User talk:OwenX/Archive 13

Orphaned non-free image File:Sun D'Or logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sun D'Or logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 05:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Passionmodel

Hi I was just about to report this user as his user page is just an advert and he has never made an edit to wikipedia, when I see that the last time someone blanked the advertisment you reinstated it. So I was just wondering why the page is not being deleted as spam and as an inappropraite username. Passionless -Talk 05:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that was almost five years ago! You're right, I just deleted that userpage. Owen× ☎ 15:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

a deletion question from Nov 2005

I am wanting to do a article on the Space Marine chapter the Soul Drinkers from WarHammer 40K and i noticed you flagged a old one back in 05 * 05:08, 27 November 2005 OwenX (talk | contribs) deleted "Soul Drinkers" ‎ (CSD:G3. content was: 'alfred p. enis' (and the only contributor was '24.183.213.134')). I was wondering if the content of the subject was considered useless or if it was the subject its self that was considered useless, and if it would be worth my time to remake the article. Thank You Grimshrimp (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Grimshrimp

The old page was removed as vandalism. If the subject itself is notable and you have verifiable sources available, go ahead and write the article. Owen× ☎ 16:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

IP

HI OwenX
Before logging in this morning I was informed I had new messages. This link directed me to a talk page where there were allegations of sockpuppetry. Obviously, I take sockpuppetry very seriously, but why have I been directed here? Thanks Gilderien (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The IP address you were assigned by your ISP this morning was used, four years ago, by a disruptive editor who employed sockpuppetry for vandalizing Wikipedia. As a registered user, this should not affect you in any way. Feel free to ignore any such messages you get before logging in, as long as you do all your edits while logged in. Owen× ☎ 13:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Do this mean that if the IP is used again by that user, and then blocked, I will still be able to edit if I am logged in? --Gilderien (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in all likelihood, you will be. Most IP blocks only affect non-registered users. Owen× ☎ 20:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

dubious Turkish PDF

Hi,
Re: this
Was there some PDF or browser problem? The PDF worked fine for me before in Chrome, but these things can be quirky. Would you mind trying again? I tried swapping swapped the URL for a different copy of the same file without so much quirky encoding in the URL (though it's not on the Turkish government website) - but if that still doesn't work, just shout. Whatever the solution might be, I'd like to apply it to other articles which cite that PDF - as a courtesy to readers, I didn't want to cite just on history journals that are behind paywalls, even though it's not a great source for article content.
Have fun... bobrayner (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it's a large file, and I was getting less than 30kB/s download from that site, and gave up after a minute or so. Having tried again and downloaded the whole 8MB file (4 minutes!), I can see there's no problem with it. Owen× ☎ 22:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for your time. bobrayner (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Close

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association of Seventh-day Adventist Librarians: you closed it as no consensus, and I admit its close, but there are four well thought out deletes and only three keeps don't (in my view) present any clear arguments. Do you mind taking another look? BelloWello (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought the two "keep" opinions were legitimate and reasonably justified. But even if the validity of the two didn't match that of the "delete" opinions, I certainly did not see a consensus to delete. In marginal cases like this, the rule is always to leave the article in place in the hope of garnering additional references to show notability. However, I see no harm in you nominating it again a few months from now, hoping we'll get more participation in that second AfD. Owen× ☎ 19:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, OwenX. You have new messages at Sumsum2010's talk page.
Message added 22:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of top 500 Major League Baseball home run hitters

I have to take issue for your keep statement. This was never about a content dispute. The discussion did move in that direction, but nobody established why this page should exist independent of 500 home run club. Your statement did not reference the reason for the AfD at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. There was a clear consensus to keep the article, and most of the dissenting comments were about the number of entries in the list, which has nothing to do with the AfD. Owen× ☎ 10:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not see a clear consensus to keep. I see lots of 'keep' votes based on WP:ILIKEIT. I see people who voted keep unable to respond to legitimate criticisms about notability. At best, this is a 'no consensus', in my viewpoint. I will be renominating this article in time, after we make that content change and the article still fails WP:NOT#STATS. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to renominate it, or take it to DRV. I have no personal opinion about the article itself, and will be happy to delete it if and when that reflects the consensus of participants in a future AfD. Owen× ☎ 01:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Neon Knights (Band)

