User talk:Sjb72/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Your message

Hi, if a school is fresh off a long term block and the only edits are vandalism, there's nothing wrong with reblocking. The IP has made 135 edits in the past year with literally every edit being vandalism. In this case, if you're going to wait for a final warning every time, you'll be playing whack-a-mole for months. Block lengths are usually increased for each new block (e.g. 24 hours, 48 hours etc.). Since this IP has been blocked for nearly a year in total, I blocked for two years. As for the block notice, I usually don't leave them for IPs because they would see the reason through the MediaWiki:Blockedtext. Spellcast (talk) 16:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Right-oh. Thanks for clearing that up for me. StephenBuxton (talk) 06:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The Tenth Stage - Deletion of page

Hello, John Von Ahlen here - I am in the band The Tenth Stage. I was recently notified that our page was deleted. and that you marked the page for "Speedy Deletion" A friend forwarded me your address and the deletion log for The Tenth Stage, which stated that the band was not "notable".

I thought the following would be enough to establish that the band is "notable":

1) We have had THREE albums released already on Amazon, Psy-Harmonics Records Australia, GUP Australia, Crash Frequency and itunes. http://www.amazon.com/Tenth-Stage/dp/B000OCZBOY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1220446465&sr=1-1 http://www.psy-harmonics.com.au/wipv3_6/page2/show.jsp?db=Entries&id=249000 http://www.apple.com/search/ipoditunes/?q=the+tenth+stage http://angelspit.net/hairsurgeon/Store/index.php?manufacturers_id=25&main_page=index http://cdbaby.com/cd/tenthstage http://gup.net.au/shop/product_info.php?cPath=21_48&products_id=3176&osCsid=5

2) We have been released on four different compilations over the last few years in USA, New Zealand and Australia. http://www.sigmedia.us/sig2008/article.asp?artikel=26

   http://www.side-line.com/news_comments.php?id=31024_0_2_0_C
   http://www.myspace.com/machinesagainsthunger

http://www.amazon.com/Funeral-Vol-1-272-Records/dp/B000VZC4VMhttp://angelspit.net/hairsurgeon/Store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=62&products_id=691 http://creepshowproductions.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=10&zenid=732f934f51e6e67d6c34c4f2b215d455

3) We have been involved with the Melbourne Fringe Festival for the last two years, which is a major arts event attracting over 300,000 visitors a year. We are about to do a show in this years program (on 1st October) http://www.melbournefringe.com.au/season/2007/show/284/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJ_bbuKMivY http://masterlesbian.com/vBTube.php?do=view&vidid=WJ_bbuKMivY

4) We had had several independent reviews of our CDs published on various websites. More new Reviews are being posted re:our 2 new albums, here are a few... http://www.freemusic.cz/clanky/5645-crash-frequency-spolecna-platforma-australske-darkwave-sceny.html http://www.chaindlk.com/reviews/?id=3434 http://www.gothtronic.com/?page=23&reviews=2814 http://blog.gukovo.info/?p=1014

5) We have been interviewed and been published in various magazines (MX Magazine 2008, Fiend Magazine 2007 - to be scanned) http://www.thetenthstage.com/images/article_MX_2008_02_22.jpg

6) Our guest bass player (Ian Burden) in an ex-member of The Human League who have sold millions of records worldwide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Burden

7) Our guest guitarist (Chris McCarter) is a current member of IKON who are known worldwide as a gothic band, and our Permanent Live Bass Player (Dino Molinaro) is also a member of the band. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikon_(band)

8) Our guest vocalist Karl Learmont (Angelspit) is member of the cyber-punk band who are known worldwide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelspit

9) We are about to be published in a biography of Duncan Brown (songwriter of one of the songs we covered on our first album) http://www.mccarraher.co.uk/mccarraherduncanbrowne.html

10) Our remix of Yazoo - Nobody's Diary (well known 80's band) has been played over 24,000 times http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InqPztFgE34

11) We were the headline act at the Electro event for Under The Blue Moon in 2007 http://www.underthebluemoon.org.au/bands.html http://www.underthebluemoon.org.au/media/tenthStageFlyer.jpg

12) We headlined the Electro event at Rock De'lectro for the Melbourne Midsumma Festival/Sydney Mardi Gras Festival in 2008 http://www.crashfrequency.com/_bands/the_tenth_stage_photos.htm http://www.myspace.com/rockdelectro

I'm sure there are many more points that could be added, such as the fact that our albums have been downloaded nearly 1/2 million times on various filesharing/torrent sites eg - http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22the+tenth+stage%22+torrent&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a

As it stands I am surprised that given the above information, the band was considered "not worthy". Given that there is so much "trivial + unconfirmed" information on wikipedia this seems inconsistent. I can see though that the people (such as yourself) did not thoroughly read the page and see the myriad of references which substantiated our notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnvonahlen (talk • contribs) 13:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. First off, can I please point out that I didn't put it up for deletion. Someone nominated it for speedy deletion, and as the administrator who assessed it, I deemed that there was notability stated, so it was not a candidate for speedy deletion. It was then put up as an article for deletion (different process, you can read about that here), and I voted "weak keep", as there was some notability stated and cited, so I felt there was borderline case for being kept. However, others felt differently, and it was deleted. You can read the AFD article here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Tenth_Stage

You may have a case for having the article put back in. I suggest that you follow the deletion review process. But before you do that, please have a read of the following articles. The first one is WP:MUSIC, which covers the accepted notability for bands to have an article on Wikipedia. If you meet any of the criteria, then make sure that is made very clear at the deletion review, quoting reputable secondary sources for references. NB: It isn't enough to point people to the band's website for information - it has to be a secondary source. The second article I would like you to read is about conflict of interest (COI). You should be aware that there might be people who will vote against restoration as it is your band's page. If you present your case well, you should be fine.

