User talk:Jonny-mt/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Hawaiʻi WikiProject Newsletter - Issue I - April 2008

Aloha. The April 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. WikiProject Hawaiʻi 15:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD from 3/23 ready for closure

See here. Vast majority of keep votes were made by sockpuppets. I struck them, leaving only the comments of the sockpuppeteer. Seems like a clear Delete to me. Enigma ^message 02:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up; I've closed the debate as delete. Out of sheer curiousity, is there any particular reason why you brought this to me personally? If I'm on some list somewhere of admins willing to close contentious AfDs, I'd like to know now :P --jonny-mt 05:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it was so contentious now that the sockpuppets were blocked. Pretty open-and-shut, except for one guy deciding to vote 5 times or whatever. I came to you because once the issue at WP:SSP was resolved, I figured it should be closed. I looked at the AfDs around the same time, and you had been closing them. It was the logical step for me. Thanks for giving it the attention it deserved. Enigma ^message 05:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Grandfather paradox RFP

Jonny, we're up to five incidents now. I don't want to jump the gun, so I'm wondering at what point I should make another request. Please let me know. Thanks. f(x)=ax²+bx+c 05:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That'll do it right there; I've semi-protected the page for 31 hours to account for any stragglers. As a rule of thumb, protection is a last resort reserved for when vandalism or other disruption hinders the natural development of the article--I held off on denying the protection for a while to see if it was going to be a problem, but it looks like I was the one jumping the gun instead. Thanks for the heads-up :) --jonny-mt 06:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for taking care of it :) f(x)=ax²+bx+c 06:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Having a bit of trouble with Segagman (talk) vandalizing Grandfather paradox. Thought I'd give you a heads-up on that, since I'm going to bed now and won't be staying up to revert further edits. --TerrorBite (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Relisting AFDs

Hello - when you relist AFDs, could you please make sure to remove them from their original page and paste them on today's page? Thanks, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Apologies - you've been doing so. I confused you with someone else. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering; I've asked more a few people to do the same thing myself :P Regardless, I appreciate the reminder! --jonny-mt 05:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Lava Studios

Double sorry, didn't pick up on your decline, and also failed to give a reason. I deleted because

1. very short article without substantive content
2. no assertion of notability (no refs, no link to Kirkpatrick - name meant nothing to me)
3. not sure why being owned by someone notable makes it notable - on that basis you could have an article about his dog or car
4. At best, if this article exists at all, it should just be as a redirect to Kirkpatrick
5. for what it's worth, I would have speedied the other two on sight as nn bios, even if the second one had not been a hoax.

Jimfbleak (talk) 12:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

whoops!

sorry about this. Twinkle hiccuped, or something. It was supposed to land at ARV, where it eventually did, since the RFCU was done. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, no worries. I've got most of those pages watchlisted as a matter of course, so I picked up that you had reverted the majority and simply removed an extra one that you missed. Thanks for the help getting the latest sock! --jonny-mt 04:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for feeding the socks to the dryer monster. Ours is especially hungry today having eaten three over night. I don't think these are socks anyone would miss, Have a good day! TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 11:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for blocking the user. But I do think that it still would be pertinant to protect my user page and talk page. Otherwise they may come back with socks, which would be undisireable. Doctor Will Thompson (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem; I blocked him with autoblock enabled, though, which means that it something hasn't happened yet, it's not particularly likely to. If something does flare up, feel free to post a request to WP:RFPP, note that you suspect socks of the blocked user (tell them to look at the deleted history on your user page for confirmation), and even post a link to this discussion if you'd like and I'm sure it will get taken care of. --jonny-mt 09:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay I will do that, if it does flare up again. Did you take a look at User:James Bushnell45's user page? He was an admin, any idea who is trying to stir up trouble in Wikipedia? Doctor Will Thompson (talk) 09:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Old disputes

Given that the section of the WP Hawaiʻi talk page dedicated to disputes was last updated in August 2007, I think the first thing to do it take a look at the issues with fresh eyes.

