User talk:Giftiger wunsch/Archives/GA4

Response

Note: this conversation started or continued here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK]

I am not sure if you are a moderator, but if you are, I would like to explain the situation. A few days ago, the editor in question began to harass me because I accidentally made two small edits to two articles when I thought I was in sandbox. The editor assumed, based on my past history of a block (which was removed) that I was "vandalizing". Today, he also attacked me while I was making a genuine edit to an article that has not been edited in almost a year. I have not been vandalizing, and I implore you to check the records of our conversations. I would like to point out that I only said I would report the editor after he threatened me twice with a block. Andyjoe7and8 (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Moderators don't exist on wikipedia; I'm not an administrator, but do not need to be one to issue a warning template as any editor may leave a note or warning about actions which may violate wikipedia policy. If you feel that the user has mistaken a good-faith edit for vandalism, you should leave a polite note on their talk page explaining that, rather than threatening them for issuing a warning for non-constructive editing (and accusing them of stalking), which is likely to escalate the situation further and may be considered a personal attack (which Neutralhomer apparently did, which is why I left a note on your talk page about it). If you need help editing constructively, feel free to ask me about any concerns you may have, and I'll do my best to help. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• I've just named you at AIV as someone who's keeping an eye on this. I figured the earlier problem had de-escalated - can you ping me if things re-escalate? Ta! TFOWR 21:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

  I have AIV watchlisted so I noticed you mentioned me; will do. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Once again, I am not sure if you understand that the situation did not start with the incident today. As I explained above, the editor violated the "good faith" premise when he started accusing me of vandalism two days ago. I said he was "stalking me" because I do honestly believe he is looking at everyone of my edits and singling me out. I would appreciate it if you could look at the histories of both our talk pages so that you can adequately assess the situation. I would also like to say that I am disappointed in Wikipedia. I have found many editors rude and very accusatory. It seems there is no room for error in Wikipedia, because any error seems to be "vandalism" Andyjoe7and8 (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that way. The best thing to do, however, is to calmly and politely discuss the issues with NeutralHomer; as I said I haven't familiarised myself with the exchange but Homer is usually responsive to polite criticism. If you feel that Homer is not being reasonable, you could consider filing a civility report at WP:WQA, or simply avoiding further contact with the user. I'll see if I can catch up with the exchange tomorrow if I have time. In the meantime, please don't feel discouraged; remember that we're all human, and all prone to mistakes, and if you think that others have misjudged your edits as vandalism, the best thing to do is politely explain why your edits were not vandalism, reminding them to assume good faith, and if necessary, seek advice on what you could do to make your edits more constructive. I will leave a few tips on your talk page in a moment, which may help you. If you need any further advice, feel free to ask here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your very polite response. My edits today seem to meet your guidelines. I have noted all my updates on the talk page of the article, so if Homer wishes to argue against said edits, he may discuss it there. I would just appreciate it if you could also send him a friendly note about the things we spoke about. If he spoke to me about the changes, I would not have a problem. I just think he assumes that all I do is vandalize wikipedia, which is not true at all. Andyjoe7and8 (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

List of recurring characters in Futurama

Hi Giftiger, I think your edit summary here is incorrect as it is unlikely that this text was copied from anywhere. I am unable to access the site you link to due to my work firewall however the text you deleted has existed mostly unchanged for approximately two years. The origin of the text itself is from a previous article List of recurring alien characters from Futurama which was later merged. At one point that article had a much much longer version of the section on Lrrr which contained all the information in the section you deleted plus a good deal more, this information was then trimmed to a more reasonable length as seen here. Is there further reason to believe this was later replaced with a very similar version in a copy-paste? Stardust8212 13:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the history of the article, but the text is identical (except for the spelling of the pronounciation guide, "Lurr") to the text at the source I provided. The source has a copyright notice and doesn't indicate a specific exemption for the text (nor does it provide a source for the text, so it wasn't taken from the wikipedia article itself or elsewhere), so it needed to be removed from the article immediately as a blatant copyright violation. I see you have replaced it with a rephrased version, which is fine. Please refrain from stating that a copyright infringement is "unlikely" without reviewing the evidence, however; I can assure you the site I linked to demonstrates that it is a blatant violation. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

