User talk:SouthernNights

NOTE: If you are here about a deleted article: Before asking why I deleted your article please read through Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, specifically concerning copying copyrighted text and notability of articles.

• If your article was deleted because it was "Not notable" or about "Unremarkable people or groups," please see Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles for more information.
• If the article was deleted for a copyright violation, but you wrote the material yourself and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on your external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later."

Hope this helps.--SouthernNights 16:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

*Please note that I tend to post responses on this page (except when I don't :-).

Archives
Talk Archives 1 Talk Archives 2 Talk Archives 3 Talk Archives 4 Talk Archives 5 Talk Archives 6 Talk Archives 7

• SouthernNights maintains a grab bag page of different templates and links which admins and other users may find useful.

Article on WaTunes

I've looked on my page and it gives me this error "17:12, 14 September 2007 SouthernNights (Talk | contribs) deleted "WaTunes" ‎ (CSD A7 (Web): Article about a web site that does not assert significance)" Why was my page deleted and how can I have it undeleted due to that I now have lots of notability and references.

Thanks,

--Xandus (talk) 12:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Article on Matt Gangi

After doing a little editing on the Paw Tracks label page, I came over to the stub on Matt Gangi to write in some discography. Not only did I find the page deleted, but you also listed the page as protected? How come? Thanks --UltraCaution (talk) 06:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• I too am curious as to why the Matt Gangi page is protected. --69.138.243.158 (talk) 14:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The article has been deleted five times by three different admins. In short, the subject is not notable. The page has been protected to prevent recreation of the article.--SouthernNights (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• If given the opportunity, I could write an article that would assert nobility. --140.239.230.226 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Ha, I couldn't tell you if he is noble or not (I assume it is a typo above)... but I could write an article that would show, not necessarily nobility... but definitely notability. ha!!! For example, he appears in the new winter issue of Guys Nylon magazine (a nationally distributed magazine). --UltraCaution (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A new article has been created at Gangi (musician). I've tagged it for deletion. Wwwhatsup (talk) 10:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Another request to unprotect the Matt Gangi article. In my daily readings of the reliable Pitchforkmedia, I saw him listed as a contributor to another nationally distributed album- a tribute to The Cure, appearing on it with a score of notable artists, Dandy Warhols, Blonde Redhead, Bat for Lashes, Ariel Pink, CocoRosie, blackblack, Indian Jewelry, Lou Doillon, etc, etc.. Also, I promise not to write the article until I get even more sources (I'll do an additional few months of research and follow the artist), so that notability won't even be a question. However, can I ask you to unprotect the page in case somebody else has/obtains more information? That is the point of wikipedia and why it is so powerful! Thanks. UltraCaution (talk) 07:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 26 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Earl Kemp, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 19:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

User and Talk pages

I will be collaborating with Johntex on a salvage effort on the Marshall, Texas article to avoid the need for a FAR. I would like my userpage and talk page unprotected for the duration of my activity on this project. Your opinions on the article renovation will be most welcome of course. Thanks. -JCarriker 22:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. I'll also check out the article and any critiques. --SouthernNights 13:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• I've had a change of heart after seeing that most of my work here is now worthless. I'd like my userpages deleted, except the Texan Cabal which I want given to Johntex. If you'd like to make a historical summary or soemthing that's fine, but I want the pages as they are now gone. Thanks. -Jay

Recovering data from a deleted article

Is there any way I can retrive the information from an article that has been deleted (i.e. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyran Star Empire)? I am working to set up a workable article which would include information from this article and several others and am hoping I would not have to completely recreate it.

Or, is it possible we could get this rebuilt as a redirect to Alpha Octant?

Thank you for your time.--Donovan Ravenhull 18:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for your time. I did not want to risk sanctions for recreating the article, even as just a redirect, directly after a deletion.--Donovan Ravenhull 19:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

sorry

I thought that the issue was resolved because Mrs.EasterBunny wanted some people to comment on if the comment "Groundless AFD" was inappropriate. Somebody said they wouldn't have used that phrase, I seconded the comment. If Mrs.EasterBunny is mad, I'm sure she will say so. Given that her comments are often very polite, I think she may be satisfied and, if so, the matter is resolved! If not, she can say so.

UTAFA 22:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem.--SouthernNights 22:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

C'mmon ask me a question

p

You said "I left some links at the top of this page so you can learn more about Wikipedia. Welcome.--SouthernNights"

I've been editing for 6 months, albeit not too much. I've seen cooperation. I've seen conflict. Ask me a question about wikipedia policy. Let's see if I can answer it. If not, it's something to learn. C'mon, hit me right here with a question. Free use question? BLP question? Sock it to me and see me either hit a home run or collapse while gripping my stomach :p UTAFA 22:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Chat

Good to see your page back. You are my friend and I will always be here for you. Tony the Marine 17:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. And likewise back at you.--SouthernNights 19:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi

How long does it take after making some edits for the changes to appear Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.73.109 (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Chat

So what would be the definition of a "Remarkable Person"? Are there forms that I would have to fill out to be a "Remarkable Person"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.207.124.226 (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

re Email

Thanks for the advice, but i have already made it very clear in my last message to him that i have no desire to get involved in their petty disputes, in fact i may have been a bit strong, but i wanted to be clear. Anyway, thank you for your concern--Jac16888 23:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem.--SouthernNights 00:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Congrats!

10,000 edits! Amazing. Thank you for all your hard work. Aside from your enormous contribution, you are considerate and reasonable - two of the most important qualities on these pages. You set an example for us all.Smatprt 03:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the extremely kind words. Best,--SouthernNights 20:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for breast protect

I substantially reorganised breast some months ago, and since then have kept an eye on it. There has been a lot of vandalism, as you know, and I want to thank you for semi-protecting it. I knew it had to be done, but wasn't sure of the steps necessary to officially persuade "the system" that that was an appropriate measure. I fear it may need to be a permanent protection -- as long as we have adolescents, we are going to have editors who think anything to do with sexuality, including sexual anatomy, is inherently worth putting their mark on. Kilroy was here. I imagine that knee and pancreas don't get so much negative attention. Anyway, thanks again. BrainyBabe 08:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem.--SouthernNights 20:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

VRM

I have added a new ending to the article. It does not cover all of the connections between VRM and VRW, but it covers what I think scholars outline as the most important one. Sensibility would be the second most important one. Let me know if you think I should add sensibility. I was trying to avoid listy-ness. Awadewit | talk 03:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It's better. I still prefer the version that Kaldari worked up, but I can live with this.--SouthernNights 22:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit war at Killian documents authenticity issues

Would you mind taking at look at the Killian_documents_authenticity_issues page? An edit war has been going on there for a few weeks between User:Callmebc and others such as this. One of the issues is the definition of original research. It'd be a great help if WP:OR could be spelled out for all of us. Sorry to bother you with this, but I saw you had worked on the same issue with Callmebc last spring. Thanks, Jmcnamera 00:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you'll need to contact another admin. Due to possible conflict of interest issues due to previous personal attacks on me by an editor of that article, I will not involve myself in this issue. Best, --SouthernNights 00:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Protection of William Shakespeare

I didn't have a problem with your protection of this page the first time - it had been vandalised over 30 times in 2 hours. However since I unprotected it 3 1/2 hours ago, it has only been vandalised about a dozen times. That's pretty standard for the main page FA. Do you really think protection is needed at this time? WjBscribe 13:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I have raised the matter at WP:ANI for input from more administrators so we can reach a consensus on whether protection is still needed [1]. WjBscribe 13:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. I responded there. I should note, though, that the vandalism you referenced happened in a relatively short period of time and was justified in my view.--SouthernNights 13:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Three Valley Museum

