User talk:ThatPeskyCommoner/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Journal articles

You do realize, I guess, that with putting in 2 minutes instead of 30 seconds, you could remove any promotional language from these articles and salvage what is left? Most or even all of these journals are well-established and notable. --Crusio (talk) 07:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess I could - but the whole lot is from one serious COI contributor, with massive spamming of the company's website on the external link. I think the best move is to get rid of them all and let someone with no COI start again with them, if they want to. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, but this really is not spam. And having a COI does not mean that something should be deleted. I have no time right now, but I'll request undeletion of all of these articles should they actually get deleted. --Crusio (talk) 08:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough - I guess there's room for differences of opinion on these things. But, for me, over 50 articles all about one company's publications, and all containg an external link to the company's website, looks like spam. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Speaking as the admin who just blocked that account, if the content and behaviour was any more spammy, Americans would be canning it and serving it to troops as substitute meat. Ironholds (talk) 08:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Every article on a modern journal should have one or more links to the publisher's website. That's why {{infobox journal}} has |website=, |link1= etc. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Trouble is, it shouldn;t have a link direct to the shopping cart entry for that journal - and it's always a bit dodgy-looking for a newbie to put up 50+ stubs with nothing but links to the company's shopping cart, and all the same company :o( Pesky (talk …stalk!) 18:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

What also strikes me is that someone calling something a journal doesn't mean it IS one. If it looks like spam, it doesn't matter if they call it lobster. Don't we have WP:QUACK. Montanabw^(talk) 21:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Right, but the offender has been blocked. Let's save the baby from the bathwater. If the offence is just having the wrong url, that's easily remedied without trashing the article. Do we have any examples where something other than a journal is on the deleted list? LeadSongDog come howl! 21:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I have nothing against journals, or journal articles, nothing at all. It's just that that is all the guy wrote. So no, nothing else on that list. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 22:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I "misunderapprehended" you. Are you saying the articles contained nothing at all but the url? LeadSongDog come howl! 22:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

They mostly contained very little - just a few lines of text, written in the way an advert for the thing would be written, and a link to the shopping cart entry for it, labelled as "Official website". (Adding) - and no refs, anywhere. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 22:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, finding refs for journals with established impact factors should be trivial, and rephrasing to eliminate the advert is easy, but if there's no content to save, that puts a different light on it. Still, it would seem to have been more constructive to first ask at the appropriate project page before dismissing articles as worthless SPAM.LeadSongDog come howl! 05:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• Last time I checked the thing to be done with spam is to have the articles nominated for deletion as spam, at which point they are deleted. That is what happened, and that is what was done. If you think this was inappropriate I would advise you to propose changing the speedy deletion guidelines - or, for a more constructive and likely-to-succeed venture, try tilting at windmills. Ironholds (talk) 05:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably worth pointing out, too, that I didn't, personally, delete them. I just tagged them for someone else to look at. They agreed with me. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, from how I interpreted what you've said (and I may have got you wrong), it seems that you were suggesting that I should personally have fundamentally re-written over 50 articles rather than tag them. But the tag clearly reads "This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion because it only promotes an entity, person or product and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic". Taggers aren't by any stretch of the imagination required (or even expected) to do that fundamental re-write themselves. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

No, but giving someone else the chance to rescue them first would have been polite. It's the "unambiguous" part of G11 that's the issue. The creator may have had promotion as intent (I'm forced to accept your assessment on that, as I can't very well wp:V content that's been deleted) but that in no way demonstrates the subject to lack notability. This unfortunately creates a situation where an editor building an article from scratch is liable to be seen as wp:meat. Ah well... LeadSongDog come howl! 07:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

No, seriously, if you want to go ahead and re-write those as decent articles, with the relevant references, no problem! If they're really notable, then they probably deserve an article :o) I wouldn't view any re-write that produced an encyclopaedic article as meaty, at all. My take on them wasn't that they weren't notable (and I didn;t tag them as not notalbe) - it was that they were blatant advertising. I have nothing against journals, having come from a family which contained quite a few journalists - even a decently notable one! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've stubbed a fresh start for International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion. Let's see how that goes.LeadSongDog come howl! 16:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Whooo-hoooo! Yes, I'm liking that one much better :D That I would have passed straight through without a shadow of a doubt. (WikiWolfcub shares canine moment with LeadSongDog and presents only-slightly-chewed throw toy in appreciation.) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 03:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yum! Nothing like a slobbery chunk of rawhide to start the day off right! LeadSongDog come howl! 05:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I had to check it was OK, right? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Puerto Rico gubernatorial election, 2012

