This is an archive of past discussions with User:Aervanath. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi, Aervanath; sorry, I can't approve your use for AWB yet because you need 500 edits to Mainspace, and you only have 200+. If you can make a good case for needing the tool despite this, another Admin will consider it in due course. Thanks. Please feel free to re-apply. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Not so much a joke, but the fact that there's an orphanage project and attempts to de-orphan, I was tired and it was easy to laugh TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours13:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Aervanath. You have new messages at Addshore's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
It's a specific modification of the DatedAI template so that the do-attempt tag can display both the dates of the de-orphan attempt and the original date it was tagged as an orphan. This is the way {{do-attempt}} is written, so I wanted to bring {{articleissues}} into compliance with that. Unfortunately, {{DatedAI}} doesn't give you the flexibility to use two different dates like that. Do-DatedAI does.--Aervanathlivesinthe Orphanage17:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Better create a code inside Articleissues. One more template makes things more difficult. -- 17:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted the recent archival of this talk page. There are edits within the last 12 hours on the threads in question, so this is definitely not the time to start archiving them. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk15:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I was planning on moving those discussions back on to the current page. Is there a general reason why that's not recommended? Or was I just moving too slowly?--Aervanathlivesinthe Orphanage15:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The active thread is so near the top (in terms of code size in the page) that it's really not worth it right now; you'd end up only archiving 18k or so. For what it's worth I personally prefer manually moving old threads rather than the move-and-then-move-thread-back method, which keeps the primary page history in one thread. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk15:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, what I wrote was the opposite of what I meant. I meant that people who weren't nosy wouldn't be out there poking around in cat:orphan trying to figure out was going on, as we are. But, actually, I think we're doing ok. I managed to get ahead of the rush for a bit last night, and actually start working on the ones that had been orphaned longer than just an hour or so. If we can do that every day, we'll be set. Too bad I'm going on vacation next week. Once I get back, though, we'll see if we can't power our way through these!--Aervanathlivesinthe Orphanage20:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
As you can see, I'm on a roll. Basically, I'm searching my iPod for notable singles to write songs about. While some like "Porpoise Song (Theme from Head)" are sorta well-known, Other songs such as those by Billy Murray are very obscure, even if they were popular back in their day. So having your help de-orphan them has been quite helpfull! Retro Agnostic (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome. By the way, all I did was remove the tag from Porpoise Song. I didn't actually add any links to it, because I saw you were in the process of doing so. You don't need to add the orphan tag if you're just going to de-orphan it 2 minutes later! I'm glad to see you adding so many quality articles, though. Good job!--Aervanathlivesinthe Orphanage20:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I add the orphan tag because often I don't know whether I'm actually gonna be able to de-orphan a article. I didn't know that it ("Porpoise Song (Theme from Head)") has appeared on many albums, and even been covered by a folk group. BTW, I'm writting another article at the moment, It's actually a very popular song from the 60's that nobody has bothered to write an article about. Retro Agnostic (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes but I'm opposing deletion because it has survived deletion twice, give it a break! There were plenty of people for keeping it the first times around, why the urge to get rid of this article? I am beginning to think the nominator might have had one of those phones and didn't like it ;) When there has been consensus, with the desire to keep it and improve it, wait till it improves, there's no deadline after all (i believe you said so yourself when i urged everyone to get rid of the backlog in about 3 days in Orphanage :-P) Shoombooly (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
You're right, I did say that, and as I recall you argued against me. We seem to have influenced each other to switch sides! :) However, even though there is no deadline, I think that in this case it doesn't matter how long we wait, the article will NEVER be improved, because there's just nothing notable about it. It would be different if I could see a possibility of it being improved, but this time I just can't.--Aervanathlivesinthe Orphanage20:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
