User talk:Juliancolton/Archive 22

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Deletion review for 2009 White House criticism of Fox News

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 2009 White House criticism of Fox News. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jwesley78 (talk) 02:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julian, out of curiosity sincere curiosity, what reasoning led you to reject out of hand any Merge close? (I put the following comment in the DRv that you conceivably might miss, so I'm posting here, too.)

I'm just saying, Jwesley78, that an admin needs to have such options preserved in his bailiwick. Ne'ertheless, although a judge can jail a courtroom participant for allegedly showing contempt towards that judge or the judicial system, it certainly isn't always advisable for that judge to do so under many circumstances where such a ruling could be reasonably supported. Right? So, yeah, my question to Julian here has and continues to be: why this "nuclear-option" of a Delete here? when there is a close available that would have been much more in keeping with the guiding spirit of the encyclopedia, that of a recommendation to "Merge"? The argument that a "Merge" close leaves open the possibility that Wikicontributors will ignore it and never get around to replacing the title with a redirect and their merging the content somewhere seems to err too heavily on trusting the judgement of administrators over trusting the good faith of regular editors. As it is, resorting to a "Delete" close seems to violate a principle within the project's most basic Editing Policy -- that of WP:PRESERVE -- which, according to my reading of it, anyway, says that tagging, fixing, moving, or at least bringing to the talkpage any contributed text that is at all encyclopedic is preferable to simply deleting it. Analogizing from this basic, user-friendly, no-biting-newbies, et cetera, premise to dealing with AfDs, when an AfD is dominated by those advocating a merge of some type, why close it in a way that would delete the entire article's source code and editing history? Such machismo would seem not to be -- so much, anyway -- the Wikiway.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 20:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I've never notices anything but well-reasoned, and courteous arguments coming from your direction, Julian -- so, should you feel so inclined to honor my sincere query there with your response, I'd be appreciatively grateful (unless I'd be gratefully appreciative(!) ;^) ).↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 20:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need to respond to the question above, seeing as you're disillusioned with the encyclopedia for now. (Oh, and BTW, your so-called "rant" below ain't much of one, by the standards I am used to, at least! Anyway, Julian, good luck and may God and/or the Universe bless you. :^)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 16:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry...

...to see you have become disenchanted. I hope you will return soon. Regards SoWhy 18:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bah! I will miss you and will hound you into coming back. MBisanz talk 18:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come back Please we need users like you--NotedGrant Talk 18:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What SoWhy and MBisanz said, hopefully your disenchantedness ends and you'll return. Cheers,--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 18:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope this is just a wikibreak. Takes some time off, enjoy a holiday. If anyone here has earned one, it's you. You are one of, if not the most respected editor on this wiki. And I don't know who the most respected one is. A little insignificant Help, it's almost Halloween! AAH! 19:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sad to see you go, Julian. You deserve a lot of the credit for turning me from a small-time contributor into a big-time contributor about 12 months ago. Wikipedia will miss you dearly. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 22:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to see you go. Best of luck in the future mate. -FASTILYsock (TALK) 06:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had a crisis of Wiki-faith a few weeks ago. I hope that after a break you decide to keep participating, in any way you see fit. And if not, I wish you well in life; be proud that your efforts made the encyclopedia better. (okay, I wish you that even if you come back ;)). Karanacs (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why must the good leave?Abce2|This isnot a test 21:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Enjoy your holiday, Julian, and I'm sorry to see you go, even temporarily. You have always been one of my favorite admins to interact with, and not just because you always responded within minutes to my random horse-article-related wants! You were both a wonderful content contributor and a wonderful administrator, and Wikipedia will be the worse for your leaving. Good luck in your future, and I hope to see you back sometime soon. Dana boomer (talk) 02:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kudos for all your hard work. Perhaps after some time away, you'll decide to return, at a level at which you're comfortable. Either way, the very best regards, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're one of the best, JC. Too bad for en that you've decided to part. Very good for you. Lara 05:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're leaving? Why wasn't I consulted and notified? Seems like a dick move. Totally selfish. What about the rest of us? Anyway, I'm not worried. You'll get sucked back in... MUAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!! But seriously, have fun... a-hole. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everyone on here appreciates all your incredibly hard work. All the best for whatever life throws up. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 06:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The good leave, the plodders stay. In an effort towards reversing this trend, **I** will leave.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 16:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Best of luck, Julian. Life is too short to do things you don't enjoy. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will miss your insight and wisdom in the many places I've seen them as I move around WP. I hope that you will return someday and continue your good work here. That being said...take care of your off-line life, and we might see you again some day! Frmatt (talk) 03:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good luck and have fun Julian ! —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BAWBAWBAW. Is this serious? Is this a procession just here? I may have become disenchanted with this kind of drama, actually... who cares? No one is irreplaceable. -- Mentifisto 22:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good luck, Julian. I hope you will return one day - I was looking forward to receiving admin coaching from you *sighs* Take care, and look after yourself -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 00:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Enjoy your time away, and best of luck. Last month, you were the first admin to ever correct me about a procedure and that I could talk to. I know that's a silly sentiment to want to write about here, but considering the insight you had for me on top of looking at your past as a user I saw that it was a direction I quite liked. Maybe it can be a little comforting to know that while here even in this past month you accidentally caused someone to enjoy the same contributions you usually perform. I'll do everything I can not to disappoint you and I'll stick my head out just a bit more to clear sour A7 tags! ♪ daTheisen(talk) 06:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Arroyo (architect)