In fact, this is the first version of "List of recurring alien characters from Futurama" as it was split from "List of recurring human characters from Futurama", in January 2007 I would have gone back further to see when the Lrrr information was actually added, but I didn't have to. sharetv.org wasn't created until February 2007. Perhaps they copied Wikipedia, or perhaps it's just a case of like minds documenting a fictional character's history.  Chickenmonkey  17:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If they copied wikipedia, they have to attribute wikipedia; there was no attribution so the copyright violation is either theirs or ours. There was also a copyright notice and no indicated exemption, as I stated. All indications suggest that the text was a copyright violation, so it had to be removed immediately. If the copyright violation was in fact on their part, then that's something for WMF to look into. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

All I'm saying is: the copyright violation is not "blatant" and certainly is not on Wikipedia's part. All indications suggest that the text is either a copyright violation on sharetv.org's part or was just an instance of like minds documenting a fictional character's history, which means it did not have to be removed. Perhaps WMF should be notified, but I have no idea how one would do that.  Chickenmonkey  19:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with CM, it seems clear that there was no copyright violation on Wikipedia's part but I also agree with his edit summary that it's not a big deal anyway, that block of text wasn't particularly great to start with and I think we could come up with something better, maybe I will...I seem to recall seeing a couple articles that discussed Lrrr from an OoU perspective recently... Stardust8212 20:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree entirely. The text I removed appeared, word for word, on another site, with a copyright notice. That is a blatant copyright violation unless it can be proven otherwise. It must be removed per policy. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Your edit was a good one. Based on what you saw, you felt it was a copyright violation. However, it has been proven otherwise. Stardust is right, though; the text is not very encyclopedic, anyway, and should be rewritten from an out-of-universe perspective.  Chickenmonkey  20:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you point me to the proof that it's not a copyright violation? By the way, I wholly agree with the concerns which led to it being rewritten; it was the unusual in-universe detail which led me to run a google search to check if it was a copyvio. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The text has been on Wikipedia since, at least, January 2007. Sharetv.org has only been in existence since February 2007. The text, obviously, could have been written by someone prior to that, but it's surely been proven that there is no copyright violation, as it pertains to that website.  Chickenmonkey  20:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm; well I wouldn't say it's proven, but it certainly casts doubt. In any case though, the information available to me at the time indicated a pretty straight-forward copyright violation, and I checked it out as much as could be expected; it may not be so straightforward in hindsight, but it was blatant at the time, and even now it's suspicious enough to be worth erring on the side of caution. Given that the website launched in Feb 2007 it may be worth WMF contacting them though; it's possible that the copyright violation is on their part, after all. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyway I think we all agree that the new content is more appropriate, so probably not worth splitting hairs over. I'll see if it's worth asking WMF to contact them about the copyright concerns and ask them to do so if appropriate. Thanks for the input. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• If anyone's interested, I've just e-mailed WMF with evidence of the copyright violation; it's up to them now. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we've all earned cake.  Chickenmonkey  21:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This user knows that the cake is a lie.

;) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Well played, GiftigerWunsch... well played...  Chickenmonkey  21:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Now that we're all in agreement I'd appreciate if either of you wanted to have a look at my attempts to expand the description in an out-of-universe direction diff. Hopefully it's the first step in improving that article (it could use some TLC). Stardust8212 00:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a good start toward the article's improvement.  Chickenmonkey  01:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

German Fairy-Tale Route

Dear Giftiger Wunsch,

why do you keep on deleting parts of my work on the article "German Fairy-Tale Route" before I have even finished it? I mean especially the link collection to the articles about places along the route. As I stated on the page (before you deleted it, of course,) it is NOT a picture gallery. There is no rule that prohibits adding thumbnails to links. Second, the literature from which the information in this article is taken, is stated, too. For that reason, I can see no lack of proof or source. I will add some more literature in the English language and links to websites in English later. Third, the English article "German Fairy-Tale Route" is nothing but a translation of the German article "Deutsche Märchenstraße", which is online in de.wikipedia.org for months. Nobody critizises the thumbnails or requests more quotations or other proof here.

