Jump to content

User talk:Fabrictramp/Archive 05: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
MiszaBot III (talk | contribs)
597,462 edits
m Archiving 2 thread(s) from User talk:Fabrictramp.
MiszaBot III (talk | contribs)
597,462 edits
m Archiving 2 thread(s) from User talk:Fabrictramp.
Line 819: Line 819:


::::Sometimes that's all you can do. :)--[[User:Fabrictramp|<font color="#228b22" face="comic sans ms">Fabrictramp</font>]] | [[User talk:Fabrictramp|<font color="#960018" face="Papyrus">talk to me</font>]] 14:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
::::Sometimes that's all you can do. :)--[[User:Fabrictramp|<font color="#228b22" face="comic sans ms">Fabrictramp</font>]] | [[User talk:Fabrictramp|<font color="#960018" face="Papyrus">talk to me</font>]] 14:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
== Duration of Copyright (UK)- Possible Copyvio ==

Thanks for visiting the page I created. It will be easier for you to judge whether this is a copyvio if I give a few words of guidance.
* All the information was taken from the one page that I cited, but references back to other pages that were less clear.
* I found the route through his diagram to be very woolly.
* I recast the logic, in a way that was easier to be followed by someone with CS training.''' Original work.'''
* I recast the work to distinguish between questions, and statements by using different symbols. ''' Original work.'''
* I recast the rendereing of the diagram so all '''no'''s go down and all '''yes'''es go across. ''' Original work.'''
* I recast the logic, so each blue shaded question box had one point of entry, two points of exit, and each red outlined output boxes had a single point of entry. Compare with Tim Padfields output boxes that breach this rule. ''' Original work.'''
* I used the same legalese as Tim Padfield as (this as matter of fact) is the language to use '''matter of fact'''
* I added the advise '''Not on Commons''' and the correct Wiki copyright tags to all red outlined output boxes. ''' Original work.'''
To my mind, all we have in common is that we have both chosen to represent the information in visual form, and both chosen to use the correct legal jargon.
To my mind, Tim is the acknowledged expert, and any diagram must lead the editor to the identical conclusion. Tims representation is flawed because it does not attempt to stick to BS flowchart convention.
My diagram is limited by Wikimedia not supporting the use of a background image in table cells, and the need for a high resolution monitor to display the image correctly.

After having read all the points above, could you let me know if I have missed something obvious and any point of the page does contain a copyvio, or what was the sticking point that caused you to suspect that any part of the page was dubious so we can tag that area for future users --[[User:ClemRutter|ClemRutter]] ([[User talk:ClemRutter|talk]]) 20:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

:As I said in my message to you, I'm certainly not an expert on copyright violations, but it definitely seems like the changes are superficial. I do know that things like changing a symbol or a color aren't enough to avoid copyvio. Perhaps the best course would be to post at [[Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems]] -- feel free to link to this conversation to save on retyping.--[[User:Fabrictramp|<font color="#228b22" face="comic sans ms">Fabrictramp</font>]] | [[User talk:Fabrictramp|<font color="#960018" face="Papyrus">talk to me</font>]] 23:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

::That is a rather quick response. I have done as you requested. But if you are no expert would you like to explain what you find superficial? I took time to explain 5 major area of original work- I have pointed out that we are both using legalese- that is fact which cannot be copyrighted. I asked you point out what you interpret to be a copyvio. If you can explain the problem, I can point you to the policy- or the case law, but please do research my responses before continuing with this time waster. If you can't do that- go back to the list I have provided and explain where your reference is to suggest that my logic is wrong, but if you can't justify your tag- would you please remove it. Best wishes Clem. --[[User:ClemRutter|ClemRutter]] ([[User talk:ClemRutter|talk]]) 23:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

:::Let's back up just a bit here. My reply was more than two '''hours''' after your reply here. And remember, I had already looked at the article when I placed the tag. How on earth is that a "rather quick response"? If you reply to nothing else, I'd like a response to this one.

:::Since you seem to want a point-by-point discussion, here we go:

:::"All the information was taken from the one page that I cited, but references back to other pages that were less clear." No problem here.

:::"I found the route through his diagram to be very woolly." Nothing to do with copyvio issues.

:::"I recast the logic, in a way that was easier to be followed by someone with CS training." Frankly, I'm not sure what you mean here. They are both flow charts, with the same questions, same flow, and same logic.

:::"I recast the work to distinguish between questions, and statements by using different symbols." To me, the use of different symbols is superficial, as I said above.

:::"I recast the rendereing of the diagram so all '''no'''s go down and all '''yes'''es go across" Again, to me this is a superficial change.

:::"I recast the logic, so each blue shaded question box had one point of entry, two points of exit, and each red outlined output boxes had a single point of entry." Again, superficial.

:::"I used the same legalese as Tim Padfield as (this as matter of fact) is the language to use" I think we're in agreement here. But, of course, if this was presented in encyclopedic prose instead of a chart with no intro, you would be quoting and referencing each piece of legalese back to the original legal document, and using your own words inbetween, making it fair use.

:::"I added the advise '''Not on Commons''' and the correct Wiki copyright tags to all red outlined output boxes". This is where we get into a gray area. My understanding is that small additions like this aren't enough. But it's not clear-cut, so I listed it at [[Wikipedia:Copyright problems]] rather than speedying it.--[[User:Fabrictramp|<font color="#228b22" face="comic sans ms">Fabrictramp</font>]] | [[User talk:Fabrictramp|<font color="#960018" face="Papyrus">talk to me</font>]] 00:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

::::Good morning; thanks for the clarification. Lets get down to business. I haven't referred to this page since I wrote it, having moved on into another Wiki area, but it is useful to examine the concepts.
::::''"I recast the logic, in a way that was easier to be followed by someone with CS training." Frankly, I'm not sure what you mean here. They are both flow charts, with the same questions, same flow, and same logic.'' Technically, Tims work is not a [[flow chart]] as it does not obey the fundamental rules. He is attempting to do a Process Flowchart-using the constraints of a Wordprocessing system, without distinguishing between process and decision. We should test whether correcting that is an act of creation. In colloquial language they are flowcharts.
:::::*Same question: but they are a matter of legal fact, so we can't copyvio by using them. We should test if this is correct.
:::::*Same flow: the test is simply the number of statement boxes (outputs). Tim uses 8-(artistic choice) I use 12. When he made his representation he chose to break the flowchart convention to restrict the number of output boxes to 8 so they would fit on the page. With the same information, I chose to adhere to the flowchart convention, and place my statement boxes at the end of each logical flow- that to me is sufficient '' Original work.'' If the flow were the same I would agree with you. We should test whether adhering to the convention is an act of creation.
:::::*Same logic: (two intrepretations on word logic) 1. Yes, this is a different rendering of legal logic. 2: No. The fact that the flow is different, means the flowchart logic is different
::::''"I recast the work to distinguish between questions, and statements by using different symbols." To me, the use of different symbols is superficial, as I said above.'' Using a different stylistic convention for a symbol is a clear no no. What I have done is to differentiate the meaning implied by a box and separated out questions from statements, then rendered them in a form that is as close the BS4058:1973 and BS6224:1982 as is possible within the limitations of Wikimedias table rendering.
::::''"I recast the rendereing of the diagram so all '''no'''s go down and all '''yes'''es go across" Again, to me this is a superficial change.''
::::: If the diagram remained the same, but portrait rather than landscape, a reflection or rotation- I would agree. In that it give a fundamentally different shape, I can't see that superficial is right. The fact that I, humble user can now actually navigate through the diagram and consistently get the same result, (which is why I started to re-render it) is a major act of creation! We should test whether this is an act of creation.
::::''"I recast the logic, so each blue shaded question box had one point of entry, two points of exit, and each red outlined output boxes had a single point of entry." Again, superficial.'' No: fundamental. A statement box can only ever have one point of entry. Each function has a separate symbol. Correcting Tims mistakes (design choices) creates '' Original work.''. You are absolutly right that changing the bgcolor or shape of a symbol would not be sufficient, but I have done far more than that. We should test whether correcting that is an act of creation.

::::I do hope, that demonstrates why I was requesting a longer response. I would like to say that when I was drawing up the flowchart that I had ploughed a different way though some of the questions. I am sure I did, though I can't find it now and what it was, and whether I reverted it I just can't remember. Anyway the photographs I was trying to upload failed all the tests- and have to be used as Fair Use. Still, I am going to put on some coffee and you are welcome to join me.--[[User:ClemRutter|ClemRutter]] ([[User talk:ClemRutter|talk]]) 09:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

:Hi Clemrutter - I was asked to review this and this is certainly not a clear-cut case, but here's my opinion. The derivative diagram by you exactly duplicates the ''structure'' of the original diagram, which is not dictated by the laws that it claims to represent but is a creative contribution of the original author, Tim Padfield. Although the changes are probably substantial enough to earn a copyright of their own, I don't think they're substantial enough to discount the contribution of the original author.
:The best solution that I can see is that someone can create their own diagram based directly on the underlying law, or prose summaries of those laws, without consulting Padfield's diagram. The fact that such a diagram would almost certainly differ in structure highlights the issue here. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] 20:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

== Supposed vandalism of Beavis and Butthead ==

Hello, you sent me a message claiming that I vandalized the Wiki of "Beavis and Butthead". However, I did not do so and I have never even been on the page before. I'm not sure if it was an IP error or what, but no one using this computer has ever been on that page. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned"> — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/74.178.0.133|74.178.0.133]] ([[User talk:74.178.0.133|talk]]) 17:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Beavis_and_Butt-head&diff=271662363&oldid=271241187 This] is the edit back in February that triggered the message. Someone with that IP definitely scrawled on the page, but as it says in the box at the bottom of your IP's talk page "Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users." If you didn't do it, don't worry about it, but getting an account and logging in will prevent you from getting messages not meant for you. HTH!--[[User:Fabrictramp|<font color="#228b22" face="comic sans ms">Fabrictramp</font>]] | [[User talk:Fabrictramp|<font color="#960018" face="Papyrus">talk to me</font>]] 18:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:57, 17 July 2009


The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 20 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is an excellent reason for my actions...