With regard to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Hawaii#Current_disputes, I'm taking you up on that offer, Jonny. :) No hurry on this, but it would be nice to see a re-evaluation of the status of dispute tags on the following eight articles:

1. Talk:Apology Resolution#Dispute
2. Talk:Evan Dobelle#Dispute
3. Talk:Hawaii#Dispute
4. Talk:Kingdom of Hawaii/Archive 1#Dispute
5. Talk:Legal status of Hawaii#Dispute
6. Talk:Liliuokalani/Archive 1#Dispute
7. Talk:Morgan Report#Dispute
8. Talk:Overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy#Dispute

Although it isn't listed, I've also started a rewrite of Hawaiian sovereignty movement at Talk:Hawaiian sovereignty movement/Temp due to the ongoing dispute on that page. It should probably be added to the list. Any help you can offer is appreciated. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 13:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh noes, disputes! Actually, that sounds like a great idea--I wasn't around when most of these disputes were happening, so I'd be glad to give them a look over the next month or so and see if we can't figure something out. Don't think I'll be able to solve them single-handedly or anything, but I'll do what I can :) --jonny-mt 09:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Any chance you could give the articles a quick reassessment for dispute tags, by let's say, April 15 or around then? I would like to have a status report in May's newsletter. I've noticed that some of the dispute sections on talk linked above have been moved to the archives. Basically, I'm just asking for you to take a look at the gratuitous use of dispute tags, and if you are unclear as to whether the article still needs the tag or not, I was wondering if you could comment on the talk page. I'm asking you to do this because you have good dispute resolution skills, and I want to see these articles improved. I bet that the dispute tags could probably be removed in many instances. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 01:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Housekeeping re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Emile

A little unfinished business: It appears that you deleted the redirects but not the article Jonathan Emile (Jon E). Cheers. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Gah; thanks for the heads-up. It looks like the page was moved during the AfD, so sadly the original links hadn't been updated and I didn't noticed the "Redirected from" notice under the article title. Appreciate it! --jonny-mt 04:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Need Help Adding to Reference List

I was trying to add references to the refernce list, but when I tried to edit it all I saw was "Reflist" in double "{ }". What should I do? Dan326 (talk) 01:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the MediaWiki software handles footnotes automatically, so all you need to do is add <ref>reference info here</ref> to the part of the text where you want the reference to go. There are a number of templates used to standardize the "reference info here" part ({{cite web}} and {{cite book}} are probably the most commonly-used), but more general information on putting sources into articles can be found at WP:NOTES. Hope this helps! --jonny-mt 15:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ulteo

Could you please "Userfy" the deleted content from the Ulteo article to my user namespace at User:Avant Destiny/Ulteo. I believe the notablity of this software is undisputable and I am shocked by the elitism that was exhibited by overlooking reliable third party references provided in the debate by new users. Regardless I'm not going to dispute your decision as this would seem to be a rather frivolous venture; rather I would like to preserve the existing content as a foundation to build an article that does not have whatever shortcomings which may have been present in the previous embodiement. Thank you for your time and attention. Kind regards, Avant Destiny (talk) 12:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done. If I could just address your comment about elitism real quick, the comment about SPAs was directed at the fact that none of them put forward any valid reasons for keeping the article--in that sense, they were disregarded not simply because they were anonymous but because their arguments did not address the underlying issues. That level of anonymous participation in an AfD is quite rare, which leads me to think that it was the product of a blog posting or some other "call to arms", if you will. As for the third party sources that were posted, although I took that into account it doesn't seem to have overcome the notability barrier--many of the links were simply mentions of Ulteo in relation to OpenOffice online. Your challenge, then, is to find more substantial, independent coverage in order to fulfill the notability requirements. If you'd like me to take a look at the improved article before you take it back to mainspace, just drop me a note and I'll be glad to do so! --jonny-mt 13:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Dually noted regarding your decision- my personal belief is that it's just that popular. I've never really had an urge to contribute to wikipedia until I started to see key WebOS / WebTop articles being picked off like flys. At first I thought it was a planned subversion to "rewrite history" so to speak (* you never know what those guys at Microsoft are up to *joke*) - but now I think it's just coincidence and bad luck. I definitely look forward to the challenge and will be very happy to have you review the article once I've given it a few more legs to stand on. I'm not the fastest producer so don't hold your breath- I'll keep you informed though. Thanks again for taking the time to help me preserve the original content for reference, the extra effort is very much appreciated. Avant Destiny (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

User talk:209.7.103.50

I added more evidence to [1] to show why that user page should be blocked.I also understand about contenting there block but it looks like they have no intent to.