If you do, I will a) be very surprised (which I will be, anyway, if you can even expand the current article with any useful info), and b) congratulate you heartily. Forgive me if I am very skeptical of that possibility, though. But good luck, anyway!--Aervanathlivesinthe Orphanage20:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't be a dick :P There, I said it! Gone is your pride at not being a dick!! (i love reading userpages) hehe...anyway, if i dig long enough i might find all sorts of interesting stuff about that phone. It has unique buttons (one buton for 2 digits), was the cheapest nokia with color screen, etc. If an article lives for 2 years, it's notable enough for me! Shoombooly (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I will remove that line from my page, then. (On second thought, I'll be a liar as well as a dick, and not.) :)
I'd be really careful with the "if it lives for 2 years" notability argument. I've successfully speedied and prodded several articles from the 2003/2004 orphan lists. Just because it's survived doesn't make it notable. You should check out WP:BJAODN for some crazy stuff that survived quite a while before it was deleted/fixed.--Aervanathlivesinthe Orphanage21:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, i know, but this is different it survived 2 AfD debates!!!. You can't compare it with all that silly stuff that was orphaned and nobody ever noticed...I'm sure we can agree on that? Shoombooly (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Aervanath. You have new messages at Addshore's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I'm glad my Top of the Pops, Volume 18 is still around, since it's an extremely popular album that nobody remembers, and few people who didn't live in 1970's UK can understand just how popular these albums were. I'll try to de-orphan the article myself soon, perhaps linking to it from other Top of the Pops album articles Retro Agnostic (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I see you de-orphaned it quite well! I was going to add links to the other Top of the Pops articles you added, but as it was named so differently ("Volume 18", as opposed to just being one of the yearly ones), I wasn't sure if it was appropriate or not, and I didn't want to claim if someone was going to pull the links right away! Glad you could do it!--Aervanathlivesinthe Orphanage03:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
wikibreak
Aervanath is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia by July 16, 2008.
Just to let you know, I've carried out the merger you propossed on the talk page of the SV Dynamo article since it received 3 support votes and no decline ones. EA210269 (talk) 07:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I was taking my cue from "Don't overdo it" on the BTW page, which seems to be saying that the community has dismissed the basic idea. TONY(talk)03:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Your rewrite is a considerable improvement. Frankly, the extreme BTW concept will work only if linking is made more flexible (i.e., no blue splash and underline—then I don't care if every single word is linked). It's the obstruction to the reading experience that I don't like. Actually, on second thought, linking everything is a problem in that it takes from editors the ability to highlight valuable links. But I don't want to get into a big debate about this; suffice it to say that we need to remove trivial links under the current technical regime. TONY(talk)04:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I think you misunderstand the point of the Build the Web guideline. (It is possible that the wording has changed since you last read it. I have a feeling it will change again as the result of our discussion here.) The point is not that everything should be linked. The point is that we should HAVE links, period. There are plenty of articles marked with {{wikify}} and {{deadend}}, precisely because this guideline is so fundamental. If you think that the current version of the guideline is not clear on that point, then feel free to re-write it so that it is clear, or give me an idea of what would make it clearer so I can make the change. I will emphasize again that I do fully support the limits on WP:BUILD that are listed in WP:CONTEXT and the Manual of Style, but I feel that WP:BUILD is necessary to serve as a constant reminder that we shouldn't underlink, either.--Aervanathlivesinthe Orphanage05:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.
Unfortunately, I had to undo it because it left a red link on the RFC page by effecting the change on the transcluded page. I'm afraid I'm not the transclusion genius you thought I was. Maybe someday .... Cheers, Askari Mark(Talk)02:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but any genius on my part was purely serendipitous. Actually, I figured my mistake out shortly afterwards, but the redirect from "what does not work" to "what works" threw me. Once I caught that, I went back to fix it, but you'd already done so. Fair winds and leeward shelter, Askari Mark(Talk)02:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Entertainment says: "Licensed radio and TV stations are notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios. Lower power radio stations limited to a small neighborhood, such as Part 15 operations in the United States or stations with a VF# callsign in Canada, are not inherently notable, although they may be kept if some real notability can be demonstrated. Stations that only rebroadcast the signal of another station should be redirected to their programming source (e.g. CICO-TV is a redirect to TVOntario.)" --Eastmain (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
AfD Nomination: Y Lolfa
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Wikipedia articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem that Y Lolfa meets these criteria, an editor has started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.
Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Y Lolfa. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.
Discussions such as these usually last five days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Dolphin51 (talk) 12:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
A friend of mine wrote to me this morning to tell me the article on Okichitaw has been removed from Wikipedia. It appears that an editor called Maxim removed it, with the note that he has determined it is advertising. It is certainly not so, although how can I prove this? I am an assistant instructor of this martial art and I can tell you that we are a not-for-profit. None of us - including the founder of the formalised system - gets so much as a penny for our work. We teach for free and the modest fees ($10/ month Native $20/ month non-Native) go directly to the community centre where we train to cover their costs of us using their space. We are the only not for profit martial art organisation I know of - and I've been involved in martial arts since 1984! So it's even more insulting to be accused of advertising when our motivation has been to provide information on the art!
Perhaps the problem is that the editors haven't heard of Okichitaw, leading them to conclude that it's fabricated. And no: there are not a lot of citations extent on Okichitaw, because it has only recently been named and systematised - Okichitaw has only been officially recognised by WoMAU - the World Martial Arts Union, the organisation that has as its mandate the preservation and promotion of indigenous martial arts of the world, since 2002. Does its relatively recent emersion in this form mean that it is not valid? Does the fact that we, the practitioners, have been spending our time practicing Okichitaw and not writing about it, mean that what we do does not exist?
As for the First Nations history of the techniques on which Okichitaw is based, which are handed down - in traditional fashion - from father to son, there is no documentation. However, I have tried to cover that by the inclusion of citations on the academic acceptance since the late 1960s of anecdotal or folkloric sources from the First Nations communities of the Americas because these comunitites have only a very recent history of preserving their heritage in written form: all written materials were produced by Europeans, who have been shown to be unreliable in their observations of all aspects of these cultures. If we are to apply stringent rules of accepting citation from published sources that majority of information on First Nations culture - in fact, only the materials produced by Europeans on First Nations peoples and their culture - would be considered valid.
I am very anxious that this article be reinstated as quickly as possible. If there are reasonable remedies to be taken to improve the article, please make suggestions and I will ensure the information is supplied, if possible. (If, as I have already said, what is required is a three hundred year-old record that doesn't exist, then I can't provide it.) If you want verification of Okichitaw's existence, please check with WoMAU. This wikipedia article is the best means we have of providing information to the world; there is an irony that we can't provide this information because we don't have other information.
And, on a day when the featured article on the Englishg wikipedia site is on Guitar Hero, is it not a bit harsh for you to be taking down an article on a First Nations martial art for being perceived as advertising?
I don't remember exactly what it was about the article, but from Maxim's deletion comment I guess I felt that the article as it appeared at the time sounded overly promotional, notwithstanding its status as a non-profit. Some policies you should read are Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Verifiability and especiallyWikipedia:Neutral point of view. If you would like, you can request that Maxim undelete the article and move it to your userspace. Then you and I can take a look at it, re-word it so it looks more balanced, and add some more references before moving it back into the main article space. I am certainly willing to help you out on this: I hope you don't take the deletion personally.--Aervanathlivesinthe Orphanage16:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your note. I would very much to take you up on your offer to help sort out the issues; thank you for that, too. No, it's not that I take the deletion personally, it's just frustrating that I can't figure out - specifically - what the problem is. We had modelled the article on those of other martial arts. We are interested in providing information about something we think is pretty neat and that, judging from the response we've had, was working, as far as introducing Okichitaw to people who are interested in that sort of thing. We've had kids doing school projects on Okichitaw based on the article and that's what we'd hoped for: people getting to know about what we do, where it comes from and where they can find out more. Is that advertising? It is any more advertising than, say, an article on yoga?
I will ask Maxim to undelete the article and move it to my userspace so I can, with your help, improve it.