... I completely screwed up! I completely forgot dead end was for outgoing links. I was cursing and muttering to myself about "stupid people using non standard orphan templates" that have completely bamboozled orphanbot and carefully replacing each tag (even making sure to keep the date). Damn, I'm sorry. Thank you for noticing my misguided rampage and for fixing some of them. How many did you catch? I must have tagged a couple of hundred over the weekend. I'll try to go through and self revert. DAMN! So where's my trout? That's gotta be a trout worthy stuff up! Cheers, Paxse (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Make sure you have that trout with a little herb butter and a nice salad. Sounds like a glass of your favorite beverage might be in order, too. :)
I only saw the two I mentioned, and then only because I went to this toolserver page to update the list of pages needing deadend tags and saw two had been visited by me before. Seemed odd, so I checked it out.
Don't stress too much about any you didn't catch, as they're somewhere in the toolserver list and will get retagged eventually. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Coincidently, I was working from this very similar toolserver page when I began to mass revert your tagging - doh! The herb butter sounds damn fine, I think I'll just go and get the G&T now. :) Paxse (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I've closed 3 AFDs on minor league players thanks to you

I've heard you say in the past that you're not a big fan of NACS but due to your sourcing these articles, I felt it ok to close these despite a few "drive by vague wave" delete !votes. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

As the originator of the AfDs (I was wasn't I?) I just want to say that I think that is the right thing to do (admin or not), and I appreciate all the work that Fabrictramp put into these articles, all 22ish. kelapstick (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
No problem on these Ron. You're the exception to my "not a fan" rule, because I've never seen you close an AfD without putting thought into it. And thanks for the appreciation Kelapstick. I wouldn't have gotten off the stick (pun intended) to work on this (insert some Daily Show type phrase here that alludes to the overwhelming number of articles that needed evaluation) without your great work on sorting the 200 articles in question.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
And to think I just got (figuratively) yelled at on my talk page for closing Trey Hearn early. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I respect DGG immensely, but sometimes he needs to lighten up. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
He tries to save articles. That's always a good thing. My position on the whole "7 days is 7 days is 7 days" thing is here. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, and I think they were snowballable, even if it wasn't said in the closing.--kelapstick (talk) 05:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't like to say "snow" for AFDs with unwithdrawn "delete" !votes (even "drive by per noms") or for AFDs that are being closed anywhere within the neighborhood of of 7 days. Also, "snow" is overused in AFD, especially by non admins. It's only appropriate for articles where it's obvious to any reasonable person that the article is not going to be deleted (ie George W Bush) or articles that fall under WP:OUTCOMES if there are no arguments for deletion besides the nominator. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Haiku Poetry of Stevardo 56

Hi to Fabrictramp,Tried to delete ALL on my Talk Page but it kept on coming up again.Can you please wipe it all as I have pre-storaged it on a 3.5 floppy. Was intending to do this anyhow but your note motivated me, so thanks. Enjoying the use of the page and will endeavour to get more in as its good for my grey matter...Hi, Thanks Stevardo56 Stevardo 56 (talk) 14:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The word "Gotten"

It's interesting to read still the American usage of the word "Gotten" This word is a hang-up from the past when the word must have been used widely in old English.It also seems to have been part of "Bible Speak" and there also is the word "Begotten" Gotten nowadays is rarely used in modern English as the word "Got" fits the part. Of course others will disagree.Stevardo 56 (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of poetry etc

Hi to Fabrictramp and thanks for the deletions.I think i have managed to delete superfluous verbage also on my user page so i can start on a clean slate.(D.V.)Stevardo 56 (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Minor leagues

Hi, I wondered if you would be so kind as to lend a second opinion to a discussion I've been having with kelapstick regarding these articles. I've worked on a few of them and, while they may not all pass the GNG in the strictest sense, it is my, humble (though biased because of my opinion on the policy!), opinion that, now they at least resemble articles rather than piles of statistics, they should be left where they are, regardless of their notability status. Of the five that I've done so far, I beleive 2, possibly three, have a genuine claim to notability aside from "I play minor league baseball", 2 probably fall slightly short of the GNG and the last is very dodgy- a note to which effect I've left by its link in kelapstick's sanbox. Kind regards, HJ Mitchell (talk) 12:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Any chance you could point me to the specific articles in question? I won't have much time today, but could take a look tomorrow. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Articles in question were:

If you consider this profile (which is on the "official athletics site of Arizona State University", so hardly independent) significant coverage (I wouldn't) it may tip the scales on Sogard and Davidson, but the other two are just sourced with stats sites, I wouldn't consider either of them to pass the GNG as is without additional sourcing per the GNG.--kelapstick (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added more sources to Sogard, along with a couple of external links that go to interviews with him. If it were at AfD, I'd probably be in the weak keep camp on him. Will look at the others as I get time in the next couple of days.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm striking out on Brandt. I added one more source, but that's all I found, which means notability is either hinging on the all-star appearance or the "minor leaguers are profesionals" thing. This would be a good candidate for redirect or deletion.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I feel like I'm missing sources that are out there on Austen. There's not enough at present to pass GNG, but it seems like someone who got pitcher of the year in the VWL ought to have more buzz. True, the VWL is definitely minor league, but I do see a lot of guys there who are on the cusp between AAA and the majors doing some work during the off season, so I assume the level of play isn't too shabby. Perhaps someone like Hit Bull Win Steak will have a better line on sources for him.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Davidson has had his cup of coffee in the majors, so he passes WP:ATHLETE. Getting enough to pass GNG would be a bonus, but I'm too tired to look for it right now. I did add a source for the dfa, and more sources will probably pop up if he gets picked up by another team.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I've done what I can for the articles in question. I'd be the first to admit they're not exactly going to be FA candidates in the foreseeable future. However, they're there, they're not copyvios, defamatory or anything else so why not just let them be? Your casual RC/ RA/ NP patroller would be unlikely to prod them or send them to AfD. The only people who would would most likely be WP Baseball members or someone who's followed this mini- saga! Anyway, I stuck my oar into the discussion so I felt I should do what I can for the articles. I say just leave them where they are and see what happens. Regards, HJMitchell You rang? 22:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in a rush to delete them. (Except that I do feel the Brandt article shouldn't stay in its current form). But in general, I can't agree with the "it's not hurting anything so let it stay" argument -- that's the thin end of the wedge. Next it's "the article about my garage band isn't hurting anything" and "the article about my cat isn't hurting anything". If WP:Notability needs to be changed, then let's change it. But ignoring the guidelines isn't the way to institute change, IMHO.
I'll also respectfully disagree that the casual NPPer would be unlike to nom at least Brandt for deletion. I spend a lot of time patrolling deletion cats, so I think I have a pretty good handle on what gets nom'd. (I was rescuing an article from speedy deletion when you left your message). Articles like these get nom'd all the time, some correctly and some incorrectly. That's why I like to get as many quality refs as I can into the article, instead of trying to rely on WP:ATHLETE, so that any incorrect deletion noms become blindingly obvious to non-baseball fans.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, a question about how you categorized these articles at User:Kelapstick/Sandbox. Except for Davidson, I can't find any evidence these guys have been on an MLB roster (either 25 man or 40 man). Can you link to a source for that? It would help the notability argument. Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Just a note, that I found these articles while I was new page patrolling and have no ties to WP:BASEBALL (until now). I did prod a lot of them, and send to AfD some of the ones below AA. I agree with Fabrictramp, and in fact "it is not harming anyone" is one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, for the reason posted above. And I have no problem with keeping minor league articles about players that pass the GNG, or either of the baseball standards (if one were universally adopted), and Fabrictramp has been doing a great job sourcing the articles that were up at AfD (that had sources available) and commenting on the ones that don't.--kelapstick (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I know, I know, it just seems a shame to see good faith contributions obliterated because it's been decided that they're not worthy, especially considering some of the crap I see patrolling! Having watched from the sidelines, I don;t really hold out much hope for a change in WP:N or either of the other policies, though it's worth raising the issue. If we can't keep them then, I suggest we prod all but Sogard and see if anyone objects. Sogard, however, I hold out some hope for, his claim to notability might be a little dodgy, but he seems fairly well known, though I know sweet fa about baseball, I can do a google search. He gets more coverage than the rest, even after you discard the blogs etc. HJMitchell You rang? 23:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The only one I'd suggest a prod on at the current time is Brandt. Davidson definitely passes WP:ATHLETE, so if you think he needs to go (and it sounds like you don't), then prod wouldn't work because I guarantee you that will be controversial. I also have a gut feeling that David Austen is notable and any lack of sources is a failure of my google-fu, so that would be better at AfD as well. (Again, only if you think he needs to be gone -- I don't think that one should be deleted).--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree- they're a combination of the efforts a number of editors and, if it were up to me, almost all would stay. They're not the best articles on here but I've seen much worse! I think they contribute more to wikipedia than "my cat" or "my myspace band that no-one's ever heard of"- it's not unlikely somebody would look them up. I agree that Brandt is a bit dodgy and I'm sure there are others out there that are equally dodgy. The question is what do we do with them? To follow the "the article about my cat" line, they can't stay on here if they don't pass some test of notability. I'm more than willing to trawl through and make these articles resemble decent encyclopaedic entries but, frankly, what's the point if they're not going to pass these tests?