Hi OwenX,

I can understand this page been deleted but I have had it reinstated in the past so I am confused. Some think it is valid, others do not. I understand this is not the biggest band in the world but they are important to Melbourne music & represents bands like it. In saying this, I feel the "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" has been met under section 1 of WP:BAND. Independent coverage of the band is modest. I can understand these searches may not come up on web searches outside of Australia, but web, paper & magazine articles have covered this band. (Vansheboy (talk) 07:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC))

I don't have an opinion about the band one way or the other. In closing the AfD, I was reflecting the consensus of those who voiced their opinion on it; nothing more. Owen× ☎ 10:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly how it works but this AfD you type of is kind of like a discussion board where people say if they think the article is relevant or what not to Wikipedia? I feel the gun may have been jumped here, not giving Wiki users (especially from Australia) a chance to put forward their comment. Of course more people would have not heard of a band that heard of a band especially from a smaller country (population wise I mean). It it just disappointing because when ever I want to start finding out about something, I go first to Wikipedia. Shame that the articles that will be left on here are those that are most popular. I have always been impressed to find even the least known athletes on Wiki & learn about them. Upsets me to think that eventually only popular subjects, or people etc will be left on here. I am much of the view that as long as the info in the article is proved to be true, it is a valid article for anyone that wants to find out about the subject. Vansheboy (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion was open for a full week, with access to anyone from any part of the civilized world. But what makes you think Australians would have changed the outcome? An AfD is not a popularity poll. Even if one hundred Australians showed up saying, "Keep! They're huge over here!", the outcome would have still been to delete the article, since it simply does not meet the notability inclusion guidelines for this encyclopedia, a fact that was correctly pointed out by most participants in the discussion. Owen× ☎ 13:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Criteria for musicians and ensembles - A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria: 1) Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.

http://www.thedwarf.com.au/nd/albumreviews/hoods_up_neon_knights http://www.fasterlouder.com.au/news/local/20504/ http://www.theaureview.com/albums/neon-knights-hoods-2011-ep http://indigo4music.com/newsletter/newsletter/september.html#CDReview http://www.threedworld.com.au/?p=2371

Also in publication: Articles in Inpress Magazine, Beat Magazine, Catalyst Magazine & Mx paper.

Multiple: Containing more than once, or more than one; consisting of more than one; manifold; repeated many times; having several, or many, parts.

If this does not match criteria point 1 of WP:BAND then I think the criteria needs to be changed. Vansheboy (talk) 00:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Are any of those publications independent, or are they promotional sites sponsored by labels and performers? None of them seems to be a mainstream, independent publication, and all were already listed in the deleted article's references. These citations--and the lack of any others--were the reason the article was deleted.

But perhaps more importantly, why are you listing those citations here and now? What exactly do you expect me to do about this? I didn't voice an opinion on that discussion, and have no opinion either way about it. As a closing admin, I carry out the consensus of the opinions voiced in the discussion. Whether you convince me the band is notable or not can have absolutely no impact on how the AfD is closed. I'm not quite sure what you are trying to achieve here.