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Three Valley Museum. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Dsmdgold 13:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Best selling author of all time

Is factual and referenced. Greatest writer is subjective and not factual. Both claims indicate the importance of Shakespeare. Sad mouse 17:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the info that Shakespeare is "now widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's preeminent dramatist" is both heavily cited (see the references), factually accurate, and also the consensus wording on this article. Please do not change that wording without first gaining a new consensus to do so.--SouthernNights 17:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

SouthernNights, you are an admin which means you are completely familiar with policy and interactions so I have no concern that you acted in bad faith at any point. I was personally put-off by your comments “that should end the debate on this” and “I am through with this debate. Every time someone presents referenced and accurate info for you, you split hairs”, because I don’t think you made an honest attempt to understand my position before slamming it down (and I felt that your response “considered by many to be the greatest dramatist of all time” in Britannica means we can write “greatest writer of all time” here was relatively weak), but you are under no obligation to try to understand my position so no harm done. The personal attack I was referring to was “fueled by personal opposition and nothing else” which was not by you and not something I would bother taking further, however I cannot consider this person to read my position in good faith after a remark like this.

I will not make any changes to Shakespeare, or further comments on the talk page or your talk page, because without others being willing to consider my point dispassionately no consensus will occur. I just found it incredibly frustrating because it seemed like people were assuming that my purpose in rewording the intro was to belittle Shakespeare’s importance. I was upfront in stating that I don’t think he is the greatest writer of the English language, but also in stating that that was not the reason for my proposed change. You stated in your reply to me that “the general public along with critics see Shakespeare as the greatest writer”, and this is what I just don’t see any justification for. I understand and agree with your point that critics and literature scholars widely acknowledge Shakespeare as the greatest writer, and indeed I would be fine with a line saying “critics and literature scholars widely acknowledge Shakespeare as the greatest writer”. But I feel like you didn’t make an effort to understand my point that even if he is the greatest writer and acknowledged as such by every scholar, that doesn’t mean the broad public would have that opinion. As the polls that I linked to indicate, Shakespeare’s works are not included on the list of the public’s all time favourite book, which indicates that they do not consider him the greatest writer. It seems like so many people in this discussion have also assumed that “widely regarded” refers to the general population which means that the introduction sentence is misleading unless there is strong evidence for the general population’s sentiment. Afterall, the scholars were making their assessment of Shakespeare’s critical value and influence, all the references they make are saying that “Shakespeare is the greatest writer” not “the wide public think that Shakespeare is the greatest writer”. In fact, a literature scholar that I know recently moaned that so many people she knew outside literature thought more of Dan Brown than Shakespeare. She would have absolutely stated that Shakespeare was better, but would not have said that the general public think Shakespeare is better. This is why I think that a comment like “critics and literature scholars widely acknowledge Shakespeare as the greatest writer” or “Shakespeare is the best-selling author of all time” would be more factually accurate statements (and don’t reduce his importance). Anyway, that is it from me. Sad mouse 02:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare "greatest" debate

I think when he/she is talking about attacks she is reffering to when you said she was splitting hairs and being nit-picky. I don't think that's really an attack, but it's the closest there was in the discussion. Anyway, just wanted to clarify what I think is her POV. Take it as you will. Wrad 00:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Very good point. I shouldn't have said that. My apology.--SouthernNights 00:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment on my use of admin powers

As discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Protection_of_William_Shakespeare_.28main_page_FA.29, several editors and admins feel that I misused my admin powers in semi-protecting the William Shakespeare article when it was linked to by the main page. I initially semi-protected the article during a spurt of vandalism, reprotected the article the next day when vandalism picked up again, then removed the protection when concerns were raised. I said I would monitor the situation and if the vandalism picked up, I would reapply protection. That is what eventually happened. This article is one that I have worked on and monitored for a number of years. The article is heavily vandalized during the school year by kids. My position on protecting articles is that once vandalism passes a certain point, I feel it is unfair to ask editors to spend all their time reverting said vandalism.

I ask that people comment on whether I violated any conflict of interest in my actions, if I acted in bad faith, or if I abused my administrator responsibility. Based on the comments, I am prepared to no longer use any admin powers with regards to the Shakespeare article or even give up being an administrator if people feel that is warranted. Please comment below.--SouthernNights 01:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• This isn't really a serious abuse of admin powers... especially since as far as I can tell you've been civil at all times. There was a disagreement, maybe you didn't know the full implications of using admin powers here, it's not like you protected a page to gain advantage in a content dispute or something. Maybe consider a personal "1 revert rule" for using protection in the future? --W.marsh 01:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• I don't see any need for this, Your doing fine, just be open. Mercury 01:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• With regards to the small amount of interaction we had on the Shakespeare article I don't think you violated conflict of interest and you certainly did not act in bad faith or abused your admin powers. I think it is unnecessary for you to limit your use of admin powers on the Shakespeare article and I certainly think it would be an over-reaction for you to give up your admin status. I think that every editor who has heavily invested in an article is over-protective of it, but you didn't violate any policies with your revisions. I personally believe that as a matter of style (not policy) the people who got an article FA status should sit back and see what happens to the articles as the general effect is positive and the quality of the changes can be debated after it is off the front-page, but I don't think our disagreement on style has any relevance on your admin use. Sad mouse 02:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Protecting the TFA is a long on going debate, there are entire essays on it, WP:NOPRO and Wikipedia:For_and_Against_TFA_protection. Personally I think we should protect it because it's nothing but a vandal target and good editors waste time fighting it--but all that's a separate issue. But back to the issue at hand. You asked for this review yourself, and to me that says enough, and speaks to your integrity. You have always been civil and I've never seen you abuse the admin bit. Just learn from this and move on. Rlevse 02:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• I agree that you acted in good faith, that this appears to have been an isolated dispute, and that no further action is needed. Newyorkbrad 02:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Good faith actions undertaken in the quest to better the encyclopedia are never discouraged. I disagree with you that protection is the best course of action to take (and I'll explain why a bit further on AN/I hopefully later tonight), but that has no bearing on your judgment or your administrative actions. Keep on keeping on. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• I think you were not correct to protect, but it was not altogether unreasonable, and your good faith is obvious. DGG (talk) 03:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• I have always found you to act reasonably and responsibly. I support you here and believe you have acted in complete good faith.Smatprt 03:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with the other users here. It is clear that you were acting in good faith. I don't personally feel that the protection was warranted, but I don't think you were out of your mind for doing it. While I may have disagreed with your particular action in this instance, I see no pattern of incompetence or malfeasance. Your continued access to sysop tools furthers the interests of the project. ➪HiDrNick! 04:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Personally I believe that there is no case for a misuse of admin. powers here. The William Shakespeare article has always been a target for vandals and you have done everything possible to fight those who vandalize said article. I can understand that being linked to the main page would attract more vandals and that a semi-protect in this particular case on your behave was an act of good-faith and not bad-faith. I support you because you have proven to be one of the best editors and admins in the pedia. Tony the Marine 05:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• There was no abuse of admin powers, and there is very rarely any "abuse" - people confuse "mistake" with "abuse" a lot around here. You obviously felt strongly about the article remaining pristine, to the extent of preventing editing during the day it was featured (and a lot of improvement can come from anons when an article is featured, as well as an opportunity to bring in new users), and perhaps should have recused yourself from making any decisions about protection or unprotection. Neil ム 08:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