However, this does bring me to the third article I would like you to read - the policy on civility (WP:CIVIL). I would guess that you were upset at having seen the article about your band being deleted. If I were in your shoes, I guess I would be too. Possibly as a result of that, your post above comes across with a fair amount of anger and accusation. For example: I can see though that the people (such as yourself) did not thoroughly read the page and see the myriad of references which substantiated our notability. Accusing people of doing something which is not true is *not* going to help your case. You probably made a mistake with that, and I'm happy to let it pass. All I ask is that in future you check your facts before making accusations. I apologise if this comes across as patronising, but in future, might I suggest you take the approach of "Please explain why..." rather than "how dare you do that!".

Anyway, if you have any questions, please feel free to ask. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Apologies - thanks for letting me know.

AngelChick10 (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem StephenBuxton (talk) 23:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The Tenth Stage

Dear Stephen,

Thanks for your reply. Yes, I was a little miffed, but I would hardly call it having a "fair amount of anger and accusation". That's just an assumption you are making. If I was angry I would have used an exclamation mark at the very least.

Regardless though, I have lost interest in wikipedia. One of our fans created the page, and I added some information over the last few years when I had the time. As it stands, if a band that has been around for over 3 years, has had 3 albums released, has been on National TV and print media, has played internationally is not deemed noteworthy then I suggest that wikipedia re-assess their criteria.

True, we haven't had a number one hit - and never will have as our music is a niche - market. But Wikipedia seems to care less about cultural relevance, and more about moderators that don't research the actual pages.

I now understand that you did not cite for speedy deletion, so I apologise for my earlier remark.

All the very best to you. Regards, John.

PS - The Tenth Stage are currently recording their fourth album in both Melbourne and London, but you won't read about it on wikipedia ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.4.223.2 (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Your apology accepted, and mine given in return for reading too much into your comments. Good luck with your recording. StephenBuxton (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Crommorc

Hehe, no problem! It was really by chance I caught what he was doing, as I had watch-listed one of the pages he vandalized. Happy to help! Have a great day, Mastrchf (^t/_c) 14:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I am new to this

I am trying to add content that is valuable, but I am not 100% sure how to format things. I read the instructions, but I do not know how to upload a picture on the left hand side and also the references I posted somehow seemed to get corrupted. Also, the article I posted (19Nordehydroepiandrosterone) should have an alternative name 19NorDHEA. How do I do the redirect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebuddha5 (talk • contribs) 11:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I've created the redirect page for you. Howwever, as I am sure you'll want to know how to do it in the future, here's how. First, create the page. the only line you need in the article is this:

#REDIRECT [[article name]]

Make a note in the edit summary the reason for the redirect, and then save the page. For further information about redirecting, have a read of this article about redirects.

I'm afraid I'm not very good with image loading, nor with references. If you have a look at WP:IMAGE and WP:UPIMAGE, these should help you about uploading it - please make sure that it is appropriatly tagged or it will end up being deleted. For referencing, please read WP:CITE. If that doesn't help, then I would recommend going to the Help Desk, and asking there. I'm sorry I couldn't help you more with those; if you have any further questions, I will try and help you as best I can. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi both... for article-formatting purposes, including references, you may find it helpful to use my article template. Cheers --S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

PS--by the way, Ebuddha5--if you're going to go around creating the kind of articles you have done--short, well-referenced articles on scholarly topics--then for goodness' sake don't sweat the formatting. You can write as many more articles like that as you want, and I'll very happily follow you around doing the formatting.  :)--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information! StephenBuxton (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

{{helpme}}

I saw your comment on the talk page. I do not think there are any directions for new helpers. Most helpers hang out on irc. If someone places the {{helpme}} tag on their talk page it notifies the irc group. To disable the tag you change it to {{tnull|helpme}}. For the most part the first one to help changes the tag so that the bot that notifies the IRC group does not keep notifying every minute or so. If it is a confusing question or an issue that requires more people some editors leave the tag up while they try to resolve the question. Come over to the IRC page. There are great people there that will help you get started (usually... some times it is dead in there). Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! StephenBuxton (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Template Substitution

Hi there. When you add a welcome template to a user’s page please remember to substitute it. If wish to reply to this message please use my talk page and if you need help feel free to talk to me there or you may find Wikipedia:SUB helpful. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 16:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Did I forget to do that? Oh, nuts. Normally I do - guess I wasn't paying attention to what I copied and pasted. Cheers for the heads up! StephenBuxton (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem and thank for the knock knock joke :) ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 17:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Luba Shumeyko