See, I don't want to step on your toes, but you have just trampeled mine to jelly.

Kind regards P30101983K (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Since German is my native language, I'd like to chat about your user name choice, apart from anything else.

Please be aware that we do have policies against galleries of images; images should only be used in ways which add to the understanding of the subject and contribute towards its encyclopaedic value. As for the de.wiki article not being modified, that's for them to sort out. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid reason to keep material which is against policy, especially when the "other stuff" is on a different wikipedia. I have made a series of minor changes to the article to improve it, and have justified and explained my reasoning throughout. I removed the image gallery for the reasons already stated, and I removed vast quantities of external links as they are not appropriate per WP:MOS. Instead of external links to de.wiki, wikilinks should be placed in the article, linking to other articles on the English wikipedia. Feel free to add some of these. The german terms for the various locations should also be replaced with english ones where available. Regarding my username, what did you wish to discuss? If you have any further queries, feel free to ask me here; if you wish to discuss proposals for changing the article, you should place these comments on the article's talk page. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Kenneth Kim

Note: this conversation started or continued here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK]

It is entirely promotional, an advert paid for by the subject. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TeleComNasSprVen&diff=384069265&oldid=383206453

I was in the process of converting the CSD to multiple|G2|A7 when you removed the template. Perhaps AfD would be more suitable?

Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of who wrote it and why (and bear in mind that several other editors have contributed since its creation anyway), the article reads like an encyclopaedic piece, as is appropriate for a wikipedia article. And as for G2... what? A test page? It's been up for 2-3 months, has had multiple contributors, and survived a trip to AfD; in terms of A7, there is a list of the individual's notable publications, which in itself is "an assertion of importance" and passes A7, and in addition, the article has several reliable third-party sources covering the subject, making it likely that the subject is notable. Are we actually talking about the same article here? I don't see how any of G2, A7, or G11 could apply here. You might like to take it to AfD, but first I'd suggest carefully considering whether you can actually make a policy-based argument for its deletion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry... G11 was what I meant.

The list of publications is not in itself an indication of notability... by the same argument every academic in the world would be considered notable. But in any case, my interest in this article is more to do with the deletion of Clark Schierle, which I tagged G11 and was speedily deleted. He's upset that he doesn't get an article while his friend does. Is there an argument for restoring and userfying that article? Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure; I haven't seen the article (note that it was actually deleted as A7 rather than G11 though). WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a reason to either keep, or delete something though. When I mentioned the list of publications, I was indicating that it is an assertion of importance, which is all is required to pass A7 (notability isn't necessary). The third-party references on the article seems to indicate notability, but that's a matter for an AfD to decide; the previous AfD was closed as no consensus, however, so if you take it back to AfD you should read the previous one and make sure your deletion argument hasn't already been covered in the last AfD. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Andyjoe7and8

I think we're done there. I've revoked talk page privs. Toddst1 (talk) 23:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I asked Chaser to do so, but he hadn't replied yet. It's a shame; the user seemed to want to be constructive for a while there before the block; I guess it was just an elaborate troll. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute, why?

