman ^talk 02:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops, so sorry, I meant the WP:VPP (proposals). But again, this could be implemented in JavaScript. As for the editnotice, I have never seen the issue you describe before, but it looks normal to me. Regards, decltype (talk) 03:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

AWB and Words to avoid

There is a discussion at the Village Pump regarding using AWB to semi-automatically remove WP:Words to avoid. You got this notice because you have participated in a discussion regarding this in the recent past. Your input is welcomed. Gigs (talk) 03:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: PROD

Ok, I had a closer look at CSD A7. Thanks for notifying me. -Regancy42 (talk) 08:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Replied at your talk. decltype (talk) 08:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

What about this Elena Mikesell. -Regancy42 (talk) 09:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Replied at your talk. decltype (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the help. -Regancy42 (talk) 04:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

My RFA →→→

Dear Decltype, here is a little note to say thank you for your kind vote on my request for adminship which failed with a final result of (40/19/12).

Thank you for your participation in my RfA which I withdrew after concerns of my knowledge of policy. Special thanks are owed to Coffee, who defended me throughout and whom I cannot thank enough for the nomination; to 2over0 for being supportive and helpful; to A Stop at Willoughby for the thorough, thoughtful and articulate support rationale; to IP69.226.103.13 for maintaining composure and for a pleasant interaction on my talk page and, last but not least, to Juliancolton who was good enough to close the RfA at my request and, frankly, because an editor whom I respect so much found the time to support me! If the need for more admins at the main page is still apparent in a few months, I may try again. Thank you all for a relatively drama-free RfA and for providing me with much material from which to learn from my mistakes. You're all welcome to drop by my talk page any time. God save the ~~Queen~~ Wiki! HJMitchell You rang? 21:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear Decltype/Archive 9,
I just wanted to wish you and your family a happy new year, however you're celebrating it. Whether 2009 was a good year for you, or if it wasn't the greatest year, hopefully 2010 will be better. Cheers, and happy editing in 2010.

December21st2012Freak ^{Happy New Year!} at ≈ 00:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! It was very eventful, at least. Happy new year to you too. Regards, decltype (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Films December 2009 Newsletter

The December 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deletions

Hi Decltype,

Thanks for your note. I went through the process of tagging the articles for speedy deletion as I haven't, in the past, been able to find something among policy or guidelines specifically saying it is okay for adminstrators to speedy delete a page without tagging it and having it looked at by a second party. If I tag an article I try to go through the speedy candidate list and take care of some other ones to balance it out but I know what you are saying about double handling if it can be deleted directly by me. If you indicate that it is standard practice to delete pages directly if they meet the CSD criteria, then I will do so from now on! Camw (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Replying at your talk page. decltype (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for your response, I will carefully delete pages directly where I am certain and only tag if I need a second opinion from now on. I appreciate the guidance. Camw (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Replied at your page. decltype (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

List of Laugh at Me episodes

Ahh, no wonder I couldn't find the AfD when this came up at CSD yesterday! I asked Alexf who deleted it last time, and he couldn't find it either. Glad someone knew where it was! Cheers! Ged UK 14:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, those can be difficult to locate some times. Luckily, the tagger added it to the template themselves [1]. decltype (talk) 14:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah-ha! I didn't see that deletion request, I found the article via another article I deleted earlier in the day. Ged UK 14:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense :) decltype (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

List of Hunter × Hunter characters page move

The page move was not at all needed. The × might look like an X, but it's a commonly used 'non-language' character commonly used in material related to Anime/Manga and is preserved as × precisely to make the point that it's not pronounced as X or pronounced at all. - Zyrxil (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. I responded to a request based on a WP:NAME rationale, namely that "Non-language characters ... should never be used in titles." Perhaps it should have been subject to a wider discussion first. I am aware of the significance of "×" in Hunter × Hunter, it's a good manga / anime. decltype (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Decltype. You have new messages at Tyw7's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 14:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk back. --Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 14:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Reword