I'm also troubled by the fact that your entire Wikipedia contribution history seems to revolve around this one band. Wikipedia editors are here to collect, edit, and present encyclopedic information, not to promote their pet topic. If you are here only to promote this band, you've come to the wrong place. Owen× ☎ 02:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes they are all independent. As for them being mainstream; criteria point 1 of WP:BAND does not state that they need to be what is considered "mainstream" only that they are reliable. Which they indeed are. I apologise for not being in the know with how Wikipedia exactly works. Please understand that you obviously know all the processes & how they work. But the majority of people are not experts with this. Eg I have no idea that you are a closing admin. No such fact is stated on this talks page. If you could advise me who I need to take this up with I would be more than happy to do so. As for my Wiki contribution, I would love to contribute more, in fact I am currently working on script for independent Australian (& NZ) music & its culture/impact on the countr(ies)y (with references!). However my time is limited. I am trying but it is quite difficult. You are correct though, I don't go around doing edits here & edits there. I will leave that to greater intellects than myself. If you could please point me in the right direction eg an opening admin so I can take this up with them? Thanks for you clarification on some points of Wikiedits Vansheboy (talk) 07:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The article was deleted following a discussion in which you participated. At this point, it doesn't really matter who nominated it for deletion, who voiced their opinion, and who closed it (although all names are in that AfD page). What matters is that, according to the opinion of those who participated in that discussion (which doesn't include me), the band did not meet Wikipedia's notability standard as described in WP:BAND that you quoted. If you can find new references that show the band is notable, you may be able to recreate the article and have it kept here. This article has already been deleted once before last year, and restored by you only to see it deleted again. I advise you against trying to do this again by yourself. Your best bet is to work with an experienced Wiki editor who is familiar with the subject matter, and can supply the required citations. Owen× ☎ 12:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Gallery Records Inc

Fine you deleted Gallery Records Inc. As-is, it was not notable, and it's been a few days since they edited. But if you have not already, as a courtesy, consider posting the content to the original author's talk page, so they have a starting point for relisting if they have more press coverage in the future. I would, but I am not sure how to do it. Wxidea (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The complete history of the deleted article is maintained, so if in the future the author finds independent coverage to establish notability, he can contact me and I'll be happy to undelete, and if needed, move the article to his user page space for further work. Owen× ☎ 12:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

About article "Ioan Popa (romanian writer)" you just deleted

I saw that you have deleted the article 'Ioan Popa (romanian writer)'. Have you read the article? Or you just read the notes the other users posted and decided it should be deleted. They objected about the notability of the writer Ioan Popa. And they did that when the article was not fully translated. They didn't said anything else after I finished translating the article. They commented before the bibliografy was not added and also the Critical appreciations section was not added. If you read the article you've seen that he wrote 3 novels and had many published short stories and press articles. Also you should take another GOOD look at the 'Critical appreciations' section. You will find there that some more famous people had some good oppinions about him. Also, the romanian version of the article is aproved by other users. I don't see any reason why you deleted the english version. The only explanation I can find is that you just read the user comments, you did not read the actual article. Which is a violation of wikipedia rules!

Please restore the article as it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valy3D (talk • contribs) 20:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting; I thought I was fairly familiar with Wikipedia rules. Which rules exactly did I violate by closing an AfD (allegedly) without reading the underlying article? Owen× ☎ 20:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I cannot find the exact place where it is specified but I remember reading in a wikipedia guide that after seven days of discussions about an AfD, an administrator will read the editors comments, the administrator will not do a vote count on the pros and against deletion opinions, but he will objectively read the article and decide on his own if the article should be deleted. The reason for deletion that you posted suggested to me that you just read the comments and made your decision based on those opinions.

The other editors posted their comments before I had the change to finish the translation. At that time the article did not contain the Bibliography and the Critical apreciations sections, which make the article and Ioan Popa notable, and that's why they challanged the notability of the article. I mentioned in the discussion page when I finished translating but nobody made any other comments wheather it's ok or not. And that's why I thought you deleted the article without reading it first.

Please restore it so other editors can express their opinions and that I can make the necesary editing in order to make it ok to keep.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.201.218.150 (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The relevant policy and guidelines are here and here. Please let me know if you find anything there that implies it is a violation of the rules to close an AfD without reading the underlying article. Owen× ☎ 22:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've read those articles and it does not say that you should read the article before. I don't remember where I read that information :( Anyway, as I explained earlier, I don't think that the article Ioan Popa (romanian writer) should be deleted because of notability issues. The article is well documented of the work published by the writer, and one of his novels (Slaves on Uranus) was mentioned in an official document of the Romanian Government, a report about the Communist regime in Romania. Is it possible to restore the article? Or should I create a Wikipedia:Deletion review? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.238.233.210 (talk) 08:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Good, so we established the fact that perhaps I did not violate Wikipedia rules. Now let's address the issue of the article and its deletion.