A tag has been placed on Luba Shumeyko, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw that the article had originally been deleted, so I made a redirect to her husband's article. It looks like some people since tried to recreate the original article. I agree that there is not enough material in the article to warrant an article, but I still feel a redirect is necessary. I have restored the redirect version of the page. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

On Brian Mulroney. I have listed an IP check through CU to see if there is any underlying so that can be blocked for a period of time if its the same person or group of people. The accounts go back to the end of June. Cheers 211.30.109.24 (talk) 12:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem StephenBuxton (talk) 12:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

personal attacks

I was deleting the personal attacks that were posted by other people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gty450 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of what your motives were, you were making personal attacks. Edit summaries like If you people keep putting your crap back up after it gets deleted then this whole page should be deleted is a personal attack, no matter how much you try and justify it. You had been reported to the Admin vandalism page as a vandal; I checked your edits, and they did not appear to be vandalism. The issue was an edit war that was getting out of hand. I warned you against making personal attacks, and had the vandalism report removed. However, edit warring and personal attacks is still a blockable offence. So rather than doing that, please consider dspute resolution. StephenBuxton (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Please Full Protect and not Semi Protect IIPM page

Hi, Kindly Full Protect the IIPM page. Semi-protect has been done before and results in the same edit war. Kindly see past history of the page. I have also left a request on the standard protection template. Warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry about the delay in responding - only just got your message. I had a look at the page history, and it looks like my semi-protection of the page was the last edits that had taken place. As I was responding to vandalism (i.e. deletions of massive chunks of text) by new users, rather than responding to an edit war, I am reluctant to increase the level of protection unnecessarily. I had a look at your request for page protection, and it appears that the admin there are of the same opinion.

Should the edit war start up again, please feel free to re-report it again WP:RFPP. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Surely. Thanks for the response. Warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 07:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Request to Full Protect......IIPM Page

Dear Administrator,

Please full protect IIPM page as....it seems....semi protection won't help.....SOCK PUPPETS Started striking again....

Regards RAWAT2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rawat2008 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

FUll Protection on IIPM Page.....on urgent basis...

Dear Administrators,

Kindly Full protect as vandlism still on.....SOCK puppets tampering the IIPM Page again and again...

Regards RAWAT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rawat2008 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. First off, the vandal newsexpress has been blocked indefinitely for vandalism, so full page protection does not appear to be required. If the edit war does resume, by all means let me know. However - I am only on once or twice a day, so asking me direct will not resolve the issue particularly quickly. You need to request page protection at Request For Page Protection page; several admins monitor that page, so someone will respond far quicker than dropping me a line here and hoping I see it. If you have any further questions, comments or concerns, please don't hesitate to aak. StephenBuxton (talk) 12:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

User:134.240.241.2

Can I presume that your recent comment for 134.240.241.2 has overlooked the fact that he was just released from two blocks for continual vandalism and immediately vandalized another article. He also removes all warnings of vandalism so that anyone advising him does not immediately know how many sites he has wrecked. I and a few other people have been trying to keep on top of this problem, but he really needs to be shut down for an even longer period. Thanks for your consideration, Stepp-Wulf (talk) 03:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC).

No, I didn't overlook that at all. There are a few things that need to be addressed. First of all, users have the right to put anything they like, and remove what they like from their talk page. The only exceptions are personal attacks, libellous or copyrighted material, removing block notices when they are blocked, or removing WHOIS tags at any time. If they remove a warning, it is taken to be that they have read the warning. When I warn a user, I will check to see if they have been warned before (and removed it) and warn accordingly. Unfortunately, not everyone does that.

Secondly, when the report was raised they had only carried out one item of vandalism [1] for which they received a level 2 warning (normal for post blocks). The deletions on their talk page does not count as vandalism. If you look on their talk page history, you will see two admins (myself and J Delanoy) reverting other people's reversions stating that the user can delete their warnings. When I reverted all the warnings, I re-inserted the warning that they would not have seen at that point.

A level 2 warning is insufficient to warrant blockings. Also, the time the report was filed at AIV, it was about 6 hours after the vandalism had taken place, and there had been no further activity from this user at that point. The report was therefore stale, even before it was put up.

For all those reasons listed above, I decided not to block the user. Since then, they have done a little bit more vandalism, and I have warned them accordingly with a level 3. Should they vandalise again (and deleting that warning is not vandalism) then feel free to re-report them at AIV.

Hope that answers your question. StephenBuxton (talk) 10:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Se1ma1ntic1s233

Would you be able to indef this guy instead of a 3 hour block? Seems to be a sock of the other semantics account, with the same vandalism spree.