Hey, thank you for your bugfix (of a few months back). I don't think I'll be around enough to properly address any issues that come up. It may help to list someone active as maintainer/contact at the Reword page. Perhaps you could fill this role? M 09:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, welcome back (even if it's only temporary). Sure, I'll be happy to do that. My JavaScript knowledge is rather basic, but I feel that I understand Reword fairly well. decltype (talk) 09:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) I linked your talk page from User:M/Reword. M 16:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, noted! decltype (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

re: RfA

Hey decltype. Good to see you're still willing to nominate me :), sorry about the long wait. However, I'm not in a rush to get adminship, so I'd prefer to wait a couple more months again if that's okay by you. Thanks, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

RfA nom for Rlendog?

Sorry to bug you, I had noticed you were talking to User:Rlendog about a potential RfA nomination a few months back and I noticed that nothing ever came of it. (I just got back from 3 months in Madagascar, and tried looking up the RfA outcome, but found nothing.) Rlendog has always been very helpful and professional with me on Wiki, and I know he's actively involved in things like DYK reviews, etc. I would nominate him myself, but my motherboard just died, so my Wiki time for the next few weeks will be very limited. Would you have time to follow up on that suggested nomination? If not, I'll try to find time for it whenever my computer is back up and running. Thanks! –Visionholder (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. If I remember correctly Rlendog did not express an interest in becoming an administrator at that time. Because of this I have not yet reviewed the candidate myself. I'll get back to you. Regards, decltype (talk) 07:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I was wrong. Looking over Rlendog (talk · contribs)'s contribs, he did in fact seem very interested.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=314892989] I'll ask Jac16888 if he's still interested in nominating. decltype (talk) 11:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to nominate this user, unfortunately I had no regular access to the internet for a while, so I hadn't realised he had come back and said he was ready.--Jac16888 ^Talk 14:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I've just written out a nomination for Rlendog (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rlendog. Would you be interested in adding your own co-nom? (no pressure)--Jac16888 ^Talk 03:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! I think every co-nom should add an unique perspective or highlight some different qualities of the candidate. Having read your thorough nomination statement I do not really feel that I can bring anything else to the table, as I do not recall having interacted with Rlendog in the past. That said, he looks like a great candidate and I'll be happy to offer my support. decltype (talk) 06:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, cheers--Jac16888 ^Talk 07:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

re: Your hyper-super-speedy deletion of the Pencil Project page

With all due respect, marking for speedy deletion & then deleting a few minutes later is not really cricket. You should at least give the contributor time to react to the tag for speedy deletion. In the case of this topic, I discovered this FOSS product was missing any reference in Wikipedia. I added it to the list on the Graphical user interface builder page and then created a stub for the page itself along with an external link to the project itself. A couple hours later I had a few minutes free & went to add an intro paragraph and basic info - but nooooo --- you'd already deleted it. Really! Well, I used up my free time writing this note to you, so I'll leave it to someone else in the hive to re-create the page and get it started. What a shame... Yoshm (talk) 11:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Replying on your talk page. decltype (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Decltype. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Help desk.
Message added 15:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Replied to your earlier reply. Paul 2387 15:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know why it's like that. decltype (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Reword2

I've posted an updated version of the script to User:M/reword2.js. It seems to handle pretty much any type and length of selection, as long as the two endpoints are relatively free of markup. Though I have not had time to test this, I think I've also fixed the edit conflict bug without needing a refetch (by using the timestamp of the original fetched revision). I thought you might want to have a look at it/give it a try before I move it to M/Reword.js. M 08:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, will do. decltype (talk) 10:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you did, but it appears to be completely broken. Nothing happens when I press the CTRL key. Tested on IE8 and FF 3.5.7 decltype (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I just tested it on IE and FF. There should be a button that comes up when you start selecting text. I had a problem with that on IE, and FF failed on 'console is undefined' even after a if(console&&console.log) console.log(m) check (not sure why). I think it should be fixed now. If the button is blue, the background fetch has not loaded yet. Orange means duplicate selection. Gray means not found. After clicking the button, you should get the default and somewhat ugly wikipedia-ui alert box with the selected text. M 20:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, it seems to work great now. I do miss the default edit summary feature, though [oldtext -> newtext (using Reword) ]. decltype (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. Perhaps an if(d.contains("~~"+"~~")) edsum="re." would make replies look better? It may also be possible to detect who the reply is directed to, by scanning backwards for "[[User:", but talk page structure is usually so messed up that I don't think this would work. M 02:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll test it later as I only have IE8 here (still can't get that to work). decltype (talk) 06:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops, that's IE7, actually. I don't know if it works in IE8. decltype (talk) 07:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:Did you know