  Looking back, that sounds a little harsh - just to clarify, I have no concerns that your actions were taken in anything other than good faith, and I don't think there's any need for any kind of restrictions or any such nonsense. Neil ム 10:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• There is no problem that I am aware of with your use of admin powers in general. In the very specific case in question, I realise that having an article you have worked hard on be the FA is a bit like being asked to stand in front of an automatic staple gun for 24 hours. This said, any vandalism to the FA is usually removed within seconds or minutes, and is nothing to be concerned with. There is genuine value in asserting and demonstrating the openness of the encyclopedia and the project. Your close involvement probably gave you a lower threshold for such things than would usually be the case and so it would likely have been better to leave repeated decision-making of that kind to the admin corps at large. Your actions were entirely good-faith based, however, and you need have no worries about your adminning in general. Splash - tk 09:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• You did fine. There is always a clash between admins on the issue of how much a page should be protected, and there is a wide range of views about front-page protection. It's no big deal. Thanks for all your efforts against the vandals yesterday.qp10qp 10:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• You did good. Keep up the good work. Nothing to worry about from my perspective. WAVY 10 Fan 12:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• SouthernNights is an excellent editor who I've had a lot of contact with over the last two years because we're interested in editing some of the same topics. He always uses his admin powers with civility and good sense. Even if his judgement call was wrong (on which I don't have an opinion, and I don't even feel there IS a demonstrably correct opinion) he exercised that judgement for a good reason and in good faith. He has my support. Is it time to close this discussion per WP:SNOW, yet? AndyJones 12:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• I was surprised to see the article protected so often, especially when the levels of vandalism seemed low for a Main Page FA. While the page was on the Main Page, you should have left the decision whether to protect or not up to other admins - you were clearly too involved to be objective. The issue of whether the article should have been protected as much as it has been before and after it was on the Main Page is another issue, and one that should also be examined, IMO. It is important to get the trade-off right between vandalism and allowing interested new editors to edit constructively. Having said that, I would echo the views of others that this was a good-faith mistake (the loss of objectivity - not the decision about when to protect, which is a much more subjective thing) and nothing to get worried about. Learning from mistakes is the important thing. The next time an FA you have been involved in appears on the Main Page, I am sure you will have learnt from this and will recognise when you need to recuse from a decision like page protection. Carcharoth 13:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

  Oh, and thanks for starting this review - that in itself shows a high level of integrity. I also liked Splash's staple gun analogy! :-) Carcharoth 13:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Nods, I'd snow this one. Good sysop, minor dispute. Durova^Charge! 14:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• I think it would be a tremendous loss for Wikipedia for you to give up your sysop bit - and I'm the one who wrote the guideline that you violated (that you shouldn't protect the daily featured article. Raul654 14:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• One more with the chorus. You were wrong, but it was debatable, and even more important, you were civil at all times and eventually accepted that the consensus was against you. Being nice when you are wrong is all we can ask for, we can't demand being right all the time, it would be beyond human. Carry on. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Echoing the chorus above. I think your protection of the article went against the accepted guidelines, and I would hope that you don't do so in future but I have no other issues with your admin actions. We have not to my knowledge interacted before but you seem to do a good job - the comments from those above with more experience of you strongly support that. I don't think there any need for wider review - this was a one off incident - and I hope you don't think I was ever calling for such a review. I certainly don't think you acted in bad faith either. WjBscribe 19:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Who in the hell thinks that you abused power is ridiculous! what administrators stated that you abused power? Ignore some of these clowns! 149.68.105.27 17:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Clowns? Where? <looks round> Ah. You've been looking in the mirror, I see. :-) Seriously, this was an exemplary review, with thoughtful comments. But I suppose a little soupcon of unneeded, redlinked outrage may spice things up a bit, but I don't think that was your intention. Carcharoth 00:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's not serious abuse, and in fact, I believe it is necessary, since the William_Shakespeare page is vandalized often.  Involuntary_instance  talk  22:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone who commented and gave feedback on this issue. I will keep all of this in mind. Sincerely, --SouthernNights 17:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thank You Note from Jehochman

		Ready to swab the deck!
		Another motley scallawag has joined the crew. Thanks for your comments at my RFA. Arrrgh! - - Jehochman Talk 02:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyright resolution

Dear SouthernNights -

I was unable to find a method of communicating with you other than this... In your position as "veteran editor," you deemed my biographical material a "copyright violation" and deleted my bio from Wikipedia in 2006. On your user page you instruct users facing such deletions to insert an "authorship" notation on the page with which you asserted there was a copyright violation. I have done that. Could you please restore my material? Although I am certainly not a copyright expert as you are, I'm quite sure it is not a copyright violation to self-use material from a web site (or sites) completely created and authored by oneself without having to insert on every page of every such web page/site a gift-of-citation to Wikipedia. Perhaps self-citation is a violation of some Wikipedia rule (with which I am not familiar), but it's not a copyright violation. (There is no need to reply if you prefer not to waste your time. I don't frequent your user page to seek conversation. But I would, truly, appreciate your restoring my bio.) With deepest respect, thank you for your time and attention. Ralph Begleiter (real name, not pseudonym) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbegleiter (talk • contribs) 18:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You are correct--using your own material is not a copyright violation. However, Wikipedia sets its own rules with regards to our use of copyrighted material. The most accurate way for us to know that you are indeed the copyright owner of some text on a particular website, and to make sure we are using GFDL-copy, is for you to insert that statement on your own webpages. If you don't want to do that, feel free to recreate your article using original text. However, you should also know that many editors here frown upon people creating articles about themselves and may try to delete the article b/c of that. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for more.--SouthernNights 20:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I appreciate it. So, I have added the text you requested to the page you deleted. What else do I have to do to inspire you to restore it (you didn't mention any other "conditions")? And, would your reply also mean that the following page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SouthernNights) should be deleted by Wikipedia editors because it is an "article about yourself?" Somehow I doubt it (and I don't advocate it). In short, I suppose my question is: There are lots of bios on Wikipedia. They do not all appear to be written by others. But would the solution be to have "someone else" create the page? Surely this can't be a "new" problem. Thanks again. (not "unsigned") Ralph Begleiter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.219.80.208 (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want to be snarky and sarcastic, please do it elsewhere. If you had taken the time to read up on Wikipedia guidelines and policies, you would see that user pages like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SouthernNights are different from creating an article about yourself. Anyway, I've restore your article at Ralph Begleiter. As for your other question, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest basically says that instead of creating an article about yourself, other editors should do that chore. But it's not an absolute rule and has been broken many times; as a result, we just try to manage the process the best we can. Best, --SouthernNights 12:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

David Shear's daughter

I just wanted to make sure you saw this: [2] Raul654 04:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

My School's IP

I am contacting you to tell you that the IP 204.38.47.182 is for my school and almost every time I access Wikipedia, the school is blocked from editing because another student has vandalized a page (or to prove at point at times, teachers). I am suggesting that you permanentaly ban this ip from editing to save the people that clean up a lot of work. Ketchuphed 21:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been to User talk:204.38.47.182 and added a template indicating it is owned by the Saginaw Intermediate School District, Saginaw, Michigan. There does seem to be a steady pattern of abuse during every month school is in session. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 22:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Lupin is MIA

Hi. I've noticed that Lupin has not edited since Sept. 5 and am concerned. No indication of a deliberate break. Since you have some experience checking in with users, I thought I'd mention it. No obligation. You may know of Lupin as the author of useful popups and antivandal scripts. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 19:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could help but I don't have enough info. However, after looking at Lupin's edit history is appears breaks like this aren't uncommon.--SouthernNights 19:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Curly Joe the Puppet Deletion

I had just completed a fairly thorough article titled Curly Joe the Puppet when I found you had already placed it up for a speedy deletion based on the fact that it did not assert it's importance. I was curious why you felt that way and placed my reasoning in the discussion page (as well as making a very small edit to the page itself). To find the reasoning, here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Curly_Joe_the_Puppet.