The deletion of the article, as you proposed, is likely to be controversial, and almost as likely to be kept, based on past outcomes. So I removed the prod tag. If you insist, you may start a discussion at WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough - if past experience shows they go that way anyway, little point in wasting people's time on it. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 03:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Service Award

This editor is an Experienced Editor and is entitled to display this Service Badge.

In recognition of your 6,000+ edits and your and 5 years and 5 months's presence of Wikipedia, I award you (ThatPeskyCommoner), the Experienced Editor service award. Please wear this (display on your user page) with distinction and pride. (You can update this by yourself as you go). Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 02:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Including the five years' wikibreak, m'lad! Haha! OK, I shall keep it - thank you! Actually, I think I shall chose one of the equivalents ... Pesky (talk …stalk!) 03:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Good guy

Just to let you know that I appreciate your contributions and good-natured manner at WT:V etc. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I had a poem on my user page at one time. Here's an excerpt that includes a link to a video.

Editors may seem fearsome,

But that depends on perception.    

--Bob K31416 (talk) 23:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much; that's a beautiful video. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 02:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

About Stephane Lhuillier

Hi again, Your Peskiness. See you at the AfD! --Shirt58 (talk) 09:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Talk:Jayanagar

A tag has been placed on Talk:Jayanagar, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

the article was moved to Jayanagar, Bangalore and this title now being a disambig page, redirects to Talk:Jayanagar, Bangalore

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. — Abhishek  ^Talk 12:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

No probs - I've asked for urgent help from WikiProject Asia (India) to go through the cleanup on the HUGE number of links now pointing to the disambig page, too :o) (Far too many Jayanagars, Jaynagars, Jainagars, and the 'other' Jayanagar .... out there!) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Johannes Orphal

Hello ThatPeskyCommoner. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Johannes Orphal, 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 05:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll attempt to remember that! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Article marked

Hi. I'd like to ask why was the article for Standard Radiation Environment Monitor marked for deletion, as it allegedly should not contain this text. The was no such article before, so I created the article adding *exactly* the same information found on the website, while also *stating* the source. This is a technical article, how is someone supposed to "say it in his own words"?... Please, have a more thorough look at the page's content next time, no one can adopt a technical website because it's purely "technical", you just state the information as it is found because otherwise it would be marked as "innacurate", and the best way to say it accurately is through the way the original author did.

If you would like to help new contributors start writing pages, please also provide enough examples for article creation, just like this example.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsk-en12 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sure - this was an unambiguous copyright violation. Articles must be written entirely in your own words. I'll drop some hints on article writing onto your talk page. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Call My Name (CMN)

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Call My Name (CMN), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

I believe that this page is not unambiguously promotional, because I have already cited notable reference. I have been told some time in the past that an article would be considered as a promotional material without any notoriety.

So, have I not satisfied the condition? Is there anything I can do to keep this article? I can rewrite the article and omit the contents causing it to be nominated for speedy deletion. I am new here and I will appreciate any help. Iamdenman (talk) 06:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not a question of notability - it's a question of the article basically being written to promote the subject as opposed to giving an encyclopaedic view of it. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible reverse copyvio

Per discussion here, this may be a reverse copyvio. I'm going to AGF, I don't have time to thoroughly investigate at the moment, if you think the claim is mistaken, please feel free to reissue the speedy, and/or bring it to the copyright experts for review.--SPhilbrickT 00:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, no probs - take it whichever way you think is most appropriate. Sometimes it can take me quite a while to find real cast-iron evidence of either copyvio or reverse copyvio, and, yes, I can make mistakes! (It's part of being human :o) ) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify invitation

Nooooooooo! heh! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Edits on WEVV-DT2