Hi there, I hope you don't mind me contacting you to ask this. I nominated the article Susan Bower for the above on January 10th as it was a new article created by myself and I felt it met the requirements for the Did You Know section. Do you know roughly how long we have to wait before we know whether or not the article is selected? It's just that it's my first time nominating an article for this. So far quite a few articles seem to have been passed for that day so curious about mine now! --5 albert square (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, of course I don't mind. In short, there's no way to tell when a reviewer will decide to verify a nomination, but in general, the oldest nominations are dealt with first. Also, nominations that have potential issues may not be approved immediately. As a rule of thumb, as long as the nomination meets the requirements, it will eventually be approved and featured in DYK. Your nomination qualifies, so I have approved it. It will probably be removed from T:TDYK in a few days, this means that it is either in the preparation areas or one of the queues, and will be on the Main page shortly. decltype (talk) 07:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I now understand a little more about the process which is good. I've also shortened the hook as suggested. Thanks for your help :) --5 albert square (talk) 07:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Glad to be of assistance! I couldn't help but notice that the citations lack author and publishing date even where such info is readily available (Just as a suggestion for possible improvement, not a requirement for anything). decltype (talk) 07:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

So they do! I'm glad to say though that it's not the citations that I provided! Thanks for pointing that out, I will get them fixed --5 albert square (talk) 08:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Magnor Glassverk

I launched an unsourced stub on this glass maker and some other artisan firms (like Grete Prytz Kittelsen which is pretty short). If you're interested let me know and I'll get you the other names and can try to hel pout expanding them. I'm trying to bring some artful design to the 'Pedia. ;) Happy New Year. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

As long as there's adequate sourcing, sure! Wouldn't want to see them all AfD'ed, would we ;) decltype (talk) 06:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, judging from no:Grete Prytz Kittelsen, that stub has a lot of potential. decltype (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe we should put up those expand/translate templates??? ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I have already started expanding Grete Prytz Kittelsen - it should be DYK eligible really soon. decltype (talk) 08:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I see that, looks good. Very interesting.

You'll be happy to know that I'm working on the Scandanavian Design movement in the U.S. and will be uploading an image of Glorified Rice very soon! Cheers. And good job. I'll have to look up the other Norwegian designers so you can expand those too! :) Good design and gravlax... very important. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, apparently that was one of the more prominent, though I have to admit that I hadn't even heard about her. Hopefully I will find the time to work on it some more in the near future. decltype (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Remember that unsourced Wikipedia content is not necessarily good to translate. Geschichte (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It's a shame that most no.wiki articles are so poorly sourced. Writing from scratch is often the only option even if there is an abundance of information in the no. article. decltype (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Editor review

I would like it if you were to look further back in my history, particularly my alternate account, which I did a lot of my CSD work a while back. The Thing _{Vandalize me} 13:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not one to really complain about others CSD noms, but I noticed that someone recently tagged 1st upholder as vandalism, but it doesn't look remotely like vandalism. It looks more like it should be tagged as a general A7 (In this case, a person/group of people and/or a club that doesn't assert the importance or significance of the subject). Thoughts?