All the best

Dear Julian, while I am very sad to see you go, I wish you all the best and hope that you are happy whatever you do. If you ever decide to return here, you will be warmly welcomed back. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS I still recall that I offered to colloborate with you on improving Lairdsville Covered Bridge - unofficial word is that it is being restored by PennDOT, so in a year or two there should hopefully be much more information (if you're still interested in working on it)

After probably the best Halloween I can remember, this was not what I needed to come home to. Not just WPTC, but all of Wikipedia is going to suffer from your loss. Be back soon, pal. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs, review) 02:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Julian. I've sent an e-mail. Take from it what you will (but do remember that I am mostly a blithering fool). My best, AGK 17:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from the number of times your activity is popping up on my watchlist, it appears that rumors of your retirement may have been greatly exaggerated? ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was more of a break of indefinite length than a "retirement". I just needed to get away for a bit to clear my head, but now I'm on a mission of sorts. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 13:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny...

Ever since I saw the shocking notice that Julian had gone, I find myself checking his talk page a couple times a day, in the hope that he might have returned. I hope you do, Julian. I don't know what it was that caused you to need to get away, but it's filled the rest of us with survivor's guilt. A little insignificant Bloated on candy 17:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So long

Sorry that you're gone, but good luck in the future. --The Taerkasten (talk) 19:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

It's me, 7107delicious. Just switched to this account for security reasons. I am not sockpuppeting. Just wanted to know that when you return, check your regular subscriptions on your talk page.--Das Sicherheit (talk) 02:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everyone

Really, the kind words are greatly appreciated. I've not checked wiki for a few days, but it was a pleasant surprise to see all these friendly notes from people I admire.

To be clear, no, I don't think I'll be away forever. I just need a break, perhaps for a couple months. I've been thinking a lot lately, and it seems the old, fun, fresh and pleasurable environment that used to exist on this project has almost entirely faded away. I began editing Wikipedia in late 2007, when this atmosphere was still strong, and over time I've watched the project become remarkably boring, drama-filled, and run-down.

In my opinion, we need to make volunteers more happy and comfortable. I admit that my break was, among other reasons partially in response to my overall feeling that no-one is genuinely interested in this project anymore. So, when I return, I intend to start taking measures to re-instate the feeling of a community, where one's work is appreciated and editors are respected by fellow users, even a the risk of making an utter fool of myself...

Sorry for the rant. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK, we understand how you feel about this.----Boeing7107isdelicious|Sprich mit meine Piloten 15:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed the same thing... in early 2008 Wikipedia was a much nicer place, and it has really gone downhill since. I'm sorry that you're leaving, it's a huge loss to the project. Come back soon! LittleMountain5 00:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Enjoy your break. Let me know if I can help. I'll be looking forward to your ideas about wiki-refunnification when you get back, I've got some of my own. - Dank (push to talk) 02:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Wiki's on a downhill? Your explanation could really mean that the American financial crisis finally attributed to the sharp declining of popularity of the English Wikipedia. I don't know for sure, but it could be true.