Like I stated in the discussion page this character has gained national attention and has fans throughout the nation. I feel this page was important and needed to be put up. Within the article itself I thought I had supplied as much information as I needed to on it's importance. I didn't want the article to be about why people should know about Curly Joe, instead I thought it was more important to put up information about him.

If you have any suggestions on how I should modify the article to provide this information or any other necessary information, then I would gladly make any changes.

I thank you for your time and request the permission to recreate this page, Soli Deo Gloria 14:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a personal website to promote items of little notability. For more on this, see Wikipedia:Notability. If you wish to appeal this, feel free to. But I'm just not seeing where this puppet has the notability to warrant an encyclopedia article. Best, --SouthernNights 14:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not using wikipedia to try and promote a business or hobby of mine (the videos aren't even mine) as you suggest. I and many with whom I spoke felt that this character and the many associated videos which have, as I already said, begun to gain national attention are worthy of an informative article. My interest is simply in furthering wikipedia and expanding its content. I do not wish to see this article permanently blocked so I will not at this time, recreate the article. I do however believe that it is only a matter of time before an article will be created by another of the characters and the associated movies many fans.

Disappointed with your conclusion, Soli Deo Gloria 16:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Burning questions

I've got two, and since you're an admin and I know you, I figured I'd ask you. 1) How do I delete pages from my userspace? and 2)How do you move a page to a another page that already exists as, say, a redirect? Wrad 23:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me know what user pages you want deleted and I'll handle that. As for moving pages, use the move tab at the top of the page you wanted moved. If you have any problem with that let me know and I'll assist.--SouthernNights 15:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, could you delete these? User:Wrad/Sandbox3, User:Wrad/byulead. Wrad 15:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Done.--SouthernNights 17:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians

Hi, I really like the page a lot. I do feel however it would be better at the multilingual meta.wikimedia rather than here on en.wikipedia. -- Cat ^chi? 20:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for creating a mirror Deceased Wikipedians there. I'd thought several times about doing that but I wasn't familiar enough with meta.wikimedia to know where to put it. One question: do we maintain the english version or simply redirect to the meta site?--SouthernNights 21:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

We can simply use {{Softredirect}} on wikipedia side. All information should be kept in one location. -- Cat ^chi? 21:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I have also moved left over images to commons. En.wikipedia copies should be deleted. -- Cat ^chi? 21:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I now see that you brought up a MfD on the item. I don't have a problem with having the memorial page on meta and a redirect to that works for me. However, I see Newyorkbrad's point and we can leave both of them up for now. I'll just be sure to update and watch the meta page along with this English WP page.Best, --SouthernNights 21:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The MfD was merely intended to gather consensus for the move (well I have done it in a bold manner anyways). The intention was not a delete at all, if you check my nomination I make no mention of a delete. It would be very demanding to pay attention to seperate discussions on two wikis. We will end up having parallel discussions on same topics. -- Cat ^chi? 22:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

My talk, userpage, etc

When I first joined Wikipedia, we were encouraged during the account set up process to use our real names to add credibility, so in good faith I lent mine to this project. In my years here I mediated many disputes, most of them in the confidentiality of e-mails. I tried to protect minority opinions by coming to the aid of users with unpopular opinions and stop them from being railroaded by mob rule; even when I did not share their opinions. I contributed much of my free time to this project for years; most of it dedicated to mediation. I do not agree with the path Wikipedia has taken, but I did not go to some hostile forum and whine about it or write some tell all blog of all the behind the scene drama I saw; I just left.

Yet even in retirement, I am not left alone. My talk page exists for one reason alone; that its history is still accessible to average users. My talk page is protected and clearly states that I am no longer active; yet bots and admins still post on the page. Since I still have friends at Wikipedia, this is eventually brought to my attention, and once that is done, I feel obligated to respond and because I voluntarily gave up my administrator privileges—so that my account would not be too dangerous if compromised—I cannot remove the clutter or respond on the page.

I am also saddened to see that my work here is considered sub-standard and that as “the founder of Esperanza” I am seem to be a greater boogie man to some than WillyOnWheels, whose vandalism so many admins—myself included—fought against. I realize that since I was here so long and served in various positions, blanking or deleting my user page would leave a particularly bothersome red link.

Therefore, I request that my user page and its history be deleted and replaced with a brief and fair synopsis of my time here and that the protection of my talk page as an archive be enforced. I believe I have been more than patient in responding when someone contacts me, thus I do not feel that after this post I am obligated to provide my e-mail to Wikipedia or respond to queries on my talk page.

During my time here, I had my share of personality conflicts and disagreements over article content, but I resolved most of them on my own. I never went before ArbCom nor was I a Request For Comment ever filed against me. I endeavored to treat other users with respect; even if I sometimes failed. I do not feel it is unreasonable that I ask to be treated the same. -JCarriker 21:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that this is causing you so much pain. I will delete your user page, per your request, then recreate it with a brief synopsis of your time here. I will also keep a close eye on your talk page and delete anything that appears there. As always, I wish you the best in your personal life.--SouthernNights 00:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow. That sucks. I think I missed all of this, but then I'm not terribly active. Guettarda 01:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I am of course dissapointed that my work is not appreciated, but it is more a pain in the posterior than any deep emotional pain. It is only natural that when one generation fades another moves in to remake things in their own image; doesn't mean I want a front seat though. Which is somewhat hard as some misguided Wikipedians still seek my advice on Skype from time to time. Seems they are under the impression that I actually knew what I was doing. "Lord, what fools these mortals be!"

Anyway, I wish you the best in your personal life as well. (Guettarda too!) As to my personal life there is a certain problem with pink lips, olive eyes, and honey colored hair; alas, I should probably solve that problem myself. Cheers. -JCarriker 06:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

General articles

I really don't have a clue as to what you may think of this, but I'm proposing a General article WikiProject per the discussion going on at FAC. The project proposal is here. I'd love to have you join if you think you can help improve general articles on wikipedia in any way. Please take a look at the proposal and the discussion at FAC (linked to from the proposal. Wrad 01:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. While I do see the need to improve this type of article here, I wonder if it isn't too, well, general (pun intended, but intent serious). One of the strengths of Wikiprojects is that it binds editors with similar interests together. I wish you the best with this but I think I'll have to pass. --SouthernNights 01:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm looking for people with a binding interest in general things (generalists? I'm sure they're out there), but thanks for considering. Wrad 01:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Lyran Star Empire

The article was deleted after you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyran Star Empire back in September. The article has been recreated (with the same problems). I have had it speeded twice (first by WP:CSD#G4, and again by WP:CSD#CSD G6), but it keeps getting recreated. Should I take it to AfD a second time? --Gavin Collins 09:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No need. I've deleted the article and added it to the list of protected pages. Let me know if there is any more problems with it. Best, --SouthernNights 15:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