It was a slip of the mouse - he is now indefinitely blocked StephenBuxton (talk) 10:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Saw it five seconds after hitting "save page", my apologies. Ironholds (talk) 10:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries - I could easily have missed my mistake, and the vandal would have been back by now. Better safe than sorry! StephenBuxton (talk) 12:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The Indian Institute of Planning and Management

Hey Steph, is The Indian Institute of Planning and Management locked for new users? THere's no kinda sign on top that sez that.Carlisle Rodham (talk) 10:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone had removed it this morning; I've reinserted it, thanks for letting me know. BTW, Steph is the usual abbreviation for girls name Stephanie (at least in the UK it is). Thought you ought to know. StephenBuxton (talk) 12:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Lol, my bad! :) Sorry for that Stephen! :) Have a nice day Carlisle Rodham (talk) 09:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Impersonators

You should probably be aware of this, WP:ANI#User impersonating an administrator (URGENT)--Jac16888 (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

What are you doing... going around all the place vandalizing all sort of articles... man I don't know about this. LOL hafta love the impersonators ;-)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, things were a bit quiet on this page, so I thought I would stir up a bit of trouble by creating a few sock puppets. I will never be defeated! Bwahahahahahah! (Waddayamean this is a blockable offence?) Actually, I do find it rather flattering and encouraging - if I'm pissing off a vandal enough to get him to impersonate me, it must mean that I am doing somthing right. StephenBuxton (talk) 10:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Wanted to do this straight away but took me a while to find a decent image:

		The "You've got impersonators" Barnstar
		Awarded for being so good at what you do that vandals pretend to be you--Jac16888 (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Wayhay! My first Barnstar!!! Thanks! StephenBuxton (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Images

Hi Stephen, thanks for the welcome. Any chance you can help meput an image of Navigrid on the Navigrid page? Not sure how to do it.

Thanks, Laurence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.32.38 (talk) 08:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to reply on your talk page, as I know you don't log on to Wikipedia very often, and this will probably be archived in a couple of weeks. StephenBuxton (talk) 10:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

For future reference...

Just FYI, per this, Runtshit socks can be blocked on sight - no need to go through the usual warning steps. Once you've seen a few, they're pretty easy to spot from the diffs ;) Best regards, EyeSerene^talk 12:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for that. Still only a relatively newbie admin, with little experience in sockpuppets, so I generally play it safe and go by the clearly defined process. I'd much rather be cautious and have a bit more cleaning up to do, than go at it both barrels and lose my mop! StephenBuxton (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh, got your message. Nothing wrong with the cautious approach - I didn't even touch the tools for a couple of weeks after my RfA! I really like that Kipling adaptation by the way, you've nailed it ;) All the best, EyeSerene^talk 00:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! StephenBuxton (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh

Looks like you have a fan. :) Keep up the good work, Stephen - it's obviously pissing all the bad-faith contributors off. Master&Expert (Talk) 08:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

*takes a bow* StephenBuxton (talk) 07:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Just Testing

Just a test to find out what the IP address is here.... (the real User:StephenBuxton!) 195.33.114.129 (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

...and now I know (grin) StephenBuxton (talk) 12:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Stephen - thank muchly for your heads up on this one and help. I don't think I need the full trout but a small Kipper might not go amiss :) Pedro :  Chat  16:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it - I don't think this is the time or the plaice for that sort of action. Although I will admit that chasing up some action is giving me a bad haddock! StephenBuxton (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle image

I just found this screenshot that allows you to see what I see just before turning in to WP:AIV.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Testing my new signature

Test. '''[[User:StephenBuxton|Stephen!]]''' ''[[User talk:StephenBuxton|^{<small>Coming!</small>}</b>]] (talk) 13:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

and again Stephen! ^Coming! 13:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

and again.... Stephen! ^Coming! 16:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

surely this time... Stephen! ^Coming! 16:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sigs

Not a problem as far as I'm concerned. I'm not as active as I used to be so my signature is infrequently stamped, but now at least if I do something stupid I can pretend it was you ;) Though as an ex-pat in Australia for 9 years, I'm afraid I've missed out on the Adam and Joe Show! --Stephen 22:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Stephen! ^Coming... 23:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

User:143.252.80.100

Hi,

Diff. Diff. {{uw-longterm}}. Diff. If {{uw-longterm}} doesn't actually carry any weight on AIV, it should be deleted. In the meantime, another diff since the last AIV report. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The template does hold weight. The reason I didn't block initially was because the warning on the 4th December was a standard Level 4im warning, and after 2 weeks was stale. This edit happened at 11.59, and your warning came at 12.05. When you reported the IP address to AIV there had been no further occurences of vandalism, so my comment of no edits since final warning; re-report when they continue (or words to that effect) was valid. I gave it a little while and then removed the report, having checked first that there had been no further occurences.

What you should have done was to re-report the user when he/she started up again, as per the standard instruction in such matters. I have no problem with you contacting me direct; but I am one person and not always online - many admins monitor the AIV page and would be able to deal with the vandal(s) quickly. Anyway, I have blocked the IP address for 48 hours; it has been over a year since the last block, so 48 hours seems reasonable.

I hope that has answered your question? If not, please feel free to ask away! Stephen! ^Coming... 17:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Although having said all that, I realised that I did miss the warning that you placed on their talk page last month; and you even mentioned it in the report to AIV. D'oh! Although in my (albeit poor) defence, when I saw that you placed a warning, and then immediately reported them, I concentrated more on the time stamps of the edits than on earlier warnings. Ah well, I live and learn. Stephen! ^Coming... 17:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, no worries. Thanks for the explanation. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply.

