User talk:Someguy1221/Archive 4

(Archive 1, January 2007 - July 2008)
(Archive 2, July 2008 - April 2009)
(Archive 3, April 2009 - November 2009)

is there a particular reason you delete certain pages ?

You deleted portal Ethiopia. I am wondering why ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.5.126.131 (talk) 14:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted because it contained no content other than a map that showed where Ethiopia was. WP:CSD#P1. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Gamaliel

I have repeatedly asked this editor to explain and support his side of the argument regarding the Mark Levin article. I am sorry to continue bothering you but his behaviour has continued to be atrocious. This afternoon he invited me to enter a complaint against him so I did. Malvenue (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Which he has now removed without comment. Is this usual behaviour? As a general comment I find it amazing this person is an Administrator. He certainly doesn't behave like one. Malvenue (talk) 05:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I can't really make heads or tails of what's going on. But this is a typical happening on Wikipedia, regardless of the user; at a certain point in the discussion, both sides have repeated their arguments so many times they get frustrated and sometimes act less than perfectly civil. The only thing I can recommend is to file an RFC or a request for mediation. Basically, get some new opinions into the talk page. If you've been arguing this long without resolution, then no resolution is likely to come without new voices. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I hate to say it but the Mark Levin edit war escalates. Gamaliel refuses to allow anything but his point of view in the article and removes any changes made by myself while continuing to be insulting and flagrantly violating WP:EQ. He has called in his friends to help support his position and now I'm just getting ganged up on. I have made an extreme effort to comply with policy, to work towards a compromise and to follow WP:AGF but I'm getting nowhere. They simply change the edits back and threaten, insult and dismiss any opinions but their own. I have issued a warning on Gamaliel's page which was summarily deleted and made an entry on WP:WQA which has essentially been ignored. Any objective reading of the Mark Levin discussion page should immediately demonstrate he and his co-conspirators are not acting in good faith at all and are the antithesis of what Wikipedia editors should be. Malvenue (talk) 06:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm watching, actually; it's not the nicest content dispute, but I haven't seen anyone stray even close to the banning zone. I'd really implore you at this point to open an RFC to get more editors in the discussion. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I was investigating the procedure for that last night but I want to do it right and it was late so I left it for later today or tomorrow. For the record I don't want anyone banned or punished, I just want to get the content right - fair and neutral. They continue to try to bait me and make false claims as if I want all criticism banned, but the truth is (as I've repeatedly stated) the criticism needs to abide by WP:BLP and be fair, neutrally voiced and balanced. The criticism was reworded, that was rejected. A balancing statement was included, that was reverted. I've tried to find a middle ground and all I've been met with has been insults, dismissmals and ridiculous accusations. Is this the way it normally is on Wikipedia? Malvenue (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a general thing to happen on Earth, not just Wikipedia. As a dispute drags on and on amongst an isolated group of individuals, the assumption of good faith (or the assumption of intelligence) slowly erodes on all sides. An RFC should have been filed a long time ago. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I would have but to be honest finding the proper codes to type into these edit boxes is not always the easiest thing to do and I want to do it correctly. Citing all the sources in one paragraph took me the better part of an hour and as they don't show up on previews I ended up having to redo them all over again by hand. Malvenue (talk) 04:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

More socks to block

Here are some more accounts related to Robseychelles:

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Robyseychelles

Brangifer (talk) 04:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've blocked the socks, and the site has been blacklisted. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick action. Sockpuppetry is such a basic violation of everything we try to build up here in the way of AGF and collaboration, that they give me the creeps. Get rid of them! I wish we did more to prevent them from being a problem at all. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

TONY WANG

I understand you deleted the article under speedy deletion under the reason of reposting a previously deleted article. The article I posted is actually an updated version with actual citations. The problem with the last article was that the article topic did not have citations establishing notability. Please look at the Seventeen magazine article here: http://www.seventeen.com/college-career/freshman-15-blog/katie-business-fashion and the Daily Pennsylvanian article: http://thedp.com/article/finance-meets-fashion-student-designer which do, in my opinion, establish notability. These cites are added to the updated article and thus is not a repost of a previously deleted topic. For the article that you deleted (which shouldn't have been since it's new), please see it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zelysion/Tony_Wang

Zelysion (talk) 04:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The first link is to a blog in which Tony actually wrote the content. The second link is to Tony's school's student newspaper. Neither of these would be considered to establish notability. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

CSD

Hey,
if you delete this article, I would be happy. The author deletes always the CSD... -- Geräusch (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

DGG (talk · contribs) declined the speedy as schools do not fall under A7. AFD is the next step. I might look into this a little further at some point today. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Ping