How about merging some of the worst ones into a single article with a title to the effect of "List of minor leaguers who do not, on their own, pass the GNG"? Could that work? It would be a pain in the arse to make, though we could just copy and paste the best titbits from each one. It would, at least, solve the problem of what we do with them. HJMitchell You rang? 00:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

So far a number of them have been redirected to articles such as Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim minor league players. Not ideal, because the section will have to be moved when a player changes organizations, but at least it gives the reader a redirect leading them to a paragraph about the player. I have a hunch it was done organization-by-organization to keep the list from becoming overwhelming -- I wasn't involved in the decision, so I have no idea.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It's better than nothing, I suppose. It keeps the information on here. How about an article similar to List of fictional United States Presidents which also raises a good policy point- how can we have an article on a load of presidents who never existed and not on a bunch of baseballers who blatantly do? Anyway, my point is that we could stick them all in there, dividing it by alphabetical order of name and redirecting them there so they're still searchable?

Could I ask a favour? Since it's gone half one in the morning here, regrettably, I must sign off. If you'd leave a talkback on my own talk page, I'd be grateful and I shall gladly resume the discussion at a more sociable hour! Until then... HJMitchell You rang? 00:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Might be a good idea to bring it up at WP:MLB. I personally don't care where they're redirected to, just so long as it's a standard place that gets maintained once in a while. :)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'd tend to agree with you. It might be a lot of hassle to change them round, as you stated, when the players move from one organisation to another, but it's better than nothing. At least the edit history is preserved for future use if it's needed. HJMitchell You rang? 16:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Listas

I saw that you use a list as script for AfDs, I tried to set mine up and couldn't get it to work...Do you have any suggestions? --kelapstick (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It took me a while to get the right configuration -- looks like mine is a bit different than what you were trying.
Mine is:
importScript('User:Quarl/util.js');
importScript('User:Quarl/wikipage.js');
importScript('Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Add LI menu');
importScript('Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/delsort.js');
I commented out the line importStylesheet('Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Add LI menu/css'); because it seemed to break other things and the script runs fine without it, even though it's listed as mandatory. Also remember that you need Twinkle installed -- IIRC, I needed it to be before any of the other lines for things to work correctly.
If all else fails, feel free to copy the contents of my monobook complete, and then start eliminating anything you don't like. HTH!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I have twinkle, but I use Google Chrome not firefox, I wonder if that is an issue, but I will try it. Thanks. --kelapstick (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
That could be a factor. I tried Chrome for a day and it drove me nuts (short trip); I can't remember if the scripts worked in it.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
It's chrome, seems to be working now, too bad, I prefer it to Firefox, might just need to use it for listing AfDs I suppose :D, thanks! --kelapstick (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

BLP and BOT

Dear Fabrictramp Can you please comment on the following:

"[edit] BLP unsourced tag in article on Albert Bitran I don't understand this tag since there is a References section in the article. Please explain or remove. Thanks. Bgoodnam (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

All the bot does is convert {{unreferenced}} to {{BLP unsourced}} on biographies of living people. The page was already tagged as unsourced before the bot edited it. As with any maintenance tag, you are free to remove it if its not correct. If you want to find out why it was tagged as unsourced, I suggest you ask User:Fabrictramp, who added the unreferenced template in the first place. Mr.Z-man 17:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)"

I would also appreciate if you could explain what is BLP and what is BOT. Thanks Bgoodnam


A BLP is Wikipedia shorthand for Biographies of Living People. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons has more information on the special requirements for those type of articles. A BOT is short for a robot, an automated or semi-automated tool that carries out repetitive tasks on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Bots has more on this. In general, if someone uses an abbreviation here that you don't understand, type "WP:" (without the quotes) into the search box, followed by the abbreviation. Odds are very good it will take you to a page that explains the abbreviation.
You could certainly remove the unsourced tag, as there are sources in the article now (there weren't when I placed the original tag, and whoever added the sources didn't remove it). The formatting of the sourcing does need to be improved (see Wikipedia:Citing sources), and preferably changed to inline citations (see Wikipedia:CITE#Inline_citations), but I can't see that anyone would have a reasonable objection to you removing the tag. HTH.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your assıstance Bgoodnam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.247.62 (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

AWB

Please be careful when using AWB on articles containing {{Article issues}}. The current version of AWB has several major bugs with this template. I have had to fix several articles you broke today. --Pascal666 00:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I started going through your contributions fixing all the problems, but there are just too many of them, I do not have time. Per WP:AWB: edits made using this software are the responsibility of the editor using it. Please review all of your recent contributions and fix all articles containing broken {{Article issues}} templates. If you review my recent contributions you can see the kind of problems with your edits I have been fixing (usually just the word "date" added onto a parameter). Thank you. --Pascal666 00:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I had time today to finish going through your contributions. As long as you use AWB version 4.5.3.1 or newer in the future you should not have more of this problem. --Pascal666 19:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist. I thought I had caught them as I was making the edits (I already filed a bug report on this on Saturday), but obviously some slipped by.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 21:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Smellypits

Hi. Just curious why you flagged Smellypits with a level 3 warning. I don't see a level 1 or 2 appearing on it prior to your level 3 warning. Just two speedy delete notifications, which I didn't think counted toward warning counts. With my subsequent L4 warning (followed by your duplicate and then reverted L4--Sorry about that), he's on the verge of a block, but without L1 and L2, that's not actually proper. Am I missing something? Have a good day! —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 17:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much a judgment call. Between the name, the history of inappropriate articles, and only one marginally useful edit in the history, I felt pretty confident that this user is fully aware of what he's doing. I try to bend over backwards when it comes to AGF, but when there's pretty good evidence to the contrary, I don't see a need to give them extra chances to vandalize.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. Ok. I remember a couple years ago bringing something to the attention of the admins, and because the user hadn't been "properly" warned with the correct sequence of templates, my notice was ignored and I was essentially told to do better next time. Maybe things have relaxed a bit since that time? Because of that experience, it makes me a little nervous to report anyone now.
I double checked the pages on warnings to make sure nothing had changed since I last looked, and it's still okay to start higher than 1.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and FWIW, I only gave him a level 3 on the second vandalism. It occurred before the previous warning, so I didn't see a need to escalate the level.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Huggle automatically one-ups the level number and sends out warnings after 4 (as I discovered with another user who kept vandalizing Volcano). That experience taught me that it could be easy to break WP:3RR when using Huggle, because I ended up with 3 reverts to that article almost effortlessly and then reported it to WP:AN/I without realizing it. Now I check my contributions in a regular browser after each Huggle action just to figure out exactly what Huggle did so effortlessly on my behalf. Very cool tool, but very easy to abuse without trying. Is that why you use Twinkle? TW seems to have a bit more fine-tuned control to it. Thanks for the explanation. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 22:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I've tried Huggle, and I prefer the slower, more controlled pace of Twinkle. I see exactly what TW is doing and I get to confirm. I keep Huggle on the machine for when I want that video game type thrill, but TW is more my style. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

And now our friend is back vandalizing and writing about his band again. Blocked for 31 hours.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Voice in the Wilderness "Holy Scriptures"

I am the publisher of this work. I stumbled upon this Wikipedia entry by accident while searching something else, and in checking out the history, discovered that it was a former subscriber who created the entry. However, it was full of many irrelevant links, and factual inaccuracies. So I edited it by removing the inaccurate stuff. A few days later, after tweaking a few things, posted a version that was fully accurate, but also 'brief', with external links to further information.

As I now read your policies, I see that this is NOT a proper forum for the VW-edition to be presented in. An encyclopedia is a place that presents 'facts', not opinions. And facts, by definition, are either true or false. If Wikipedia is also, so to speak, a 'blog' where everybody can willy-nilly add their two-bits worth, this is not the proper place for the VW-edition to be described by people who don't know the facts.

The person who made the original post did so without my knowledge or permission. Please advise how to delete the entry. It does not need any further "internal links". What it presents is 'facts', and needs no further modification.

If you are a moderator, I'm sure you can find my e-mail address to let me know what's what.

Thank you, Paul Becker (pfbecker) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfbecker (talk • contribs) 23:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

As I stated on the top of this talk page, I prefer not to use email to discuss Wikipedia matters. Frankly, it's a matter of transparency, because on Wikipedia there will be a public record of the discussion.
Yes, if the article sticks around, it does need the work requested by the maintenance templates. (Did you read the policies I pointed you towards on your talk page? You should also check out WP:COI.) Using a variety of IP addresses to repeatedly remove those maintenance tags is not particularly productive. In fact, it's a pretty good way to get blocked from editing.
You, or any editor, can propose the article for deletion. However, if the issues with the article can be solved by a rewrite, it's unlikely that the article will be deleted.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting how, after I made the original corrections, no 'templates' appeared for several weeks. It was apparently "OK" that way. But then now, suddenly, the entry is not allowed to exist without them cluttering up the place. And somebody was apparently sitting there, as if 'waiting' for me to restore the entry to its completed form, and 'zap', they were inserted again. Who is 'vandalizing' the entry??? And no...I have always signed in as the 'same' userid. (Perhaps, the fact that I have several different dialup numbers to my ISP gives the appearance of a different IP??) Like I said...I am the publisher of the VW-edition. If you need to verify this, please click the external links and check out the originating website. There -are- no external "3rd party" entities that can add anything, by linking to them. The entry is complete enough AS IS. If this is not good enough for you-all (whoever "you-all" is), since I did not submit it originally, I will pursue its removal...by whatever means necessary.