Thank you for the information. The edits are very disruptive and very persistent. I also do not necessarily use the template as I feel other messages are more direct as opposed to something mostly everyone gets and they possibly show why they were reverted as opposed to "you were wrong but continue to edit". But once again, thank you for the info. --HELLØ ŦHERE 13:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello once again. I was wondering if you could possibly intervene. I do not want to be uncivil, but User:NightHunter35 continues to add false information and change sourced information. I have obviously warned this user numerous times and I was wondering if you could possibly step in. As I said, I don't want to be "uncivil" but it seems to be pushing my buttons extra hard. Lol. Take care. --HELLØ ŦHERE 21:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It really does look more of a content dispute than out and out vandalism. I have fully protected the article (there was also some vandalism, so that should help prevent more) and dropped a note on the user's talk page. Stephen! ^Coming... 08:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009

Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 45	24 November 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: 200th issue
ArbCom elections: Candidate profiles	News and notes: Fundraiser, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Dispatches: Featured article writers — the inside view
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 46	1 December 2008	About the Signpost

ArbCom elections: Elections open	Wikipedia in the news
WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 5, Issue 1	3 January 2009	About the Signpost

From the editor: Getting back on track
ArbCom elections: 10 arbitrators appointed	Virgin Killer page blocked, unblocked in UK
Editing statistics show decline in participation	Wikipedia drug coverage compared to Medscape, found wanting
News and notes: Fundraising success and other developments	Dispatches: Featured list writers
Wikipedia in the news	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Ice Hockey
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 2	10 January 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes:Flagged Revisions and permissions proposals, hoax, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Dispatches: December themed Main Page	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 20:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ihm pusa

There was indeed some obvious POV language in the lead, but I don't think it deserved a G11 speedy for it. G11 is only for promotional language that requires extensive editing and this was easily reworded. In addition, the first line of the history section makes a clear claim of notability. I believe this should be restored so the editor gets the chance to add references. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair comment. I've restored the page, and removed the peacock description to give it a head start. Stephen! ^Coming... 12:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of CSD G4

I thank you for letting me know of that, I wasn't aware of that rule. I'm still not quite sure I understand the logic of the rule though. If an article is deleted via speedy deletion, then what's stopping someone from simply creating the article again? --MrShamrock (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 4	24 January 2009	About the Signpost

Jimbo requests that developers turn on Flagged Revisions	Report on accessing Wikipedia via mobile devices
News and notes: New chapters, new jobs, new knight and more	Wikipedia in the news: Britannica, Kennedy, Byrd not dead yet
Dispatches: Reviewing featured picture candidates	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Delivered at 05:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 6	8 February 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes: Elections, licensing update, and more	Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's future, WikiDashboard, and "wiki-snobs"
Dispatches: April Fools 2009 mainpage	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Music
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

IPs 216.211.59.97 and 216.26.217.204

You recently blocked the formed IP (thanks!) and identical vandalism is now being carried out from the latter IP [2]. Babakathy (talk) 15:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009

From the editor — A new leaf

Commons Picture of the Year
Picture of the Year 2008 begins voting

News and notes
Flagged Revisions, historical image discovery, and more

In the news
Political tiff, error repeated in press, predictions of doom

Dispatches
How busy was 2008?

WikiProject report
WikiProject Gaelic games

Discussion report
Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations

Features and admins
Approved this week

Technology report
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Arbitration report
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist.
If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 07:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

• Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
• An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
• News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
• Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
• Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
• Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

• Books extension enabled
• News and notes: Stewards, Wikimania bids, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's role in journalism, Smarter Wikipedia, Skittles
• Dispatches: WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Norse History and Culture
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Children's Crusade

Thanks for protecting, do you think you could do a range block on those various IPs being used by the anon there? Cheers Spitfire^Tally-ho! 12:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding WP:AIV, no problem, hopefully another adimn will look into it shortly, again, thanks for the page protection, cheers Spitfire^Tally-ho! 12:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

That's ok. I'd rather not do something like range blocking without a bit more understanding about how IP addresses work. Stephen! ^Coming... 12:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Re User:Fun233X

Thanks for your note. The original Fun2334 account was presumably blocked for this; looking at their other edits I agree that an indef seems harsh, though I get the impression there were content problems with some of the other stuff they'd been adding. For Fun2335, we've clearly got a blocked editor using an alternative account to evade their block, so some sort of sanction is in order. I did look at the contribs, and while there's no obvious vandalism I got one of those "something odd going on" feelings... I realise that's probably not the best justification for a block(!), but some sourced content was being removed and replaced with unsourced content (mainly in relation to which cartoon character is most popular), and in at least one case an edit was a copy/paste copyvio (this from here). I'm reasonably comfortable with my block, but if you want to tweak it then please feel free - I'd never consider a good-faith amendment as wheel-warring ;) All the best, EyeSerene^talk 14:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I only sampled User:Fun2334's contributions, so I missed that blatant vandalism. As it is too much of a coincidence for two people to have chosen such similar usernames, I will go along with your "something odd going on" feeling, and I will leave the block in place. Thanks for looking into it. Stephen! ^Coming... 16:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, no problem. To be honest I'm grateful for your input; a second pair of eyes is always welcome with borderline cases like this. See you around ;) EyeSerene^talk 17:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