Thanks Staffwaterboy ^Talk 17:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: User:Chicksnatural

I meant to do it - This user twice created a copyvio, spam article (Chicks natural) despite receiving a whole long list of warnings, so either they can't read or they have no intention of doing anything except advertising their company. If they request an unblock, I wouldn't say no to changing the block terms, but I don't see them being very constructive. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. I agree that they probably won't be constructive, but I think that taking away their promotional username (and maybe salting the article) is generally enough to stop most spammers--besides, that's one less autoblock out there to deal with. I defer to your judgement, though; thanks for the response! --jonny-mt 03:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, they're not set up to, but it shouldn't take much work to get them to do so. You can ask the bot operators to add that - I guess they should leave the reports there for about half an hour after the template gets added? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 13:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Userspace and Usernames pretending to be articles

Regarding the recent blocking of User:2007-08 Bozeman Icedogs season, there is a relevant discussion archvied at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive19#Userspace and Usernames pretending to be articles that might be of interest to you. Many of these "usernames" appear to be the same person. Flibirigit (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A7 speedy deletion criteria

A few days ago you declined my request for speedy deletion of The Real Life Henderson under criterion A7, noting that it doesn't apply to TV shows or movies. This is true, but the TV show in question is a Youtube channel rather than a conventional TV show - does the criterion apply to that?

I took your advice and nominated the article under proposed deletion anyway so this really isn't any kind of big deal, I'm just curious as to if Youtube shows really are protected from A7 or whether they fall under the "web content" part of it. It's quite possibly my fault anyway as I didn't give enough detail in the SD template. Thanks in advance. ~ mazca ^talk 12:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I was kind of wondering when I was declining the speedy whether or not this was an online series or not--since I didn't see any indication one way or the other, I erred on the side of caution and treated it as an offline property, which would disqualify WP:CSD#A7.

That being said, you bring up an excellent point that I have honestly been wondering about lately. My understanding of the speedy deletion criteria is that they are written in such a way as to allow anything that might require further examination--as TV shows and movies are arguably notable by the fact that they exist (i.e. it takes a great deal of time/money/effort for a movie or TV show to be made, which means they're generally backed by a large company, which means they generally have significant media exposure, which means they probably satisfy WP:N), they require more examination by their very nature. However, the line is blurred when you start looking at things like Youtube series and online video--does the fact that it's online mean that it qualifies under A7, or does the fact that it's a creative work specifically disqualify it? Are memes internet content if they take the form of video (see the logs for 2 Girls 1 Cup for an example)? To be honest, this is something that I think really needs to be taken up at WT:CSD before I can give any sort of definitive answer--if you don't beat me to it, I may very well start a thread tonight. --jonny-mt 15:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you've given it this much thought, you raise some good points that I agree with. The specific explanations for A7 (specifically in the Template:Db-web tag) do not explicitly mention online videos and similar things as the "web content" that A7 applies to, so it's vague. I will raise this discussion on WT:CSD and get some opinions, if nothing else! ~ mazca ^talk 18:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

YouTube content is web content. The fact that it's video in format is irrelevant; a YouTube "channel" definitely falls under the A7 language, just like a website or forum. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Orange Mike. I'm definitely clear on online memes and individual videos and the like--I brought up 2girls1cup (in what appears to have been a slightly over-rhetorical flourish) because I've been involved in speedying it twice. I've raised some questions on WT:CSD (thanks, mazca!) about what I think are some slightly fuzzier cases, though, so I'd appreciate any input! --jonny-mt 23:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Merges