You have e-mail. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_school_security_threat

Regarding this, are you still online and willing to call someone? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll be emailing you shortly. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey Someguy - thanks for taking the lead on this. If you've gotten a checkuser on this and/or notified the police, could you make a note of that on AN/I or on the SPI here? I just want to make sure we keep these up to date so work isn't being duplicated. Thanks, Flying Toaster 05:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, Hersfold's taken care of it. I'm assuming you'll make the report - if you don't want to or can't for any reason, I'm happy to also. Flying Toaster 05:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

		The Real Life Barnstar
		For your cool, calm and collected handling of the recent school threat. Thank you! Basket of Puppies 05:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm always happy to help. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

harry maclean

I apologize.. but I didn't think the part that says... "However please explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page" was mearly a suggestion but rather an instruction.... otherwise someone can just click on every single article for deletion and say..."yo, I disagree"....case closed -Tracer9999 (talk) 07:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It's true, but in that case, they'd be blocked for disruptive/pointy edits. I hate to invoke beans, but in my three years on Wikipedia, I have not seen a single case of that, despite the number of disruptively radical inclusionists I've observed. In any event, the real purpose of the rule that PROD can't be restored is that the deletion of an article is defined as sufficiently non-controversial for zero disruption by the fact that no one has disagreed. Once a person disagrees, there has to be a discussion. In the worst case scenario, this just means that the page persists for an extra week. In any event, the user who removed the PROD has since provided his explanation. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

makes sense.. thanks -Tracer9999 (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I was googling and I noticed that iFashion Network was deleted

Why is this, I have an interview with them Monday so I looked them up and noticed that they had a Wikipedia page, so I went, and I realized that it was deleted, further investigation told me you were the one to delete it, I was hoping to get some background on the company that wasn't provided in the site to get a ahead on my interview and get the job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Six00varick (talk • contribs) 23:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The article was deleted for failure to demonstrate the notability of the company. It was actually deleted five times, by five different administrators, myself included. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

AWB

FYI, you accidentally relisted some author-blanked AfC's (which should have just been undone, I think). fetchcomms☛ 19:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Author blanked AfC's should probably be deleted. But either way, they deserve the further attention of reviewers, if only to tag them for speedy. I'd have done them myself but I didn't have the time last night. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah. In any case, I've just redeclined the bad ones (keeping them for historical reference, I suppose). Thanks, fetchcomms☛ 16:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, if possible, can you use {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} instead in the future? My script doesn't work when given only a barebones afc template. Tim Song (talk) 05:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I've actually avoided doing that since it will state me to be the submitter. I'll just use a pre-filled-out template in the future, in that case. Cheers. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. I need the pipes and the timestamp parameter filled out. Tim Song (talk) 07:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

- help me please : Please how do I avoid deleting the page?

Hello

Got a message on the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Smita28/World_News_Network

This miscellaneous page is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.

Please discuss the matter at this page's entry on the Miscellany for Deletion page.

You are welcome to edit this page, but please do not blank, merge, or move it, or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress. For more information, see the Guide to Deletion.%5B%5BWikipedia%3AMiscellany+for+deletion%2FUser%3ASmita28%2FWorld+News+Network%5D%5DMFD Maintenance use only: Place either {{mfd}} or {{mfdx|2nd}} on the page nominated for deletion. Then subst

User:Smita28/World News Network

... to create the discussion subpage. Finally, subst {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Smita28/World News Network}} into the MfD log. Please consider notifying the auth

smita (talk) 06:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC) smita28

The deletion can't be stopped. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a webhost for business listings or advertisements. Your userspace is meant for article drafts that will eventually be entered into the mainspace. But this article has persistently been deleted, and has now sat idle in your userspace for half a year. If you'd like to continue to improve the draft, you are free to do so, but if that will take quite some time, you'd best copy paste the article to your home computer and work on it at your own pace. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Earl of Galloway Coat of Arms

I noticed your question while I was leaving a comment on another User:Czar Brodie's talk page. The naked man is called a woodwose or wild man, and is very common in Germanic heraldry. There is an article here, Wild man, where you can can see some more images. The first painting is the original concept, a nude man covered in hair not unlike a sasquatch. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 08:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That one really threw me off. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

re your question: this coat of arms for real? Yes, see scots peerage, vol IV. However the supporters do at times seem out of place if they do not match. The wild man is a common in Scottish heraldry, and is generally in pairs eg: example1, example2, example3. They are also favored in German heraldry and are in the some European royal arms: Greece and Denmark. As you can see the human figures work well if symmetrical, but also work well if two human figures of different type: eg example4 and example5; but can look odd if human and beast, eg: example6. Note that Arms of Ukraine works well in my opinion as the lyon and man are the same colour. Your ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 09:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. This was very enlightening. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Please answer my question