• News and notes: Commons, conferences, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Politics, more politics, and more
• Dispatches: 100 Featured sounds milestone
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Christianity
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 00:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009

Unsubscribe · Single-page · Full edition »

  — 16 March 2009

• News and notes: License update, Commons cartoons, films milestone, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Manufactured scandal, Wikipedia assignments, and more
• Dispatches: New FAC and FAR appointments
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 00:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009

• From the editor: Reviewing books for the Signpost
• Special report: Abuse Filter is enabled
• News and notes: Flaggedrevs, copyright project, fundraising reports, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Alternatives, IWF threats, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Magic Template

Stephen, as you were one of the principles behind the discussion leading to the creation of the Magic Template, I wanted to let you know that it is currently up for deletion.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for the heads-up. Looks like the TfD has been withdrawn, but I have commented on the project page. BTW - why the name change? Stephen! ^Coming... 17:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Elevator levitation

Hi, I had originally disagreed with your deletion of material from this article so I explained on the talkpage and then reverted. (I hope it didn't sound like I was "talking down" explaining policy, I'm just used to dealing with editors whose enthusiam for a topic often exceeds their understanding of how things are supposed to work.) However, I spent some time reviewing the article and related pages as well as looking for usable refs online and now I have different concerns. I'd like to discuss (on the article's talkpage) the possibility of merging it back into Balducci levitation since there doesn't seem to be enough referenced material to justify a seperate entry. Whether you agree or disagree with the proposition I hope you'll join the discussion, and maybe mention it at the Magic Project to bring more attention to it. Thanks for your time, Doc Tropics 20:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay, but I've joined in the debate now. Stephen! ^Coming... 10:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009

• From the editor: Follow the Signpost with RSS and Twitter
• Special report: Community weighs license update
• News and notes: End of Encarta, flagged revisions poll, new image donation, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Censorship, social media in schools, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of as long as I feel like it in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism board, for trying to have a laugh, and..... because I can. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Pedro :  Chat  12:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Pedro :  Chat  20:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009

• Special report: Interactive OpenStreetMap features in development
• News and notes: Statistics, Wikipedia research and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikia Search abandoned, university plagiarism, and more
• Dispatches: New FAC and FAR nomination process
• WikiProject report: WikiProject China
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

• License update: Licensing vote begins
• News and notes: WMF petitions Obama, longer AFDs, UK meeting, and more
• Dispatches: Let's get serious about plagiarism
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Color
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

• Book reviews: Reviews of Lazy Virtues: Teaching Writing in the Age of Wikipedia
• News and notes: Usability study, Wiki Loves Art, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia Art dispute, and brief headlines
• WikiProject report: Interview on WikiProject Final Fantasy
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The article named Sk8 mafia

I was writing this article for a school project. I was told to write it about a problem that my city was haveing. I was not finished digging into this violent skateboarding teams past and present. I need the world to know that even small towns has children who live and follow things they see on t.v. Scottiskitzo (talk) 09:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that an article on Wikipedia needs to be notable and contain no original research. Might I suggest you have a read of Your First Article, an essay that should help put you on the right track. Stephen! ^Coming... 09:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Omniology

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Omniology, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

I marked this for speedy deletion as spam - there are 5000 google hits for "omniology" and this page is trying to make it more well known in my opinion.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Smartse (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

As a side I seem to remember reading somewhere about deletions and it said that if pages were obviously candidates for deletion they should be deleted even if the speedy reason is invalid. Why didn't this apply to omniology? Smartse (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for not replying sooner; I was busy all weekend, and I've only just seen your post. I had a look through the CSD categories at the time, and could not see anything that leapt out at me as suitable CSD criteria. It was borderline non-notable, but I always take the attitude of "if it is borderline, give it a chance". The closest I could find is WP:NEO. There, it states PROD/AFD.

My turn for an aside now, if you'll permit me? (grin) Too many editors mark up articles as G1 - (i.e. nonsense and meaningless) where the article is actually coherant. Likewise, articles are marked up as non-notable, where a small amount of notability has been included. The CSD rules are very clear in both those cases: they are not candidates for speedy deletion, and should be marked up as PROD/AFD. Unfortunately, a lot of administrators will assume that the PROD/AFD would result in a deletion, and not give the article a chance. They are probably right in the vast majority of cases, but I still stand by my stance of not pre-empting PROD/AFD. Stephen! ^Coming... 09:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009

• News and notes: Wikimania 2010, usability project, link rot, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Quote hoax replicated in traditional media, and more
• Dispatches: WikiProject Birds reaches an FA milestone
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Michael Jackson
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009

• From the editor: Writers needed
• Special report: WikiChemists and Chemical Abstracts announce collaboration
• Special report: Embassies sponsor article-writing contests in three languages
• News and notes: Wiki Loves Arts winners, Wikimania Conference Japan, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Arbitrator blogs, French government edits, brief headlines
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Opera
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 13:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

• License update: Licensing vote results announced, resolution passed
• News and notes: New board member, flagged revisions, Eurovision interviews
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia: threat or menace?
• WikiProject report: WikiProject LGBT studies
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Piréz people

Hi, Steven, I'd like you to have a read through of Piréz people again.