Hello GW, just wondering why you tagged Alberto M. Carvalho for CSD A7. No indication of importance? don't you think ''Mr. Alberto M. Carvalho (born 1965) is the superintendent of Miami-Dade County Public Schools also referred as to M-DCPS, the 4th largest school district in the United States with over 346,000 students.'' is enough? And this living person is in fact notable, sources can be found over Google. Or if you still disagree, perhaps starting a AFD discussion rather than speedy deletion? - Dwayne was here! ♫ 00:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hm, I overlooked the part where it said it was the 4th largest school district in the United States; I didn't think that being a superintendent of a school district alone was an assertion of any significant importance; granted the scale makes it pass A7. Feel free to remove the template. I've removed the template GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked for sources, so I have no opinion on its notability at the moment; having overlooked the "4th largest district" part, though, it didn't immediately seem to be claiming any significance, so didn't yet require browsing for notability. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Alrighty, we are all human and we tend to overlook things, but it's okay, i defintely understand. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 00:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
• I've fixed up the article a little bit and added a couple of references; you're right, the individual certainly appears to be notable. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, thanks for changing some things around for me, as i was waiting on someone to do so. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 01:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for moving the complaint to the ANI board that I had inadvertently posted at the wrong page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

AN/I

No worries. Honestly though, I think it is just Bugs disrupting it now & closure will probably save him from a ban :( --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 13:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been following the discussion very closely since it was mainly an exchange of poor jokes to begin with, but it doesn't look like there's any actual consensus on whether or not the title was inappropriate, which is the real issue hidden amongst the off-topic talk of content dispute. Bugs seems to be being a little WP:POINTy, but I don't think he's risking a block at this point. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, the issue is resolved though (in that an admin collapsed the content on the talk page and admonished those involved), the only new thing is bugs moaning about, well, I can't really make it out ;P I'm not sure there is anything needing further admin attention. But, as you say, best let an admin take a look (again). Cheers :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 13:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, for your recent actions at WP:AN, regarding Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Nipples_-_I_have_two.2C_how_about_you.3F. I as well am curious as to why Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) failed to notify me, and failed to even attempt to resolve the issue first at my user talk page, before going speedy straight to admin board. -- Cirt (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries; I'm glad it could be resolved so quickly. It seems delicious carbunkle believes that it should have remained at WP:AN as it may be of interest to admins in general, but I've advised him to to make a separate post to WP:AN if he feels that way, as I don't think it's fair to single you out if he does believe that all admins should be reminded (i.e. that you're not the only one who overlooked this earlier consensus against blocking for having nipple in usernames). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks again, -- Cirt (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI

I backed away from this Smurf mega-megillah yesterday, and certain other editors are trying to pull me back into it again. So this snippy comment "Intractable" (instead of a neutral term like "Closed") must refer to those other editors; and you shouldn't allow them to be personally attacked that way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I originally closed it with "Unresolvable", and someone else changed my comment to the snippy "Intractable". So don't be lecturing me about changing "their" comment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Intractable: see definition #3. It's simply a synonym for "unresolvable", which you originally used to describe the thread. The user who placed it may well have simply been taking another snipe at an already-closed thread, but it's certainly not a personal attack. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying they did the right thing changing your comment (it's certainly annoying to have someone change your close because they think their word sounds "better"), and I wouldn't have pulled you up on it (or reverted it) if you hadn't accused them of making personal attacks when they did so. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Fine. Enough of this garbage. They tried to make it about that rabbi. It's about the picture, and about wikipedia's continual who-cares attitude about amateurish illustrations, which is a gripe that goes back a long ways. They wanted those ugly photos, they got them. So enough, already. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm really not interested in continuing the discussion about that thread, I stayed well clear of it as soon as it became obvious it was just going to be a dumping-ground for sarcastic comments. I only dropped you a warning because there is a very real possibility that if you continue to make edits like that on ANI, there will be plenty of admins who will see it and may end up blocking you for it. I've seen you on ANI before and your contributions are usually very constructive; let's just keep it that way. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Nor am I. I kept getting told to drop the stick, and when I did, they picked it up and starting using it back on me. Not that I care about that so much. But they also attacked the guy who started the thread, even though he had also backed away from it. Izak is the one who inflamed this whole thing, and continues to do so by issuing "warnings" and demanding apologies. He can wait till Hawaii freezes over, because he was in the wrong and got away with it. As for me... you'll notice that someone reverted that patronizing template, and you lectured him about it. Be aware that the guy who reverted it is one of several users (including some admins) who kind of "watch out for me". If I go too far, they let me know. And if someone else goes too far, they let that guy know. So enough already. Enough. I say again, Enough. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't lecture him; I hadn't templated you, and I wasn't sure whether you had read the message I left and replied here, or if you'd just seen my edit and posted here. You're more than welcome to remove the notice from your talk page, but when someone else removes it instead, I don't know if you've read it. Anyway I'm not attempting to kick up the thread again, I have no interest in it. Just remember WP:NPA next time you revert that sort of edit and there's no issue. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we need to continue this discussion, so thanks for the polite response, I won't take up any more of your time. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