[[1]]--Mamalala (talk) 05:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

one more question[[2]]--Mamalala (talk) 06:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

My article: 69.2224.34.10

Link for reference: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/An_Interview_with_William_(Bill)_French,_a_DCAA_Manager_Engulfed_in_Controversy

Hi Someguy1221:

The interview with Bill French was originally a school project. Because of the GAO reports and congressional hearing at the Senate Committee turned the subject into a public issue thus I though it may be a documentation paper for publication. I did not know Bill’s publicity until I have conducted the interview with some of the supervisors and auditors. He is a notable person at, at least, DCAA and his family. (DCAA currently employs 4,000 people) And the agency is currently under re-construction in its management and practices.

I tried to keep the interview in the original interview format. I did add two paragraphs that were my personal feeling about Bill French (I am going to delete them) and resubmit it. However, I think this paper should be published because it also contains information on Leadership, management, and how to write and document an interview. I found those information could be useful to others’ researching on those subjects.

If you have specific comment or suggestion, I want to hear from you. Thank you in advance.

Iwen 214.25.29.6 (talk) 15:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, interviews are outside the scope of Wikipedia's content. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia publishes significant information on notable subjects. Transcripts or descriptions of interviews are outside of the definition of an encylopedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Haitian Earthquake Emergency Aid Links

My IP isn't changing and I did talk to him several times. I don't know how to fill out this form to show you the rest of the conversation. People are dying in Haiti tonight and there should be links on the Earthquake site to aid organizations. There is nothing in Wiki guidelines against that. Why are narrow rule interpretations taking precedence over human life here?

69.171.160.185 (talk) 08:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep this conversation at WP:AN3, where it started. I have responded there. But I am going to bed, so that will be my last edit of the night. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to previous reverts

Thank you for reverting the changes that have been made. It grieves me that the students of the Pinedale schools who may access Wikipedia make such vile edits. I have been unaware of the inappropriate edits until today. If such inexcuseable edits occur again, I do hope a guest edit ban on this IP address will address that issue. Thank you very much. -espeed623 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Espeed623 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I've got a new one

User:Ryulong/Sandbox#Ref_removing_vandal.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I've contacted AT&T's "security center". I'll let you know if/when I get a response. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

about Akim Monet page

Dear Someguy,

I hope you remember me, we exchanged a couple of messages last October, about my contribution on artist AKIM MONET.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alessandramigani/Akim_Monet

The page is now ready, but before moving it back to its original location, I would like you to have a look at it, if you do not mind.

I look forward to hear from you soon

Thank you

(Alessandramigani (talk) 11:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC))

The truth is, it still doesn't establish that Akim Monet is notable. You have added a considerable amount of information about Monet and his work, but not any content on the reception of his work, which is what would grant him notability. The article would still be deleted. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

New page created by me

I have created a page on Intership Ltd. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sixth6sense. Please may I know your opinion on this page? Will Wikipedia accept it? Sixth6sense (talk) 05:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't really know what brought you to my page specifically, but OK. I think the article makes an assertion of notability, which may rescue it from speedy deletion. However, there are no sources provided. Without sources, any article is at risk of being deleted, either by proposed deletion or a deletion discussion. I would recommend listing sources such as newspaper or magazine articles about the company or its operations. If you have more questions, you may feel free to ask me, or you can try at the help desk, which will generally provide quicker responses. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - Loren Legarda

Thanks for jumping in and protecting the page, effectively forcing a discussion (and digging me out). It's harder than I thought to encourage two editors to discuss something when you don't have the technical ability to simply protect the disputed page. Hopefully this won't get any uglier. —LedgendGamer 09:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Neutral ?

You wrote to me recently about an addition that I made to Robert Gallo's entry on here. You made a claim that Wikipedia wishes to remain neutral on matters. I find this this very hard to believe. While you have no problems allowing non facts about Gallo's heraldry in HIV research, you seem to have a problem with someone pointing to official documents that prove otherwise. I believe that this shows bias towards any information that shows difference of opinion to what Wikipedia believes to be the truth. At the same time, Wikipedia has no problems at all allowing slanderous and very doubtful information on Robert Gallo's scientific peer Professor Peter Duesberg. One cannot help but to think that Wikipedia is not so much interested in the facts than they are suppressing information that goes against the biased nature of the administrators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthSeeker38 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The only bias is toward reliable sources. It's decidedly non-neutral to craft your own opinions, or reiterate the opinions of an unreliable source, based on primary literature. Wikipedia doesn't concern itself with the truth because the fact of it can be debated endlessly. A far less endless debate is the one over whether a fact or opinion has been reliably reported. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