Enjoy your break, BTW.----Boeing7107isdelicious|Sprich mit meine Piloten 02:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Special barnstar

The Special Barnstar
A special barnstar for a very special Wikipedian... Johnfos (talk) 05:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maxi Priest

Hi, I noticed, that you removed my link - boterbloempje.pbworks.com - on the Maxi Priest page and I don't really understand why. I have a fan site about Maxi Priest, so I think, it's not that strange, that I added it to all Maxi Priest pages on Wikipedia. My site has a lot of info about him. So fans all over the world will be interested in it. My link was also removed several times by someone else, pure out of jealousy, so I had to add it again and again. A few times it was also put back by one of the Wikipedia editors. I hope, you will change your mind about it. Ella 83.163.67.89 (talk) 14:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

pbworks, or wiki pages, are not usually viewed as acceptable external links. Nor are unofficial fan sites. Julian is currently in a state of limbo (see his talk page), so feel free to bother others of us (i.e. me) with other further questions. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 16:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Powersurge (Bangladeshi band)

Looks like this page was recreated again in September, after an AfD was closed as delete by you. Could you check the current version of the article and see if enough improvement has been made to avoid a G4? Thanks. GlassCobra 18:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: If the Powersurge article is deleted, Auprostut Juddho (the article for the band's album, which was not deleted in the AfD) should probably be nuked as well, along with Oprostut Juddho, a redirect. GlassCobra 19:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on your deletion comment

If you would really make an objection to someone re-starting an article you deleted with the comment it should not be started, even with a better name and better WP:RS content, please see this discussion by those who think doing so would be quite appropriate. (don't mind the title; just a question) CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a conspiracy

Tinfoil hats, anyone?

The trolls are lurking. Hamlet, Prince of Trollmarkbugs and goblins 00:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Well, I couldn't be sure of the existence of any trolls.----Boeing7107isdelicious|Sprich mit meine Piloten 03:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been fun

A fresh pint to my unofficial mentor (even though you're not old enough yet :)), and somebody I really look up to. Here's hoping you have an enjoyable wikibreak and some time to take a few breaths of fresh air. Thanks for all the work you've done here; very few stack up to you. Jimbo himself should be jealous. Shoot me a line when you come back! upstateNYer 03:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited!

New York City Meetup

Next: Sunday November 15th, Columbia University area
Last: 09/13/2009


This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Wikipedia Loves Landmarks, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example particular problems posed by Wikipedia articles about racist and anti-semitic people and movements (see the September meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of the xbox 360 controller list

you deleted a wiki page with a list of games supporting the xbox 360 controller, i have used the list in the past and wanted to continue using it, why the hell did you delete it! wtf is wrong with you it was a perfectly fine page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.11.45 (talk) 10:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I spent about ten minutes looking through Julian's deletion logs for such an article and was unable to find anything. If you provide a link, I may be able to clarify why such a page was deleted. (Julian is generally not around at this time). Thanks. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 16:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only AfD I could find was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Xbox 360 controller compatible PC games. Xbox 360 Controller and Xbox 360 accessories still exist so I'm wondering if it was a redirect that was deleted? --Tothwolf (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Nemu64

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Nemu64. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

This afd was definately properly closed. However I do feel that had experienced editor in this area been involved the outcome would have been different. Could you please restore Nemu64 for the duration of the DRV? Thanks. Valoem talk 21:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter XXXVI

WikiCup Awards

The 2009 WikiCup Finalist Award
This WikiCup Award is presented to Republic of Ireland Juliancolton for their achievement of finishing the 2009 WikiCup in the top 8! You competed against 59 other editors along the way, 52 of whom were knocked out before you! You showed massive amounts of determination and dedication throughout the WikiCup. Congratulations on making it as far as you did!

Congratulations! Hope to see you sign up for the 2010 WikiCup, here, if you haven't already! iMatthew talk at 23:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your project

Hi, I just want to take a second to say hi. When I come across an editor that I feel positively and effectively contributes to Wikipedia I try to monitor their contributions to try to improve myself as a Wikipedian. You are one of the handful that I keep an eye on and let me say that I was disappointed when you "left". I am glad that you are back and am anxious to see what becomes of your project. J04n(talk page) 14:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for the kind words. Hope I see you around the wiki! –Juliancolton | Talk 17:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The project seems really great. Sorry about creating a subsection of non-members. I hate when people do stuff like that. Do as I say and not as I do. I went to remove it, but others have signed on. :) Oh well. My intention was to be a supporter without necessarily being a party to the enterprise. I want to have my cake and eat it too. Does this mean you're back? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, I can understand that. I'm just surprised there's not an "anti-members" section yet...