• See User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Question about history merges. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Federation of Planets (Star Fleet Universe) (3rd nomination)

Dear Jonny-mt, I encourage you to maybe give the discussion a little more time. You claim in your close that "no sources have emerged;" however, please consider this exchange from yesterday:

• Keep nominator does not provide sufficient reasons for deletion. This is topic covered in several published works over 20 years of nearly continuous publication. Web Warlock (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Are you sure you are not confusing this with the "real" UFP? Jobjörn (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I know exactly what this is. I have many of the books for the game. Web Warlock (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Great. Do you have any third party references? Jobjörn (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes. And I am adding them now and will continue tomorrow morning. Web Warlock (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thus, perhaps Web Warlock would have been able to or was even planning on adding these sources today (8 April 2008) as he firmly stated he would. Even if the AfD normally closes in 7 days, when we have an editor stating assertively that he has and will add sources today (8 April 2008), I see no reason why we should not give him an extra day to see if he has indeed found sufficient reliable sources to address that concern with the article. Given the amount of good faith editors and admins arguing to keep, why not see if Web Warlock has enough to make a more clear consensus? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Le Grand Roi,

Thank you for the message. I saw the exchange you mentioned while closing and went to examine what new sources had been added by looking at a diff between the nomination and the most recent edit so I could take this additional factor into consideration as well. While I did see an addition of sources, they were being used only to verify in-universe information and thus did not, in my opinion, have an impact on the comments supporting deletion.

As for the timing of the close, AfDs actually run for five days as a rule, so the discussion was already technically two days overdue. As you may know, WP:AFDO (transcluded on my user page) is used as sort of a central location for keeping track of expired AfD discussions, with the number of open items being automatically tracked by Mathbot. When there are less than 20 items in a given day, Mathbot starts linking to them individually (like so), which in turn prompts administrators to focus on those discussions in the hopes of clearing out that day--in my experience, they usually do so in fairly short order. In other words, I couldn't have let the discussion run an extra day even if I had wanted to, as it would certainly have been closed out by another administrator if I hadn't done it.

As I mentioned in my closing statement, though, I am only too happy to userfy the content so it can be improved further, so if you would like to give Web Warlock a chance to add his references, just let me know where you'd like me to put it and I'll do so! --jonny-mt 09:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I still have more sources to add and edits I have been working on. I request that you re-open the discussion. I have only been working on this since last night (my time). This closing was premature and I still feel the nom was in bad faith. Thank you. Web Warlock (talk) 10:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the nomination was done in bad faith--that's a fairly serious accusation and, if true, would be well-deserving of a speedy keep comment--but if you wish to work on the article more I'll be glad to userfy it for you. As for reopening the debate, the deletion was done in line with the AfD deletion process (in fact, it was given two extra days beyond what is called for), and I think a reopening and relisting is unnecessary. Now, if you feel that I made a poor call or that the deletion was done outside of proper process, you are more than welcome to list it at deletion review for additional comment. Personally, I was hoping to make it more than a week and a half as an admin without having a deletion listed at WP:DRV, but c'est la vie :P --jonny-mt 11:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I do believe that. Yes it is serious and I am fine with that. The article has gone through three rounds of this already and to AFD it again so soon is bad faith and I stand behind that. I will be taking it to deletion review. I find the lack of consideration to an editor's work (in this case mine when I said I was going to be working on it this morning) due to some time-based guideline to be a very serious problem. Basically you have said "I don't care what other editors are doing, I am closing this because time waits for no one". It disregards the efforts of the volunteers and quite frankly is a little insulting. Plus I do not feel there was consensus to delete, at best there was no consensus as the three other AfDs showed, that is when it was not keep. Web Warlock (talk) 11:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again, if you would like I would be more than happy to userfy the article so you can work on it without a time limit, but if you wish to take it to deletion review then please let me know when the discussion is up! --jonny-mt 12:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What's the point. I'll spend all this time working on it only to have some ediotr with an agenda just put it up for AfD again and catch some Admin in the right mood. Common courtesy is dead here, killed by people more interested in policies and guidelines. Web Warlock (talk) 13:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be worth having Jonny-mt userfy it; if you do have sources, you would be able to improve the article, have your contribs restored and then have a much better shot at restoring the article. So, I think it would be reasonable to userfy it to Webwarlock's user space to give him a chance to revise the article with additional sources. I would be happy to help out as well if I can. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Another option is to transwiki the content--that is, if you can find a GFDL-compliant Star Trek wiki, then the content (history and all) can be exported for hosting and further development there. If you'd prefer to keep working on it here, though, then just give me a user page to move it to and I'll take care of it right away. --jonny-mt 00:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought Webwarlock would want it userfied to his space, but if you would be willing to just userfy it to mine, perhaps he'll still add the sources anyway (I'm really curious what he has), if not in a reasonable amount of time than the userfied page could always just be deleted. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done. I've put the userfied version at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/United Federation of Planets (Star Fleet Universe); good luck! --jonny-mt 01:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, he indicated on my talk page today that he plans to make the revisions sometime in the future (hopefully relatively soon), but again, I appreciate the effort. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi protect on Niger