Yeah, I can do that if you wish, when time permits. You need not worry about old mistakes, though — as long as the recent taggings are good, there should be no problem. I agree with your assessment of 1st upholder, and it seems like the closing admin did as well. Regards, decltype (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Expatriate category

According to the article she lived in the US in 1949 and 1950, which means she used to be an expatriate. That's the way I understand that the category is supposed to be used. If moving back home made people ineligible for that category, it would probably be pretty empty. Manxruler (talk) 10:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

That's cool. Neat article, by the way. Manxruler (talk) 10:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

HaveProof deletion

Hi, could you revisit your HaveProof article deletion. It seems the situation is this: to insure a quality article, I followed other similar articles. As none of these existing articles contain any notability information, I too included none. Could the page be restored while this is being discussed? Also, what notability information would you find acceptable?

01:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpdc (talk • contribs)

Hi there, I advise reading our notability guideline for organizations and companies. As long as the company hasn't received significant coverage in what we consider reliable sources, it probably does not warrant an article on Wikipedia. Regards, decltype (talk) 11:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Bourla-papey

On January 18, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bourla-papey, 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, quick check ) 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I neither created it, nor expanded it, but thanks anyway :) decltype (talk) 07:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You copyedited it so that it is at least readable. That's why I co-nommed you :) MLauba (talk) 10:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I see, thanks! I did make a few minor adjustments, but the prose was definitely up to standard before I started. decltype (talk) 10:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi!

I added and authenticated my mail adress, is there a problem? :) --Triancula (talk) 08:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, so so so so much! :) --Triancula (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

About a week late

But thanks for this revert. Missed it at the time. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, 'twas nothing :) decltype (talk) 06:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Ronen Har-Zvi

On January 21, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ronen Har-Zvi, 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, quick check ) 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that's great, thanks! decltype (talk) 12:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Danish speedy

Thanks for your help. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Glad to be of assistance. decltype (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

db-move

Thanks, I got a bit lost when trying to move it (Where I inappropriately used the db tag). - Wikipedia help stated there should be a move link on the page unless it was protected but I've just realised the link was missing because I was using the beta. Once I switched back to the standard wikipedia it was fine. Sorry for the trouble, cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 13:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Black Sharkminnow speedy decline

Fairy snuff. The chap has created around a dozen of these - I only tagged one as I wasn't sure whether it fell within the criteria. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

why is the statement inaccurate

why did you delete the information I added on importing/classifying namespaces —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomBrown16 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to this. First of all, the article is about iostreams, and not namespaces, so the statement seems misplaced. When adding information to Wikipedia, even if you're a subject matter-expert, if the information could possibly be contested by anyone, you should add an inline citation to a source, so the accuracy and factuality of the information can be verified. using namespace std; is a using-directive, which frees you from having to qualify the names in the nominated namespace. The assertion that it is sometimes preferred to explicitly qualifying (not classifying) each name needs to be supported by a citation. But the main issue with the sentence is that it is misplaced. Hope that explains my reversion. Regards, decltype (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Having talked to you I understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomBrown16 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let me know if you have further questions or need help with anything. decltype (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments related to the JWASM deletion page

Thanks for the notification but it is hardly appropriate, differing from most who post here, poeple involved know who I am and the person who tagged the JWASM areticle has my name and email address on his talk page. From your posting on the JWASM deletion page it would seem that you have a good grasp of the considerations involved and have sufficient expertise within Wikipedia to access people with the appropriate x86 assembler experience to properly evaluate the reference material related to JWASM.

I spend the available time I have working on a couple of Wikipedia topics and it involves a considerable amount of work, downloading the source material to evaluate, checking the reference material, testing the software and reading the reference links on both the internet and the information available on Wikipedia thewn carefully constructing the article to properly reflect the topic in an unbiased manner. I find the willingness of a number of users to tag pages that they have not even read the discussion pages for a direct breach of Wikipedia policy and at odds with the end target of Wikipedia to provide an online encyclopaedia that is reliable in terms of its technical data.

