Jump to content

User talk:NawlinWiki/Archive 47

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:NawlinWiki

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 96.45.189.228 (talk) at 15:48, 29 September 2010 (→Was it Undone?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This talk page is archived every month (if I remember). The older pages are indexed at User talk:NawlinWiki/Archives.

Please sign your comments with four tildes (~).

Wondering why your article was speedily deleted? Check this list first.

Do you want to move a page that I've move-protected? Discuss the move first on the article's talk page. If there's a consensus for the move, let me know and I'll unlock the page.

Please add all comments at the bottom of the page (or I may not be able to find them).

_________________________________________________________

X-Men: First Class

There's a reason why the X-Men: First Class is being named film project instead of film for the time being. Because it's not being filmed yet and acorrding to WP:NFF you can't treat it like a regular film article untile it's being filmed. The Avengers film project and The Hobbit film project are other examples of this. Jhenderson 777 17:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lives of the Most Eminent Literary and Scientific Men

As a result of a request for comment, Today's featured article (Heptamegacanthus) may be protected as any other article would be. TbhotchTalk C. 03:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gosh, nobody tells me anything around here. ;) Thanks! Nevertheless, I think that three instances of common schoolkid vandalism over an hour, all quickly reverted, is not enough to semiprotect the article. Feel free to reprotect if it gets worse. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 03:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another one by our friend writing in arabic

sorry to bother you but I see you have dealt with the others so far, Iran ielts tehran ielts ielts tehran ielts iran he made another copy of it - Mcmatter (talk|contrib) 17:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind I see you got it - Mcmatter (talk|contrib) 17:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible revision needing to be deleted from the history?

Can you please take a look at [1] I have reverted this edit but the contents may be a form of a personal attack and are quite derogatory. Thank you for your time - Mcmatter (talk|contrib) 19:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vell Baria

I was just adding some references to the Vell Baria article (one in the Washington Post, for example) and found that you had deleted the entire article! Can you put it back please? Finding references takes time… Thanks — Hebrides (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, please userify it as I could try doing a bit of work on referencing it, but I don't want the pressure of time, as life is very busy at present! — Hebrides (talk) 12:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) — Hebrides (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Useight/Status

Can you please blank it or unprotect it? Qui has been bothering me about it. Thanks. Useight (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet. Thanks, again. Useight (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing visibility of Marx article

What does this mean? I am still learning the ins and outs here, so I am wondering. Is it because the article has been a target of vandalism, and if so, what do the changes you are making do? Best wishes, ValenShephard (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does that link in with those articles? ValenShephard (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The vandal posts the attacks, over and over again, on Marx and other related articles. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, makes sense, thanks. ValenShephard (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article of Marx has been getting alot of vandalism by IP users, is there a way to stop that? ValenShephard (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation of Jonathan Mark

User:Starpointstudio recreated the article Jonathan Mark that you deleted. Wayne Olajuwon chat 20:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Can you tell me why delete the page instantly? It has Chinese wiki link. Also I give you a link about it but it is in Chinese. I don't know its English name. Here is the link--Player23 (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


It is clear, this is a racist attack on Dr. Leigh-Davis for being a black professor. You won’t even allow 15 minutes for anyone to review or add to this page. There are many, many, many, much less notable white professors on this Wikipedia. The media needs to do a report on Wikipedia’s racism. Why don’t you at least let someone, add the references proving there should be a page for Dr. Leigh-Davis? In fact, I just added three credible references, there is no way anyone even had “time” to pull the references and read them. Thereby, why don’t you not only let references be added ; common sense dictates you should allow time for the references to at least be read, and then reviewed. I am requesting IMMEDIATE “deletion review,” and I may even go to the media. Future9 (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Future9Future9 (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This has nothing to do with this person's ethnicity. It has to do with the fact that we can find no sources for the existence of this person - let alone her asserted accomplishments - other than self-created PR releases. The releases are themselves implausible, in that they don't even indicate that this person has a first name. In any case, they don't comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. Find me an independent source (in other words, not a PR release) that demonstrates this person's notability per WP:N, and I'll reconsider. Until then, feel free to pursue deletion review. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Dr. Leigh-Davis