Thanks so much for this! Trying to work on Niger related articles has generally meant reverting vandalism and having little time for anything else. T L Miles (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Not at all! As a rule of thumb, a good time to ask for protection is when the vandalism gets so bad that it stops or severely hinders the development of the article. Looking at the history of the page, I think it might actually be a candidate for indefinite semi-protection, but let's see if the month does anything first. If vandalism starts up at the same level when the current semi-protection expires, feel free to come to me and I'll bump up the length of protection fairly quickly. --jonny-mt 02:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Just want to say thanks for the rollback rights. Cheers. σмgнgσмg^(talk) 07:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 18:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Martin Warner

I think it's time to salt this one: [2] Qworty (talk) 02:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done. I agree--four deletions are enough. Thanks for the heads-up! --jonny-mt 16:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

User talks

Hi Jonny-mt. Following on from Volcanix, I've stumbled across a myriad of users using talk pages inappropriately:

User_talk:Mservais, User_talk:LoveYaXO, User_talk:Lovah11, User_talk:Jonnella99, User_talk:Jef225, User_talk:Fossilfinder444,User_talk:Fossilfinder44, User_talk:Dongusdoodle, User_talk:Ccherkin, User_talk:Carolemott, User_talk:Bnut7, User_talk:Axc936, User_talk:Andrea1186, User_talk:Amandalcherkin, User_talk:Amandacherkin.

I have left them all polite notices (for some it is the second), but since I don't carry the tools there is little I can do other than watch my messages being removed, so I forward this to your capable hands. In response to the RfA comments you left me, I have since been far more articulate when closing discussions appropriate for a non-admin to do so. I am considering putting myself forward at RfA July/August time and, well, any pointers that you can give me would be welcomed. Cheers, WilliamH (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello

How are things going? BuickCenturyDriver (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Drawing Upon Art: Workbook for Gardner's Art Through The Ages (LG Williams)

Hi Jonny --

There were many claims of notability and precedence for this article -- and its importance. Did you address any of them before you simply deleted the article? Or make any objections before simply deleting the article. I put a hold on the article for discussion, but since you simply deleted the article what good is community discussion, consensus, and "hold" when people usurp the process?

Would love to hear your thoughts to my concerns...

Curious --Art4em (talk) 04:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Art4em,

Thanks for your comments, but I feel I need to correct a couple of things you seem to be mistaken about.