You did OK. And if "intractable" is not a personal attack, neither is "nanny", since it's commenting on behavior. (And I myself can be a nanny at times. So there.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For improving Juliette Gruber ArticleTolkny (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Kent Band

Just to let you know, unless there's been a radical change I don't know about, userpages aren't deletable by csd tags. You'd be better off going to WP:UAA with it. :) -WarthogDemon 18:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

There hasn't been a change, general CSD criteria (those starting with G-codes) have always been applicable to userpages. See your talk page. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I've also already filed a report at UAA, by the way. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That is strange . . . I once csd tagged five usernames, only to be told what I just told you. At any rate, I have reverted. I hope I have not annoyed you with my confusion. Peace. :) -WarthogDemon 18:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. It depends what you tagged them with; it's possible it wasn't a criterion applicable to a talk page: any A-criterion, for example, only applies to articles: userpage drafts about non-notable individuals or with little context, etc. are acceptable unless they stay around for ages, when they may be taken to MfD. You reverted, so no harm done. Thanks again. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry

This computer is shared with my partner in School I am 7th grade, and Iam soory for my partners immature attitude. Please forgive us both Jack and Jim! I am so sorry! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.14.209.248 (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologise; please try to keep your edits constructive, however. I'll leave some info on your talk page which may help you to do so. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I am no that fluent in English I go to International School in China, can you tell me what do you mean by what you said now? I really apologise and Ipromise you I will never do such a thing again my partner is also regreting, so what do I have to do now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.14.209.248 (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If your English prevents you being able to contribute to the English wikipedia, you might consider contributing to a version of wikipedia in a different language instead. In any case, one of the core principles of wikipedia is be bold: if you see something which you can improve, improve it. If you want to get used to editing, you can freely edit WP:SANDBOX with more or less anything you like. If you need specific help editing, feel free to ask me here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

MJ401

Note: this conversation started or continued here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK]

That's perfectly fine - I don't care what tag's on there, so long as it's deleted. :-) Thanks for letting me know; I'll keep an eye on it in case he reverts again. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Rebecca Scown

I feel this article would require a substantial amount of rewriting and research for it to meet Wiki standards and would be better off tagged for speedy deletion. Further, the sources listed are all primary sources except for the www.wanganuichronicle.co.nz (a sport's news website) yet the author of the page linked to the home page which doesn't really help. ~dee 10:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that the article needs a substantial rewrite to meet policy, it doesn't seem to meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. It asserts sufficient importance to meet A7, I checked and it doesn't seem to be a copyright violation (G12), and it's neutral enough to pass G11. The best idea is probably just to cut out the irrelevant details about the individual's education, etc. and make a stub article, and let it be improved from there. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy reply. OK, I'll work on that then. :-) ~dee 10:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

SPI

Note: this conversation started or continued here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK]

I tried taking it to WP:SPI initially, but the page can only be editted by admins. Do you think I'd be justified by going to ANI? Ishdarian|lol^wut 10:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

A new SPI doesn't require you to be an admin, but  Looks like a duck to me, so you're probably better off approaching an admin directly and asking them to block the IP as such. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Obyx