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dr. Leigh-Davis. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Future9 (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC) {{Delrev}} Restore new article Clearly, you could have not read all the sources in 1.5 minutes, which is how fast you deleted this article. Again, why don’t you allow a chance for more references & sources to be posted?!? Are you afraid of the truth, or just a racist?!? Clearly the reason you lied and cited “vandalism,” is because this is just a racist attack. As evidenced by all the white, less credentialed professors, listed in Wikipedia. This is a drastic improvement over the original. There are NEW sources. Further, the previous articles were not in the proper format, which made it difficult for references to be located. There have always been many references and sources. It is clear, this is a racist attack on Dr. Leigh-Davis for being a black professor. You won’t even allow 15 minutes for anyone to review or add to this page. There are many, many, many, much less notable white professors on this Wikipedia. The media needs to do a report on Wikipedia’s racism. Why don’t you at least let someone, add the references proving there should be a page for Dr. Leigh-Davis? In fact, I just added three credible references, there is no way anyone even had “time” to pull the references and read them. Thereby, why don’t you not only let references be added ; common sense dictates you should allow time for the references to at least be read, and then reviewed. I am requesting IMMEDIATE “deletion review,” and I may even go to the media. Lastly, citing deletion based on "vandalism," is an outright blatant lie. There has been ABSOLUTELY NO VANDALISM. In fact, a completely new article was submitted, with new references and new subject matter. This article was deleted due to racism, and falsely listed as “vandalism.” Future9 (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Future9Future9 (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Cronin

Hi

I just wanted to say thanks for protecting this article.

I don't actually watch this article (never heard of the bloke before today!) but man even Huggle was struggling! That vandalism! I did actually report it to WP:RFPP but I got told there wasn't enough vandalism lol.

Thanks again! --5 albert square (talk) 00:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, when I googled it I got Twitter as well but Twitter isn't reliable that's why I didn't quote it. But it does sadly look like it's true, if it's more than Twitter saying it now. I've added him to my Watchlist for the time being in case there's any issues with the article later on :) --5 albert square (talk) 00:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Morse Sakshama

Sorry to bother you , Morse sakshama is a real event here is the link http://morse.sakshama.org , again it is not notable on the internet because its new enough and there have not been more blogging or net activities about it. So please consider it one more time, I created the page just to let people know about it as wiki shares information worldwide. We can discuss it more also please tell me the ways to improve the page. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manud (talk • contribs) 07:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

I have a hang on for Florence House. Please do not delete when it's being edited. It is not promotion or advertising. It's a notable building. Please revisit edited version and provide feedback on how to make it better vs. just deleting. Thank you. I'm new at this but I have a right to contribute, and think Florence House and similar projects most certainly are Wikipedia worthy.

There are sources. Several outside sources listed. I am trying to edit this to make it better, please help me to do this. It's an important building. Give me a minute, please.

Epocrates

I want to start a Wikipedia entry on the medical software Epocrates. The previous webpage on this software was deleted apparently because it was advertising. I don't want to advertise for it, but this is a piece of software that is widely used by physicians-in-training and medical students but it collects and monitors information and sends it to a central database where, some allege, it is sold to pharmaceutical companies. I think this merits an entry.

See http://pharmexec.findpharma.com/pharmexec/Marketing/The-iPhone-as-a-Physician-Resource/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/505159?ref=25 http://epocrates1.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/epocrates1.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=1032&p_created=1208366898&p_topview=1 http://www.jfponline.com/pages.asp?aid=1865&UID= T g7 (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Morning Call (band)

Why did you delete http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning_Call_(band) ?? They're a legitimate band who was signed to Drive-thru Records, announced Jan 05, 2005. Purevolume pages hosted by Drive-Thru Records: http://web.archive.org/web/20050114012509/http://www.purevolume.com/morningcallmusic http://web.archive.org/web/20060208214450/http://www.purevolume.com/morningcallmusic

http://www.amazon.com/Drive-Thru-Records-Rushmore-Music-Sampler/dp/B0014JZZEW http://www.last.fm/tag/drive-thru+records

Was it some sort of personal vendetta? Or what is the reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.19.188.205 (talk) 01:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Talkpage stalker) Please read through WP:MUSIC if the band does not meet the requirements laid out in this policy they will be speedy deleted if you feel that the band does meet these points you can ask for it's reinstatement at WP:REFUND or ask for it to be userfied allowing you and anyone you invite to rewrite it to meet the points in WP:MUSIC. - Mcmatter (talk|contrib) 01:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sent a request in for you. - 58.168.73.75 (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Located some Odd Vandalism

It appears you have a friend here on Wiki.

