User talk:Apoc2400/Archive2

DYK for Tea Leaf Paradox

On 3 January, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tea Leaf Paradox, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 07:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:MSN (logo).png)

You've uploaded File:MSN (logo).png, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Artes (magazine)

On January 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Artes (magazine), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 09:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Flagged Revs

Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 07:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thomas D. Brock

If you want this article undeleted, the first thing to do is ask the admin who deleted it, or any admin on this list, to undelete it into your user space so that you can work on it. Alternatively, you could simply write a new article. Either way, you will need to address the reasons why the article was deleted - see WP:BIO. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I see now that somebody already asked the deleting admin to restore it. Anyway, why is it so hard to find useful information about undeletion? --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The trouble with Wikipedia guidance on policies and rules is that there's so much of it that it's hard to find your way around. Wikipedia:Deletion policy has useful links, including WP:Why was my article deleted?, and there's always the Help Desk. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Warren Farrell references across multiple articles

I noticed you performed this edit, this edit, and many other edits that seem to specifically target references to Warren Farrell. I will be reverting many of these edits, as contrary to your expressed view, Farrell is often cited and quite notable in gender studies, and this targeted removal seems inappropriate at best. Please be aware of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, which demands that a variety of views on topics be presented. Also, please refer to Wikipedia's standards on notability and reliable sources, and note that Farrell and his works meet those standards. Thank you. Blackworm (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not targeting Farrell, but rather the edits by User:Roryridleyduff. That user was promoting himself and his views over many articles. All the sources (sometimes Farrell) were clearly cherry-picked to promote his particular point of view. It also presented Farrell as a scholar, when his writing is self-published opinions. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

How is is possible that your edits target those of a user, rather than Warren Farrell, when that user never edited the Man article, but you did, in one edit I link to above[1], removing a link to Farrell's book, and giving the edit summary: "rm propaganda book"? I do not agree with your assessment of Farrell as a propagandist, and nothing you say counters my points about his notability. Contrary to your statement, Farrell is not "self-published" by the meaning used in Wikipedia's reliable source guideline. Calling him "not a scholar" also seems dubious (if irrelevant), given his Ph.D. from UCLA, and teaching credentials at UCSD. He is cited in many scholarly articles, as a Google Scholar search on "Warren Farrell" clearly shows. It seems you are using several dubious statements to support your position; I ask that you please reconsider this position. Thank you. Blackworm (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Right, I edited that article a bit earlier, before I found the Roryridleyduff issue. I removed it because I think the Further reading section of the article Man should list a few mainstream scholarly books about men/manhood/etc, not a political opinion book like Warrens. Sorry about "self-published", I confused him with someone else there. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we may fundamentally disagree on "mainstream scholarly books about men/manhood/etc" versus "political opinion books." The other books listed do not seem devoid of opinion, and from a quick review, all seemingly begin with the assumption that all males have supreme power over all aspects of society, and all women are powerless. I would not be surprised if Farrell's "The Myth of Male Power," as a a bestseller,[2] has sold more copies than the four books linked to in the Man article combined; that seems to undermine your argument about it being non-mainstream. Also, the book links you retained in that article all seem to come from a feminist perspective, or an anti-male perspective, or both. Should it continue to be the case that all books linked to from Wikipedia's Man article, discussing men, be from the feminist/anti-male point of view? Was that intended? In any case, Farrell's book has been linked there for a long time, provides an excellent counterpoint to the arguably misandric feminist tomes which comprise the rest of the links, and I believe it should be restored. Blackworm (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read any of the book but I have no reason to think that "Masculinities" or "Handbook of Studies on Men and Masculinities" are anti-male. I didn't give the other books more than a cursory glance. The publishers do look more academic than "Berkley Trade". What kind of publisher is that? I also think you are wrong to equal feminist to anti-male, but that's beside the point. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Response from Dr Rory Ridley-Duff. Self-referencing and Warren Farrell

Lecturer / Composer / Writer 00:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Warren Farrell is a respected scholar, but he does propagate a particular point of view. I have been making a number of edits in response to requests at the head of the article to counter perceived bias in Wikipedia entries on gender studies, feminism, masculities etc. As Warren Farrell's work has been published by Oxford University Press, the idea that he is not a scholar worthy of referencing in Wikipedia is laughable. Anyone targetting his work for removable is clearly not familiar with his status in the field, his work as an expert witness, or has accepted propaganda on various internet sites about his work that - unfortunately - circulated from the end of the 1980s onwards.

