User talk:Retired username/Archive18

Muniguda

I have re-worked the article to more conform to the wiki way... If you have the time to review it as compaired to the original. If you have any suggestions feel free to advise me. Thanks --Pmedema (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a fine stub now, nice work. --W.marsh 21:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank-you :) Learning and doing.... --Pmedema (talk) 05:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Missing headline

Hi Administrator Marsh,

regarding:

17:29, 30 November 2007 W.marsh (Talk | contribs) deleted "Newbie Brad" ‎ (content was: '{{db-rediruser}} #REDIRECT User:Newbie Brad' (and the only contributor was 'Chromaticity')) I hope you'll reconsider. The re-submission I made shows recent international performance activity in the entry, which might indicate the submission is appropriate subject matter for WIKI. Best, Brad Smith— Preceding unsigned comment added by Newbie Brad (talk • contribs)

The person who actually did this move was Chromaticity (talk · contribs) --W.marsh 18:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Heads up

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:W.marsh speedily closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Sander. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 23:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you much for the notice... I probably would have missed the thread otherwise. --W.marsh 23:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Graduated Random Presidential Primary System

It's very likely that you have put the cart before the horse. The Wikipedia article was written in early 2004. FairVote adopted the idea and renamed it the American Plan more than a year later. Thus, any resemblance between material in the Wikipedia article and information on the FairVote website is may well be due to FairVote getting its material in part from the Wikipedia article (it is supposed to be a free source of information). Concerns over copyright infringement seem unfounded. You might contact the original author of the Graduated Random Presidential Primary System, a.k.a American Plan, and ask him if he wants the article deleted. He may not be aware that its been deleted.

• It doesn't work that way, though. We need the permission to use copyrighted material first, we don't just use it until the owner complains. You can send him the above link I showed you on donating copyrighted material. --W.marsh 01:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Graduated Random Presidential Primary System

Forgive me, but we seem to be having a misunderstanding. You claim that the reason for deleting this page was that it violated FairVote's copyright. This is obviously untrue given that the Wikipedia article existed first. It was in the public domain for a year, then FairVote may have used it. What is the problem?

So you're saying that the content did not originate from this site, that FairVote copied from Wikipedia without attribution, and that the original Wikipedia article was written by our editors and not copied from anywhere? My research seems to be confirming this, so I will probably undelete if you agree my summary is correct. --W.marsh 01:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Helion-Prime deleted

Hello W.marsh. Article about our compnay was nominated after I added some addtional content to it. When I notified it I rewrited it and made special post in talk page. But recently you do deleted article anaway. I asked about description [why], I asked what can I do to meet wiki requirements?

tell me somthing my friend .. thank you, Anna Anna.kolesnik 17:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I'll think about it but you keep saying "our company". Does it seem that surprising that people think someone writing about their own company comes off as advertising? --W.marsh 17:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I said "our company". I guess that you noticed that almost all aritcles about companies created by employee of that companies. We want to have our article about our company too. But still what can I do to restore our page? What should I rewrite on it accordingly to your understanding of wiki philosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna.kolesnik (talk • contribs) 07:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections

Please see my comments at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Deskana. Thank you. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 00:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of "Proportional approval voting," please reconsider

As I had noticed other suspicious behavior on the part of the editor who proposed this deletion, I looked at Special:Contributions/Yellowbeard. This editor was a blatant sock. The very first action, the same day as registering, he proposed an AfD for Schentrup Method. Clay Shentrup -- who for some reason, when he proposed this method half as a joke, mispelled his name that way -- is a prominent and, shall we say, outspoken proponent of Range and Approval Voting. Makes lots of enemies. The article deserved deletion, that's not my point. My point is that Yellowbeard was an experienced editor with an axe to grind, who dives into hacking with it immediately.. He then proceeded to AfD a whole series of election methods, and he was successful for a time. Many of these articles were about relatively weakly-notable methods, and, most importantly, it appears that nobody was watching the articles, apparently. He then started to run into opposition, and has stopped editing, it appears, more than a month ago. He may be back under another name, a different matter.