You keep mentioning the notability of the article, and improving it to be notable. There is no requirement for the article to be notable. In fact, a one line article such as "Marin Preda (1922 - 1980) was one of the best known post-WWII Romanian novelists." would be kept because its subject is notable, regardless of how poor the article is. The article "Ioan Popa (romanian writer)" was deleted not because there was something insufficient about how it was written, but because its subject--Mr. Popa--was not seen as notable enough to meet either of the two relevant guidelines, WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF.

If you were really interested in Wikipedia rules, you'd realize that what you're asking me to do will, in fact, be a violation of the rules. Deletion and un-deletion of pages is done based on policy, guidelines, and consensus. Consensus has been reached on the AfD discussion, and as the closing admin, I followed the results it reflected. I have no opinion about Ioan Popa, but even if I thought he was notable, the most I could have done was voice my opinion on that AfD, along those who thought the opposite.

It is certainly unfortunate you spent so much time on this article, but you could have saved yourself this trouble by paying more attention to the comments on the AfD, and concentrating on proving notability of the subject rather than labouring on that translation. You are welcome to take the case to WP:DRV, but without a good understanding of the deletion process, I doubt you'll get the result you wish for. Owen× ☎ 12:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sun D'Or logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sun D'Or logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Block Requests

Owenx
I'm not sure where to request this, so could you block 217.131.129.81 for continual removal of content in [articles].
Thanks! --Gilderien (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

He seemed to have stopped after your warning. The best place to report these is on WP:AIAV - a page created for exactly this purpose. Owen× ☎ 02:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soggy biscuit (5th nomination)

Serves no purpose but to disrupt the encyclopedia? The fourth nomination did not have such overwhelming support to endorse such a close or had happened so recently as to insinuate haste. This was not like a nomination for World War II or the like, and it appears you have chosen to cast a super vote and close under a rational that is not supported by wp:speedy. Unless you really want to call my nomination vandalism or disregard the delete vote already cast as not a reasonable rational? I ask that you reconsider your close. Calmer Waters 17:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I never called your nomination "vandalism". I saw the nomination as being in good faith, but serving no useful purpose, hence being disruptive. Several of the four prior AfDs had no overwhelming support to keep, but none of them came close to the necessary support to delete it. There is no reason to suspect the result of this one would be any different.

I did not cast a "super vote". I have no opinion on the article itself one way or the other. My closure of the AfD was reflecting the consensus of editors accumulated over six and a half years of the article's life and the four AfDs it endured. At some point, whether the article, in your opinion, deserves to be part of Wikipedia or not, you have to come to terms with the fact that there is no way to get rid of it through the AfD process. That's not necessarily a bad thing; it just means that the general community sees things differently than you do. Continuing the battle is, as I said before, disruptive. Owen× ☎ 17:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I strongly endorse the speedy keep close by OwenX. He said it better in this response than I would have. AfD is overwhelmed and there are more serious issues, such as BLP violating content that gets missed, (for example here despite having had a BLP Tag), deletion which directly helps Wikipedia and helps avoid harming living people. — Becksguy (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2011 (UT