This user has commented in my talk page that I've contributed to articles citing my own work. This is true, but it is also true that I have cited the work of a great many others authors (in gender studies, co-operatives, social enterprise, courtship, seduction etc.). This provides the balance requested and required by Wikipedia. Where self-referencing occurs, this is always to published works that have been through academic peer-review processes for academic conferences, journal publications, or general publication. This is the assurance I can give the Wikipedia community as to the balanced perspectives in the works used to provide balancing, or balanced, comments on various entries in which I lecture (and supervise research) at undergraduate, postgraduate and doctoral level.

While relatively new to academia (since 2000), I am published in the field of gender relations, co-operative enterprise, corporate governance and social enterprise. It seems reasonable, given that knowledge creation in my 'trade', that I should make contributions referencing a great many articles that have advanced knowledged in each field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roryridleyduff (talk • contribs) 00:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No

Community discussion should conclude. Cool Hand Luke 16:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Good. --Apoc2400 (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Why would the tab say "View draft"? They can still edit. Maybe "Suggest revisions"? At any rate, I like this proposal. I've thought about automatic timeouts. Although I don't like them in theory, they do provide a "stick" to BLP hawks like myself so that we won't let the backlog become that long. Cool Hand Luke 19:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh! When there's an unsighted revision already down; that makes sense. Would be disorienting if they were trying to change something that's already be changed. Cool Hand Luke 20:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Help me out?

User:Fritzpoll/BLPFlaggedRevs needs more eyes before a project space move Fritzpoll (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in on the RFA--I will do everything I can to uphold the policies of this site, and try to make it a better place. All the comments, questions, and in particular the opposes I plan to work on and learn from, so that I can hopefully always do the right thing with the huge trust given to me. rootology (C)(T) 08:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Redirects

Why wait until their fixed? No one else is fixing them? They are clogging up the Special:Shortpages and as for rudeness, you're among the crowd. I'm trying to fix the problem and all I get is grief. People saying stop etc. until they realize what the issue is and then they back off. No apologies for their prior rudeness either. If what you see posted by other meets your idea of WP:CIVIL, you need to read that again. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that you're helping out, you say do null edits, please do them. Look at Special:Shortpages, screwed up redirects make up much of the first 360 or so - I've cleaned up most past 361. Please show some effort here, since you don't like the way I do it, here's your chance to do it yourself before the shortpages get more clogged with this junk. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

INOSP

Great work with International Network of Street Papers! I was gonna come here to let you know that you could get it onto DYK if you expand it a bit more, but from looking at the other DYK messages you have above I presume you probably already know all about that :). Happy editing, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind comment! Yes, I know about DYK and I will see if I have time. Writing an article does get a lot more difficult when you get beyond the basic facts. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely!

I also noticed your new articles on Aluma (street paper) and the other Swedish papers...since they won an award, it might be nice to mention them on the Street newspaper article as well (something along the lines of "some street newspapers have won mainstream publishing awards" or whatnot). Since I don't speak Swedish, though, I can't read the sources or verify how notable the award was. Do you know anything about that? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a respected award, and many mainstream newspapers report who won each year. I am not sure exactly how notable the award is. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yang Xin

I just noticed your article Yang Xin (murder victim), and my knee-jerk reaction is to wonder how that jives with WP:ONEEVENT and the notability guidelines. Often I would rename or merge pages like this to something more like "murder of Yang Xin", but I was wondering first if you have any thoughts? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I just thought Yang Xin (murder victim) was the most natural name of the article. Feel free to rename it to Murder of Yang Xin if you prefer. It received quite a lot of coverage in the Chinese press, but I can't actually read Chinese. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it was pretty widely covered in the US as well...I remember seeing a couple articles in the Chinese press, but we probably have more than enough English sources. The main question is how we can assert the notability of the incident, other than through the amount of coverage it got—ie, what was the university's response, did it cause any changes to their security or rules or anything like that, etc. I think some of the articles I read did mention stuff like that, but I don't remember off the top of my head. Anyway, if you can track any of that information down and add it to the article, it would be helpful (I'll leave a {{notability}} tag on in the meantime); if you find Chinese sources you can send them my way and if I have a free moment I'll try to give them a quick look. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Bling

		The Barnstar of Liberty
		For your work creating articles relating to street newspapers. I just saw NASNA pop up, and a redlink to Street News Service, so it looks like you've still got more up your sleeve! rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thank you! There is more coming when I have time. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Street newspapers as a featured topic?