My request here is that Proportional approval voting be brought back, even if it is immediately considered again for deletion. The evidence presented in the AfD was quite incomplete. While there are no peer-reviewed publications that I've seen, so far -- I have only researched this shallowly -- PAV has widely been discussed, and a number of papers have been written and made available by academics on it. It is not merely the Original Research of one person, it is a known method seeing relatively wide discussion. One of the problems we face with election methods articles in general is that much serious discussion of such methods now takes place on mailing lists, first, and later with self-published articles, long before articles appear in the few peer-reviewed journals that might possibly consider publishing them. Existing peer-reviewed journals, for the most part, and with a few exceptions, are mostly interested, it seems, in short-term, i.e., immediate political relevance, so even well-known methods are often not yet published in sources meeting WP:RS. (There is a journal which does publish some new theoretical work, Voting Matters, but it specializes in topics relevant to Single transferable vote or similar methods.)

In this state of affairs, an article on a *notable* method must be careful about stating facts that cannot be verified by an RS; essentially, those facts, if stated as such, must be verifiable by any reader. All this would come out, I'm sure, in an AfD that had participation by more Voting systems editors. I did not recognize one name in the AfD. Except for Yellowbeard. My opinion is that if a subject is notable, it deserves an article, whether the subject was in some way the product of "Original research" or not. To be notable, it must be discussed widely, at least in its field. The proper standard to apply for keeping or deleting the article was notability, not WP:OR. One clue as to the notability of this article was the many links which had to be removed when it was deleted. Articles on notable subjects where there are few or no Reliable Sources can still state attributed facts about discussion and claims about it that can be verified by anyone.

Thanks for your consideration and efforts. --Abd 20:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 49	3 December 2007	About the Signpost

Template:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-s

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 10:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD of 'newsy' articles

Hiya, I just read your note advicing against AfD on whatshernames talkpage (with the dispearing porn thing). I was just wondering what standard pratice is in situations like these, where there are some current developements, but there is no clear indication of notability yet. I always thought that was more something for wikinews, and could be taken over to wikipedia when a permanent notability had been established. Could you give some guidance on that? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I tried to describe the speculative nature of trying to decide either way at this juncture. I think standard practice is kind of what I described... the "just let people create an article now and we'll delete it later if it makes sense then" argument has been endorsed at DRV (with some of the London terrorism articles). It would be problematic to actually add this practice to BLP policy... I don't think it gives any guidance yet. While Wikinews is theoretically better, Wikipedia just has so many more editors... our ability to generate quite good articles on current event-ish stories is pretty well documented. I hope that was helpful... the bottom line is there's no definitive way of handling these cases. But AFDs this early are so messy that I don't think many people really advise them. --W.marsh 23:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense I guess. Regardless of the 'messyness' of the AfD's, getting new editors articles deleted quickly is fairly bity too, I see a point there aswell, though that shouldn't govern inclusion criteria. I guess what will happen though, is that it will become one of the many, many, forgotten articles, which I don't really object to anyway. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, like I said, I don't think you'll ever see "don't AFD current event articles" codified into policy... not doing so is something of an unspoken agreement to avoid drama. It doesn't really hurt to wait a few months, if the information being added now is verifiable. I think these things do find their way to AFD sooner or later... I wouldn't worry too much about Wikipedia being overwhelmed by stale stories of forgotten scandals of yesteryear. --W.marsh 23:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Is Image:Emily-israel-victoria.jpg This image appropriate though, with the man in it? (BLP thingies? )Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Offhand, I'd say no... the guy has not been convicted or even accused of anything as far as I know and yet there's his image clearly implying something. This is a bit of a policy gray area though. Maybe discuss on the talk page. --W.marsh 00:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I will... tomorrow. To bed for me now. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

And there I was thinking I'm sure there won't be too much drama...Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's what I said would happen 5 days ago... it's too bad quasi-wheel warring admins wasting a lot of people's time by forcing the AFD to run when the conclusion was obvious. --W.marsh 02:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Subject/headline

(sometimes I can't think of a good header, so you get the generic one)

Hey, Marsh - if I can make an unsolicited suggestion as a third party... you may want to step away from the Sander-related stuff for a little bit. There's some unpleasant things coming from all sides on the issue, and I think it'd reflect well on the whole thing if you, as an admin, were to step back for a little bit to get some air and allow things to settle into the proper perspective. Might set the lead to help things cool off some. If anything changes, the edit logs will have everything saved - but when I see a good admin dropping a few tense comments (i.e. [1], [2]), whether they're right or wrong, it may be time for a break.