An editor with your length of tenure, am sure that you understand that an AFD like many other smaller meta discussions, is not as much a general community standard or stance, as much as it is a much smaller group of individuals that happen to be editing at said time and choose to chime in at said time (rather than your broad stroke painting of the general community has agreed to let this article stand). Through those 6 1/2 years, the standards for inclusion here and adherence to policy continue to rise. Articles that become stagnant and don't address prior concerns get readdressed. There is a reason there is the option of closing an Xfd early for frequent nominations as they are disruptive and can be seen as being either pointy or I didn't here that, or I don't like it. There is on the other hand a reason there is nowhere in the policy that states you can not ever reassess consensus, when standards may have changed and the rationale is citing a policy as the rational reason. I will just leave it at that and let you move on to other things. I have no ill feeling towards you, but have to say I am a little dismayed by the response that I am somehow emotional vested to the outcome of this Afd. I understand you have undoubtedly have had many similar comments left in regards to a disagreement of a particular closing. I saw an article that I believed that did not fulfill the notability policy in regards to validating anything beyond the dictionary related sources provided. There is nothing to come to terms with, and was never continuing any battles, as I was not even an active editor at the time of the previous AFDs. Take care and good wishes. Kindly Calmer Waters 04:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Howard Stern Show page

Hello OwenX

I am a former staff member of Howard Stern and would like to add information to some pages that are now semi-protected. How do I save my edits?

Podusa (talk) 23:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC) Mark Cronin Mark Cronin

Hi Mark,

I appreciate your enthusiasm and willingness to help Wikipedia. However, we have policies against editors writing articles about themselves or their own work, which would be the case with you editing the Howard Stern Show page. We make it a point to base everything here on independently-verifiable public sources, which is why personal knowledge of the subject matter, as in your case, is often a hindrance.

If you still want to help fixing mistakes or filling in some glaring omissions, your best bet is to leave a note on that page's Talk page (which is rarely protected), and let a more experienced editor handle it. Or you can gain more experience with Wikipedia as an editor, at which point you'd be able to edit those pages yourself.

I realize it sounds counter-productive to keep experts out of using their expertise here, but that's the only way a project of this scale could utilize such a large volunteer workforce. Owen× ☎ 00:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Henriettapussycat

Could you point me to where this user returned? –xeno^talk 20:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a long-time editor who originally went by the name Shakesomeaction. She "retired" from WP on 17 July 2011, only to come back two days later as Shakesomeaction2. That account didn't even last a day before it, too, retired, and the Henriettapussycat account was created. The last flounce before the current one was on 28 August 2011, when she announced she was "taking a very long break from Wikipedia". This very long break lasted three days. The four year period during the Shakesomeaction account were also punctuated by frequent "retirements". I don't think we should rush to remove Talk page history when, in all likelihood, this user will be back, under one account name or another. The use of WP:RTV should be reserved to those who show real intent to vanish. We don't have a right-to-flounce policy. Owen× ☎ 21:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you point me to where this user returned after the deletion of their talk page on 12 Sept? –xeno^talk 21:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

No, but it hasn't even been a month. In the past, she's had "retirements" that lasted many months. Owen× ☎ 21:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you please revert your action; and, in the future, email the attending bureaucrat before deciding to unilaterally reverse a deletion made under RTV? –xeno^talk 21:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Do feel free to email me, there are some offwiki considerations that were at play in this case. If the user returns in contravention of the RTV process, also do feel free to email me. –xeno^talk 21:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Owen× ☎ 21:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

New New World Order

Hi OwenX, I have just enquired as to the fate of a page I remember having refered to about six months ago back from a reporting mission in Taiwan where I attended an academic lecture on the BRICS and tiger economics on the concept of a "post-New World Order" a.k.a "new, New World Order". could the file be reopened? All best GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 10:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

PS: I could not write the article myself. Dream Focus has provided me with many reliable third-party sources on the notion: here they are [1]. It seems the article was assessed by non-experts GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 10:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The article was essentially the work of one unregistered user over a week or so, and was deleted following this discussion. The content of the article was mostly original research. Are you interested in using the supplied references for improving other articles here? Owen× ☎ 14:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I would actually like to rescue the original article by wikifying it with the many reliable third-party references [2] Dream Focus has cared to collect and removing any original research in it.GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem with that article had nothing to do with wikification. In fact, style-wise, it was one of the best formatted articles I've ever had to delete. The problem with it was the subject matter itself, which the community deemed not notable or unique enough for a standalone article. The links you provided show the term is popular, but that doesn't address the concern we had with the article, which, by the way, was already well referenced.