--Shimon Yanowitz (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Ares Kingdom page

Please reconsider declining the recently submitted entry on Ares Kingdom. Wikipedia has an entry for two of the members' previous band, Order From Chaos, so it makes no sense that Ares Kingdom would be rejected as insignificant or important. This page will certainly grow as time goes by.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Ares_Kingdom

Verymetalsound (talk) 06:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd actually question that Order of Chaos is even notable, as it has never released on a major label. Although you are free to resubmit. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Borderline personality disorder page

Dear Someguy1221,

I am editing the Borderline personality disorder intensively, recently. I would like to ask for your advise about a specific issue with this page, as well as some more general advice. Please refer to the following paragraph that I found under Psychotherapy:

Dialectical Behavior Therapy is an innovative method of treatment that has been developed specifically to treat this difficult group of patients in a way which is optimistic and which preserves the morale of the therapist. The technique has been devised by Marsha Linehan at the University of Washington in Seattle and its effectiveness has been demonstrated in a controlled study (reference http://priory.com/dbt.htm).

I found quite a few problems with this paragraph:

It reads too much like an advertisement of original-research.
It has peackock and weasel entries.
It uses an odd, unclear jargon, which seems inappropriate.
It has a dubious link, which is inserted improperly.
The said link appears only in the "Further reading" section of a spawned article: Dialectical behavior therapy.
The said spawned article seems to be full of similar (deemed) flaws and faults.
Similar (deemed) flaws and faults seem to have infiltrated a parallel article: Management of borderline personality disorder.
The cited source seems to confuse "study" and "trial". It seems to rely heavily on concepts such as "Budhism", "Zen", "Meditation" and "spiritualism". It seems to deal with the well-being of the therapist (...?).

Can you please explain to me how I can suggest the nomination of Dialectical behavior therapy for deletion? can you please also suggest to me where and how I can seek support and advice, as well as tips and suggestions of experienced editors and admins for the purpose of helping me edit better and being a better overall editor? How about recommendations of pages to edit? When I first joined Wikipedia I had some useful contributions inserted to my talk page, but I seem to need updated contacts whom I can turn to for these matters. Can you please help me by having a link appear for me, for where I can read your reply? I appreciate your help on this. --Shimon Yanowitz (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Instructions for nominating an article for deletion can be found at WP:AFD. However, I should first note that deletion is only recommended in two cases: 1) The article is on a non-notable or unverifiable subject, and as such, an article on the subject should not exist regardless of its content; or 2) The article and all previous revisions are so irredemably riddled with non-neutral point of view, spam, original research or other damning issues, that a rewrite would necessarily start with obliterating the existing page. Short of that the consensus at AFD will almost uniformly be to leave the article in the hope that someone fixes it.

As for finding tips for editing, there is an extensive body of documentation on editing (in terms of the technical aspects of writing an editor interactions, as well as editing style and policies) at Help:Contents. If you're looking for help specifically with regard to psychology articles, you may want to ask specific questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology.

If you have more questions, you are always welcome at my talk page, as well as at the help desk. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your reply. I don't need assistance with scientific background (e.g. psychiatry), I think, but rather with procedural Wikipedia matters, regarding which your tips were right on target. I also felt I needed to have someone(s) whom I can consult with, every now and then, on such matters.

One specific question I am hoping you can help me with, further, is: Can a reference used in one article, be easily incorporated into another article, and how? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.143.227.163 (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

So thank you very much for your tips and for welcoming me at this page. --Shimon Yanowitz (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're unfamiliar on how references work on Wikipedia, please see help:footnotes. Unfortunately, there is no endnote-like repository of references on Wikipedia. A reference used in a given article may be recalled within that same article without recopying all of its information, but this does not work across pages. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, again for your reply and support. I remember seeing somwhere that there was such an option, but to be honest, there are so many (seemingly entangled) help pages, that I don't remember where I saw this. I could have misinterpreted, and I have no reason to question your answer. It has just ocurred to me that I can simply edit the source article, copy the reference info from it, then paste it to the destination article. Once again- many thanks! --Shimon Yanowitz (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Edit filter manager

Do you want the edit filter right? Someguy1221 (talk) 08:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Not really, I'd rather you guys just stopped making over-enthusiastic filters, and didn't mark filters as private unless absolutely necessary. Gurch (talk) 09:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)