Paul Becker (pfbecker) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.76.158 (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, feel free to propose the article for deletion. The instructions are at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.
Please don't see conspiracies where they don't exist. If you look at the main page of Wikipedia, you will see there are over 2.8 million articles. There are no where near that number of editors who patrol pages for needed improvements. But once editors see a history of things such as removal of maintenance templates, they often put the article on their personal watchlist, something you yourself can also do.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


Also, since the article is semi-protected right now and you've mentioned several times you would like it deleted, I've added a proposed deletion tag. If you have a problem with that, let me know and I'll remove the tag and send it to AfD. HTH.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


Re: I've added a proposed deletion tag.

Thanks! Paul Becker —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfbecker (talk • contribs) 17:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wolfiporia extensa revisions

Hi Fabrictramp,

Could you please explain why you reverted the Wolfiporia extensa article to the revisions by Deli nk/Nawlin Wiki? Those revisions removed a great deal of relevant information and an image, with giving a reason. I have reverted the page to its full content. I would appreciate it if some rationale were provided if you or Deli nk or Nawlin Wiki choose to eviscerate it of its content.

Respectfully,

Trappem (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)trappemTrappem (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I did explain on your talk page two days ago. Did you not read the explanation? Or did you have a specific question you'd like answered.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi FabricTramp,

Sorry, I just now found your comments, and am trying to understand them. In my initial edits of this page back on 25-Feb, all I did was add more info, add an image, and corrected some typos. I did not delete any sources, maintenance tags, or anything else. I made the article more informative, factual, and well-written. The reversions to the Deli nk render this page factually useless, and certainly no more in conformance with wikification than my versions. I guess my specific question is what exactly am I doing that displeases the Wikipedia gods more than the fluff from Deli nk?

best,

Trappem (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)trappem

This is the difference between the previous version and your current version. It shows clearly that you did delete the {{primarysources}} tag, the entire external links section, the entire references section, and all the categories.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your time. I have restored the primarysources and categories tags. The reference section had nothing in it (other than separately captioned external links). Eviscerating an entire article based on these minor technical issues seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater however... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trappem (talk • contribs) 01:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll give you some friendly advice here: repeatedly throwing around words like evisceration when it comes to article edits verge on incivility. And eliminating entire sections dealing with references are not "minor technical issues" here.
I'll again encourage you to read WP:OWN and take it to heart. At least three editors felt your edits to the article were not a net improvement, so you might want to reread the article with a very critical eye and see if it could be even more "informative, factual, and well-written". HTH--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Aces

I made it to that Reno Aces game we were talking about, the park is awesome...If you ever make it out to a game, don't waste your money on decent tickets, they have standing room with general admission (or any other ticket) behind the left field wall, and is one of the best seats in the house. Also a pretty cool "mound seating" area in right field, bring a blanket and sit on the grass. Great park for a family event.--kelapstick (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Glad you enjoyed the park! That's what I love about the minors -- rarely a bad seat in the house without paying MLB prices.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Animas-La Plata water project

I have described the real history of the Animas-La Plata project, and, although there was discussion posted about whether it should be deleted because of a non-neutral point of view, the consensus was, "Keep it." Yet I see that the prior, "official" description of the project has been reinstated almost immediately, without reference to the discussion of my article, and without having retained a single word from my article.

Mine contains citations and quotations from United States Supreme Court and Court of Claims decisions and is 100% true and factual. The official version contains only self-serving propaganda referring back to "source documents" created by the same interests who benefit from the project, so that there's this circular back-slapping going on, and no real information communicated. That was even more true with the prior "official" version which my version replaced.

It appears that you've removed my post not because it is not factual, but because you don't LIKE the facts, which describe corrupt official acts which I have documented in the past. I can put more sources into the article, if failure to source completely is your problem with it (although you haven't said it is). I haven't done so only because I don't know how to make the link. I'll get help with that and put them up.

Can you state for me, please, in plain English, what you need me to do? Also--and no disrespect intended--please tell me what authority you have to remove my posting in its entirety and replace it with the "official" version. Is it your position that U.S. Supreme Court and Court of Claims decisions are irrelevant?

Thanks,

parsimmon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parsimmon (talk • contribs) 21:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

A few corrections. I did not remove your post today, it was an [IP editor]. My only involvement today was to warn you again about violating Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. My only edits to the article were in March, in an attempt to save it from deletion. Yes, the article was nominated for deletion as a "Blatant opinion piece.", however it's a mistake to think that the consensus of keep was to keep your version -- every single editor who argued to keep the article mentioned that the previous version, not yours, was preferable. The version you describe as "official" was reinstated almost immediately because of this.
Yes, citations from court decisions are great, and could really add to the article. However, phrases like "the so-called Animas-La Plata Project", "taxpayers are being required to fork over a billion dollars", "a huge boondoggle", "nothing but a racket" and many other phrases you've used in the article are in no way neutrally worded. You also have a number of unsourced allegations about people and organizations in the article, which violates another Wikipedia policy.
To answer your question of "please tell me what authority you have to remove my posting in its entirety and replace it with the "official" version"... I'm not even sure where to start with that. I did not remove your posting in its entirety today (although I did in March, because I removed all the unsourced material). Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, so the IP user who reverted back to a previous version has exactly as much right to do so as you had to remove in its entirety other editors' material on April 27 and today. This is something you agree to each time you click "save page". And there is no such thing as an "official" version of a Wikipedia article. However, there are several core principles of Wikipedia which all editors must adhere to, one of which is Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately, providing context for any given point of view, and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics. When a conflict arises regarding neutrality, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed, hammer out details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution."
My suggestion, in plain English, is to take a few minutes to carefully read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, especially the section on undue weight, impartial tone, and attribution. Then discuss any proposed changes on the article's talk page, or even better, ask any of the editors who are listed as active at Wikipedia:WikiProject Neutrality for a review of any proposed changes first. That way you can improve the article and get a more balanced perspective into it, without worrying about any bias of your own you may have missed.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted userbox

I noticed the creator and suggested WP:DRV. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 16:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Recreation of deleted article

Hi Fabrictramp, I see you reinstated Lucifugum? It has been deleted after AfD and then speedied a couple of times--there is nothing new under the sun. The article still relies on highly unreliable sources and is being pushed and repushed by SPAs who, by now, are getting a bit disruptive, and whose final argument usually is a. "you're trying to destroy metal" or b. "we know this scene, you don't." Please have another look at the article and its history. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, dear Fabrictramp. It seems to me users Drmies and Blackmetalbaz simply don't like this band and try to "destroy" this article "at any cost":). But please first ask these guys to prove the notability of the following bands: Diaboli, Clandestine Blaze, Deathspell Omega, Xasthur, Black Funeral etc. If these bands are notable then Lucifugum is notable also. In other case all these articles should be nominated for deletion together with Lucifugum's article. At least it will be fair. Thank you for your help.--Black pauk1488 (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've never heard this band, so I don't know if I like it or not. Blackmetalbaz has pointed out to you, no doubt, that Wikipedia has a policy that undercuts your "proposal": Wikipedia:Other stuff exists (and Lucifugum is not a high school or a geographical feature, for instance.) Feel free to nominate any of those articles you mentioned for deletion, or, better yet, find reliable sources to prove the notability of Lucifugum. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Everything looks like Drmies doesn't respect administrators and their decisions. Probably, he thinks he's more educated of them all. Yes, Lucifugum is not a high school but Darkthrone and for example Nokturnal Mortum are also not schools or geographical features. --Black pauk1488 (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Black pauk1488, you might want to be a bit more careful with your comments, because they are bordering on incivility towards Drmies. Also, please do not use edit summaries such as "This article has been recreated with kind permission of administrator User:Fabrictramp". It implies an approval of the article which I explicitly did not give. Since you did not address any of the issues as far as I can see, I'm strongly tempted to apply a G4 speedy deletion tag myself. (And may do so).
And I have applied such a tag. Also, Black pauk1488, do not move pages by copying and pasting the content. That destroys the edit history. Instead, use the move tab.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Drmies, you might look at my userfication comment at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Lucifugum.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Since nothing has happened to the article, as far as I can tell, to increase its verifiable claims to notability (but I don't have access to the deleted version, so I can't do a point-by-point comparison), I'm afraid we're heading to AfD again sometime soon if the speedy doesn't go through. This article has a long history, with reinstatements and socks and personal attacks (not so much toward me, mind you, until now). Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Fabrictramp. You have new messages at HJ Mitchell's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