A few weeks back, this page was AfD'd and I recreated it solely as a redirect (to Alpha Octant) to be precise. A few days ago, an anon editor restored the page to pre-AfD status. It was speedily deleted, and after which I recreated the prior redirect. Afterwards, the same user recreated the page again. Now it has been deleted again, and protected from recreation. I would like to have the original redirect restored if at all possible. Personally, I would like to try and recreate the page in a format that may be acceptable to the editors of Wikipedia, but today is not the time and I had nothing to do with the recreations of the last few days. I thank you for your time. --Donovan Ravenhull 18:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I forgot that you'd done that. I'll recreate the redirect then protect it.--SouthernNights 22:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare notes section

I think you misunderstood Chris Cunningham on the Shakespeare talk page. He wasn't the one who merged the notes and references section. He had a very different idea. He wanted to separate the documents into a new sort of Bibliography section, like the one in the Hamlet article, where footnotes outline page numbers and authors only, and a References section lists full bibliographic info. Wrad 21:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Appears I did misunderstand him. Your proposed idea on the article works for me.--SouthernNights 22:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Analogy

Hey SouthernNights, I apologize profusely if I offended you at all. I understand your oppose at my RfA; I've replied to your note and hope you will reconsider. Thanks. GlassCobra 15:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I've responded on your RfA. Thanks for the thoughtful explanation you gave there. Best,--SouthernNights 16:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar

Thanks for the Barnstar for the work on the Peace Corps article. Reservoirhill 15:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

GlassCobra's RfA

		My RFA
		Hey SouthernNights! I wanted to thank you for participating in my request for adminship, which ended with 61 supports, 3 opposes, and 1 neutral. I wanted to apologize again if I offended you at all, and hope we can put this past us. Please feel free to call on me if you ever need any help or opinions! GlassCobra 02:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. I wish you the best as an admin and if I can likewise every be of assistance, don't hesitate to let me know. Best, --SouthernNights 18:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

JCarriker

Do you know (or maybe better said, are you comfortable divulging) why JCarriker left Wikipedia? I noticed the short bio you put up on his user page, but wasn't around when he decided to leave - too bad, as he was a great editor. Figured you'd be the one to ask. Tijuana Brass 04:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

He gave personal reasons. Wish I could be more specific, but I can't.--SouthernNights 04:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I figured as much - I understand. Glad you left something good to remember him by. Tijuana Brass 05:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Click there to open your card! → → →

Dearest SouthernNights,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 137 supports, 22 opposes, and 5 neutrals. Your kind words, strong support, and defense of my character are very much appreciated and I look forward to proving you right. I would like to give special thanks to The_undertow and Phoenix-wiki for their co-nominations. Thank you again and best regards.

Lara❤Love 06:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC) Credits: This RFA thanks was inspired by The Random Editor's RFA thanks which was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks.

Restoration of the Sistine Chapel frescoes

I have responded further. Would you please come back, read my response and remove that unjustified banner. It is always very easy for people to get the idea that a negative response to something must be an essentially lop-sided one. It is not the case. In this instance the power, the prestige and the credibility of the Vatican and its institutions make it hard to believe that a whole bunch of angry artists and critics could be right, but it is demonstrably correct. The old guys that worked on the frescoes in the 1930s warned them that Michelangelo had painted a secco, but they ignored the best advice they were given.

But its not even a case of right and wrong- it's a case of no response. I can't quote what they have answered to the question of why they washed off the eyes and the details. Their only answer is to point out that we can see the colours.

I have now written a bit more about the three stage process that they used. The removal of the paint was a separate process to the removal of the dirt.

As I have said before, I came at this from a point of complete neutrality. But as soon as I read the criticisms, I saw with my own eyes that they were correct. Moreover, when I read what the head of the team wrote, I saw how far what they did deviated from "best practices" ie the procedures that were actually laid down by their very own department in the 1970s and remain at the forefront of good conservation practice.

My reporting of this disaster is not biased. From the point of view of an art historian and student of Michelangelo and one is conversant with accepted international conservation practices and standards, I want the tag removed.

Amandajm (talk) 09:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I've responded on the article talk page.--SouthernNights (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

JCarriker's user page

While this is perhaps a petty detail, the user page states that Marshall, Texas is a featured article. This is no longer true. Should the user page be somehow updated to reflect this, or should it remain as it is? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll update the page in a day or two. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Curly Joe Puppet from the dead

I listed Curly Joe Puppet on AFD here. Thought I should let you know as you speedied the article earlier. Cheers, Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 06:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Help

User:Brian0324 and Anietor continue to rollback a new paragraph I added in the article Christianity in China, and by contrast they rollback their POV. I've tagged them in their talk page, but please help me! --Xi Zhu (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sigh...there are actually at least 3 editors trying to get Xi Zhu to discuss his edits, but he just inserts them, usually as POV unsourced material. He then keeps vandalizing our user talk pages. He's going to get blocked if he keeps doing that, and all we want to do is engage him in a discussion. If you can get him to calm down and discuss, that would be appreciated! Thanks. --Anietor (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 04:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Robert Guisepi

There has been a slanderous section added to the bottom of the page regarding me claiming I have ties with organized crime. I tried to remove it but you added it back. I have never had any association with criminals and I want this bullshit removed NOW!!!!

Robert Anthony Guisepi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.26.16.85 (talk) 15:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

My apology for the mistake. I misread your edit and thought you had entered that defamatory information. My intent had been to remove it but I messed up. Anyway, I'll keep an eye on the article and if anyone tries to reinsert that info I'll remove it or protect the article to keep that info out. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

PS: I also went into the page's history and removed all trace of that defamatory information.--SouthernNights (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

Robert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.26.16.85 (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand!

Please could you tell me why my new page has been immediately deleted? Am i meant to completely finish the page before posting? thanks for your input.--Nayfesj (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop

Why did you re-delete the article I restored and PRODDED. There is an assertion of notability. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The article does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines and is a candidate for speedy deletion. Once an article is speedy deleted (which this one was) it is not appropriate to then recreate and relabel the article for Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. If an article is put on the PROD path beforehand, that's fine, but not after the article is already deleted.--SouthernNights (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW, where was the assertion of notability? I didn't see a holdon tag or anything raised on the article's talk page before I deleted it.--SouthernNights (talk) 17:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It is perfectly reasonable to restore and PROD if I feel that it was speedy deleted incorrectly - which I do. Where did you get the interpretation of once-deleted-deleted-forever from. The assertion of notability is in being past governor of Rotary International. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no once deleted, forever deleted. What I object to is you not following the PROD guidelines. As it specifically states at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, articles that "Have previously been undeleted" are not candidates for PROD. So once you undeleted the article, you should not have placed the PROD template on it. Anyway, are you opposing the deletion? If so, then the article is again not a candidate for Wikipedia:Proposed deletion and should be immediately brought up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. I'd support recreating the article for an AfD. Otherwise, if you don't object to the article's deletion, I stand by the fact that this is a candidate for speedy deletion. So do you want to do an AFD on it? --SouthernNights (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

→ agreed, no fighting desired --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No ... no hard feelings ... these things happen and we came out of it well. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Previously been undeleted comment

I understand what you mean about this point. However, I had converted to PROD before you deleted it the first time. I will bring up at the Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion a clarification of that point because I have generally interpreted that particular line as applying to articles that have at some point in their lifespans been deleted by a non-Speedy method. For instance, if an article was PROD-deleted, resurrected, speedy deleted, resurrected - no, it should not go through PROD again; likewise for AFD or other 'discussion enabling' fora. In other words, it is meant to cover undeletion cases where more than a single person has been party to the deletion action; my interpretation in this manner is based on the notion that 'first speedy' isn't a binding decision, but rather a fast-action where consensus would seem to be obvious in the matter. Like I said, I will bring up this particular point on the talk page before I act on anything else in this manner. It is something that is good to get clarity on. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Question put at talk page for PROD