In looking at the article on Evansville, Indiana Fox-affiliated digital subchannel WEVV-DT2 and comparing your revisions with previous ones, I put into question as to why the blogs were commented out as references, citing that a blog is not a reliable reference. The blog posts that had been used as references, actually come from a reputable source. Jake's DTV Blog is operated by Jacob Newkirk, who is the TV and radio columnist for the Evansville Courier & Press newspaper, and Newkirk's stories covered in the blog also appear on Thursdays in in the Courier & Press and on the paper's website. Since the posts come from a reporter/columnist for a daily newspaper, a reputable source, and appear in the aforementioned paper, it is debatable as to whether posts from this particular blog are or aren't a reliable reference and because of the reasons mentioned, may point toward being a reliable reference. TVtonightOKC (talk) 22:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, OK; suggestion - it would be better to cite the Evansville Courier & Press entry rather than the blog entry in future - that leaves no room for confusion (and less room for mistakes!) Wherever the same information is published in something other than a blog, it's always better to cite the non-blog source :o) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 02:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

History of Indian football

Mate how was the article, History of Indian Football, copyrighted! It is a full description of the History of a country in Football. If you could please tell me where anypart of the article is copyrighted I will gladley disagree or fix the article so there wont be copyright. Thank you. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 13:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I have contested the deletion. Please rewrite the article a bit, ArsenalKid. You are now Close Paraphrasing. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Well I would but it was deleted. JUST FOR ALL OF YOU GUYS TO KNOW! THE STUFF ON THAT WIKI ARTICLE WAS MADE BEFORE THAT HARD TACKLE PAGE WAS MADE! Now I have to do all that work again which will be even more hard than last time. Oh and did I mention, I DID NOT COPYRIGHT! Also if your wondering this is Arsenalkid700 just this is my second account. Sometimes I wish I can curse off some people here but no that would most likely get me blocked. --FootballinIndiaWiki (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, chill! Nothing here is really that important, compared to Real Life. If the article gets undeleted, you can edit it into entirely original words without a problem. You could also, of course, just pick up the text from the Hard Tackle page - it's still there, so you can access it easily - and use that as your basis for a total re-wording. By the way - it's not a good idea to run two accounts here, it's really not. Unless you're perhaps an admin who sometimes just wants to edit from a non-secure computer sometimes, and doesn't want to risk their admin account getting compromised - in which case you have to make it abundantly clear that you have two accounts, and why you have them. Stuff gets us down sometimes - but you're right, cussing people off just isn't worth it - it will always come back to bite you. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 21:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey mate, I am cool now. Anyway the reason I made a second account is because My Watchlist. On this account I have marked User talk pages, Indian Football pages and other pages throughout wikipedia for watching vandalism on them while on FootballinIndiaWiki I have only marked Indian Football pages. It just makes it easier for me to check out how the pages are doing considering that Indian Football pages get vandalized almost everyday. Anyway I will remake the page and I will make sure it is not copyrighted and has references. Sorry if I seemed crazy earlier. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Glad you're feeling better! Don't worry - we all get those horrendous days, it's just Life! You need to make sure you're in compliance with the policy on ahving more than one account, and if you haven't already done so, notify the "authorities" about your second account, just to remove any possibility of accusations of sock-puppetry. As regards to copyright problems, our main concern in Wikipedia is that pages here mustn't be copied directly from anywhere else at all - it's not about our editors claiming copyright on articles in here themselves. So make absolutely sure that everything you write is done in your own words, and you should be OK. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 21:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I will tell the authorities. Also in regards to the copyright thing I hear you and will do so for in the future but going back to that Hard Tackle article I did not even know such an article existed which is another reason why I got mad because I never knew that author made that story... Anyway that is past and I have moved on. Thank you for the tips. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 22:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

De Bokkedoorns

Did you read the article about De Bokkedoorns? I am totally baffeled that you think that a restaurant that has TWO Michelin stars for the last 20 years is not noteworthy! And why it should be a speedy deletion instead of a normal AfD, is also a mystery to me. Could you please read the article about the Michelin Guide? I don't like the idea of seeing 70% of all the articles I have written being nominated... (yes, I mostly wrote about Michelin starred chefs and restaurants). Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry! I try to get NPP 100% right, but I'm just not that perfect! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 20:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Walter Ungerer