. I see I've stumbled into something a little bigger than a trivial speedy decline. I have a habit of doing that! HJMitchell You rang? 23:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I got curious and googled it. How would this fit in with WP:RS?
I know squat about metal, so it might be best to ask someone who does know something about the sources. :) All I know is a recreation when I see one. Cheers!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Cheers, I'll ask around! It's idle amusement if nothing else! HJMitchell You rang? 00:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I've found two others, so I've put hangon on the article and requested a little more time for someone to determine how useful they are. I'm reluctant to remove the speedy tag since, procedurally, it's correct and I took the last one down and edit warring is not high on my list of priorities. Just thought I'd explain! HJMitchell You rang? 00:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Because of GFDL issues, it might be best to have the Lucifugum article deleted, do the improvements at User:Black pauk1488/Lucifugum, and then move it back to Lucifugum. Looks like Lucifugum was already deleted, so the first part is done. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Pasig Christian Academy

oh!sorry,but I'm just editing Pasig Christian Academy because I'm a student of this school.and I Almost there for 10 years on that school.sorry, but just respect my editings...thanks --User:Jpuligan 12 4:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

People will respect your edits a whole lot more if you respect copyright law and consensus on what should be included in the article. Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools/Article_guidelines#What_not_to_include for why the faculty list keeps getting deleted. You've also been asked several times not to include copyrighted (and non-encyclopedic) material such as the school hymn. Since you continue to add this material after being warned repeatedly, I've blocked you from editing for a week. Please take this time to read Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools/Article_guidelines and WP:COPYVIO and take them to heart. I'm sure you can be a valuable editor, but you need to follow the rules.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Chicken wing tackle

I'm tempted to push for deletion of this article. Thoughts? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I really don't know enough about Australian Rules Football to know if it's notable or just a case of one event. I had thought it was made up, and was pretty shocked at the number of ghits. Would a merge somewhere (perhaps to the player?) be appropriate?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Looking at gnews hits, this is a term that's been used for at least several years with multiple players, so merge to player doesn't make sense. Perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject AFL could be of help here.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for the response and for looking into it. I guess it just needs better sourcing. It sounds kind of cool and has a cool name, so I'm happy to have it stay around. I was sad for example when the made up one day non-sport of snowbagging ("skiing" with garbage bags on your feet) was deleted, but it didn't seem to meet our guidelines. Silly guidelines! ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


Vicci Laine Article

Hi, I have added the links to the above page. Thank you for the suggestion. I also deleted the box requesting links be added. I hope that is ok. Thanks for the help. I am new here and trying to make this the best page possible for her. Baileysmom (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Vicci Laine page

Thank you so much for the "minor formating" you did for this page. I believe so much in how this person lives her life and what she does for her community that I wanted her to have a great page and, you have helped to make it better! Thanks again for your help. Baileysmom (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Barnegat Fund Management - nominated for deletion?

I don't understand why you want to delete this article. It makes no false claims. Asks no one to invest. States only facts. And the article appears to be under construction. Can you lay our in English (not Wiki shorthand) where this article goes wrong so that its contributors can make proper amendments? --Djbarnes (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The deletion page has a link to the issue, which is Wikipedia:Notability, especially Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Also, you should take some time to read WP:COI.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coppell Copperheads

Yup, spotted that and corrected it.. in all the other ones. Doh. Thanks for picking up on it :). Ironholds (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. I'm sure you'll need to do the same for me one day. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Formal Mediation for Sports Logos

As a contributor to Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/RFC_on_use_of_sports_team_logos, you have been included in a request for formal mediation regarding the subject at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Use of Sports Logos. With your input and agreement to work through mediation, it is hoped we can achieve a lasting solution. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Matt Duke (musician) Article

Hello, I see that you protected the deleted article Matt Duke (musician) on March 9, 2009 and it can no longer be recreated. I understand there were instances of copyright related issues with the page, as well as consistent recreation of the page after a deletion discussion took place. However, most of the core issues with this page, including the fact that the page did not display any reason for notability for Matt Duke and the lack of credible sources to support the information on the page, would no longer be an issues if the page is allowed to be created again.

I am not sure what copyright issues caused the previous deletion before yours, but upon my proposed re-creation for the page, I can assure you that many credible sources will be cited (including references and features from Teen Vogue, MSN, Perez Hilton, ABC News, the Columbia City Paper and others) and copyright infringment will not be an issues in any way. Also, Matt is now signed to a notable record label, Rykodisc, which is owned by Warner Music Group, so I feel two years after the first article was created, he is now definitely a more established artist at this point and has achieved the required notability for Wikipedia. Thank you for your consideration, I do hope you decide to release the protection on this page so this artist can finally have a decent article created about him. Dr3w05 (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest you create a version of the page at User:Dr3w05/Matt Duke (musician), making sure that you address the issues from past deletions, especially the lack of sources and not meeting the notability requirements of WP:MUSIC. When you think it's ready, put a {{helpme}} tag on your talk page (note the curly brackets) and have an experienced editor look it over. Once it's ready for main space (and only when it's ready), put an {{adminhelp}} tag on your talk page, and any admin who comes along can move it over for you. HTH!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much, I will definitely get on this. Dr3w05 (talk) 00:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Herron

Found anything new on this guy? If you have I'd be happy to withdraw. This may sound silly with all my AFD work but I really don't like deleting stuff. Also, can you review John Drennen? Another article on a minor league player whose speedy deletion I declined. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I may not have time today or tomorrow, but for sure by Wednesday I can take a look. Cheers!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Haven't had time to revisit Tyler Herron yet, but I did take a look at John Drennen and added a few sources there. That one's tricky (and would be controversial, so declining the speedy was definitely appropriate). On the keep side, we have first round draft pick, South Atlantic League all-star (which I didn't add to the article), and lots of sources available. On the merge to Cleveland Indians minor league players side, we have the fact that first round draft pick being notable is a minority position, the SAL is class A ball, so an all-star appearance giving notability isn't widely accepted, and other than the North County Times article, most of the press is due to the homer off Roger Clemens, which is not a unique event (Clemens gave up 363 in the majors). If this came up to AfD, I'd be in the merge camp, but I probably wouldn't bother to nominate it myself. Hope that helps a bit. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Another thought: User:Hit bull, win steak is brilliant at finding baseball sources. If he's around, he might be willing to give it a look. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I took another look at Tyler Herron and didn't find any more. :( --Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

new entry

Hello,

I see that you have helped delete the "widwi" entry from wikipedia. Can you please explain to me why widwi should be removed or what I missed to make it qualify to stay? I don't see how it's an less relevant then the many other websites defined in wikipedia.

Thanks for your help.

- Aaron —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aprice88 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The article didn't show how it met the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (web), particularly Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria. (You might also want to read WP:OTHERSTUFF.) HTH! --Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, you should spend some time carefully reading WP:COI. Wikipedia really isn't the place to be advertising your web site.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is my site, but I am not put it up for advertising. I will review the posting rules again, but I don't see the harm in leaving up the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aprice88 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah

Thank you for letting me know about that, much appreciated :). Murgon (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The Immaculate Mules

The band, The Immaculate Mules is in the music charts and has been broadcasted by various DJ's and VJ's throughout canada. I see no reason that you need to delete my Wiki. I have all rights to write about this band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Immaculatemules (talk • contribs) 16:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Then, as I suggested on your talk page, you need to write a version that tells us the band meets the requirements of WP:MUSIC. If you need time to make such a version, try creating it at User:Immaculatemules/The Immaculate Mules, which will give you more, but not unlimited, time to work on it. When you think it's ready, put a {{helpme}} template (note the curly brackets) on your talk page and ask an experienced editor to look it over before moving it to article space.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Searchme

Since you are one of the active admins at Special:Log/delete, I've come here to ask you userfy the contents of Searchme to User:Cunard/Article/SearchMe. I'm certain that I can source and expand the article with the large number of sources found in Google News Archive. The two other admins I asked have been unresponsive to my request, even though they were editing when I posted my requests. Please be more responsive than they. Thank you very much! Cunard (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The most recent version basically said Searchme is a search engine, with about 4 more sentences of advertising. There really isn't anything to userfy. Probably best to start from scratch on that one. HTH!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
What about the other four versions? Cunard (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Only version with anything is the March 13, 2008 version. I'll userfy that for you in a second. Good luck... you'll need it. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 Done--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for userfying it! Hm, SearchMe does indeed need a lot of work, but at least I don't have to fill in an infobox. By the way, if I make such requests in the future, should I do it at WP:DRV, or is it okay for me to choose a random admin who is active at Special:Log/delete? Cunard (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Probably the best way is to make a request at WP:REFUND (which stands for REquest For UNDeletion, but I like the unexpected acronym a lot. I also wanted to see WP:UNDEAD link there, but apparently not everyone has my warped sense of humor). WP:REFUND was created to take care of these kind of uncontroversial undeletions, to take some load off WP:DRV.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
That's a nice link to remember. I'm going to start "unkilling" this article now, so that it can be "undied". Cunard (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Hope you don't end up with a zombie on your hands. ;-) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
My zombie is not dead anymore, but it's not 100% alive (in mainspace) yet. When you get the chance, would you restore File:Searchmewiki.jpg and then move User:Cunard/Article/SearchMe to SearchMe? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 Done and  Done. Impressive work!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for unleashing Frankenstein to the world. :) Cunard (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I think you should delete File:Searchmewiki.jpg since it's completely blank. Cunard (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 Done. And thanks for inadvertently putting Young Frankenstein dialog in my head all night. ;-P --Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

J. Todd Anderson

Thanks for helping out with getting the speedy deletion removed. I'll definitely work on it some more! Drinkybird (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Safari Ltd.