The input at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion#Question regarding applicability to undeleted content stems from our interaction here. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Bringing up at AFD

No, let's let this sleeping dog lie. The primary reason why I wanted to PROD it was to allow for that small but significant window of time to pass where an objection might be raised based on the assertion of notability (my perception of an assertion). I think that it would likely pass through PROD 'unfixed', otherwise I would actually have taken it right to AFD rather than going PROD (as PROD is for items perceived as uncontroversial in their deletion). Consider this ... if PROD is for uncontroversial deletions and Speedy is also for uncontroversial deletions, why are the two mechanisms existing side by side rather than only one. Because PROD provides a mechanism for addressing doubt whereas Speedy does not (except through 'hangon' which is, in my opinion, not easy to use because of the rapidity of deletion in most cases). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for putting this issue out for other people to comment on. Getting a consensus on the issue will clear up the murkiness around the issue. BTW, after looking at the edit times on the article it appears you sent it back to PROD at the same time I was examining it for speedy delete. Since I didn't refresh my cache at that point, I didn't realize you had changed it to PROD. Hope there's no hard feelings here b/c I think the whole situation was a simple disagreement over procedure. Hopefully this discussion will clarify the issue. Best, --SouthernNights (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

His outside-the-box thinking

the info in the article was very good, but it wasn't supposed to be in a seperate article. I merged the info into Billy Martin, where it belonged. I wanted to welcome the creator and tell him that the article was merged, but as the page was deleted, I don't know who the creator was. Can you tell me who the creator was? Or you can just welcome him and tell him that his article was merged? best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Bjrbbhaw81 created the article. Feel free to tell him about the merge. Best, --SouthernNights (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Did you mistakenly welcome him on his userpage?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Nah. Figured I'd also pass a welcome to him. --SouthernNights (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I meant that you welcomed him on his userpage, not his talkpage.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks for catching that.--SouthernNights (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Chat

Hey Jason, how you been? How was your Christmas and New Year? I want to wish you a belated Happy New Year. I haven't been very active, except that I'm working on "Hispanics in the USMC". Last Nov. I received a unexpected recognition from the government of Puerto Rico which I want to share with you. Check it out here:Press Releases. So, let me know what you have been up to. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Tony: I'm doing well. I saw that press release last week and was really happy for you. You've done a ton of great work around here and I'm glad you are being recognized for it. Best, --SouthernNights (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Tales of MU

Where did this article go? This morning, the brand new article Tales of MU had just been proposed for deletion, and this was being actively discussed, a process that is supposed to take 5 days. Tonight, the article has gone. Apparently you deleted it as 'Not notable'.

Firstly, the article was only created last night. Initially it was pretty much a stub without external references, but within hours SEVERAL different people had worked on it, (real people not sock puppets), and it was already much improved. Someone else was looking up web stats to show the number of people who read the Tales, and there were other suggestions for improving the page further and demonstrating its notability. The Guidelines even say that an inadequate new page should be improved rather than deleted (except for vandalism etc. of course). The Tales of MU page was not a vanity page; the Tales of MU author had not contributed to the page at all, and as far as I can tell now without the edit log, all the people editing were unconnected except for being readers of Tales of MU.

Yet you deleted it. Why? Where has the discussion gone? Where does it say a conclusion was reached? How can a speedy deletion be justified when an existing deletion discussion was already under way, and in any case how can anyone create a new article if people propose deletion as soon as it appears, before anyone has had time to get the new article up to full Wikipedia standards? The guidelines specifically advise against doing that, but it seems to be common practice.

I'm a regular user of Wikipedia, and have also edited the occasional article where I see a typo or other minor error which I can safely correct. I have not registered a user name, but am 'dww' on DMOZ, where I have been an editor for several years. I tell you this to show that I'm not some net newbie or an anonymous complainer. I have to say this incident leaves a sour taste. I hope it was a mistake that can be rectified, or else that there was a good reason in the discussion which can be read somewhere. And it needs to be a reason why the Wikipedia users are better off without this article, not just why an editor doesn't like it. --dww —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.210.10 (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to bring the article up for an Articles for deletion discussion, I'd be happy to recreate the article for that purpose. However, you should know that the article was up for speedy deletion and, after examining the article and the talk page discussion, I decided it was a valid candidate for speedy delete due to the subjects lack of notability. Also, per Wikipedia guidelines, the criteria for deleting an article isn't whether or not " Wikipedia users are better off without this article" but whether or not the article's subject matter meets our notability guidelines. Anyway, if you want the article to go through an AfD. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Re Sango

Highly doubtful because of this. Not correct name. [3].--Sandahl 16:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I was being polite, but I'm almost certain this is not true.--SouthernNights (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It isn't true thankfully.--Sandahl 16:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you know what has happened to her though? No edits since 1st October 2006, vanished without a trace... Majorly (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of hatnote on WP:DIED

Hi,

You recently removed the hatnote I added to WP:DIED without comment. I added this because it took me a good few minutes of searching for the appropriate article dealing with WP's own stance on obituary articles; Wikipedia:Obituary redirects to that article. This seems as good a reason to add a hatnote to what would seem to be an obvious shortcut as any. What gives? Chris Cunningham (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to remove that hatnote without comment--my bad for forgetting to add that in. But when I first saw that hatnote at the top of this memorial article, it seemed like an attack on the whole idea of WP:Deceased Wikipedians. While I later realized this was not the case, I'm afraid the odds are many people will take it the way I did. I'd prefer to find other ways to help people find WP:MEMORIAL, such as by changing some of the redirects. Perhaps we could change Wikipedia:Obituary to redirect to WP:MEMORIAL? Would that work for you?--SouthernNights (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That'd work fine. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Best, --SouthernNights (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers! Chris Cunningham (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Later Klan

Thanks for your encouraging comments on my additions and edits. --Parkwells (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. Thanks for helping to improve the article. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you...

...for your support in my recently closed Request for Adminship. I am more than a bit stunned by the outcome, which appears to have finished at 146 supports, no opposes, and one abstention. I am particularly grateful to Keilana and Kingboyk for their recent encouragement, and most specifically to Pastordavid, for having seen fit to nominate me. I also want to make it very clear to everyone that I have no intentions of changing my name again, so the servers should be safe for a while.

In the event you ever believe that I would ever able to assist in the future, I would be honored if you were to contact me regarding the matter. I can't guarantee results, unfortunately, but I will do what I can. Thank you again.

By the way, I know the image isn't necessarily appropriate, but I am rather fond of it, and it at least reflects the degree of honor I feel at the result. And it's hard to go wrong with a Picture of the Year candidate.

Now, off to a few last tasks before starting work in earnest on the various templates I promised I'd work on.

This RfA thanks inspired by Kathryn McDinaha's, in turn inspired by several others after Phaedriels' original. Hoping we can all keep such inspiration of newcomers ongoing, I am, sincerely, John Carter (talk).