Walter Ungerer is not a copyright violation; that book you linked to is a collection of Wikipedia articles. NW (Talk) 19:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Did you check out the talk page? There was a link to the same text appearing a year before the WP article was created, as well. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Re-CSD'd as a copy vio from http://lafilmforum.wordpress.com/2008/12/03/december-7-walter-ungerer/ (published in 2008) - our article dates from 2009. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I didn't check the talk page; I just checked the Google books link you had pointed to. Glad you caught my mistake. NW (Talk) 02:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

No probs! (>**)> Have a hug (it's a granny-hug, so permissible ...) We all miss stuff sometimes - it's called "being human"! Thankfully, most humans are neither angels nor devils, we just mostly fall into that murky grey area in the middle! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 20:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

CSD's New Page Patrol, and all that jazz!

Yup, sometimes I do get things wrong. I try incredibly hard not to get things wrong, I really do.

BUT (and here's the big 'but') - I do a heck of a lot of NPP, working from the back of the queue. Here's where it gets scary - the New Page Patrol report gives us an idea of what's currently going on in NPP. Sometimes - many times - and for much of the time that I'm working, the line which tellls us what's goiung on says "Number of users consistently patrolling the back of the queue: 1".

The "1" being referred to, when I'm working on it, is me. Just me. Nobody else consistently working the back of the queue, a lot of the time. OK, sometimes that number creeps up to a 3, or even an incredible 5! But wow. 1. So, please AGF and bear with me when I make the occasional mistake, OK? I;m not doing it to be nasty. :o) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, you have my full support. BTW, ask Chzz for the real article from which Walter Ungerer was copied. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 06:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey Speedy! Yes, that info was on the talk page - it obviously just got missed.

Here's a dump of some of the on-screen text, taken from the same time:

• Number of users recently patrolling articles: 9

• Number of users consistently patrolling the front of the queue: 6

• Number of users consistently patrolling the back of the queue: 1

User stats

User – number of recent patrols – Average age of patrolled articles – Average time between patrols

ThatPeskyCommoner log –70 –23 days, 3 hours – 2 minutes, 38 seconds

Crusio log – 4–9 minutes, 39 seconds – 17 minutes, 3 seconds

Sp33dyphil log – 3–13 minutes, 11 seconds – 2 minutes, 23 seconds

Polequant log – 3–8 minutes, 53 seconds – 2 minutes, 13 seconds

TheMadBaron log – 11 – 11 days, 2 hours – 14 minutes, 14 seconds

Ruigeroeland log – 1–20 minutes, 14 seconds – N/A

Kudpung log – 1–7 minutes, 36 seconds – N/A

Abhishek191288 log – 2–5 minutes, 40 seconds – 5 minutes, 53 seconds

ClaretAsh log – 2–4 hours, 6 minutes – 14 minutes, 59 seconds

How about joining in on NPP, and making the intense workoad a little lighter? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

How did you get that? Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 07:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I do my bit of new page patrolling too. Unfortunately I have to split my time between an intensive fulltime course, new page patrol, vandalisme fighting, resolving DAB pages, resolving DAB-templates and writing new articles and the real world... Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

All of us doing NPP are overstressed / overworked at times - if we only had more people,m things would be sooo much better! I fit it in between being full-time carer for frail elderly parent (83, with early-stage dementia), support network for adult offspring, and granny to five of the following generation ....

@ Speedyphil - I just copied the text from the page of Snottywong's gadget here, which I still had open (unrefreshed) from before, then re-formatted it so that it read more clearly. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Pesky, I am SOOOOOO with you on how much work is out there. (I have bouts of NPP, but discourage quickly and go back to WPEQ, believe it or not!) Montanabw^(talk) 07:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Heh! Fing, is, fing is ... what really got the wind up me was the number of copyvios that have made it through to a month old, which is roughly the age of the pages I'm patrolling. I only started on NPP at the end of August, and have only run a CSD log since 23rd September. (And here it is .... You count up the number of copyvios in it! Scary, or what?!) da Wolfcub seems to have a "nose" for 'em! One day, I'll become inspired to write another article - but I'd really like to get that NPP backlog down to something a bit better before then. It's the OCD, ya know! And the last couple of days of Real Life have been stoopid, too - mother was taken ill about 04:30 this morning, ambulance, the works, so we trotted off to the hospital with her (all well, thank Heavens! Nothing too serious, but the poor dear was very frightened). And now, right this moment, my beloved Other Half is on his way to the out-of-hours doctor (45 minutes drive away) with second-youngest grandchild .....! It never ends! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 19:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I can relate, my various paternal figures have a penchant for fussing up when I leave town.  :-P The sad thing is that I lost my 31-year-old mare about two weeks ago, also while out of town. In her case, it was probably just "her time" but I was pretty sad (I'd had her since she was coming 3...). I'm out of town now. I guess there is a conspiracy to keep me from leaving town overnight... Montanabw^(talk) 05:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe there's any reason to get stressed by doing NPP. We're all volunteers here and nobody's holding a gun at our heads. I spend hours on NPP (OK, I'm doing it from a rather special different perspective) and I do get the feeling what I do is only a drop in the ocean - there are many drops in the ocean, but what we need is more water. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