The article has been conditionally reinstated and I am working on improvements. If you could make suggestions, I would be grateful for the input.
216.254.172.137 (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Tapetamowin
Hello! I've made several changes to this article in an attempt to bring it into line with editorial policy. Could I ask you to please look at it to see if there might be other changes I can make to improve it? Thanks! Tapetamowin (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
While I agree it is better, in my (some what jaded) view, the criticisms need more prominence. It claims to be a native American art but others dispute this, and this needs to be in the lead as a counter balance, the article is no longer simple spam, but is till questionable in terms of verifiability if kept I will be removing the unsourced claims. As I said, I am somewhat jaded by too many advert martial art pages, and this is better then many so while I would not currently nominate it for AfD as it mainly needs improvmetn form here, my delete opinion stands, partly as I think that the article has not been improved enough think to casue a reversal and as the result is likely to be a keep I wish to make clear that it was a near thing, not a snowball. Aside from my pointificating thanks for your edis as they have definalty improved the article! --Nate1481(t/c) 08:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I've re-worded the lead section to a more neutral form. Obviously, if you can improve it any more than that, please do so, or give me a more specific idea of what to do. As you said, it looks like this article will be kept, so why don't you start going through and removing/rewording the claims that you think are unverifiable?--Aervanathlivesinthe Orphanage16:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your help in improving this article. I have a better understanding of the objections now - before they seemed so general as to have little relevence. That's what happens when one knows a subject really well, I suppose. I hope that, with help from the martial arts community, the Aboriginal community and the Wiki community, that we will build this into the very best article possible. Thank you again. Tapetamowin (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your welcome offer regarding orphanage. I will read the page and let you know if there are any questions, doubts, comments, etc. Meanwhile, thank you very much for your writing to me. Best regards from Mexico City. Gustavo Sandoval Kingwergs. --correogsk (talk) 05:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Gustavo, absolutely my pleasure. It's always good to get more editors from non-English-speaking countries, to help us get a more global perspective on our encyclopedia. Happy editing! --Aervanathlivesinthe Orphanage07:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I didn't get a chance to respond to your last comment before the RfD ended. My feelings are that these kinds of soft redirects should only be a short term thing, and not something permeant. The idea is to prevent re-creation of non-notable content, which often happens in these situations. The end result is that the page still ends up being deleted in the long run, but there's less work for us. -- Ned Scott07:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with soft redirects in general, especially if an article has been transwikied to another Wikimedia project. But I don't agree that we should ever have soft redirects to a non-Wikimedia project, even for a short term. Obviously, if we're going to have them, I agree with you that they should only be short-term. However, if the article has been transwikied to a non-Wikimedia site, then that is because it did not meet our inclusion criteria. To me, that means that this form of transwiki should be treated as equivalent to deletion of an article. Why wouldn't the same methods that hold for preventing re-creation of deleted material also work for this case?--Aervanathlivesinthe Orphanage16:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I guess it's a thing where "your milage my vary". A lot of times people will come to a talk page and be very upset that something they've once worked on is suddenly gone, or someone just assumes no one has made an article for that topic yet and recreates the article. Sometimes it happens a lot and gets kind of annoying, sometimes it's not a big issue. If anything, I feel a temp soft redirect is for the benefit of readers and casual editors who've read/worked on the article, but are not familiar with most of our inner workings and guidelines. I was very surprised to see a lack of complaints when a few hundred Digimon articles were moved to Digimon Wiki. Since the article histories were imported, we actually got to see some of the same IPs and users come back and work on them again. People are a lot more understanding and calm when they know that something they're looking for/ worked on hasn't actually disappeared.