John Carter (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

My RFA

First off, I would like to make it clear that User:Sobar is not a sockpuppet of me. We are from the same town, and just communicate a lot. Due to that, I was afraid that a member of my family may patrol my talk page (which I later found out they did), and find his comments like those of an Internet predator (no offense to Sobar, who is not). This is the reason why I removed the comments. Hope that helped. STORMTRACKER 94 18:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Braintwister.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:Braintwister.jpeg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin Coaching Re-confirmation

Hello, previously you expressed interest in participating in the Wikipedia:Admin coaching project. We are currently conducting a reconfirmation drive to give coaches the opportunity to update their information and capacity to participate in the project. Please visit Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Status to update your status and move your entry to the Active list. Also, please remember to update your capacity (5th table variable) in the form of a fraction (eg. 2/3 means you are currently coaching 2 students, and could accept 1 more student). Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 09:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Imperial triple crown jewels

Your majesty, it gives me great pleasure to bestow these Imperial triple crown jewels upon SouthernNights for your contributions in the areas of WP:DYK, WP:GA, and WP:FA. Cirt (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for contributions to the project, Great work, especially on the featured content, very comprehensive articles and thus not that easy to help bring to FA status. May you wear the crowns well. Cirt (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:GertrudeBarrowsBennett.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bibliography of Charles Dickens

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Bibliography of Charles Dickens, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? – Psyche825 _(talk) 23:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

James Young Deer

On 30 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article James Young Deer, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 06:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:77.97.75.68

Nice work. --John (talk) 00:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

We aim to please. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 00:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Dan Schneider (writer)

I have nominated Dan Schneider (writer), an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Schneider (writer) (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Guy (Help!) 20:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians

I have nominated Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 16:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that AfD didn't last long.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

al franken and serena williams

i keep getting flagged for information that i have edited on these two people...first for putting that serena williams weighs 185 lbs...i know her official biography states 150, but i met her a few weeks ago at a party here in new york and she personally told me she typically weighs anywhere between 185 to 190 lbs depending on her training and whatnot...also, i have had sex with al franken and i am a man..i think that makes him a homosexual...i just want people to know...thanks for your consideration —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.49.59 (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: George M. Lowry

It looks really good, nice work. I made two very small changes to the references. I combined some repeated citations and I changed the homeofheroes.com ref to a U.S. Army Center of Military History one. I've found homeofheroes to be comprehensive and accurate, but it is a personal website run by a single guy, so the Army website is more in line with WP:RS. If you want to take the article further, maybe good article status, then I'd suggest expanding on the areas outside of the MOH action. He seems to have been fairly prominent in his later career, so there should be sources out there for those areas, although it might take some digging. Happy editing, — jwillbur 16:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps of Mark Kellogg (reporter)

The article Mark Kellogg (reporter), for which you seem to be primarily responsible, is undergoing a review as part of the good article sweeps project. There are a couple of things that need to be addressed, and the article has been put on hold for a week. Please have a look, and thanks for you work so far! Lampman (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Shakespeare's Influence

Hello SouthernNights. Upon seeing that you reverted my edits to the Shakespeare's influence article, I perused your user page and saw that you were the originator of this article. No doubt you feel a special pride, and a special responsibility to protect it.

Please understand: I was not trying to harm the article; I was trying to improve it. It is official Wikipedia policy that unsubstantiated, implausible claims should be aggressively weeded out. Among the things coming from the Jayne Aden paper: "Shakespeare used around 20,138 new words." This strikes me as bordering on patent nonsense. Depending on how it's counted, this is more than Shakespeare's entire working vocabulary. The Shakespeare's influence article itself says earlier that "It is widely assumed that Shakespeare himself introduced more words into English than all the other writers of his time combined, over 1,700 by some estimates." The figure 20,138 is off by an order of magnitude!

No, I do not think Jayne Aden's paper was ever a legitimate source. She is not a Shakespearean scholar; she was an undergraduate at Black Hills State University at the time she wrote the paper. Of course, this doesn't necessarily disqualify the paper -- undergraduates do sometimes get their research published in journals. But I don't think Aden's paper was ever published. It was a paper for a course, English 426 (History and Structures of English), taught by one Roger Ochse. It seems he put his students' papers up on the web, but he's no longer a faculty member there and the link is no longer active.

If this were a dead link to a journal article, I would understand that it's still a legitimate source. Because in that case, it's verifiable; one can go find the journal and read the article, and presumably the article was peer-reviewed. This is not the case here. For all we know, this paper literally no longer exists. And I don't see any evidence that it was a legitimate scholarly work to begin with. My objection is, I think, a reasonable one -- and the burden of proof rests on you, not me. (You claim it's an acceptable resource. Back up your claim.)

I have no interest in getting involved in an edit war with you, or getting emotionally involved. I will respect that this is "your turf". I was simply trying to improve Wikipedia... I think it's a shame if you are unwilling to let change come to an article that badly needs to be changed. Believe me, with references like Aden's paper this article will never be featured article material. Kier07 (talk) 05:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you're overthinking why I reverted the edit. Personally I agree that the reference is a weak one and that the info on the number of words created by Shakespeare is closer to 1700. While I created the article, I sure as heck didn't enter that reference or information (my original version is far shorter and lacks those sections altogether, as seen here).

The reason I reverted your edit is two fold: First, your edit summary mentioned only the dead link issue, which isn't a valid reason to remove a reference. Second, aside from the wrong estimate of created words, the other information you removed appears to be correct, even if the reference is weak. I don't think it is proper to remove information and a reference without providing a better reference to replace it. If you want to remove the word count, please simply provide a new estimate and a reference to back it up. As for the other info, feel free to rewrite that section as you please as long as you provide a new reference to back things up. But simply removing a citation and info, then placing a "citation needed" tag on that section, is not how I prefer to edit. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand you. Of course the dead link issue is a valid reason to remove the reference. Without the link, THERE IS NO REFERENCE -- for all intents and purposes, the paper no longer exists. Perhaps much of the information is valid. From what little I know about Shakespeare, it seemed that way to me. But it seems to me there are essentially two categories of information on Wikipedia -- obvious, essentially not-debatable information, and information which does not follow from common knowledge and common sense, and therefore needs to be referenced. Most of the information, and certainly the quotes, coming from Jayne Aden's paper fall into the second category. They need to be referenced. By posting a link that doesn't work, we're pretending the claims are referenced, which they are not. This is dishonest.

Nor does it matter if the paper still exists. The information should never have been added in the first place, regardless of whether it "appears correct". Verisimilitude is not the metric by which information is added to Wikipedia -- claims are supposed to be represented in direct proportion to the extent to which they are supported by authoritative sources. I can understand keeping the information that seems correct, but a citation IS needed. Giving an unacceptable or nonexistent reference is worse than giving none at all.

I will probably not look through the Shakespearean literature to find better sources backing up the claims in the article, for the simple reason that I'm not that seriously interested in Shakespeare. I merely hoped that by tagging unreferenced information with citation needed, someone more involved in this area would be induced to find (legitimate, extant) references for the information. In fact, though we disagree on the priorities for improving an article, I do hope you yourself will find good sources for this information (and when you do, I hope you will remove the reference to Aden's paper). Best, Kier07 (talk) 06:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You should read up on Wikipedia citations here, where it states that if a citation's link goes dead, all you do is deactivate the link because "Even with an inactive link, the citation still records a source that was used, and provides a context for understanding archiving delays or for taking other actions." A citation with a dead link is still a valid citation. Anyway, since you're not interested in editing the article, I'll dig up the correct info on the number of new words Shakespeare created and provide a new link for that. But I'm going to leave the reference for the other info b/c it appears to be correct and, as I said, a weak reference is better than no reference. When either myself or another editor finds a stronger reference, we'll replace it.--SouthernNights (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey y'all!