Article will be deleted soon, but just stumbled upon that in the history right now and thought you might want a laugh. CycloneGU (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SuperFogeys deletion

Hello NawlinWiki, I noticed your deletion of The SuperFogeys and wanted to ask you a few questions about it. SchuminWeb deleted the page a few days ago based on copyright infringement, but after talking to him, I got the open content parts of the article back to start fresh. Obviously, it's a little disappointing to see it deleted again, but I've looked over your reasoning and, well, I can't argue with it. I'd like to get the article up and running again if I can establish notability, but since I'm still relatively new to the editing scene, I wanted to check with you before making any serious attempts. Would it be appropriate to start a new version of the article if I can establish notability? Along those same lines, SuperFogeys is mentioned on Newsarama and other comic websites. In your opinion, would that be sufficient coverage to establish notability, or would I be pushing it? Sorry to bug you about it, but I don't want to step on anyone's toes, and since you were the one to delete it, it seemed appropriate to ask your advice before giving it another shot. Thanks! Greenhas (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help! Greenhas (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for protecting Park51. Ronk01 talk 22:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But I've a question - did you even look at the edit history? PC won't shut up the automatic edit summaries. —Jeremy (v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!) 22:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I can always blank those. The PC is for when the temporary semiprotect expires. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's still not worthwhile to use PC on Park51. Do I have to inform you of whom exactly is making those edits? —Jeremy (v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!) 01:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The pending changes trial was supposed to end over a month ago... Pilif12p :  Yo  01:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, re: move protection removal

If it was my edit that did that, mea culpa. I didn't think you were around at the time I threw that protect up, so I was trying to step up to bat for you, so to speak. Won't happen again (and hopefully won't NEED to happen again!). - Vianello (Talk) 09:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Multiple Sculpture / Multilateral Sculpture

I removed the prod on The Multiple Sculpture / Multilateral Sculpture as an editor has explicitly objected to deletion on the talk page. Compliance with policy/procedure is the only reason I did this; I have no objection to opening an AfD. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

JV Smithy has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

JV Smithy (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit filter 17

Hello NawlinWiki . I was taking a look at the edit filter definition after seeing the false hit report on AIAV. It looks like the filter will block new IP editors from editing any of the selected articles, regardless of the actual edit change content (other than the edit_delta check). I think this is picking up edits unrelated to the filter's intent - some good faith edits ([2] and [3]) plus many miscellaneous vandalism hits, but I think most of these are the usual random mix of vandalism edits that we tend to get from new IPs. I saw that earlier versions of the filter included content checks on added_lines. Perhaps it would be wise to add these checks back in to the filter as an additional and condition. Cheers. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally I would point out that old_wikitext is very slow to test against, and as a result we are seeing a massive degradation in performance on that filter. Can it be avoided? --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the old version of the filter had its weaknesses too. It was one of the most complex we'd ever written, and it still wasnt actually stopping the person it was written for, although it did force him to write things like this. —Soap— 01:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This vandal has been a challenge. As you can see from the filter, this vandal hits a defined group of articles, and Soap is correct that the prior version wasn't working in that the vandal just kept making minor changes to his vandalism (which is all vicious attacks on 2 or 3 living people). I consider the current version of 17 to be a less restrictive alternative to semiprotecting the entire group of articles. But these comments give me an idea, so check out the change I am about to make. But please don't post here about it - part of the efficacy of the filter is that the vandal can't see exactly what we're doing. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some suggestions (from someone admittedly unfamiliar with the tool's internals): Since the article filter already narrows down the potential results, perhaps the added_lines filter could be added with a much looser and simpler list than existed before. That would reduce the false hits. If placed above the article_id/old_wikitext condition, that might reduce the amount of article that process through the old_wikitext test, reducing overhead. Also it might be worth comparing the performance between contains_any(old_wikitext, "aaa", "bbb",...,"zzz") and "old_wikitext rlike "(aaa|bbb|...|zzz)". For long lists, a single regex search might be faster than multiple plain text searches. In the end, I guess the current form is batter than actually semi-protecting a whole class of articles, of letting the sock have their way. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 04:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC) (P.s., now that I've looked at your earlier filter regex, I understand what you mean about the complexity. Not much you can simplify without loosing functionality.)[reply]
FYI, we've already confirmed a while back that regexes are faster than contains_any. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need Your Help With A Nasty Individual On This Site