However, this probably wasn't a situation where that would have made a noticeable difference, and I can understand the reluctance to link so prominently to an off-site wiki. -- Ned Scott02:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't know how much you know about WikiProject Orphanage. Basically, when I see an article with an {{orphan}} tag, I look around for other articles that either a) already have the article title in them (i.e., if other articles already mentiond Hollandia Produce without linking to it). b) If that is not enough to get three incoming links, then I look around for other articles where it would be appropriate to add links to the article. I only found one article where it seemed appropriate, which was the article on Carpinteria, California, where the company is based. The other subjects I looked at didn't seem to have a reasonable place to add links to the article, so I switched the tag to {{do-attempt}} and left it for someone with more expertise than I do. If you can get three incoming links which meet the criteria, then please remove the do-attempt tag. Thanks!--Aervanathlivesinthe Orphanage03:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Therefore I undid it, because it was creating two signatures -- one, the one I did with the tildes, and the second with autosign. Before implementing this change, it should be discussed at WT:TFD, because closers will always be used to signing after the decision. AfD doesn't use this practice either, but I'm perfectly open to it. My concern was the formatting, and the fact that closers weren't notified about the new template. Hope that helps. Best, PeterSymonds(talk)15:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
help with your orphan articles about oliver farm equipment and oliver corporation
Hello,
I can assist you with helping organize these two articles. I have sources to confirm what I can suggest, and hope I can help with this. First, the description under the oliver farm equipment page is the most accurate for the history of oliver farm equipment, not the description under the oliver corporation page. I can go into more details later if you want.
I have made some edits to help clarify problems with the Oliver Corporation article. Let me give you a little history on the company that used the name Oliver for their tractors and equipment (a timeline of company history). Pre-Oliver Farm Equipment Company -- dates for the predecessor companies are fairly accurate, listed in the Oliver Farm Equipment Company article. Oliver Farm Equipment Company (Existed from April 9, 1929 to October 3, 1944)[1]; The Oliver Corporation (October 3, 1944 to November 1, 1960)[2]; Oliver Corporation (November 1, 1960 to December 31, 1974)[3]. [1] The Tractor Builders, John D. Culbertson, pgs. 70,100.
[2] ibid, pgs. 100,154. [3] ibid, pgs. 154,190 - when production of only White tractors takes place. (Corporate name of agriculture division then becomes White Farm Equipment Company, a division of White Motor Corporation)
Secondly, the articles for Oliver Farm Equipment, Oliver Corporation are predecessor companies to White Farm Equipment. The articles could be linked to each other, since their history is related to each other.
I believe that the Oliver Farm Equipment Company and what was called Oliver Corporation article should be merged. I would refer those two names, along with "The Oliver Corporation" to the article. White Farm Equipment was a separate company, and even though its article has a little bit of the history of it as a company, I believe it makes more sense to keep this bit of history separate.70.41.143.12 (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Eric H., 10 August 2008
Hi. It's always great to have help clearing out the AfD backlogs, but when you're relisting AfDs please remember to take the discussion off the old log page. For example, please do this. That way Mathbot won't keep it on WP:AFDO. Cheers, and thanks for you help. lifebaka++14:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Darn, I was afraid I'd missed one. I don't quite have the procedure down pat, yet, I guess. When I remove the discussion from the old log page, is it ok just to remove it altogether, or do I need to comment it out like you did?--Aervanathlivesinthe Orphanage15:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Either is fine. I comment them out so there's still a record that they were there, but it's in the history either way. Cheers. lifebaka++16:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Despite the fact that there was no response to your concerns about WP:RS, there was still no consensus for deletion. I've relisted it for further comment instead, so you can have a further chance of at least getting a response from the keep !voters one way or the other. I'd recommend asking them on their talk pages to revisit the discussion. Cheers,--Aervanathlivesinthe Orphanage16:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear Aervanath! Thanks for the enquiry about wiki quote. I am acknowledging your message for now. I will reply to your query in a week. Please bear with me. In short, I wished to to make Telugu Wiki quote more active, but could not put much time on it. There have been other contributors visiting Telugu wiki quote occasionally, but it has been rather quiet for the past few months. --Kajasudhakarababu (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'll await your reply. Please don't feel like there is a need to rush. The discussion has been open for 2 years, it can stand to wait another week or so. :) Cheers,--Aervanathlivesinthe Orphanage18:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
new deorphaner
Hi Aervanath
Thanks for you e-mail and support. I have added my name to the list, but, in fact, I have been de-orphaning articles for more than a year, even without knowing that such category exists at all :) So far, I have de-orphanned 33 articles and keep on doing so.