@ Montana - oh nooooo, how sad about your mare :o(. It's awful when they go, even though you know they have to, one day - but so much worse if it happens while you're away.

@ Kudpung - I try not to get stressed by the NPP thing; it's only when people misunderstand and get the idea that I'm being vindictive, or something! I have so many brilliant ideas for WP ... like it not allowing an article to be saved in mainspace without inline citations, or without being more than three lines long, or having an automatic grammar checker that would require at least 50% of it to be "OK" - and then offering the new article creator the alternative of saving it into user space (a sandbox or something, auto-titled with (Draft) after their chosen title) ... I'm sure the coding for that wouldn't actually be too difficult for someone to do ..... Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Adding - the other alternative is one I'm working on ... breed our own "fixers"! My younger daughter (don't worry, she's mature, with kids of her own!) has just joined us, and she has a "Fixer" mentality. I've pointed her to all the right pages to learn about policy, and told her about the Typo Team, and I have no doubt that she'll probably join the Guild of copy-editors once she gets going, and I intend to give her some intensive training on new page patrolling, and citation-hunting, too ... she'll be a good 'un, she will ... then I can have someone to keep me company at the back of the queue, and someone I can pass an article over to for clean-up, and all that! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Another barnstar for you

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		It's a thankless and lonely task, but it does get noticed, and remember, you can always ask me for help with the tricky ones :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Awwww, thank you! Yes, it does sometimes feel lonely - 'specially when you see that scary "1" for people patrolling the back of the queue, and know that if it wasn't you, then it would be nobody back there! (>**)> Hugz to you :o) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget that the SnotBot will still cat the articles that overstay their 30-day welcome at special:new pages, so there's not really so much panic - people can still work through the cat list. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

They can, but will they, that's the question! lol Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Generally , yes. It's really the same work as patrolling from the back of the list. I don't think there are many in there right now, but there have been periods where there were 1,000s. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

eeeeek! Thousands? Of unpatrolled pages? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's a good example of some of the detective work we have to do: Yellow Engine. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Heh, I'd have been inclined to G11 that one .... Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

eeeeek! Thousands?:::::eeeeek! Thousands? Yes! That's why Snottywong, Blade, and I pressed for WP:ACTRIAL that was refused by the WMF, in spite of a huge RfC participated by 500 users. We're now working closely with the WMF to find other solutions, hence my 'patrolling the patrollers'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Chzz is seriously miffed by the WP:ACTRIAL thing, too. Would have made at least some of a difference. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, how come nobody informed me about ACTRIAL while it was discussed? I would have joined you guys and called for a trial. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 09:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, consensus was all for it. Wikimedia Foundation over-ruled the consensus decision. Not what the 'pedia is supposed to work like, at all. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, it wouldn't have mattered how much consensus there was, they were not going to allow it. Nevertheless, new solutions, - and quite good ones - are being developed now at the highest level and we're really working on it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there a link somewhere for this? Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 10:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I dunno if there's a link ... Kudpung, if they ever need anyone to brainstorm solutions just as an ideas-generator, just let me know! Coming up with solution-type ideas is a speciality of mine :p Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

A tool for you

You probably know about this one, but if you don't here it is. It's very handy to have open on your desktop while you are patrolling. You need to run some chunks of text through Google first, of course, to get the URLs. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

That's great, awesome when using this. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 10:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Duplication detector looks like a useful Fing. I shall keep that page open, in future! Thanks! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy nom of Gourisankara Siva Temple