We're going to be having our first Mississippi meetup next month, and I would love it if you'd like to come out! A few of us will be staying overnight, so if you feel up to it, we could have a meet and greet that night and then breakfast the next morning and talk about Wikipedia and everyone's areas of expertise. Let's show 'em how it's done Southern-style! Mike H. Fierce! 22:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Bath School disaster

Please read this comment and reply if you get a chance. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ellison_ralph.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ellison_ralph.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Replied on IFD page. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Why are you undoing my correction on Perihan Magden's page?

It is simply not true that Perihan Magden was arrested. SIMPLY NOT TRUE! Without having a single line of evidence by what means are you undoing my correction? Prior I discussed the matter with Adoniscik and it seems that he had updated the text already but simply has forgotten to reflect the change in the subtitles. What I did is totally conforming with this updated context of the article.

I believe you owe me either an explanation or an apology. 144.122.42.221 (talk) 11:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

If you don't explain about your edit in your edit summary or include a citation for the edit, people are likely to take changes like this as vandalism. A number of sources such as [4] alternately state that a warrant for her arrest was issued and/or that she was arrested. After you raised this issue, I search for more sources and have not found a definitive source to state whether or not she was arrested on this issue. Since this is unclear, I have no problem leaving the article as you rewrote it.

Again, when you make an edit to Wikipedia, you either need to provide a sources for your change or an edit summary stating why you made the change. We can't read minds around here.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Your words left on my talk page:

As I stated on my talk page, there is a question on whether or not the article's subject was arrested. Since there is a question of this, I'm fine with leaving the language as is. However, the insulting and attacking attitude you have is not acceptable. All this started because you deleted and changed information without explanation or citation, leading other editors to make a good faith evaluation that this was vandalism. If you had simply stated the information was not true, or provided a citation, we would have understood your edit. I strongly suggest you accept that all this as a simple misunderstanding. If you keep insulting and attacking people, you will be blocked.

My response:
a) I realize the misunderstanding and the reason for this (I should have attached an explanation to the editing, OK).
b) I have skimmed my 'talk' on your page (above) there is no attack no insult (just a demand for an explanation or apology), so, what 'insult' or 'attack' are you talking about?
c) I doubt that you have some 'canned responses' stressing 'blocking' to threaten people you are upset with, and you 'trim' them from case to case. Please don't do that. Not to me! Being a professor for years it is not something endurable to get threatened. I do not want to consider the 'contribution platform' of Wikipedia as a battle ground for civilized and educated man. 144.122.42.221 (talk)

Feliz Navidad

	<font=3> Wishing you a "Feliz Navidad and a Happy new Year" Tony the Marine (talk)

Man I've missed inter-acting with you here. How you been? I'm sorry for the late greeting, but my wife is hospitalized and that is where I spent my Christmas. Take care, Tony the Marine (talk) 05:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

As I Lay Dying

Please do not change the redirect without prior discussion. It was agreed by both parties and an administrator to form a disambiguation. If you want to discuss this further go to Talk:As I Lay Dying (disambiguation) and wait till the discussion is over before making any changes. Also when discussing a resolved issue, please notify all parties involved as the parties involved are unlikely to view a resolved matter.

Also your edit summary "This should redirect to main article on novel, since that is the name source for all the other disambig links and is likely what people are searching for", the band is searched for literally 10 times more often and a redirect to the band would be better, as redirects are for accessibility. Jerry teps (talk) 04:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I raised the issue at Talk:As_I_Lay_Dying_(disambiguation). As I said there, the discussion was extremely limited and did not encompass enough editors to achieve true consensus. Before you can say you have "consensus" to go against a Wikipedia guideline such as at [5], you need to hold the discussion where editors will notice it. I mean, you didn't even link to this discussion on the novel's talk page, even though people there had discussed the issue. I have now started a new discussion at this link [6] to try and raise a true consensus on this issue. I have also placed notices about this discussion where people will notice it. I hope you will join in.--SouthernNights (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually you made the edit on As I Lay Dying 12 minutes before you raised the issue. Also, where did you get consensus to change it to a redirect? Jerry teps (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Multiple consecutive edits

Hello SN- I saw your recent edits to the Harry Chapin page (and others) and wanted to remind you about the guidance at Help:Show_preview. Hope you don't mind the input. -Eric ^talk 04:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. Short answer--don't be an insulting know-it-all.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't continually go around Wikipedia looking for editors to insult. Before making a comment like wanting "to remind you about the guidance at Help:Show_preview," check out the editor's contributions. For a new editor, this comment would be appropriate. But when you make the same comment to an editor who has made a ton of edits here, you come across as snitty and insulting. For the record, different Wikipedia editors have different editing styles. I tend to reread my edits over a period of minutes or hours and refine the copy. I use the preview button quite often but as with any editor, I still make mistakes which then have to be corrected. I should also note that the important thing around here is for people to make good, quality edits. If it takes them a few extra edits to achieve that goal, why worry about it. So in closing, don't be an insulting know-it-all, which is never a good quality in an editor.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You hope correctly, I don't look for editors to insult, and I did check out your contributions (that's what the (and others) referred to--sorry if that wasn't very clear). I certainly didn't mean to be insulting. You can say the same thing to two different people, and one will thank you while the other is offended, so I try to be matter-of-fact and neutral. Funny, I originally added that since you were such a prolific editor and an admin, I was surprised to see the edits every minute or two, which is usually something beginners do (including me). But then I took that out because I didn't want to come across wrong! Apparently I did anyway. Sorry if I hurt your feelings. -Eric ^talk 14:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried to assume good faith in your comments. But they still came across as insulting and very much like a know-it-all. I mean, I simply don't see how it is any of your concern how myself or anyone else goes about improving Wikipedia, as long as we follow WP guidelines and the edits themselves are good.--SouthernNights (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. As irritated as I am by this, there's no need for bad blood here. I accept your apology and likewise apologize for being so in your face about this. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Wallace (author)

I just stumbled upon this article, investigating the spamming of Dan Schneider reviews currently going on in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Dan_Schneider_inserting_spam_links_again. I have to say that I think the information should be removed from this article given the quality of the source and that the article has no other sources at all. You've disagreed with this multiple times in the past, but I haven't found any discussions about it. --Ronz (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The spam issue is unrelated to using the interview with Wallace as a source. The spam issue with Dan Schneider involved people on both sides of the issue and tons of sock puppets. As for the interview, it is an interview with the article's subject and it provides quality, reliable information from a website which has gained a good deal of press coverage (including in the NY Times). I have no tolerance for people spamming wikipedia, but spamming a site doesn't make that site unreliable as a source of information. --SouthernNights (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. To be clear: I'm not arguing that it should be removed for the spamming, conflict of interest, or sockpuppetry problems that surround it. I'm saying that it's not a very good source, and no article should depend solely upon such a source. --Ronz (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree on that. The article needs other sources of information. But that's merely a problem with the quality of the article, not the source.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, though I'm not as sure of the value of keeping the information given what NPOV and OR tell us about such situations. --Ronz (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Neither NPOV and OR apply in this situation. Schneider is a published writer and critic who did interviews with notable people. --SouthernNights (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

undue weight to a single source and a primary source at that. I'd rather start by finding some sources to meet WP:BIO and work from there. --Ronz (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree the article needs more sources. But again, that's a problem with the article, not with the source. I'll see if I can't find some more sources to balance out that article. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Do not help the jew Schnider. Final warning.Betraymeonce (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)