Why did you delete Safari Ltd. page I wasn't advertising but stating information on my company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aligraph (talk • contribs) 18:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Phrases like "was created to provide superior, innovative toys" and "unparalleled accuracy and uncompromising detail" are not the type of language you'd see in a neutrally worded, unbiased encyclopedia article. And since you're admitting that this is your company, spend some time carefully reading WP:COI -- writing articles about yourself or your company is strongly discouraged, precisely because of the difficulty of writing in a neutral, unbiased fashion.
If your company is truly notable, someone not connected with your company will eventually write an article on it. If you just want to let people know facts about your company, your own website is the place to do it.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand your response and thank you. so if someone were to write about our company in a neutral an unbiased fashion this will be accepted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aligraph (talk • contribs) 19:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

That's one requirement, but not the only one. The company also has to meet the requirements at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

buddy

why u delete DOnE aT tWo (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

If you read the deletion notice on your talk page, you'd already know the answer: "because the page appears to have no meaningful content". --Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
u unpatriotic?????? Do you care about deception in our government?????? It's a theory on 9/11, it IS meaningful! DOnE aT tWo (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, please. "nevar 4get lol" is hardly encyclopedic, and the subject is already covered at 9/11_conspiracy_theories#Jewish_involvement.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Crixxx

Hey Fabrictramp, I have unblocked User:Crixxx with a warning that any further ownership of articles will result in a bigger block. If you think I've made a mistake, let me know. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 02:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. There's been a long term pattern here so I'm not hopeful, but we'll see how it goes. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the deletion of Barack Obama administration controversies

If you are going to delete Barack Obama administration controversies then why is there a whole category for George W. Bush administration controversies? Danvers (talk) 21:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Danvers

I didn't have a thing to do with the previous deletions (only added the deletion sorting to the AfD discussion). But thanks for inadvertently alerting me to delete your inappropriate rant in article space.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Shameless thankspam

FlyingToaster Barnstar

Hello Fabrictramp! Thank you so much for your support in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of 126/32/5. I am truly humbled by the trust you placed in me, and will endeavor to live up to that trust. FlyingToaster

Putting in a useless comment to fool the bot into archiving.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Wisconsin Circuit Court

I came across wikilinks involving articles that mentioned the Wisconsin Circuit Court redlinks that I changed to bluelinks.One of the changes I made to reflect this was the article about Senator Joe McCarthy who was a Wisconsin circuit court judge before he was elected to the US Senator. I though the changes I made were enough to removed the orphan tag.My apologies for any misunderstandings.Thank you-RFD (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. It wasn't an orphan tag you removed, but a deadend tag. That tag means there's no outgoing bluelinks in that particular article.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks for the comment. Let me look at the article and see what I can do-Thank you-RFD (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay- I look at the article and need some wikifying. I limit this to proper names like the counties, etc. In looking at the article I think an editor who is a lawyer will have to edit the article and provide the citations.Many thanks-RFD (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Adrienne Papp

{{helpme}} There is a comment at the top of Adrienne Papp's page "This biographical article is written like a résumé. Please help improve it by revising it to be neutral and encyclopedic. (May 2009)". It has since been edited twice to comply with the comment, yet the comment still remains. Can you help me or suggest what more can be done so that this comment can be removed?

Thank you! --Cheryledbernard (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Help request (and answer) moved over to the users talk page. Fabrictramp, sorry for not spotting that it wasn't the users talk page initially; hence I answered here first, but have now moved my answer. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  17:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
No problem -- I was formulating a reply, but yours is better than mine. :)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
user:chzz/help  Chzz  ►  18:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Coolness! I'll add a link to this at User:Fabrictramp/Useful tags and links. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Claudia Meyer (erased page by you)

Hello,

Would you please let me know what makes you eligible to erase the Claudia Meyer page. Mrs Meyer is a Swiss contemporary exhibiting in numeral art galleries in Europe the USA and France. There was numerous website referenced on her wikepedia page which justified and attested of her existence. All you had to do is visit and contact the art galleries websites if you wanted to verified the accurency of the posted informations. Furthermore. A google search would have help you even more.

Who are you? Can you please clarify. I am Mrs Meyer agent and partner in life you can contact me avia the official website or visit the Artist website at www.claudiameyer.com

DO NOT erase her page again or I will contact Wikipedia for a formal complain.

Thank You Mr Meyer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.225.121.145 (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

While I do have the authority to delete pages that don't meet Wikipedia's guidelines (see WP:ADMIN), I did not erase the Claudia Meyer page nor did I make a single edit to the page. That page was deleted by Spartaz as the result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claudia Meyer. I did not express any opinion in that discussion -- I simply listed it on two lists that track deletion discussions for those who are interested in following them.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Serious newbie

hi,I've been contributing to the Wikipedia entry for AATCC (American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists)and need some guidance to help make the entry more neutral and wiki-like, being a complete newbie at this. Any help (and yes a little hand holding) would be appreciated! Dyewebber (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC) June 11, 2009

Phrases like "serving textile professionals worldwide since 1921" are very typical of press releases and advertisements, not encyclopedia articles. In fact, it's extremely close to a line in the first paragraph of [www.aatcc.org/media/pr/2009/2008_Chapin_Award_Winner.pdf one of their press releases]. The whole first paragraph (and other parts of the article) verges on a copyright violation of their website, which is always a red flag. One suggestion might be (and this is just a suggestion -- I'm not the best article prose writer in the world *grin*):
The American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists (AATCC) is a not-for-profit association of textile professionals, located in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. The association was founded in 1921 and has members in over 60 countries around the world. The association has developed standard methods of testing fabric and fibers, and new methods are published each year in the AATCC Technical Manual.
This gives a quick overview of what the association is and why it might be notable (ultimately, reliable independent sources need to be added to the article to show notability), without using language typical of press releases.
The link to their website should get taken out of the first paragraph, and only be used as a reference or in the external links section of the article. Try to find some other sources that talk about the association as more than a passing mention (again, not press releases).
So a word about copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright issues very seriously -- all it takes is one volunteer adding copyrighted material to get the Wikimedia Foundation involved in a lawsuit. However, if the AATCC gives permission to use the material, we run into advertising issues. The best solution is to rewrite the article in your own words, using more than just the association's website as a source. Yes, it can be a daunting task, but once you get it down there's a lot of personal satisfaction. :)
Wikipedia:Guide_to_improving_articles#Writing and WP:FIRST have some good suggestions on how to proceed. HTH!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Jhoeni Darren Is Real

Jhoeni Darren Is Real—Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.212.105.252 (talk • contribs)

No one said he isn't real. Just that no one can find a shred of proof that he's a "multimedia superstar". Add some proof that he meets the requirements of WP:Notability, and I myself will argue to keep the article.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Issues with Bonnie_Jo_Campbell Page

Hello,

I've noticed that you added issues to the page that I am working on. First, thanks for taking the time to provide input, it is appreciated.

I've modified it to comply to the guidelines as best as I can. Please advise if issues remain. Nancygarrity (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The external links issue still remains. Check out Wikipedia:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided for the problems there, especially #10 and 11. Also check out WP:MOS, especially Wikipedia:MOS#Images and Wikipedia:MOS#External_links. And quick look at her blog shows that WP:COI would be a good read. HTH --Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

World Wiffleball League

I apologize if my rather hasty posting of a commissioner seemed as if it were done under false pretenses. When writing the article, the commissioner mentioned was not yet official, so I was hesitant to post it until the final agreements were made. I believe I stated this in my article--that the position held by Jameson S. Arnold was tentative. This league, I can assure you is legitimate, we just need to work out a few kinks in our organization. Again, I made no attempt to hide this in the article and was pressured by the prompting issued for me to mention a commissioner. I will obviously fulfill any requirements you want in order to prove that the contents of my article are not mere figments of my imagination.

Thank you for understanding, Eatierney92 (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

First you need to prove to Google that the WWL is not a figment of your imagination. Even my pet bird gets more hits than that.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 12:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Um ok thanks. The website is almost up and ready. Will that help? And, if so, should I just post here again to get you to check it out and verify it again? Eatierney92 (talk) 16:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Spend some time reading WP:Notability. Making your own website isn't going to be enough.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
If the local paper does a long-anticipated spot on us, would that, along with establishing our website, makes us notable enough for a Wikipedia page? Eatierney92 (talk) 03:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Probably not. In most deletion discussions, features by a local paper aren't seen as enough -- most local papers, including the one in my town, will do a feature on almost anything local because they figure all the relatives of the people involved will buy papers. (My personal rule of thumb is that I'm not notable, nor is my business. So the coverage needs to be more than what I've received, and my local paper has done a couple of features on me.) National coverage in at least two sources would probably be the minimum to survive a deletion discussion. WP:Notability has a lot more detail on what's needed. HTH.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that we're not currently in a position to gain NATIONAL attention. We are a regional organization that is steadily growing, and, as a part of our attempts to spread this program even further, we are trying to establish a name for ourselves on a site that is easily accessed and informative (hence me attempting to establish a Wikipedia page). The communities that we play significant part in are notable enough to be on Wikipedia, so I guess I don't understand why we're not considered legitimate enough Eatierney92 (talk) 01:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
As I suggested before, spend some time reading WP:Notability. From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies): "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability." Also,

Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:

1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.

2. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources. (In other words, they must satisfy the primary criterion for all organizations as described above.)

In a nutshell, Wikipedia is not the vehicle for you to advertise your group. There are plenty of other methods for you to do so; your time will be better spent on those methods.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
How long do I have until the article I already wrote is inacessible or impossible to retrive? Eatierney92 (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
There's no set time, mainly because a software or server issue could make deleted pages disappear permanently. Currently, deleted pages several years old are still accessible to admins. See Wikipedia:DELETE#Access_to_deleted_pages. Seems like you'd be able to easily recreate the entire article from the sources you used to write it, though.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Cayuga

Deprodding of Cayuga Wildcat Basketball

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Cayuga Wildcat Basketball, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!Eldumpo (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, I think that's better for now, although it's not a strong keep. I realised the school article didn't exist but was just picking up on the historical nature of the write-ups, thus suggesting a degree of notability (assuming good faith that most of the text is factually correct!) Eldumpo (talk) 07:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
It might be factually correct, but it's a copyvio of this. (Go about 1/4 of the way down). I've removed the offending material.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Good to find that page, I've added it as a reference to the article. Eldumpo (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

re:Illinois high school boys basketball championship

Hellooooo Fabrictramp! On April 5, you posted a boilerplate on this article citing that it had multiple issues (which I completely agree existed). I have recently removed this article after it received upgrades, which I believe addresses the issues you cited. I don't like to remove tags like that without notifying the original poster, and give them a chance to repost it, if they still think it is warranted. You need not respond, but I at least wanted to alert you, and give you an opportunity to act, should you find it warranted. LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Impressive work! --Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

101 Squadron (Portugal)

I've proposed 101 Squadron (Portugal), an article you've edited, but didn't create, for deletion because it's an unwikified stub that doesn't state the nobility of 101 Squadron. --I dream of horses (talk) 14:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hardly necessary to notify everyone who ever added a maintenance tag about a prod... --Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks. You have several nice articles.

NinjaDomain —Preceding unsigned comment added by NinjaDomain (talk • contribs) 20:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Take a read through WP:SPAM before you make any more edits or new articles promoting your web sites.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

World ice arena hangzhou

Quick question; when you put various tags on an article like this, does that mean you'd prefer that it not be speedied, or are you leaving that up to others? (Watchlisting) - Dank (push to talk) 03:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

When I'm doing DEP tagging with AWB, all it means is that I didn't see anything so glaringly obvious that I wanted to tag it for speedy/prod/AfD myself, but I did want to note the issues with the article. No objection to anyone else coming along and doing a speedy/prod/AfD.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks much. There was major COI on this one, I deleted it. - Dank (push to talk) 14:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hasan (artist)

I restored the page. You may delete at the conclusion of your review if you believe that's warranted. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ichiro

I appreciate the remark on the Ichiro article in that I forgot to provide the source. However, you're mistaken if you think the edit was intentionally libelous on my part. It's a fairly well known fact. Not to sound amateur, but I've witnessed Ichiro avoiding tags around the bases because of his phobia. Just to clear that up.--68.44.243.157 (talk) 00:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm impressed that you can know what's going on in someone's head just from watching them and can eliminate any other possible explanation. Still, Wikipedia does require independent, reliable sources, and your personal conclusion isn't enough to avoid defamation issues. However, since this "fact" is so well-known, you'll have no trouble at all finding multiple reliable sources to back it up.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Dimethyl ether (data page)

Hi there

You don't need to tag pages with (data page) in the article titles, because they are supplementary to the main page. In this case, dimethyl ether. Hope this helps. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, these data page type "articles" show up on all the maintenance lists. Until people figure out some solution to that, they'll get tagged again and again (in part because there's also no standard that I can see for naming these things.) Sounds like Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry needs to figure out a way to do these pages so they don't show up in the dead end, uncat, and other frequently regenerated maintenance lists.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Countdown to 100k

Congratulations (early) to an amazing editor and admin! Let's start the countdown to 100k edits for Fabrictramp! Based on your editing history I am guessing you will roll the odometer on/around 9PM EST on June 14th. Anyone else want to join the pool?    7   talk | Δ |   01:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I will gladly accept any and all bribes to fix the outcome of the betting pool. I'm not a fan of old-time baseball for nothing. Bribes are non-refundable, even if you lose the pool.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 12:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
What time is Rien ne va plus? I'd like to go for midnight UK time (which is UTC+1), on 18th June, pls. You know that you must make your 100,000th edit naked, right?  Chzz  ►  17:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Edit naked? I thought there were rules about not frightening children and horses. ;-P If my 100K edit is while I'm at work, it could be a bit problematic.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Chzz must have paid up... only like 100 edits today.  ;)    7   talk | Δ |   03:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Well I certainly didn't get the bribe yet. I'm thinking a little more subtle fixing is going on here -- making sure RL rose up and bit me in the hindquarters, just so I wouldn't have time to edit. Hmpf.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Only 88 to go!

I think the recent server performance must be slowing you down.    7   talk | Δ |   22:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Nah, it's that real life crap again. And the whole making a living nonsense. *sigh* --Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Well done!
A Barnstar!
Wikipedia Service Award - 100,000 Edits
In recognition of your accomplishments, I present you with this Golden Wiki
award and thank you for your tireless effort, and commend you on reaching
100,000 edits.

Congratulations!

   7   talk | Δ |  

Thank you! To celebrate, I created John Churry as #100K.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Gena Knox

Hi Fabrictramp, I appreciate you helping me with comments on the Gena Knox page. I have tried to edit the page so that I have resolved the issues you brought up, could you let me know if there are further suggestions you have? Thanks. YCmedia (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the {{wikify}} and {{deadend}} tags. However, Wikipedia does strongly discourage you from editing pages where you have a conflict of interest. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, appreciate the feedback. Are there parts of the bio that don't seem neutral?YCmedia (talk) 15:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
The only thing I see that stands out right now is duplicating the use of her own sites both as sources and external links -- it has the air of being promotional. And even if everything is completely neutral, I'd still advise against it because people will see the conflict and wonder if bias is there even when it isn't.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the help. I changed the book link to Amazon and removed the link to Fire&Flavor as a reference and added an additional national magazine as a reference. What needs to happen in order to have the page not considered as having an issue?YCmedia (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Pretty much as long as you continue to edit it, the COI tag needs to remain.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I have no more edits to the page (only recent edits I made were to try to conform to wikipedia standards). At what point does the COI tag get removed? Appreciate your explaining to me, new to this. YCmedia (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll remove it myself if you'll give me your word on two things: that you won't edit the article except to fix factual errors, and that you won't recruit anyone who is associated with Gena to edit the article for you.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Excellent, you have my word. Thanks again for all your help.YCmedia (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 Done--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi again - would I be able to add a photo to the entry, or is that not proper? Thanks!YCmedia (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I think that would be fine. Images trip a lot of people, so be sure to read MOS:IMAGE#Images and Wikipedia:Image use policy before you start.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Great, thanks!YCmedia (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Acoustic Horn

Hello Fabrictramp, Thank you for your recent feedback about the new acoustic horn page. I can assure you that the GE owns the copyright for that information and I have approval from our legal department to add it to the Wiki. Would it help if I had a letter from our lawyer or something or maybe I can send you more information about me and the role I have within GE? We strongly believe that this page would be a great resource for users looking for information about acoustic horns. Also, I wanted to make sure I selected information that was non-branded and void of promotion.

Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, especially Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials#Granting_us_permission_to_copy_material_already_online, has all the instructions on how to give permission to reuse the material. HTH!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

User: Smellypits

You blocked this user for 31 hours for abusive A7 articles. Smellypits is back. I have just posted a CSD A7 author notification for a similar new article. Just thought I'd give you a heads up. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Use of Sports Logos.
For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 02:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

victor di suvero

Dear Fabrictramp,

thank you for your help with the new article about victor di suvero.

Victor did not place this article himself. I am a graphic designer who has worked on websites for victor and I placed the article about him on wikipedia.

I did put this information on the talk page after receiving the warnings about posting an article about yourself- but it must not have been read.

Please help me!! I am very concerned that the article about Victor will be taken off unecessarily... because I used victors name to sign in?? I'm not sure why but I should have used my name: eabeyta

Please let me know what I can do to ensure that the article remains on wiki. I would greatly appreciate it.