Just a friendly suggestion, you're welcome to ignore it if you'd like. Let me know if I can help. Tijuana Brass 01:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you didn't leave a comment like this to the guy who called me abusive and a POV pusher, or to the other guy who stated his goal of gaming 3RR to edit war on the article in question.. both of which violate various policies, something you haven't accused me of. So why do I need to step away while people who are making personal attacks or edit warring can keep on trucking? Well I guess I know the answer... the other two guys agree with your POV on the article. --W.marsh 01:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. I don't have much of an opinion on the article itself... I voted delete at the AfD, but it's no skin off my back if the consensus goes the other way. I picked you because you're an admin that I've seen around for some time now, and I'm confident in your ability to approach the issue in a cool manner. Me picking you is out of trust, not finger-pointing. Don't read something negative into me not posting to their talk pages - I'm not saying that I agree with any of the accusations made by either side. It's just a hot situation that I'd like to see cooled down some, and I think you could help make that happen.

If you'd like me to offer the same suggestion to other users, let me know (sooner rather than later, though, as I plan to sign off for a while in a few minutes). Tijuana Brass 01:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Nah, don't bother with similar messages to them. Hopefully you see my point though, that you have targeted only the guy who disagreed with you about the article, yet I wasn't edit warring or making attacks. Mikkalai is an admin too as far as I know. --W.marsh 01:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I get where you're coming from - I didn't intend to imply an accusation, so I apologize if it came off as me pointing the finger at you. Just trying to encourage cool heads.

Let me know if I can help in some other way in the future. Tijuana Brass 01:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I reply to people at AFD and make strong arguments... sometimes people who are unfamiliar with deletion debates (I don't know if you are) seem surprised and mistake it for hostility... that's really not the case. I've nominated people for adminship who I've disagreed with strongly with at AFD. I don't personally think I've ever been a "hot head" in an AFD, or if I have it wasn't this one in question. I appreciate the concern... but sometimes a strong argument is just a strong argument, it's not a sign that someone is too emotional. --W.marsh 03:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Stuartross1/ross

I came across this and was wondering if there was a plan for it? I guess it's left over from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart R. Ross back in Feb 2007 but I'm a little unclear on the "userfy" part of this action. The AfD notice still in the article brings it up on this list: User:DumbBOT/TimeSortedAfD. I'm tracking down the older listings to see if they need to be cleared out. Should I just ignore it? Pigman☿ 21:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I userfy any article (other than copyvios/libel) if someone wants to work on adding references, so that seems to have been the case here. I try to remember to remove the AFD and other templates that don't belong in userspace. THe user seems to have been inactive since March... I'll delete the page. --W.marsh 21:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I figured 8 months with no work to speak of was long enough. Pigman☿ 02:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Helion-Prime article restore

Good afternoon W.marsh.

I want ask you to restore our page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helion-prime ; and provide me with view on you wiki philosophy how I should redising it to meet your criteria of wiki.

thank you, Anna —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna.kolesnik (talk • contribs) 09:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I assure you most articles about notable companies aren't written by those companies. At any rate, I have restored a copy in your userspace, at User:Anna.kolesnik/Helion-prime. You can move it back to being an article after you add independent sources about your company (books, magazines, newspaper articles, etc.) If these don't exist, it seems your company doesn't meet the inclusion guideline here, WP:CORP --W.marsh 15:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

thank you for detailed message. I will try to add independent sources.

194.158.198.156 (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

William H. Neukom

Hi, Please add more info to the instant article so that it will not have to read like a resume. John5Russell3Finley (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I added the tag so people interested in this topic can do the style editting needed. I don't know anything about Neukom. --W.marsh 02:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sean Morrison

I would like to know why this page was deleted and/or what I could do that would make it acceptable to repost the page without fear of deletion. For instance, Sean Morrison has won the following awards, and is notable for a number of other reasons. Also, I would like access to the text of the deleted page.

These awards include, according to the Detroit News, "The Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers in 2003, Wired Magazine's Rave Award for Science in 2003 and Technology Review magazine's list of 100 innovators in 2002. Morrison earned the prestigious title of investigator from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute in 2000. He became one of more than 300 scientists at research institutes around the county chosen because of his potential to make significant contributions to science" http://detnews.com/specialreports/2006/michiganians/morrison.htmAptanalogy (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The article I deleted was probably about a different Sean Morrison... it just said "He grew up from the age of 5 in the bay area in Northern California. Sean currently works as an I.T. guy at a small startup company and is going to school". You will just need to start over to write about the Sean Morrison you mention. --W.marsh 19:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