Hi Pesky,

You've nominated this as a G12, citing the PDF report as the source of the copyvio. I can't see any substantial similarities between the report and the article text; it really doesn't look like a G12 violation to me. I've contested deletion on the talkpage there, if I've missed something, please feel free to rebut me on that page. Cheers, Yunshui (talk) 09:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed the speedy for the reason given above. After a bit more digging I found that the link in the article was wrong and the relevant link was http://ignca.nic.in/asi_reports/orkhurda069.pdf (069 instead of 009) and so I have now restored the speedy. It would have been really useful, and saved two of us some time, if you'd included this link in the speedy rather than a textual description of what the source was. Dpmuk (talk) 10:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry! I thought I'd said that it was the IGNCA detailed report, not the one in the external link. I couldn't find the detailed report myself (I did try!), but I recognised the layout - seen it on several of these Indian archaeological site articles. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 07:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

How come I never receive one of these invitations? Sp33dyphil © • © 07:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hehe! You're welcome to take all my invitations - just check my page to follow them up! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

DuatMagus

Can you explain what on my page you thought was copyright infringement? I didn't see a note towards any specific text. Also - was it really necessary to delete my page so quickly before I had a chance to review your comments? I received a speedy deletion notice and then the page was gone less than an hour later. Considering the time it took to create the article - you can imagine my frustration to see you come along and just have my article deleted.

I can't explain anything without knowing which article you're talking about! Do always remember to add talk page notices to the bottom of the page, too (or they get missed), and sign them with four tildes ~~~~ - that puts your signature, including date and time, onto your comment.

I'm not an admin, so I can't actually delete pages myself, all I can do is "tag" them for a second opinion, in any event. And, having done some detective work to find out who you are, and then look at your contributions to see if I could work out which article you were talking about, I'm still not sure, as the only article your contributions (on this account, anyway) show (Rev. Lloyd William Gameson III), I've never touched - look at the history to check. Do you have more than one account? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Aha! OK, I've found the one (by looking at my CSD log). It was the Catholic apostolic church of Jerusalem article - and yes, I did show the web pages that the content had come from - it was the church's own web site. More than one page on their web site, but a straight lift from the web site, nonetheless. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Temples

[1] gives a list of reports although I've not had time to look for this one. That said, looking at the contributors talk page I note that the article has been deleted before and the copyvio in that case was of [2], although I've not had a chance to see if that's the case again. I note that the user that has created these doesn't have too many other edits so it shouldn't be too hard to check them and get them deleted. That said I've just noticed that there may be a whole bunch of editors doing this. This looks like a mess. I'd also suggest that the user in this case probably needs to be blocked until they understand copyright policy. I'll look into it all more when I get a chance. Dpmuk (talk) 12:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure your right that there are a whole bunch of editors (or possibly one or two with a whole bunch of accounts?) responsible for these articles. And I'm sure it's a mess! It's been creeping up on me over the past two or three weeks that this could be the case (I've been patrolling sometimes up to 250 new pages a day, at the back of the queue, so I've had a good opportunity to spot a pattern here.) Hopefully with several more pairs of vigilant eyes and some co-ordinated detective work, we can all get to the bottom of it. I'd hate to think that a heap of hoax articles had crept past us all and got in! I know, on a rational basis, that they're more likely to be copyvios; it's just when we start getting book titles and ISBN numbers that aren't recognised anywhere that I begin to wonder why! I suppose it's a bit beansy to comment on it being a potentially clever way to do a cover-up, for whatever reason. But, actually - yup. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 02:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Nomos edition page

Hi ThatPeskyCommoner, I've just wanted you to explain me the reasons of this deletion. I know I've created and written information about a company in which I'm involved personally, but I've done in a way very similar to many other pages that speak about other music publishing companies. I'm also aware that a deletion of a page is judged on their own merit, and not in comparison to other pages, but I really do not think my page was exclusively promotional. I've written just a few words about the publishing company, when was created, where, and about the company activity that's just about publishing music. I've not added much more. I understand that other pages that speak about other publishers have a different value, but just because those publishers are already well know in the music world and made a lot of publications that are worth in the music publishing.industry. Our company is a new born edition, practically still unknown, but with a well specified editorial directions and high quality standards that I'm sure will lead us to become an important publishing house for classical music in the next years. Maybe we have to wait to acquire a more noteworthy name and consequently an encyclopedic importance. Thank you. Aljosa Tavcar (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, yes - I'm sure there are other articles which shouldn't really be here, either! I had two concerns with Nomos edition:

1. the company didn't seem to fit our criteria for notability - so, yes, a new company doesn't yet have enough of a track record; high standards and so on, by themselves, aren't enough to be encyclopaedic
2. the article did come across as basically promotional, probably because there aren't any reliable sources yet covering it.