About Unspeakable Vault (Of Doom) ... I helped write this article and do not want to see it deleted (again) so soon. The person who put the article back up is nobody that I know, though we're both fans of the webcomic and he copied some of the info he put up from a page I used to have in my userspace. What I want to know is why is it not considered notable. There is a board game and a card game based around the comic, as well as many published books. Would it meet the requirements for notability under something other than a webcomic? If the article survives AfD, I will work on fixing the formatting, but I am not going to do that if the article itself isn't going to be around. SoapTalk/Contributions23:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Soap, the Wikipedia:Notability guideline says: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." The books, board game and card game are obviously not considered to be independent of the subject. If there are other reliable, independent sources out there that can show that the comic is notable, then by all means add them and the article will probably not ever be nominated for deletion. Also, you might want to look over the Criteria section of Wikipedia:Notability (web); if the comic has won a well-known award, or is published on sites other than its own, then it may still be notable. Please let me know if there are any other questions I can answer. Happy editing!--Aervanathlivesinthe Orphanage04:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
There have been some fan translations of the comic, but they're not updated regularly enough for me to want to use them as a basis to say that they're "published". I don't know if he has ever won any awards, or had articles written about him in local newspapers; although the comic is in English, the author lives in France, and I had little success navigating my way through French webpages looking for information. That's why I was hopinh Bt4242 could help with that aspect while I worked mostly on getting the formatting in shape. SoapTalk/Contributions20:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
UVoD (Unspeakable Vault of Doom) II
Hi,
I just added some external references to the UVoD article. All I found was short reviews and links in the not so large Cthulhu fan universe.
I hope this will prevent deletion, I don't fully understand which references would be satisfactory, and the way to include them in the article.
Thank you for applying for NPWatcher!
You've been approved to use it. Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the application page to see if there is a newer release (or just add the main page (here) to your watchlist). Report any bugs or feature suggestion here. If you need help, feel free to contact me or join NPWatcher.
Hi, I would like to get your opinion on orphan-tagging bots. Could you weigh in on Wikipedia_talk:Special:LonelyPages#Does anyone use this?? I'm thinking if we can say there's no orphan-tagging bot that scans all of Wikipedia, the importance of making Lonelypages comprehensive (instead of just the first 1000 hits, which includes disambigs) goes up; Addbot could fill that gap. --JaGatalk16:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I can't speak for anyone else, but in this case what happened is that I speedy deleted it, then noticed that there was an AFD on it as well — so I undeleted it because articles shouldn't usually be speedied while there's an open AFD. (Articles shouldn't simultaneously have an AFD tag and a speedy tag on them either, but that's another story.) But then I looked at the AFD and there was a universal consensus to speedy it, for the obvious reason that it was a crock of hooey, so I went ahead deleted it again. Just a merry-go-round of silliness, basically. Bearcat (talk) 06:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for applying to access the account creation tool. I have approved your request. You may now access the tool here. Before you do so, please read the tool's guide to familiarize yourself with the process. You may also want to join #wikipedia-en-accounts on irc and/or the mailing list. Keep in mind that the ACC tool is a powerful program, and misuse may result in your access being suspended by a tool administrator. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions. Thank you for participating in the account creation process. —— RyanLupin • (talk)08:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Please remember that requests which are similar to accounts may still be created if the existing account is old and has not been active recently. In those cases, please click 'defer to admins' rather than 'too similar', which closes the request and emails the user to pick a different username. Thanks, --Werdan7T@20:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for Newbie Help :-)
Thanks, I saw your edit and looked it up so now know how to modify that tag when I respond to future requests. :-) Veriss (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context