OK...but did you read the article that I posted before it was deleted? I did write about (the notable) Sean Morrison, when it was deleted immediately. Was it someone else who deleted the article that I wrote? Do you have the text of the deleted article?Aptanalogy (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You do not appear to have ever editted the deleted page, maybe you did under a different account/IP? Zoe deleted a version on 17 August 2006 that was also about a student and had no credible claim of importance. Another version deleted by bucketsofg was short and only claimed the subject was "an investigator of stem cell research", which is not a credible claim of importance. I've looked at every revision and don't see anything that asserts importance. --W.marsh 19:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Rigging Extempore Gear

Referring to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Active#Rigging_extempore_gear I want to object to the deletion of this article because it wasn't a how to. It was never described how someone rigs a gyn f.i.. It did describe how a gyn is rigged. See the difference? By the way I somehow cannot edit the site on the above mentioned link. Well I can but it doesn't show me any of the things you said in the above mentioned link. And if you truly believe it to be a how-to why don't you modify it? Janno (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.32.73 (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Maxwell Upson

Being on the board of trustees for 35 years is a notable accomplishment? Is it simply the length of time he was on it or the mere presence on the board? will381796 (talk) 04:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

A bit of both, also the fact that it was a quite notable board, or so the article indicated. This is not a guarantee the article would be kept at AFD, it's just a reasonable claim of importance, enough to satisfy WP:CSD#A7... at least in my opinion. --W.marsh 04:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Understood. Thanks. will381796 (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

thank you

Moïse Katumbi Chapwe Thank you for removing the speedy delete tag from this article around 25 November 2007. This man is a provincial governor in the Congo. I have improved the article and added references. it is not finished and has a long way to go, but it's now better. This is the state that I found the article ‎http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mo%C3%AFse_Katumbi_Chapwe&diff=176227297&oldid=175348272 (See bottom part of article, scroll down!)

Thank you for giving someone a chance to fix this! Congolese (talk) 04:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Domino's

You failed to see that the article were tagged in October as having an Trivia tag? And the un-encyclopedic tag put up in November? That stuff should have been converted to prose and incorporated into the main body. If the contributors failed to do this in the three months that these tags were there, it is not my fault.

You are an admin and you should know better to violate the three reverts rule.

- Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 05:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC))

The "three months" thing is not in the trivia guideline, in fact the guideline specifically says not to remove trivia sections but to edit them... you were just removing it. What you were doing was section blanking... 3RR doesn't apply to dealing with blanking. --W.marsh 15:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia vs WikiNews

I thought your comment on the AfD for the Colorado Springs church shooting article was smashing! [3] Have you considered developing it into an essay? Or perhaps there already is one? At any rate, it was great and I've bookmarked it for future reference. Anchoress (talk) 06:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. I doubt there's an essay on the subject... I was just sick of deletionists who don't understand there's a difference between journalistic and encyclopedic writing (possibly because they don't do either), and want to shuffle everything off to Wikinews just to sweep it under the rug. --W.marsh 14:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey W.marsh, I just wanted to echo User:Anchoress's comments above. I was quite impressed with your contrast of encyclopedic and journalistic functions. If you are interested in writing an essay on this topic, I would be more than happy to help you. Just write me back on my talk page if you want to go forward with this idea. --Eastlaw (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

An addendum to my previous comment: There is already one essay on this topic, Wikipedia:News articles. Perhaps we should write a response to this essay based upon your earlier comments? Again, let me know on my talk page if you have time. --Eastlaw (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll give it a try... thanks for the encouragement. I'll try to post to both of your talk pages if I generate anything. --W.marsh 23:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

@ Both of you: Cool and I would love to participate in writing/editing such an essay as well. If (either of) you get one started I'll be there! Anchoress (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

quit

--Zax1993 (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)i am making some thing on my dog and the right pic did not go on

Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 50	10 December 2007	About the Signpost

Template:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-s

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You and RFPP

Mitchell Report (baseball)

REQUEST: Semi-protection. To start with, for the next 24 hours. The report is coming out tommorrow and already there has been "rumors" posted that are in gross violation of WP:LIBEL. And once the report will come out, the "party" will really start. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected. I don't agree with preemptive protection, but here it's really already started, and the material being added is clearly problematic in terms of BLP. Going with only 24 hours for now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you justify undoing the protect? --\/\/slack (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, saw your post on the talk page. --\/\/slack (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

mitchell report

Hi.

If you look at the contributory history of Mitchell Report (baseball) you will notice that all the contribs from IP's are unsourced names/vandalism. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)