I hate saying this, but you have been editing Wikipedia for less than a month, and might not be familiar enough with policies such as WP:OR (or WP:SYNTH). If User:Dream_Focus is interested in rewriting the article in a manner that avoids the previous weaknesses, I'd be happy to undelete the old text and move it to his userspace for editing. Owen× ☎ 17:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

שָׁלוֹם I did edit wikipedia a lot when I was an undergraduate actually, just never thought useful to create an account. As I am now working and covering network-based events (Arab Spring, etc.) I thought I really needed to become a wikipedian to become seriously 2.0 literate. Ok biographical data aside, you mean the very making of a "post-New World Order" or "new New World Order" entry would actually constitute OR per se? What would you call | this excellent article then its content has been aggregated in a clearly original way. I don't mean to differ though. Either you tell me clearly that the very entry "post-New World Order" would fatally constitute OR and then we wait until more of the notion emerges on the Internet to create the article, or there is something we can do to un-OR it. I have actually written a report from my taiwan mission on the notion of post New World Order as postmodernism but I cannot quote my own work. Thank you for your time GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

considering Wikipedia:SYNTH#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position especially the debate on "Smith & Jones" I allow myself to be optimistic as to the de-OR-ing of the entry. We stand a possibility to aggregate pure facts into a good article. Give me a chance to separate fact aggregation from new claims GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You edited WP a lot before you registered? I find that hard to believe. Even your wikilinks in your comments here suggest you are still learning the formatting basics. But again, that is not the point, and none of what you said and asked addresses the concerns raised in that AfD. Unless someone can show that they understand the problem with the old article and know how to fix them, I am reluctant to restore that article. Your claims may be more suitable for a WP:DRV petition, which you are welcome to submit. Owen× ☎ 18:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Original Article Post-NWO

I have just found a mirror of the original article Here. I am no expert but it seems very well put to me. Basically you would say that its very aggregation constitues Original Research? Yet if the article had been written elsewhere we could not reproduce it per copyright infringement. I see only five people discussed the deletion of this entry and most where coming from the French discussion where the article was legitimitaly closed as the term has no notability or third-party coverage in French... I do not have the time to review the Frech discussion but as for the English article, I submit emotional snowballing has biased its discussion into an unfair assessment.GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 11:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, the article was very well put. The problem wasn't the way it was written, but its content, which the community deemed to be original research.

I am not sure what you want me to do at this point. I don't have the authority to arbitrarily restore an article deleted per an AfD discussion, and there is no need to give you access to a copy now that you found a mirror site. I disagree with your comments about the AfD - five opinions is fairly typical of an AfD about such topics, and I'm not convinced there was any "emotional snowballing" bias. However, such claims can certainly be raised in a deletion review petition, and will receive due attention by my peers. Owen× ☎ 14:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok I don't mean to harass you, thanks for your time. Although that five interdependent people decide of the fate of an entry on such a mass media as wikipedia be typical to a seasoned administrator like you, it sounds completely insane to a seasoned journalist like me. As an un-seasoned wikipedia contributor I am also here to help wikipedia change and evolve. Hence my insistance. Cheers GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 15:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

the deletion review suggests you move the article to the incubator. I'll edit it from there and make sure that absolutely zero assertion and claim or conclusion that the article makes has not been made by a reliable third-party source, and this would make it pass the OR test.GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The deletion review is still ongoing, so it cannot suggest anything at this point. Please familiarise yourself with the DRV process before providing favourable interpretations. Two editors on that DRV pointed out that any admin may move the article to your userspace, a fact I never contested. But one of them correctly claims that it would likely serve no useful purpose. Please allow the DRV time to reach a conclusion and get closed before rushing to make changes. I'm sure your article can wait a few more days. Owen× ☎ 16:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI I don't take this article as my belonging, and sure, it can waitGrandPhilliesFan (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

starchild skull

Hi. Thanks for closing the starchild skull deletion debate. However, just so you know, you made a bit of a mess of it. I think I've fixed everything, but I don't really know what I'm doing... GDallimore (Talk) 15:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm using an old version of the AfD script, so it didn't handle the notices properly. I should have checked it manually... Owen× ☎ 18:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

disputed deletion

Hi - did you see my comment disputing that prod? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Davina_Reichman/Archive_1&action=edit&redlink=1 Off2riorob (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