Sentences such as the follow jumped out at me:

• 'The Piréz people are the people of the fictitious Piréz nation.' (my emphasis)
• '...the fact that "Piréz" people are fictious.'
• '... some phantom organisation formed...'

No NPOV version exists in the history so I marked it for speedy under criteria 10. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

My bad. I see now that it's a hoax. I'll rewrite it to make that clearer. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

no worries; just remember that hoax articles are not CSD candidates and should be removed using PROD/AFD. Cheers, Stephen! ^Coming... 12:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I mean it's a "real" hoax. I've rewritten it to make more sense. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

A real hoax? Now that's an oxymoron! (grin) Stephen! ^Coming... 12:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Insufficient warnings.

Re [3], the templates saying "will" can't be used correctly because the vandals aren't always blocked, and they're not always blocked because the "will"s wasn't already used. Catch-22. -- Jeandré, 2009-05-29t19:12z

(Sorry about the delay in replying; not been on for a couple of days) Not really catch 22. True, not all vandals are blocked, but I would say most are. However, the rules for blocking are quite clear - blocks only to be administered after a level 3 warning (at the earliest) except in severe cases. The particular user was a borderline case, so I decided to err on the side of caution and issue a 4im warning (instead of the block) so he was sufficiently warned. I then kept an eye on the user for quite a while afterwards to see whether or not there were any more cases of vandalism. Stephen! ^Coming... 15:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

• From the editor: Browsing the archives
• Book review: Review of The Future of the Internet
• Scientology: End of Scientology arbitration brings blocks, media coverage
• News and notes: Picture of the Year, Wikipedia's first logo, Board elections, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Tamil Wikipedia, Internet Watch Foundation, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 23:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hatnote for WP:OTHER

By the way, thanks for the explanation of your hatnote at Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. I didn't realize you were connecting {{otheruses}} with WP:OTHER. Makes sense now. Cheers!  :) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 12:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

• Book review :Review of Cyberchiefs: Autonomy and Authority in Online Tribes
• News and notes: License update, Google Translate, GLAM conference, Paid editing
• Wikipedia in the news: In the Google News, London Review of Books, and more
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Chemistry
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

• Special report:Study of vandalism survival times
• News and notes: Wikizine, video editing, milestones
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia impacts town's reputation, assorted blogging
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

• News and notes: Commons grant, license change, new chapters, usability and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia and kidnapping, new comedy series
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Food and Drink
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you & clarifiation

Thank you for your intervention a few minutes ago on Talk:Xinjiang. I apparently used the wrong template for warning the user. In the future, should I follow the order of postings you used, *then* notify the admin's... or should I leave it wholesale to one of you guys? Thank you! Seb az86556 (talk) 09:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, an ip-user from the same geographical location started the same spiel again. Can we get page-protection? Thank you so much! Seb az86556 (talk) 09:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, just got back to online; I'll check out what's going on. As for warnings, it makes life a lot easier for admins if the correct warnings are used. If you look at WP:MLT there is a whole host of useful templated warnings. I'll protect the page if it needs it, but you might wish to consider making requests like that at WP:RFPP, as several admins check out there, rather than on a single admin's talk page, as it might not get noticed immediately (which is waht has happened here). Stephen! ^Coming... 11:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I missed your earlier message, Seb, I was sleeping...but I agree with StephenBuxton's advice. Also, as for page protection, in this case it's probably better just to deal with the individual user by reporting him at AN3, the administrator's noticeboard for edit warring; in a case this clear, he can be blocked very quickly (and if no one happens to be around, you can also try leaving messages with individual admins you know who have worked on that article and would be able to review the report quickly). Then, if the user starts editing from an IP as soon as his block is up, it's generally very easy to tell who it is and get the IP blocked right away for abusing multiple accounts/block evasion. Only if the IP editing becomes more than we can handle (for example, if the user is editing from a dynamic IP and you would have to keep blocking them over and over again) does it become necessary to try page protection. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Luke Heron page

Hi, I am interested in developing a series of pages detailing information on young note-worthy entrepreneurs and venture capital players involved in pioneering new, break-through areas of investments, such as alternatives (packaging up as funds such as stamp funds, book illustration funds, baseball card funds etc etc) in addition to green and eco-investments, investors and leaders etc. My first contribution is a chap called Luke Heron, who has been pioneering both alternatives and green and eco (although I am yet to go into the latter as he is noteworthy on the basis of alternatives, not green) I uploaded my first effort having read through the previous, deleted Luke Heron article and am flummoxed by the continual speedy deletion requests by the same chap. As I want to add profiles on other note-worthy venture capital pioneers (they might not neccessarily be billionaires, they just need to be molding the venture capital arena in some way, shape or form), I fear I might end up facing the same problem. I have read through my first effort (which is currently just a paragraph) and am stunned that the same user continuously wants to delete it. He claims to have great experience in the area and has created his own club (which I now find myself joining to appease the situation somehow), but his claims are all a little odd. As you rebuffed his previous attempt for speedy deletion (I note he was also responsible for the previous Luke Heron article's deletion), I was hoping for your advice and input.