Why change the spelling of encyclopaedia? Both spellings are acceptable and there's no particular reason to change - see WP:ENGVAR. The "allwiki" link quoted in the edit summary doesn't seem to be relevant to this change.Colonies Chris (talk) 12:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Consistency. The other instances of the word on the page, as well as most (if not all) of the other guidelines, use the "encyclopedia" spelling. This is perfectly in accordance with WP:ENGVAR. I omitted it in the edit summary because I hadn't thought it a big deal, and the point of the edit was adding the link to WP:Allwiki. The spelling change was just an afterthought. Cheers,--Aervanathlivesinthe Orphanage12:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
De-orphaning
Hi. :) I noticed that you didn't substitute the template you left at User talk:Arbitrarily0, here. I noticed when I tried to leave a message for him (or her) and instead it modified the template. :D (here.) I fixed the template and the talk page, though it now looks I left it, but I wanted to point it out in case you'd done it elsewhere. Can have unexpected consequences, it seems. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Aervanath, I hope you don't mind, but I've pushedWP:ARBCOMM back out of the shortcut box: we really don't need four shortcuts to the one page! :) I hope you don't mind my revert. Anthøny✉17:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Anthony, no sweat. I just created it because I keep mistakenly using it instead of the one-m version. As long as it's there for me and other spelling-challenged folks to use, it doesn't really matter if it's on the page or not! Cheers,--Aervanathlivesinthe Orphanage17:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
That makes sense, yes. Obviously the shortcut will still be in use, and I doubt it's going anywhere soon (shortcuts are generally not subjected to the tight deletion standards pages in, say, the mainspace are), so you'll be able to give your poor spelling free reign. :) Regards, Anthøny✉17:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks and a question
Hi Aervanath - thanks for the deorphaning outreach message. I probably will stick my name on the list, as I like all the maintenance projects (there's something very calming about fixing up little problems on articles), although I'm only deorphaning tentatively at the moment and just getting the hang of it (it can be a bit more challenging than something like dead ends!).
I hope I haven't made too many mistakes so far, but I noticed you fixed the article issues template on Mark Sargeant. I thought you were supposed to replace orphan with do-attempt if you'd been unable to create enough inbound links, but do you just add do-attempt then and leave orphan on there as well?
Just want to check as I've been a bit cowardly with adding do-attempt anyway whilst I make sure I know what I'm doing and that's probably the only one I've left! I'll be good and leave them in future but I obviously want to make sure I'm not messing it up. Thanks! Sassf (talk) 20:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Sassf, usually you do just replace the orphan tag with the do-attempt tag. The exception is when you are using them as part of the {{articleissues}} template, as with the Mark Sargeant article. Because of the way do-attempt is coded into that template, it needs the orphan parameter to be left active. I've gone back and edited WP:O to make that clearer. Mark Sargeant was the only article that I found with that problem, which means you've been doing a good job. Keep at it!--Aervanathlivesinthe Orphanage00:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Did some minor changes to eliminate promo overtones and make the notability more obvious. Thanks for challenging. Looking forward to more comments, should such arise.
I've added another chapter called 'Additional Reading' at the bottom of Svoy's page, that provides proof this artist "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician" (one of the WP:Notability (music) guidelines). He also "has won or placed in a major music competition" (another WP:Notability (music) requirement), which in his case is the 3rd place at BMI's John Lennon Award (annual U.S. major competition for songwriters, established/supervised by Yoko Ono and Broadcast Music Inc.) and the win of BMI's Pete Carpenter Fellowship (annual U.S.-based major international competition for film/TV composers established/supervised by Mike Post, Broadcast Music Inc. and Pete Carpenter's family). Let me know your thoughts.
Those do help his case, but I still do not believe that the BMI awards qualify as major competitions, nor do I find the added sources non-trivial. I recommend you ask that the article be moved to your userspace so that you can add more as he becomes more accomplished. He may yet become notable, but I do not believe that he meets the requirements. Respectfully, --Aervanathlivesinthe Orphanage18:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Done--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