I have further work to do on both the MASM page and the JWASM page but as long as these pages are under threat of deletion or as in the case of the MASM page when over half the page was deleted before another member reverted it, there is little reason to waste the effort upgrading the pages.

Regards,

Hutch48 (talk) 10:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop your continued bad faith assertion that I breached any policy. It is your responsibility to see that any article you launch has the required sources - you are hardly a new editor ignorant of actual Wikipedia policy who requires handholding on this. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Since the editors in question have presented their rationales for proposing and nominating the page for deletion, respectively, on the deletion discussion page, I see no reason to comment further on their actions here, except that nominating a page for deletion after having exercised the steps outlined in WP:BEFORE, is not in violation of any of our policies or guidelines. If a user, after a good-faith attempt to determine a subject's notability, believes it to not meet the guideline for inclusion, nominating the page for deletion is a valid course of action — regardless of whether the user is a subject-matter expert or not. decltype (talk) 11:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Grete Prytz Kittelsen

On January 26, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Grete Prytz Kittelsen, 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, quick check ) 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.

Ucucha 06:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Good job! TheLeftorium liked The Art of Negative Thinking. Still awaiting on your review. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, from what I could see the poster was in Danish, so I uploaded a new version of that. I can try to incorporate the major Norwegian newspaper reviews, even if Guldvog Staalesen is already represented. decltype (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Canadian Mountain Holidays

I was in the process of creating a page for Canadian Mountain Holidays and it tells me that you have deleted it. I am just wondering why this is and what I need to do for this not to happen again. It is a legitimate company and has value as it was the first ever heli skiing company.

J —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnskier (talk • contribs) 21:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Replying on your talk. decltype (talk) 07:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

CSD

The criteria are sometimes too narrow, to the point that some pages that should clearly be speedy deleted end up slipping through the cracks due to editors' confusion about how to tag it. Thanks for the correction! XXX antiuser ^eh? 00:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I personally think the criteria are good as they are, but if the page meets one of them, it should be deleted, regardless of whether the wrong tag was applied, of course. You're welcome! decltype (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, in the case of that one article, I initially thought R3, but the description for it (at least on Twinkle) says it's for typos, and "Are you logged into your phone" is definitely not a typo for "iPad"... XXX antiuser ^eh? 00:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I see. Well, you can safely apply R3 to any recently-created redirect that is unplausible. That's how I have always intepreted this criterion, at least. Of course, if in doubt, there's always WP:RfD. decltype (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:The word alive

Why was it deleted in the first place? I believe that it is quite notable enough. You also stated it was deleted under G4 which states that it was"A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" and "This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". This is not the case. Mcrfobrockr (talk) 04:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Compared to the previously deleted version, the lede was worded differently and expanded slightly. However, the remainder of the text was mostly copied verbatim from the previously deleted version, which not only makes it "substantially identical", but probably also a copyright violation since no attribution was given to the authors of that text. While you may feel that the band in question is notable enough, consensus at the AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Word Alive, was that the band was indeed not notable enough for inclusion, and the recreated article did not provide further sourcing or claims to notability that would change that. I understand your frustration, but in this case I will have to stick with my original decision to delete the article. If you still believe the deletion was in error, you may challenge it by following the instructions at WP:DRV. Regards, decltype (talk) 07:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen the first version that was deleted... so I couldn't have copied it from there. I started the lede and didn't expand it from anything, so I have no idead what you were talking about. They are notable enough, the lead singer of the band Tyler "Telle" Smith, already has an individual page, and so does Craig Mabbitt, who started the band. Also one of their songs made an appearance in the Tap Tap Revenge game, which seems notable enough, besides the fact that they are also signed to Fearless Records. Mcrfobrockr (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is indeed true that an ensemble consisting of two notable musicians is generally notable. I advise you to start a deletion review for the article to see if consensus is that recreation is proper at this point. That way any further doubts and constant recreation / deletion of the page can be avoided. Regards, decltype (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for The word alive

An editor has asked for a deletion review of The word alive. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Mcrfobrockr (talk) 04:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)