DRV of the deleted associated article is here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_November_21Off2riorob (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• thanks for restoration. - Off2riorob (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

heading

Thomas L Kennedy Secondary School

I guess i don't understand how to edit this. The current information is old, incorrect, the vp's names are out of date, I tried to post information that speaks to our schools current programs but you persist in replacing anything positive with the negative information of an event that occured over two years ago that even if left in, should be buried in the midst of all of the facts that I have tried to post about this school. I am just trying to post correct information. If you don't like the references to vibrant- take that part out. It is a fact that we are an urban and multicultural school ( we are at Hurontario and dundas st in mississauga, and we have the Regional ESl program for the PDSB). Please give me some advice as to what can remain-surely the school shouldn't be forever typecast as dangerous, because you won't let me post any positive information on it? thanks, `````````````` — Preceding unsigned comment added by TLKSS (talk • contribs) 04:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The current article is neither positive nor negative; it is factual. The incident description you rushed to delete is, in fact, the only part of the article that is referenced. None of the promotional/advertising material you tried to add includes any sources--reliable or otherwise. The fact that you keep referring to the article's subject matter as "we", in addition to your account's name, tells me all I need to know. Wikipedia has a policy against such situations, and in your case, it is clear you only joined Wikipedia in order to make your establishment look better. Even if some of the claims you added are correct, they are tainted by this conflict of interest; Wikipedia is written by neutral editors relying on publicly available sources. We do our best to keep out anything provided by parties with an economic or other interest in the subject matter.

My only advice to you would be to stay away from editing this particular article or any others you cannot be neutral about. If you can provide independent sources to allow us to fix factual errors in the article, I will be happy to apply those corrections, but otherwise I must insist you stop using Wikipedia to promote yourself or your establishment. If you are an educator, I am sure you understand why such measures are necessary to maintain the independence and neutrality of an encyclopaedia written by anonymous editors. Owen× ☎ 14:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

rv on Skewes' number

I saw that you reverted [3] an edit at Skewes' number as "unsourced nonsense". I'm not opposed to removing the material, but it's not nonsense. It's not known whether $e^{e^{e^{79}}}\in \mathbb {Z}$ or not, though of course 'everyone' believes it's not. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, the single ref provided didn't mention the issue of whether it is an integer. Secondly, Skewes' concerns the smallest integer where Pi(x)>li(x), with e^e^e^79 being an upper bound near that integer. The question of this bound being itself an integer is irrelevant to the article, and of little mathematical value. However, if a reliable source can be found for the claim, by all means, add it back. Owen× ☎ 21:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It can be sourced to, e.g., MathOverflow. I don't intend to re-add it because I don't feel it's relevant to the article either. I just don't think it should be called nonsense -- it's an interesting open problem. CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

DRV

Hi, you should know that a recent closure of yours is contested at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 February 1. Regards,  Sandstein  10:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

Hi. When you recently edited Sun Life Financial, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ORBIS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:MAMRAM unit badge (en).png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:MAMRAM unit badge (en).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have questions, please post them here.
• I will automatically remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please ask an admin to turn it off here.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 01:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Israel Discount Bank Ltd. logo (Hebrew).png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Israel Discount Bank Ltd. logo (Hebrew).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey

Watz up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Take It To The Head (talk • contribs) 19:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Nuveen Investments Page

Hi Owen

I would like to clean up the Nuveen Investments page (multiple issues with undue weight, intricate detail, the neutrality is being disputed and the article contains weasel words). I have my ideas (after reading best practices from the Wiki Company Portal page) that the bullets are too much, and the ARS content is overly negative towards Nuveen. The page is in desperate need of updating and I would like to update, add info box, etc., but I noticed that you revert any edits that have been done in the recent past. Would you please let me know what you take issue with or how we can address the issues to get the page compliant with Wiki best practices?