Hey Apoc2400, great work again in article creation. I was just thinking, as a long-term project, it might be interesting to try to get Street newspaper and related articles up to Good topic or featured topic status. I think there's definitely enough coverage of Street newspaper, The Big Issue, and StreetWise (the Norma Green case study) to get them up to GA (I'm hoping to get Street Newspaper to FA), and your latest work Put Domoi also seems to have a lot of coverage. It's not anything urgent, but maybe just something to think about in the long-term...if we can get all or most of the articles in this topic up to GA status, I think we could have a decent chance of making it a good topic or featured topic. Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It sounds good. I tend to move between topics a lot and I don't have much experience with writing long articles or good/featured status. It would be great though. I will see if I can start articles on some more street papers if nothing else. Can you recommend one or two that are especially interesting? --Apoc2400 (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hm...I'm not really any more familiar than you with street papers in general, but I think the main one sticking out is Street News from New York—always cited as the "first modern newspaper" and apparently was very influential, but doesn't have an article yet. If I remember correctly, the Norma Fay Green chapter in the main Street newspaper article has a lot of info on this one. StreetWise is also good low-hanging fruit to work on, since there is a whole journal article specifically about it (I added that source to the Further Reading section of the stub article, but didn't really have a chance to do anything with it yet). And the Torck article (i have a pdf of it, if you can't access the database where it is) used in Street newspaper has a sort of case study of San Francisco's Street Sheet that might be useful for expanding that article. I think my next big project in this area will be trying to bring the The Big Issue article up to GA, since there are lots of sources available on it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and Street News Service, of course. Whenever one of us gets tired of writing articles on the papers themselves :). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll get on it when I have spare time. --Apoc2400 (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to stop using NOINDEX

Due to the potential for these categories to cause harm to living people, I want them off of google.

Also, because they are categories, they are by definition not in the mainspace. If they were mainspace, the tags would have no effect. Cool Hand Luke 18:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Categories cannot be watched or confirmed like articles. With an article, one can check the sources are remove BLP violations fairly straightforwardly. Categories do not lend themselves to this treatment. Because remote and unwatched articles can be slipped into a defamatory category, I believe that excluding these categories is the least we can do. Frankly, I think low-profile BLPs should be excluded from indexing themselves, but the software does not permit it.

I weight the potential for harming a living person versus the slight ease of users finding a category like "Latvian rapists." In my estimation, this balance leans strongly in favor of keeping them off of google. I NOINDEXed many of these categories back in September and October. I consider it nothing more than an oversight that I missed these. Cool Hand Luke 18:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

CHL's position on this seems quite reasonable to me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Categories are not worse. As I said, I would NOINDEX low-profile BLPs, but I cannot at this time.

Preventing search engines from indexing pages does not undermine our free content in any meaningful way. The content is free as in liberty. It can be fully copied and forked as anyone desires. But, given this domain's high Google ranking, I think we should be cautious when widely disseminating things that might harm living people. Cool Hand Luke 19:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no such consensus against using NOINDEX in this way. Like I said, I NOINDEXed many more such categories 4-5 months ago. All of them are still unindexed.

This isn't a remotely foreseeable harm either. There are many examples of subtly defaming articles—poorly watched articles that have contained harmful statements for months. We can't easily certify that categories like these are free from harmful BLP violations, so I find a moral obligation to remove them from Google. Unless and until we do rigorous checking on BLP articles (say, with flagged revisions), possible attack categories like these should not be indexed. Cool Hand Luke 19:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for extreme measures either. I think these are often nuanced questions. It's just in this case, the ease of readers finding "Latvian rapists" in google versus the potential harm to a person falsely tagged as one is an easy contest. Cool Hand Luke 19:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Leigh Allen

He was actually charged with rape and served time for it; there's a link on the page with the necessary documentation. Treybien 17:06 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, now I see it. I still wonder if being a rapist is really a defining attribute. Is there an article for people who have been suspected of a murder? --Apoc2400 (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Icon Group International

Thanks for the good edit summary here. :) I had no idea! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I almost used one of those books myself, but then noticed what it was and went to remove them from other articles. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

And thanks from me as well. I've replaced the Icon Group book with a better reference on the Mikel Urizarbarrena article. -- Whpq (talk) 11:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