Hi - thanks for reviewing and marking the Obyx article. I have added several references, in accordance with your tag. (Note that the language is pretty new, so there aren't many sources available outside of it's own domain)! 20040302 (talk) 11:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately to be notable enough for its own article, the subject needs to have non-trivial coverage in reliable sources; if it's such a new language that it hasn't been mentioned in outside sources, you may have to consider waiting until such sources are available before the article can be included, as it's likely to be deleted as non-notable otherwise. In the meantime, you could move it into your userspace to work on it. I'm going to prod the article as I can't find any evidence of notability, feel free to remove the prod if you think you can demonstrate notability. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hafda

Apologies, I was previously instructed that if a username seems to imply a threat, to report it to UAA. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 20:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. UAA is only for blatant violations though: if it is an explicit threat, it should go to UAA. Otherwise, you should discuss it with the user first, and if the user continues to edit or refuses to discuss it, it can be taken to WP:RFCN for community discussion instead. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Much thanks. Here's one then, that I hope you will review: User:Lifesport Conditioning - I opted for the warning, but found numerous mentions of such a company; thus leaned really close to sending it to UAA. Curious what your thoughts are on that. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 20:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a Wait until the user edits. one; if they edit an article about a similar subject, it'll be a blatant violation. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Much thanks! Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 21:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanx

Thank you, for you assistance at ANI The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem; glad to see you're back without too many further issues. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 06:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Marlene MacCallum

Hello Giftiger wunsch. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Marlene MacCallum, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Being a professor makes subject ineligible for A7 / use WP:PROD or WP:AFD instead. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Whoops sorry, I wasn't aware of that; I haven't A7ed many professors. Thanks for letting me know. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Professor notability

Note: this thread is related to the previous one. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC) Please check out WP:PROF for the guidelines on notability regarding articles on professors. Nakon 21:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; thus far I have been unable to find anything regarding being a professor being an indication of importance (as opposed to notability) though, and I noticed that you deleted both the article I listed as A7 which was declined by Malik, and the one I despeedied per what Malik told me, so there's a bit of a conflict of information here; does A7 exclude professors, or not? Requesting comment from both Nakon and Malik to clear this up; thanks in advance. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

My understanding of WP:PROF is that professors are not "immune" from A7. Nakon 21:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I once was told at AN/I that A7 did not apply to professors, so I decline A7 speedy deletions of articles about professors and recommend WP:PROD or WP:AfD instead. (Not that postings at AN/I are policy or anything.) If you'd like, I can search for the diffs. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There doesn't seem to be a mention of A7 or any other CSD in WP:PROF, nor are professors mentioned in WP:CSD#A7. I figured Malik probably knew something I hadn't noticed, but it doesn't look like there's an actual policy excluding professors from A7. Thanks for clearing this up, anyway. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Malik, that would be helpful if it's not an inconvenience. It seems this may be a case of misinformation via chinese whispers, then. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's the exchange:

I'm sorry, but professors—even department chairs—are a dime a dozen. They are routinely speedied under A7. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No, they are not. Certainly, not full professors from places like Moscow State University or, say, Harvard or Princeton. Nsk92 (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If you have been doing that, you're speedy-ing articles incorrectly. Nsk92 is correct here. NW (Talk) 23:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive593#Uninvolved eyes needed at the Nikolay Sergeyevich Borisov article

I may have construed the comment about "full professors" too broadly, but since then I've been cautious about deleting articles about professors. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking this up; I see what you mean about the ANI discussion, but I don't think "professor" alone is an assertion of importance (and "noted" professor, I marked as weaselly). "Assertion of importance" is somewhat subjective, but if the article had mentioned any notable publications the professor had made, that their role in the university was significant (or better yet, indicated that the university itself was notable), I probably wouldn't have marked it as A7. I think like anything else, it just takes an assertion of actual significance, so you're probably being a little over-cautious here, though understandably based on that ANI thread you referenced. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Facepalm ;) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)