I appreciate your help. Nickienelson (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The edits I reverted on that page were those that removed content with no valid explanation. If that is what you plan to do, then yes, those edits will, too, be reverted. However, I welcome any improvement made to that page. Owen× ☎ 20:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, great. I've had another wiki editor remove some content with valid explanation. I will continue to update the page with relevant content within the next week or so. Thank you.

Nickienelson (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

"Valid explanation"? Hardly. Look, if you and your buddy are here to restore your employer's honour, you better find another way for doing so. We have a low tolerance for corporate lackeys trying to use Wikipedia to rewrite history. Nuveen Investments is a respectable company with some dark patches in its history. Any version of the article that doesn't reflect both of those elements will be reverted under WP:POV or WP:COI. Owen× ☎ 22:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

You ought to be ashamed of yourself. You lack judgement, not to mention knowledge of pertinent guidelines and policies. Reverting to reinsert walls of poorly sourced negative text into that article is totally unacceptable and if you do it again I will take you to AN/I. EDIT: Actually, I'm taking you there now, based on your gross violation of WP:BITE and WP:AGF above. - John Galt ✉ 04:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Meh. You should be nice to the "corporate lackeys" that take the time to try to raise concerns about the content of Wikipedia articles with editors such as yourself, rather than just having people change the article. Regardless if you ultimately have to tell them the article shouldn't be changed, be nice. Prodego ^talk 05:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

True, I should, and I would have if that were the case. Alas, Nickienelson did not do what you described. He already tried to sneak in his changes by using a different account (User:KHCardoza), and by editing the article while logged out. I have dealt with corporate PR here before, and I would have never used such language if it weren't for the underhanded approach taken by this marketing-manager-cum-wiki-editor. Had he approached me honestly, disclosing the fact that he is in charge of electronic media marketing for the company, and admitting his past attempts at editing the article, I would have taken a very different tone with him, and likely tried to help. Owen× ☎ 09:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Owen, I am new to the Wikipedia world and in no way tried to underhand you or anyone. I didn't know I had to disclose that I am with the company but if I need to I openly disclose that - it's very easy to find out as you did. And your accusation that I have tried to edit the article in the past or as a different person is untrue. I want to do this correctly and that is why I reached out not only to you but to John Galt. He removed that content on his own accord. Your accusations are very offensive. Nickienelson (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Nickie, I appreciate your disclosure, late in coming as it is. At this point, to avoid the appearance of conflict-of-interest, it is best if you limit your work on the article to just providing independent citations (e.g., WSJ articles and such) to those editing it, but refrain from editing it yourself. I'm glad to see that this tempest in a teapot stirred up renewed interest in improving the article, and like you, I hope this will result in a more balanced description of what I believe is a renowned leader in the industry. As for my accusations - we have a way to check whether User:KHCardoza used the same IP address as you are, but at this point, I'd be happy to let this question go unanswered, unless you press the issue. Also, I'm sure I don't have to say this, but please resist the temptation to solicit the help of other interested parties. We can usually spot those quickly, and often respond in less than welcoming manner to such attempts. Owen× ☎ 20:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback. I do not plan on editing the article myself. I plan to offer proposed content changes with supported citations soon via the Talk page of the Nuveen article as per the COI guidelines. Nickienelson (talk) 22:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Please note there is a discussion concerning you at WP:ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:ANI#Administrator_violating_WP:BITE regarding You have been mentioned by User:Nickienelson. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:ANI. Thank you. — Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 12:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Nuveen Investments RFC Reboot

I see that you contributed to the original RFC for this article. As a member who is working on RFC's, I have closed the first one as unresolved, and rebooted it with a more compliant RFC question. I would appreciate your feedback on this new RFC. Thank you Tiggerjay (talk) 07:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)