That's good! --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Flag rev

I butted in uninvited, hope you don't mind.--Tznkai (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. You are very welcome. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Flagged revisions

I support what you're trying to do. I'm not likely to involve myself in the nitty gritty, because most of the issues being discussed there seem secondary, but I will lend me support to anything that improves the protection of BLPs, even if it's watered down. Let me know if/when you have a final proposal together. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Alison

Just a note that Alison is gone. Stifle (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes I saw. Maybe she sees it, maybe not. I was kind of spamming user talk pages anyway. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Osteoblast milk protein

On March 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Osteoblast milk protein, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 11:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Street News DYK

Actually, I submitted it not long after you started it; the nomination is at Template talk:Did you know#Street News. But you are welcome to suggest different hooks if you like; I kind of did it in a hurry.

On a side note, I created Change of Heart (street newspaper) a couple days ago, but I didn't submit it for DYK because I don't think I have enough information to get it past the 1500-character minimum (without artificially puffing it up by giving more and more extra information on what street papers are in general). Street News is a better DYK candidate anyway; there's still tons of room for expansion once we comb through the refs a bit more (especially the Green one, which goes through pretty much its entire history up until 1999). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Street News

On March 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Street News, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congratulations! PeterSymonds (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Bling

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	I don't know how you do it! I searched flickr over and over again for days and didn't find any of these... likewise, in your new articles you keep digging up good new sources that I had never seen before. This is for all your tirelesss work. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of vote

Sorry, I must have hit rollback when I thought I'd hit diff. Obviously not concentrating hard enough GTD 23:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar for flagged protection

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thanks so much for helping to advance the flagged protection trial. I know that Jimbo was hoping that a trial would get community consent; heck, I didn't really want to resort to Wikilawlessness. You helped worked out the details after everyone stopped paying attention. I don't want to jinx it, but I think we'll soon get to see how it works. Cool Hand Luke 00:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. It seems to go well. Most credit goes to Cenarium of course. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Street newspapers

Great work with all the articles lately...you are quite a machine. I just thought I'd let you know, I started User:Rjanag/Street newspapers topic in attempt to coordinate work on articles in this topic...obviously, most of the articles in this topic still need a lot of work, so this is really just a very long-term planning thing, not anything that needs urgent work right now. I've tried to list the articles/papers that are most important within the topic...I figured it wouldn't be necessary to list every paper, since {{street newspapers}} is already a handy way of keeping track what has been created so far and what hasn't.

Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought Homeless Grapevine was interesting because it is an example of a more radical street paper with smaller circulation. They also published since 1993, so quite established. That page seems useful. I will keep an eye on it for interesting things. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, it's definitely good to have. I just meant I haven't listed every paper on my keeping-track page; it's still good to work on articles that aren't listed there, I just haven't been keeping track of them in a special table since the template already helps keep track.

Also, about pictures, I know several people who live in that area of Cleveland, so I might be able to talk one of them into getting us a picture of a vendor... rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

That sounds great! --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy the bubble tea!

-download | sign! has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Spread the bubbliness of bubble teas by adding {{subst:bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

DYK for International Brotherhood Welfare Association

On March 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article International Brotherhood Welfare Association, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 05:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Hobo News

On March 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hobo News, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 05:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for James Eads How

On March 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article James Eads How, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 09:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Homeless Grapevine

On March 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Homeless Grapevine, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 04:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Muh-hund-original-rondellliten.JPG

File:Muh-hund-original-rondellliten.JPG has been restored, please supply correct license & Fair use, or the image will be re-deleted. Skier Dude (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Muh-hund-originallit.JPG too. Skier Dude (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I have done that. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Street newspaper article in NYT

Shubinator just showed me this new article. Looks like it'll be useful! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! It's interesting. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Teresa Wong

Hello. The Teresa Wong article you contributed to is now up for deletion - unfairly I feel. Please check out its talk page and see what you think about it. Much appreciated. Cyclotron (talk) 08:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I forgot to put it on my watchlist. I replied at the talk page. It was proposed for deletion some days ago, but is no longer going to be deleted. --Apoc2400 (talk) 08:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Learning something new!