• First, there was not in fact a claim to notability in the article. The article was about a workbook about a notable book--notability is not inherited, and so this did not qualify as the independent claim to notability required of every article.
• More to the point, the article was not deleted for a lack of notability (although, in my opinion, it could have been)--rather, I deleted the article as blatant advertising. While the specific question of what does and does not constitute blatant advertising is generally left up to the deleting administrator, I personally find that the presence of marketing terms and hyperbole are good indicators. Sentences like "Drawing Upon Art challenges students, with simple and direct exercises, to experience for themselves history’s most advanced and creative visual art problems and developments" and "Drawing Upon Art uniquely addresses the most pressing paradox that currently exists in every college and university Art Appreciation and Introductory Art History classroom in the United States" do not a neutral article make.
• The {{hangon}} tag is used by the creator of an article to inform the reviewing administrator that they should check the talk page of the article for reasons why the article should not be speedily deleted before making their call. This is not a trigger for wider discussion, although others may comment as well--the final call is still up to the administrator. More to the point, while the article had two {{hangon}} tags on it the first time it was deleted, it had none this time. I still reviewed the talk page, but as you can see I wasn't swayed.

I hope this helps clarify things a bit, although you might want to take a look through the policy on speedy deletion (particularly WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#A7). If you have any other questions, please don't hesitate to ask! --jonny-mt 05:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Yes, indeed it was very helpful and I apprecaite the time it took to explain the situation.

1. Yes, notability is not inherited. It is earned. Instead, being the (1) first workbook of its kind for (2) one of the legendary textbooks and being (3) tested, assessed and scrunitized by one of the leading university publishers in America, I would assume, does constitute 'notability'.

2. Advertising: since there is no need to address this assertion, per your and my agreement, I am very happy to address "the presence of marketing terms and hyperbole." In fact, I would be happy to eliminate any and all such commentary -- given the texts notablity. Indeed, such commentary would interfere, in my view too, to the very important nature of the article. (The commentary, of course, was taken from the book jacket's back page) In fact, I said so much in the Gardner's Discussion page -- namely, I was only trying to fill out a stub -- and I apologized for my good-natured error, and I substantially edited my contribution immediately.

So, now that we are both very much in agreement, thank you, would you have any objection if I post the article with significant editing? I look forward to hearing from you.

Thank you very much, again, respectfully, --Art4em (talk) 05:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: notability of deleted "Campaign Circus" article; thanks for your help, by the way

Hi, I tagged that article for deletion, and I just wanted to stop by to say that you can rest assured that it definitely wasn't notable, despite the rather contrived existence of an "... In the Media" section. A basically thorough Google search seems to confirm that the few sources that reference that site (none more significant than those already included in the article) discuss it, at best, with a passing sort of introduction; the slightly more-notable sources (the Wall Street Journal blog specifically, I think it was) especially tend more towards a sort of you-rub-my-back depth of coverage (that blog basically includes the website's founder in a panel of "media experts").

Anyways, thanks again for your attention. --Wikimancer* 08:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Business FAQ and Paragon Software Group Deletion

Hi Jonny -

As I mentioned on my talk page, I'm VERY confused.

I'm just trying to place a straight article indicating the existence of PSG. This is a legitimate company that is referenced elsewhere and is reviewed constantly by PC Mag, PC World, and others.

What am I missing here??? Your help would be greatly appreciated.

JeffHyman

--JeffHyman (talk) 04:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jeff,

You might want to take a look at User:jonny-mt/CSD for a rundown of why I delete pages (sadly, I haven't updated it recently; suffice to say that I am the one who pushes the "delete" button now). In this case, the use of marketing phrases such as "cost effective solutions", "multi-platform software solutions for mobile devices", "proven, full featured solutions", and so on suggested that the page is being used to promote an entity rather than describe it in a neutral manner--since the article was full of these phrases, I agreed with the tagging editor that the page deserved deletion.

If you want to write about Paragon, you need to stick to the facts: when/where was it founded, what does it do, what are its major products, and so on. Take a look at the articles for Microsoft, Sun Microsystems, Apple Inc., and any other article about a major technology firm to see how this can be done without resorting to marketing speak. --jonny-mt 04:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jonny:

Thank you for the quick response. I'll do that and work on it tomorrow. I'm an old marketing person, but, for example, "multi-platform software solutions for mobile devices" is actually a factual statement as their mobility division actually does this - providing software specifically for Sony-Ericsson, Nokia, HTC, etc.