I wish you and the company well, and really do hope that very shortly you'll have sufficient recognition and noteworthiness to warrant having an article here. (Oh, and by the way - please ensure you add talk page posts to the bottom of the page, not the top - using the "New section" tab at the top will put your message automatically into the correct place. :o) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 02:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Monasteries in Spain

Monasteries in Spain may be a poor machine translation of a Spanish article. The topic is difficult, and this article has many problems. I worked on it in July, but gave up. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks to be a literal translation of the spanish article which is linked as an interwiki link - and the presence of numbers for refs suggests the whole text was just chucked into a machine translation programme. So it's not a copyright violation, as it's from a wikipedia and the licence allows us to do anything with it including translating. But it's poor English and has no refs - not sure what ought to be done with it now! PamD 13:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Second thoughts - If copied from the Spanish Wiki, I think it still needs some sort of attribution - not sure about it all so have reported it at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2011_October_10. I didn't mean to spend so much time on Wikipedia today - it's one of the two days a week my own dementia-affected 94-year-old Mother goes to day centre so time for Getting Things Done, but we tend to relax and enjoy the peaceful day instead! PamD 14:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Another member of the "dealing with elderly parents" club? Welcome Pam! We should have a wikieditor's support group or project or something... Montanabw^(talk) 20:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it odd how when (allegedly) most Wikipedians are male and in their teens or twenties, we seem to have quite a coven of the "dealing with very elderly parents" type? lol! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it's the attraction of mixing with intelligent and interesting people (on the whole!), adn doing something intellectually stimulating and useful, outside the house without having to leave the house. The other place I spend a l-o-t of time is the Alzheimer's Soc's Talking Point carers' web forum, http://forum.alzheimers.org.uk/. PamD 18:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I get the impression that I'm one of the oldest regular editors around here ;) Nevertheless, we have some brilliant young minds on board here, and at the WMF, and it's a pleasure working with them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Kudpung, dear heart, I have 5 grandchildren - and three of those are in full-time school! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 04:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Gibberish

Hi. I've removed your tag as the basis of the article seems clear enough. It looks like a rather bad translation - possibly Google, which does fairly well with European languages but can go to pieces with Chinese languages and Japanese. 'Nonsense' is for things like 'cytxtriuui huouyyxytruy' (but check in a Google search (without quotes) to see if these are in fact words in something like Lower Bactrian or Upper Dromedarian. (If they are, put the quotes round to see if it's a copyvio...) It's also for things like 'Swipe the unglutinous aardvark of dawn, mellifluously frightening no kumquats.'. With a title of 'Mesolithic Music'. In other words, not even the worst machine translator could be blamed. (And the text would probably be rejected by a surrealist poetry club...) In other words, things with absolutely no context and looking as if they came from the golden days of spam emails, when the subject lines read like that. (It's fun making this stuff up. Shouldn't say that really. Might encourage them.) Peridon (talk) 10:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeh, I wasn't 100% sure - but I couldn't really make head nor tail of it - word salad, seemed almost like random phrases with some kind of vague connection, pasted in in any order! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I've listed it at WP:PNT in the cleanup section, and tagged it accordingly. Someone who speaks Chinese might be able to sort it. I'll drop a note to Anna Frodesiak, too. Peridon (talk) 11:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Good-oh :D Thanks! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Anna says some of her Chinese students are investigating it now. They're learning about Wikipedia, so I thought it might be a good practical exercise. Peridon (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

T'riffic! Get 'em stuck in, eh?! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Machine translations? Gibberish? Sounds right up my alley. What article is it?--Shirt58 (talk) 07:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Tonghua Grape Wine. Have fun! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Lovin' it - thanks!--Shirt58 (talk) 08:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC) (ps: I majored in gibberish.