Thanks for the information in this summary. I had seen a lot of those quotation books in books.google.com searches and now I know that they are probably not reliable sources! -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: New redirect

Sure, I'd be glad to! Let me explain my action real quick; it's generally not protocol to have a talk page without an attached article, file or whatever, so it's the general course to delete it. At the time I didn't really understand what you were trying to do - it looked to me like a mistake/glitch/leftovers from an earlier project. But a redirect like what you're proposing is totally fine and sounds logical to me. I'll go ahead and do that for ya while I'm here. Thanks for the heads up! - Vianello (Talk) 21:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No big deal. It all works out in the end! - Vianello (Talk) 21:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I should mention, you can request a page be unprotected at WP:RFUP. Just for future reference. - Vianello (Talk) 23:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Case for inclusion of Bark Hide and Horn's song "Ham the Astro-chimp" in the "Ham the Astrochimp" article

Hello, I noticed that you deleted Bark Hide and Horn from the "Ham in popular culture" section of the article about Ham. I would like to make a case for the notability of the inclusion of this song in the article.

According to the Wikipedia:Notability (music): "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

...

1. Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.[note 1]

This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries except for the following: Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising. Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories. An article in a school or university newspaper (or similar) would generally be considered trivial but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis."

Bark Hide and Horn has been featured in:

A review in Willamette Week

A review in The Portland Mercury

These articles are both online archives of print articles. Both the Willamette Week and The Portland Mercury are considered notable enough in their own right to have wikipedia articles written about them. Additionally, these are not student publications. The articles were not in any way written by band members. Bark Hide and Horn have also been featured in reviews in the following online publications:

A review on the website Stranded in Stereo

A review on pensatos.com

PZ Myers, a prominent atheist and scientist, has mentioned the band in his blog Pharyngula (blog): [3] The band has also played in the PDX Pop Now festival: PDX Pop Now 2008 schedule

If all of this earns the band notability, their contributions to Ham the Astrochimp's presence in popular culture would be no less notable than, for instance, Ham's inclusion in a recent animated film. If you are curious about the content of the song, you can listen to the full track at Bark Hide and Horn on Last.fm

Thank you for your consideration. Jamescaf512 (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Notability is mostly about what deserves its own article in Wikipedia, not what should be included in other articles. Still, you may be right that the song contributed to Ham the Astrochimp's popular image. I added it back. You could write the article about Bark Hide & Horn if you are interested in the band. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Jamescaf512 (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

RE : Heartless Bitches International

Copy sent via email. Have fun writing the new article. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 08:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Whats wrong with my link?

I added links to my site The White Report to articles Roy Gillaspie.... Serpent Seed.... Church of Christ-Christian.... British Israelism.... and it was removed for some reason. These subjects are the main topics on my site on Christian Identity organizations. I am a repository of news articles & seldom seen documents that supply factual information on these subjects -with much more to be added. Your message said Conflict of Interest but I don't see how that's possible. Truly I'm at a loss to understand why my links were deleted. I'm new to Wiki -did I screw something up?

Edit: I just noticed this to me, sorry: Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. Reply: I don't understand why you say I added my link for that reason. It's not the reason & if you'd look at my section 'Paper Trail' I trust you'll see my link's way appropriate for the articles -like a hand & glove. Thank you, WhiteReport (talk) 06:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to keep bugging you but still waiting for a response why my links inappropriate.

Newspaper accounts: [4]

Memo USA: [5]

CDL articles: [6]

I'm sure it fits wiki's requirements. Will you at least take a look?

WhiteReport (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay. We do not normally link to blogs, see Links normally to be avoided. Especially, you should not add links to your own blog. At first I actually thought WhiteReport was some kind of white supremacist website, but it seems I was mistaken about that. Still, we prefer link to established authorities, such as university websites. I don't mind if you add the link back to Roy Gillaspie, but the other articles seem to be more distantly related. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for concession & taking a look. I'll add it to Gillaspie article, but point out the profiles on site are about the ministers for Identity [of Jesus Christ] too, & my material proves the link between the churches & Ken Goff/Soldiers of the Cross. Swift founded them but by the 60s Goff was director, facts overlooked by researchers for decades but the history's not complete without. So..... if you'd consider that I appreciate. If answer is still no, I will accept your decision. thanks for reconsidering the Gillaspie link! WhiteReport (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding WP:NPOV…

…it does not mean that articles should be lobotomized. Furthermore, hagiographic editing and whitewashing are just as severe POV violations as are improperly denigrating. Mr. Jeffries's positions are well documented as being discussed in the context of Antisemitism and Black Supremacy, and these are supported in the article, or at least they were before your rewrite; I have not had the opportunity to check in detail. While I applaud your efforts to make the article more neutral, removing substantiated issues and their appropriate categories does not do so; rather the opposite. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I replied on the article talk page. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Icon Group