Thanks again!

Jeff

--JeffHyman (talk) 04:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jonny:

I've completely re-written the page and have made it completely neutral and not like an advertisement. Also, yes, I do work with the company, however, my contract is up at the end of the month. I'm only trying to make a factual entry. What else can I do?

Thanks again for all your assistance!

Jeff —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffHyman (talk • contribs) 17:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

So sorry about the delay; I'm going to work through the backlog here over the next day or so. Good work on rewriting a more neutral version of the article--it's encyclopedic and seems like a good start. However, you have a new problem in an apparent lack of notability that needs to be fixed; as it stands, the article could probably be deleted under the speedy deletion criteria (don't worry; if anyone deletes it, it won't be me).

I've tagged it with a template that provides a link to the guidelines for establishing notability of a corporation, so you might want to take a look and see what you can do. Please remember, though, that as an employee you're operating under a conflict of interest, and so I think your best bet is to try and provide just enough information that other, unrelated editors will be able to build on it in the future. Good luck! --jonny-mt 03:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

APX Alarm Security Solutions - deleted page

Hi. I understand that I may not have created the proper notability requirements for the page I made, APX Alarm Security Solutions. I was wondering if you would kindly give me a copy of the deleted page, or just undelete it, or however that works, and I will prove to you the it has notability, and "why its subject is important or significant". Just give me a little more time to work on it, and I know I can convince you, and make it adhere more closely with Wiki guidelines. Please... Thank you. Dan (talk) 05:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries--thanks for asking nicely. I've userfied the article to User:Dbollard99/APX Alarm Security Solutions. Good luck! --jonny-mt 11:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

News Bureau

If you have time, comments regarding these topics are welcome, or, if you have any new ideas or proposals for the newsletter, this is the place to present them. BTW, did you ever get a chance to check the status of the dispute tags on the list of articles we talked about? Viriditas (talk) 11:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Added to the watchlist. And the review of the conflicts is the next think on my to-do list (sorry for the wait)! --jonny-mt 16:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So I've managed to take a look through a couple so far; I'll post updates as I continue to go through the rest.

1. Talk:Apology Resolution#Dispute - Resolved with this edit; accepted as a resolution here.
2. Talk:Evan Dobelle#Dispute - Resolved with a semi-protect that was lifted here. User:FisherQueen's advice to properly source the claims was taken to heart, and it seems to be standing today.
3. Talk:Hawaii#Dispute - Don't see any indication that the dispute over okina and other diacritics is still ongoing, but I don't think this will ever be fully solved until MOS:HAWAII reaches a solid consensus.
4. Talk:Kingdom of Hawaii/Archive 1#Dispute - Although the dispute is no longer ongoing in User:JereKrischel's absence, I don't think the NPOV issues are smoothed out enough in the section on the overthrow to warrant removing the tag. Specifically, a number of claims in the section are written for the other party in the dispute rather than for a general audience--claims are led with "Russ says" or "Kizner wrote" which, while not bad in and of itself, serves to place more of an emphasis on presenting specific, verifiable points of view about rather than creating a neutrally-toned encyclopedic overview. I'd leave this one on for the time being. --jonny-mt 09:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
5. Talk:Legal status of Hawaii#Dispute - Doesn't seem to be ongoing; the article has remained in place since the initial dispute.
6. Talk:Liliuokalani/Archive 1#Dispute - Although the initial dispute seems to have more or less died down, it seems that some of the issues related to the overthrow are still percolating in this article. While it could probably do without the dispute tag, it might be a good idea to get some more eyeballs on it.
7. Talk:Morgan Report#Dispute - This one also seems more or less settled, and the POV tag has been removed.
8. Talk:Overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy#Dispute - Although the original dispute has more or less died down, given the events of recent months I think we can agree that more work is needed here to obtain a neutral balance.

Naturally, this is only my opinion based on what I see on the talk pages and in the edit histories. Please let me know if you have any more comments! --jonny-mt 10:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)