I have also tried to give plenty of references to articles about victor. He is Mark di Suvero's brother. Should I make reference to that as well. Mark is a sculptor who has had an article on wiki for quite awhile.

thank you for your help in advance. eabeyta Vdisuvero (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

There are a multitude of problems that you've brought up here; hopefully I'll be able to cover each one.
First, since you say you're not Victor, I've removed the autobiography tag from the article. However, since you are someone he has hired in the past, I've place a {{coi}} tag on the article. Take a few minutes to read WP:COI carefully -- you'll see that Wikipedia strongly discourages you from editing this article.
The conflict of interest issue ties into a related issue, that of copyright violation. Much of the article is a direct copy of this site, and was also on victordisuvero.com before that was taken down.[1] Either way, it needs to be rewritten ASAP, because it's either a [[WP:COPYVIO|copyright violation] or an advertisement. Given that http://wecametosantafe.com has a link to the Wikipedia article, I'm going to assume the latter, however I may not have time this morning to deal with it personally and I may have to report it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems for someone else to look at.
As to the relationship to Mark di Suvero, while it might be worth a sentence in the article (assuming there are references available), that's about the most that should be mentioned. Mark's notability doesn't affect Victor's at all as far as Wikipedia goes.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

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

AATCC wikipedia edit

Hi, I wrote you a note about editing the AATCC wikipedia article June 11, which you kindly replied to. I wikifying it, added third party references, and making it more neutral. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks! Dyewebber (talk) 18:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Licensing update reminder

Hi. :) I'm investigating William N. Ryerson, which DumbBot listed at CP, and I see that you removed a copyright tag from it on 27 June 2009 because the evident source ([2]) is released under GFDL. Coincidentally, I just posted about this yesterday on AN and WT:CSD to point out to admins who might not be aware that we can no longer accept material that is licensed under GFDL unless it is also under a license compatible with CC-By-SA. (The conversation about it at AN is way more interesting than the one at CSD; until it disappears it's (here). Obviously, there are a number of admins who don't realize that this has changed, so please help spread the word. In this particular case, I'm pretty sure that the apparent source is just a Wikimirror anyway of an earlier article that was deleted for infringing on [3]. I'm off to figure out if it needs to be put through the CP queue again or speedied. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I hadn't known it at the time, but I'd seen the notice since then.
The Wiki mirror idea is a good one, but the dates don't work out. The earlier Wikipedia article was made in March of 2009 while the "mirror" was last edited in 2008.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. Interesting! I wonder where they got it? The official source would seem to be the first publisher. :) Just out of curiosity, I'll run a wayback on them to see where they date to. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
No wayback on the official page. I'm going to chalk that one up as a mystery and move on. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes that's all you can do. :)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Duration of Copyright (UK)- Possible Copyvio

Thanks for visiting the page I created. It will be easier for you to judge whether this is a copyvio if I give a few words of guidance.

  • All the information was taken from the one page that I cited, but references back to other pages that were less clear.
  • I found the route through his diagram to be very woolly.
  • I recast the logic, in a way that was easier to be followed by someone with CS training. Original work.
  • I recast the work to distinguish between questions, and statements by using different symbols. Original work.
  • I recast the rendereing of the diagram so all nos go down and all yeses go across. Original work.
  • I recast the logic, so each blue shaded question box had one point of entry, two points of exit, and each red outlined output boxes had a single point of entry. Compare with Tim Padfields output boxes that breach this rule. Original work.
  • I used the same legalese as Tim Padfield as (this as matter of fact) is the language to use matter of fact
  • I added the advise Not on Commons and the correct Wiki copyright tags to all red outlined output boxes. Original work.

To my mind, all we have in common is that we have both chosen to represent the information in visual form, and both chosen to use the correct legal jargon. To my mind, Tim is the acknowledged expert, and any diagram must lead the editor to the identical conclusion. Tims representation is flawed because it does not attempt to stick to BS flowchart convention. My diagram is limited by Wikimedia not supporting the use of a background image in table cells, and the need for a high resolution monitor to display the image correctly.

After having read all the points above, could you let me know if I have missed something obvious and any point of the page does contain a copyvio, or what was the sticking point that caused you to suspect that any part of the page was dubious so we can tag that area for future users --ClemRutter (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said in my message to you, I'm certainly not an expert on copyright violations, but it definitely seems like the changes are superficial. I do know that things like changing a symbol or a color aren't enough to avoid copyvio. Perhaps the best course would be to post at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems -- feel free to link to this conversation to save on retyping.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
That is a rather quick response. I have done as you requested. But if you are no expert would you like to explain what you find superficial? I took time to explain 5 major area of original work- I have pointed out that we are both using legalese- that is fact which cannot be copyrighted. I asked you point out what you interpret to be a copyvio. If you can explain the problem, I can point you to the policy- or the case law, but please do research my responses before continuing with this time waster. If you can't do that- go back to the list I have provided and explain where your reference is to suggest that my logic is wrong, but if you can't justify your tag- would you please remove it. Best wishes Clem. --ClemRutter (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Let's back up just a bit here. My reply was more than two hours after your reply here. And remember, I had already looked at the article when I placed the tag. How on earth is that a "rather quick response"? If you reply to nothing else, I'd like a response to this one.
Since you seem to want a point-by-point discussion, here we go:
"All the information was taken from the one page that I cited, but references back to other pages that were less clear." No problem here.
"I found the route through his diagram to be very woolly." Nothing to do with copyvio issues.
"I recast the logic, in a way that was easier to be followed by someone with CS training." Frankly, I'm not sure what you mean here. They are both flow charts, with the same questions, same flow, and same logic.
"I recast the work to distinguish between questions, and statements by using different symbols." To me, the use of different symbols is superficial, as I said above.
"I recast the rendereing of the diagram so all nos go down and all yeses go across" Again, to me this is a superficial change.
"I recast the logic, so each blue shaded question box had one point of entry, two points of exit, and each red outlined output boxes had a single point of entry." Again, superficial.
"I used the same legalese as Tim Padfield as (this as matter of fact) is the language to use" I think we're in agreement here. But, of course, if this was presented in encyclopedic prose instead of a chart with no intro, you would be quoting and referencing each piece of legalese back to the original legal document, and using your own words inbetween, making it fair use.
"I added the advise Not on Commons and the correct Wiki copyright tags to all red outlined output boxes". This is where we get into a gray area. My understanding is that small additions like this aren't enough. But it's not clear-cut, so I listed it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems rather than speedying it.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Good morning; thanks for the clarification. Lets get down to business. I haven't referred to this page since I wrote it, having moved on into another Wiki area, but it is useful to examine the concepts.
"I recast the logic, in a way that was easier to be followed by someone with CS training." Frankly, I'm not sure what you mean here. They are both flow charts, with the same questions, same flow, and same logic. Technically, Tims work is not a flow chart as it does not obey the fundamental rules. He is attempting to do a Process Flowchart-using the constraints of a Wordprocessing system, without distinguishing between process and decision. We should test whether correcting that is an act of creation. In colloquial language they are flowcharts.
  • Same question: but they are a matter of legal fact, so we can't copyvio by using them. We should test if this is correct.
  • Same flow: the test is simply the number of statement boxes (outputs). Tim uses 8-(artistic choice) I use 12. When he made his representation he chose to break the flowchart convention to restrict the number of output boxes to 8 so they would fit on the page. With the same information, I chose to adhere to the flowchart convention, and place my statement boxes at the end of each logical flow- that to me is sufficient Original work. If the flow were the same I would agree with you. We should test whether adhering to the convention is an act of creation.
  • Same logic: (two intrepretations on word logic) 1. Yes, this is a different rendering of legal logic. 2: No. The fact that the flow is different, means the flowchart logic is different
"I recast the work to distinguish between questions, and statements by using different symbols." To me, the use of different symbols is superficial, as I said above. Using a different stylistic convention for a symbol is a clear no no. What I have done is to differentiate the meaning implied by a box and separated out questions from statements, then rendered them in a form that is as close the BS4058:1973 and BS6224:1982 as is possible within the limitations of Wikimedias table rendering.
"I recast the rendereing of the diagram so all nos go down and all yeses go across" Again, to me this is a superficial change.
If the diagram remained the same, but portrait rather than landscape, a reflection or rotation- I would agree. In that it give a fundamentally different shape, I can't see that superficial is right. The fact that I, humble user can now actually navigate through the diagram and consistently get the same result, (which is why I started to re-render it) is a major act of creation! We should test whether this is an act of creation.
"I recast the logic, so each blue shaded question box had one point of entry, two points of exit, and each red outlined output boxes had a single point of entry." Again, superficial. No: fundamental. A statement box can only ever have one point of entry. Each function has a separate symbol. Correcting Tims mistakes (design choices) creates Original work.. You are absolutly right that changing the bgcolor or shape of a symbol would not be sufficient, but I have done far more than that. We should test whether correcting that is an act of creation.
I do hope, that demonstrates why I was requesting a longer response. I would like to say that when I was drawing up the flowchart that I had ploughed a different way though some of the questions. I am sure I did, though I can't find it now and what it was, and whether I reverted it I just can't remember. Anyway the photographs I was trying to upload failed all the tests- and have to be used as Fair Use. Still, I am going to put on some coffee and you are welcome to join me.--ClemRutter (talk) 09:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Clemrutter - I was asked to review this and this is certainly not a clear-cut case, but here's my opinion. The derivative diagram by you exactly duplicates the structure of the original diagram, which is not dictated by the laws that it claims to represent but is a creative contribution of the original author, Tim Padfield. Although the changes are probably substantial enough to earn a copyright of their own, I don't think they're substantial enough to discount the contribution of the original author.
The best solution that I can see is that someone can create their own diagram based directly on the underlying law, or prose summaries of those laws, without consulting Padfield's diagram. The fact that such a diagram would almost certainly differ in structure highlights the issue here. Dcoetzee 20:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Supposed vandalism of Beavis and Butthead

Hello, you sent me a message claiming that I vandalized the Wiki of "Beavis and Butthead". However, I did not do so and I have never even been on the page before. I'm not sure if it was an IP error or what, but no one using this computer has ever been on that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.178.0.133 (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the edit back in February that triggered the message. Someone with that IP definitely scrawled on the page, but as it says in the box at the bottom of your IP's talk page "Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users." If you didn't do it, don't worry about it, but getting an account and logging in will prevent you from getting messages not meant for you. HTH!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fabrictramp/Archive_05&oldid=302599687"