Hehe! Do gibbons speak gibberish in the same way that goblins speak gobbledegook? I'm fairly fluent in canine / lupine, feline, equine, and caprine with a smattering of ovine and bovine ... and if swearing at brambles and nettles counts, I talk to plants, too. But I have a feeling they just don't understand, and are never likely to answer .... anyhoo, glad to know you're enjoying yourself! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You talk to plants?--Shirt58 (talk) 13:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I also talk to myself, so do we add "hominid" to the list??? Montanabw^(talk) 19:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot about that one! And at this time of the morning, it's dialect Neanderthal ... Pesky (talk …stalk!) 03:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	for all your work dealing with problems that don't get dealt with enough! thank you for keeping on working when others just walk away --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Awwww, thanks! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 03:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Seconded! Your communications to naughty users are always friendly and well explained.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Heh! I do try not to snark; just occasionally the Snark Monster gets away from me, but not often. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 04:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank You

You rock! Thank you, and appreciate the helpful insight and in-depth pointers! Ghostrighter (talk) 06:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

LOL, I wonder where it all started! Sp33dyphil © • © 06:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you rock, too! (>**)> Thnx and hugz to Sp33dyphil :D Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Cheers!

Hello, ThatPeskyCommoner! I see your name all the time when I am patrolling at the back of the queue. You do a nice job. However, you do not mark the pages as patrolled once you tag them. It makes my job easier, though, seeing that the problems have already been targeted. Thanks to you, the backlog at Sp:NP is at the lowest level in more than a month. Keep up the good work, Bar Code Symmetry (Talk) 01:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought Twinkle was supposed to mark them as patrolled automatically! It says it does - and once I get in and edit or tag something, the "Mark this page as patrolled" link disappears from the bottom of the page - if Twinkle's not already marking them, can someone add to the code in Twinkle to make sure that it does mark them? I'm so glad I;m making a difference to the length of the queue :D May aim is to get the back of the queue to less than a week old, within the next two months. I'm sure it can be done. Having OCD should help with that ..... Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

There have been a lot of problems with this technology. Twinkle generally only automatically marks pages as patrolled when they have been edited or had a maintenance template added. It does not mark them as patrolled when a CSD or PROD template is added. is this what you are seeing? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I dunno! Bar Code Symmetry, what are you seeing? Which ones aren't getting marked? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It's the articles with the templates. Sorry for being late, Bar Code Symmetry (Talk) 13:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget also that the 'mark thnis page as patrolled' button is only visible on pages that are opened from special:new pages. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I always work from the Special:New pages page - but I'm not sure whether it still opens from there once you've edited it? So, if I go in and do c/e before I've marked it, presumably it still marks it as patrolled if I went in from Sp:new pages anyway? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Dunno - we've had so many problems with the tech. of that page that I can't remember. If you have time, play with it and let me know. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Inspired by this and several other discussions I thought I'd have a go at NPP. I don't see why it defaults to showing the latest articles, while then urging patrollers to start with the oldest ones! And I have problems getting a work flow sorted out: I click on a yellow-highlighted article, see stuff which needs fixing (format, duff links, etc), edit it... and then have to backtrack to the NP listing again to open it from there again in order to be able to click on "patrolled". Not sure I've got it sorted out yet. And the WP:NPP page, while it claims to be a tutorial on NPP, is not very welcoming or explanatory for newbies to NPP. Ah well, I'll have another go another day. PamD 12:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Well done! It's a daunting thing when you first look at it! But the more we have working on it, the better it gets for each of us. When I'm working I open the links in another tab, so the new pages page is always there to get to, and can be refreshed after you've done 50 or so, to get some new ones appearing .... do you have Twinkle? It makes tagging a lot easier, and marks the pages as patrolled for you, as it goes. Or is supposed to ... seems to, mostly... lol! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 12:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that 'mark as patrolled' thing which Twinkle is supposed to do - it's definitely not working right! I'm now re-opening pages from the NP backlog page, after I;ve gone through them and tagged / edited as appropriate, to mark them off. Twinkle is lying to us! (I can tell it's lying, its lips are moving .....) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 04:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)