This is such an interesting area where Wiki can add real value about the principle players in what are junior venture capital markets (early stage investments in alternatives is fascinating)- I don't want to continually face the same uphill battle with all future entries, which will be equally as well backed up by reliable and independent sources. His claims are that the article has no reliable independent secondary sources. My 4 references (for just one paragraph) are all independent as far as I can tell. The Financial Times, a stock market listing document, Technical Trader Magazine, Success Magazine. He claims that the article is written like an advertisment? I'm not sure how - it is not selling anything. Please read through and advise, cause I just don't get that arguement. I have added a couple of links to Luke Heron to beef up his relevance in the space (see EH SHepard and Conrad Windham - another investor that whilst not a billionaire has made significant achievements having been the youngest quoted company director in UK corporate history...Heron is widely regarded as his mentor)

The article will be built up by other people I am sure. There must be 20,000 bulletin board threads on financial websites about him and his companies and investments. But to have it deleted when it meets all posting guidelines is, I hope, not an indication of things to come. Your help and advice would be greatly appreciated. (MyraSendak (talk) 01:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC))

Hi! Just seen this, and I'll try and address a few points (in a bit of a rush as I only have a short morning break) of advice, and I'll pad it out when I get a bit more time. First of all, if you haven't already done so, have a read of the notability guidelines and writing your first article. This will address many of the pitfalls that editors find when creating a new article. I would thoroughly recommend writing your articles in your user area and then moving it across when you think it is ready. If you can get people with similar interests in these articles involved, it will almost certainly avoid being deleted.

As for the editor who keeps nominating the article for deletion, have a chat with him and find out his concerns. I suspect a lot of them can be avoided if you remove some of the "flowery" words. Take for example the opening sentence: "Luke Nicholas Heron (born September 20, 1978) is a well-known finance professional...". "Well-known" is what is called on Wikipedia a peacock word. Have a read of WP:PEACOCK; if you can address that issue straight away, then you will go a long way to preventing it being deleted. It's phrasing like that (I suspect) that is making it read like an advert. However, do have a chat with the other editor, and see if you can address all his concerns. A note of caution: it is very easy to feel protective about an article you have created, and helpful criticism can so easily be mistaken for something else. I doubt that will eb a problem with you, as you are already taking the right steps to making a good article; asking for help. If your article isn't suitable for Wikipedia, then it will be deleted, and that is something that you will have to accept. But if it has the potential to be included, then listening to people's advice (particularly from the article's critics) will be of huge benefit.

Gotta dash! Stephen! ^Coming... 09:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so, so much for your input. I feel passionately about the area of junior venture capital. There are so many interesting areas of new investment - the idea of turning antiques or stamps or book illustration art into a fund is I think noteworthy and deserving of inclusion. Another investor in the UK who is pioneering green and eco investments (I know there are already dozens of green funds) and Luke Heron is one of them, but he is not noteworthy enough to deserve inclusion on that basis. I have now massively reduced the length of the article, back to its bear bones (ie almost one line) - there are a couple of links to Luke Heron (admittedly that I have created in conjunction with adding the piece about Luke Heron, but seemed irrelevant to go into the specific page about him - see EH Shepard and Conrad Windham). I think the main problem is catagorising him (and the others I want to add) as they are unique individuals operating in the investment arena pioneering new things. I appear to be stepping on the toes of seasoned venture capital experts so perhaps I shouldn't have listed it as a venture capital person. Anyway, I would appreciate any thoughts or comments in the debate about the deletion. Your help thus far has been very very helpful. Thank you once again.(MyraSendak (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC))

No worries; always glad to help an editor-in-need. First of all, it is a good start to remove all but the bare bones, but you do run the risk that people will think it insufficient material to allow inclusion. What you need to do is find some significant 3rd party sources to establish notability. It is fine to reference things on his website or that he has written/created, but that in itself cannot be used to define his notability. So have a look in trade journals, news websites, etc for useful sources. If you can get those added, then you stand a good chance of having it kept.

As the article has been reduced a lot, I will add a comment to the AFD to state that you are attempting to rewrite it with notability guidelines in mind. AFDs are normally closed after 5 days, so you will have until then to make the changes. If it does get deleted, if you like, I can help you set up a page within your area that you can get people to help write it. However, you might want to ask other editors to help expand on this article before the AFD closes. Just a note of caution here... whilst it is acceptable to ask people to come and help expand an article (in fact, this activity is positively encouraged!) it is not acceptable, no matter HOW tempting it is, to ask people to come and vote to save an article in an ADF (see WP:CANVAS). I don't think for one minute you would, but it would be remiss of me not to remind you.

I should point out that whilst I can offer general advice on articles, I am not an article writer; I tend to get mental blocks about such things! So I really would encourage you to talk to other editors to help you out. I will do what I can to help you, but I think you would benefit from talking to other editors for help. I've dropped a note on Urbanrenewal's talk page to ask him to give you advice, but he is busy in real life, so he might not be able to help a huge amount. If you go to the New contributors' help page, they might be able to help. Stephen! ^Coming... 15:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)