I wish to make complaint regarding user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Imperialmint who is constantly removing my article's Salsburgh content for nothing more than malicious intent and badness, and if you want further proof look at my user talk page where he says and i quote "go on a diet", this is surely proof that he is doing it for badness.

I've removed the personal attack. Vandal or no, you've no right to call him names. —Jeremy (v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!) 19:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have "fans"

Even on wikisource! feydey (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean

You recently closed the page for the band my friends made saying something about "notable". I don't really understand what that means or how I can fix it. I tried reading the links you provided, but they weren't very useful in clearing things up.

Any help would be appreciated.

NecrophiliaBAND (talk) 03:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The same happened to me with the Wooloo page: what is intended as 'notability' ? The organization has been up and running for 8 years, there have been many articles from the artistic press and it is certainly notable, the website having now 15000 users.

Could you kindly help me fixing it?

Thank you.

GiorgiaD (talk) 13:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)GiorgiaD[reply]


It is more clear now, thank you very much.

GiorgiaD (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request of 71.247.249.238

Hello NawlinWiki. 71.247.249.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards,  Sandstein  21:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing view-ability of Cleegkin's edits

I recently saw Cleegkin's edits and thought that they should been deleted permanently so no one accidentally sees them. I know Wikipedia is not censored but this on pages of random politicians. JDDJS (talk) 22:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. On an unrelated, note, after commenting on this page, I watched and saw the deleted edits, and I can't but wonder what happened? JDDJS (talk) 01:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I don't see why he goes through all the effort. He must have no life. JDDJS (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Radical child activism

I noticed that you deleted this article as an expired WP:PROD. However, the page was deleted just 4 minutes after I placed the PROD tag on it. I'm certainly not going to fight for the article's restoration, given that I thought it should be deleted and I doubt that the subject's topic exists as it was described. But I just wanted to raise the issue with you in case you hadn't intended to delete the page until the full PROD period expired. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're Too Fast!

Argh! You beat me to this! Keep up the good work! :) Set Sail For The Seven Seas 325° 46' 30" NET 21:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

False hit on edit filter 58

Hello NW. I noticed a possible false hit. I took close look at the edit, but was unable to identify what might have triggered the hit. Please take a look when you get a chance. Several other filter hits that I looked at were right on. Keep up the good work. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 22:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Sinarest" article deletion

Hi Nawlin Wiki,


I created this article hoping I will keep adding medicines that I come across, and the purpose they are used. This would make a good medical library too. Every time a doctor writes me some medicine, I used to think what are all this medicine do? Wikipedia is obviously a wonderful place to give these details.

If the approach I did is not correct, Please let me know what is best way to do. I want to see a whole medicine dictionary. Say: 1. name of a medicine 2. and the purpose the it is supposed to be used, 3. any side effects noticed by its users, 4. Preconditions to use this medicine (say Diabetic patients should not use. Patients with BloodPressure should not use. pregnant women should not use etc...) "Take after food" or "Take before food" etc...

-RK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arkrishna —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkrishna (talk • contribs) 10:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was it Undone?

Report Was it Undone because that Filter wasn't a spam? 96.45.189.228 (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So Filter 58 is fixed? Thanks 96.45.189.228 (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NawlinWiki/Archive_47&oldid=387742966"