User talk:SoWhy

Information Systems Coordinator

You declined speedy on this article, but if you read it a bit more, I think you'll see that it is nonesense. The author has apparently posted an internal document - including phone numbers - from a US military site onto wikipedia by mistake. It is an internal policy document, and hence it definitely needs to be removed ASAP!

--  Chzz  ►  13:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:NONSENSE is clear and this is not nonsense. I see no indication for "US military site" (since when does the military have "customers"?) It is clearly no mistaken creation as the creator is aware of what they posted (see Talk: Information Systems Coordinator) so there is no policy-based reason for deletion. Regards SoWhy 13:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It has a link to https://www.nmci-isf.com. It's documentation for their system for logging support requests WITHIN THEIR ORGANISATION! It has internal fax numbers..."call the NMCI Help Desk at 866-843-6624 to have a trouble ticket opened". It has the internal organisations document ID's. I can't believe this one! Really - it's an INTERNAL document and should never be on WP! --  Chzz  ►  13:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Have a look at the talk page for the article (ie where the hangon was replied to). Talk:Information_Systems_Coordinator I would have though that there was a solid argument for this being a test page. Essentially this person is using wikipedia mainspace as a holding page until he gets into work. --Ged UK (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I read that talk page as "I am working on it and will expand when I get to work", not "I need a place to store this until I do". But I will request another opinion on this. Regards SoWhy 13:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

He's using WP as a temporary storage to start editing a document for his work. With the military. S'funny, really. Think I might start a new article called my shopping list. --  Chzz  ►  14:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That is an assumption not covered by neither the title nor the talk page. But it was deleted by another admin now (although without asking me), so I will not campaign to reinstate it. Regards SoWhy 14:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for not replying sooner, but the issue seems moot. It's a G12 copyvio[1] so any other debate is secondary to that. Pedro :  Chat  20:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SoWhy. You have new messages at MBK004's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-MBK₀₀₄ 16:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Park Lane (band)

so why did u delete Park Lane (band)?????!!! And how do I get the damn code back that took me a long time to make.......????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djspinalot14 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Because it fell under criterion A7 for speedy deletion: It had no indication what so ever that the band might be notable within our notability guidelines for musicians. I can provide you with a copy of the article in your userspace if you like. Regards SoWhy 20:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

how do I get a copy of the article you deleted entitled Park Lane (band)

--djspinalot14 (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

/ ....i do want a copy of the article...where will you send it?

--djspinalot14 (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Please allow me some time to respond, okay? ;-)

I placed a copy in your userspace at User:Djspinalot14/Park Lane (band).

PS: There is no need to create new sections for each reply, just use "[edit]" to reply in this section. Regards SoWhy 20:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

• Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
• An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
• News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
• Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
• Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
• Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Verulam School

Could you reconsider your decision to semi protect Verulam School. I think I have kept the vandalism fairly well under control. There will always be vandalism on school pages.

Is the policy still to avoid protecting or semi-protecting just because an article will get a lot of interest? Dolive21 (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is usual to protect pages that get a lot of interest except the FA on the main page (see Wikipedia:PROTECT#Semi-protection: "Subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption – for example, due to media attention – when blocking individual users is not a feasible option"). In this case the article is a mess and needs cleanup but many IP edits seem to vandalize it given the current event that happened. I think protection is for the benefit of the article because we can expect more childish vandalism in this case. Regards SoWhy 22:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Message reply

Very well, will do. Thank you for reminding me! Renaissancee (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Very Urgent

Dear Administrator SoWhy

Good-Evening

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amisha_Patel" is Semi Protected.

According to us, Wikipedia is trusted information source,for these cause Gossip Inputs not allowed in any comportment. My question is removing Gossip Based Information is Vandalism??

Every users have rights to edit misconduct information. So please release the semi protected option from above page.Thanks for your cooperation. we are waiting for your positive response.

We are not against of anything is Good.

The Official Approving Team —Preceding unsigned comment added by Official Approving Team (talk • contribs) 13:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is bad, if done the way like in this article. Although we have a strict policy on living-persons, it does not mean that negative content that is verifiable to reliable sources is not permitted, if the content is deemed notable enough for inclusion. If there is disagreement, editors are expected to resolve the problem by using the talk page and dispute resolution, not by removing content even if others revert it. I see no reason to lift a protection that was instated to stop such disruption. Regards SoWhy 16:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

User talk:UnTrooper

Can't disagree with your reasoning here; what I would have done, but a second pair of eyes is useful. Let's hope his workmates (?) don't find his cached password. --Rodhullandemu 20:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, let's wait and see what happens. If we are lucky, he said the truth and will contribute in a positive way. If not, we can block him again. Thanks for the input again. Regards SoWhy 20:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

SSNP

Hi, The SSNP is not national-socialist. It being based on the Nazi Party is the opinion of a few scholars, and the SSNP was founded before the Nazi Party came to prominence. Please unprotect the article so that the information could be properly edited. Oumf1234 (talk) 13:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I will not unprotect an article that another admin protected (unless it's needed by policy) - Please ask the protecting admin for unprotection.

On a side note, I'm German and I can tell you that the NSDAP was prominent already in 1932. But I have no knowledge of this SSNP party, so I will not make any content edits. I just replaced a highly POV looking word (in all caps) with the neutral representation. If you disagree with the content, the talk page (Talk:Syrian Social Nationalist Party) is where you should raise it. Regards SoWhy 14:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Zoo Tycoon 2

I don't think you understand the problem here. The Zoo Tycoon 2 article is being CONTINUALLY being edited...it's been edited FOUR times in the space of a week. And the person who is doing the disruptive edits CAN'T be blocked, because it is a free-flowing IP, which changes every day.

Someone is deliberately vandalising that article and there is nothing that can be done about it except to protect it. CBFan (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I do understand the problem, but I am bound by policy like we all are, in this case WP:PROTECT. IPs can be blocked, you just have to warn and report them to WP:AIV. Protection policy is clear that blocks should be a preferred method because protection is the option that limits our general credo ("anyone can edit") the most. In this case the disruption is limited to a few cases in almost two weeks, nothing that can't be handled by blocks instead. Regards SoWhy 14:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Characters in Resident Evil 4

You have recently locked the article. There is no dispute going on here. The last person to make an edit was a sock puppet and was supposed to have been blocked per: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kevin7557/Archive. Belasted (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I could find any log entry for this IP, neither directly nor autoblocked and the last edit by the IP was after the supposed Sockpuppeter was blocked by PeterSymonds (talk · contribs). I have now blocked the IP that apparently was not caught in the autoblock and unprotected the article. Regards SoWhy 14:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've already mentioned this on the Request for Protection page, but Characters in Resident Evil 4 should be semi-protected, because the puppeteer has made yet another sock puppet, Special:Contributions/86.145.112.112. They seem to have the ability to make all the puppets they want and show no signs of stopping. Belasted (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* Some people are stubborn... Done. Regards SoWhy 18:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Gotabhaya_Rajapaksa

I noticed that you protected the article. I would be very gratefull if you could consider protecting it after reverting it prior to the following edit by a disruptive SPA [2] which violates WP:BLP. As this article is regarding the Sri Lankan Defence secretary who is also the presidents brother, and the article is going to be protected till the 6th of march and getting a prominent exposure till then I would be gratefull if you could consider protecting after reverting to the version prior to the above edit, to prevent people getting the wrong impression about him. Kerr avon (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to do that. The section in question is not overly negative and is sourced to a verifiable source (The Boston Globe). Please explain to me why the fact that the article mentions that the subject was served with such a charge is a violation of WP:BLP. Regards SoWhy 18:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)