Hi, Apoc. Thanks for pointing out this substantial problem. I've found the brief discussion here, but I think a lot of editors are probably unaware of it. The Icon Group connection should definitely made clearer in the lede of the Philip M. Parker. Are all Icon Group books published under the Icon Group heading or do they use other publishing names? And are you aware of any other publishers or "pseudo-publishers" using this method? — CactusWriter | ^needles 07:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Icon Group is the only one i know of that mass-generate books. There are several self-publishing companies whos book should not be used as sources, but they don't show up as prominently in Google Books. I search Wikipedia for references to "Icon Group International" and "Webster’s Quotations, Facts and Phrases" occasionally and remove them. One is added about every 1-2 days, so it's manageable. Btw, you put the same links twice above. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Err... I meant to reference this discussion (damn my spastic fingers). But thanks for staying on top of this -- problems of circular referencing can quickly spiral out of hand. I appreciate your diligence. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

		The Editor's Barnstar
		In appreciation of Apoc2400's diligent editing efforts in finding and weeding out circular references. — CactusWriter | needles 08:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Apoc2400 (talk) 09:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Constellation Records Logo.jpg undeleted

Hi, Apoc2400. I've undeleted File:Constellation Records Logo.jpg; now we need a rationale. Thanks. —Bkell (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Undeletion request - File:Fokker F IX.png

The reasons for deletion are as mentioned in the IFD - orphaned, low quality and banned user. For any page undeletions, you should first discuss with the user who performed the deletion. For now, I have left a note at User talk:Nv8200p#Undeletion request - File:Fokker F IX.png. Jay (talk) 10:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Userfication at User:Apoc2400/Nagatachō Strawberry

Per your request at my talkpage, you'll find it userfied at the above location. If you decide to merge any of the material, let me know, since I have to do a couple of things to maintain GFDL attribution for the article's contents. If you fix the notability issues brought up at AfD, I might be willing to restore the article in toto, so also let me know about that as you'll need an admin to perform the move (the existing redirect will need deleting). Ping me if I can help in any other way. Best, Fritzpoll (talk) 12:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Undeletion request - File:Fokker F IX.png

File has been undelted as requested. The image needs to be used in article or moved to Commons, or I will delete again as orphan. -Regards Nv8200p talk 16:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Sorry for the late reply, but you can find it here. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 07:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

A note re: Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review

Please be advised that I have recently conducted a review of the Rorschach test (formerly Rorschach inkblot test) talk page and archives. At some point, you have commented on the issue of the display and/or placement of the Rorschach inkblot image. Based on my understanding of your comment(s), I have placed you into one of three categories. I am issuing this note so that you can review how I have placed you, and to signal if this is an appropriate placement and/or to make known your current thoughts on this matter. You may either participate in discussion at the article talk page or leave a note at my talk page; but to keep things in one place, you should also clarify at Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review/addendum. Longer statements may be made here or quick clarifications/affirmations based on several pre-written statements can be made here. Best regards, –xeno^talk 14:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of African Heritage Studies Association

A tag has been placed on African Heritage Studies Association requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Bonewah (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well the article itself does not assert notability, it just says "this is a group" (more or less). Further, at the time, the article had only a single source. In any event, you might add the {hangon} tag to it if you intend on improving it to avoid deletion. Bonewah (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Full-date unlinking bot

Great job—you made the setup of the proposal look so easy. Would you consider asking for protection of the description page so we don't have to worry about misplaced votes or anything like that? Dabomb87 (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you! I don't know protection is necessary. I think we can wait and see if it is a problem. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

David Choi

I'll unprotect, but I don't think you've made your case for notability. California Chronicle is a glorified blog, and the piece in the SF Chronicle only mentions him for a couple of paragraphs. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd also suggest you re-read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Choi, which acknowledged the SF Chronicle article. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the California Chronicle website. "Over 5,000 contributors"? That's closer to YouTube than to the SF Chronicle Online. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of African Heritage Studies Association

I have nominated African Heritage Studies Association, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African Heritage Studies Association. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. StarM 00:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Anabuki Construction

A tag has been placed on Anabuki Construction requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. RadioFan (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Harry Roseland

Thank you for your help in salvaging this article from a premature prodder. Unschool 00:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)