I still intend to focus my work on other projects like Commons, but I guess I'm around for the time being. Cheers. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Julian ... is it ok with you if I create a sub-page /samples for some stuff in your project? Once we've got things organized and such, we can delete it - just sort of a scratchpad kind of thing. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  19:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Messer

Hello, I am a journalist and I worked on an article re: Jonathan Messer Australian Film and Theatre Director. Can you please undelete it. he is very gifted, and I will edit it and make the 'red line' or whatever it is to his work removed. Thank you. Giselle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.89.54 (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restored by another sysop. Regards, 17:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Pass on a request

Can you see this please. PS. I'm a big fan of the new user page. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I've just taken a look, and I'm not quite sure how to do that. What's the syntax for the template? –Juliancolton | Talk 17:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same as the syntax in the request. Just put {{Location|41|52|53.27|N|88|1|59.44|W}} under the information box. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6,000th edit

6,000December21st2012Freak hereby uses his 6,000th edit to leave a note on Juliancolton's talk page.




December21st2012Freak Lord of the Vulcans 00:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think you should really reconsider the deletion of the recon ron pull up program page. I've been searching around the internet and all the pages I find for recon ron have different numbers, reps. Wikipedia allowed for editing so people corrected it. I feel wikipedia was the only reliable source to find the correct amount of reps for recon ron. I could tell me simply looking at the numbers that the others were wrong. I have been using the recon ron wiki page for a very long time now and it's the reason why I can do 20+ pull ups now. I think everyone should have access to the help I did. Also, what harm can it do keeping it up? Whereas, it can do some good if it is up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.201.89.230 (talk) 06:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allerseelen

could you restore this article? it can be restored directly into the main namespace, i believe, as it must have been deleted by user:east718 in error 2 years ago. the band is quite well-known; the article has 13 (currently broken) wikilinks, and an elaborate german-language counterpart [1]. thanks! --Ktotam (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was two years ago, so the band may indeed have not been notable then. I suggest bringing this up at WP:DRV to see what others say. Regards, –Juliancolton | Talk 01:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since it was an uncontested prod, my understanding is that it's subject to automatic restoration and there's no need to take it to DRV. Tim Song (talk) 01:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, generally that's true, but I think if a deletion is a few years old it should be discussed first. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
what difference does it make if it's a few years or a few days? i would have contacted the admin who performed the deletion, but he's not active anymore --Ktotam (talk) 10:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just feel it's better to conduct a brief survey at DRV to see if others feel the subject has become adequately notable. You're free to solicit the advice of another sysop of course, but I wouldn't feel entirely comfortable restoring this without discussion. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admin coaching - the sequel

Hi Juliancolton, it's good to see that you're back!

I thought I'd leave it a couple of days before re-approaching you, but I thought I'd ask if you would still consider admin coaching me? I removed my name from your list at Wikipedia:Admin_coaching/Status, as I wasn't sure how long you'd be on break for! I approached Richardshusr (see User_talk:Richardshusr#Query_about_admin_coaching) as the only other possible coach at the moment, although I haven't heard from them.

If you do not have the time to coach me, that's fine - just let me know!

If you do agree to coach me, feel free to use User talk:Phantomsteve/Coaching for coaching-specific messages.

Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 16:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'm still willing to coach you. I might not be as active as I was a few weeks ago, but I should be able to respond efficiently. Will get on it in due course. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll contact Richardshusr to withdraw my request! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 20:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G-Unit Records.

Thank you for locking the page. I would like to point out, however, that as the page currently is, is incorrect. "ThisIs50" is not a reliable source and the user that has been vandalizing the article also continues to use reliable sources incorrectly (please note The Game source from MTV mentions he was released). I just wanted to point these things out to you as an admin. Thank you. --HELLØ ŦHERE 19:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. You might want to bring that up on the talk page, as right now it wouldn't be appropriate to make any substantial edits. Cheers! –Juliancolton | Talk 20:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for TOTSO

An editor has asked for a deletion review of TOTSO. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tim Song (talk) 20:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My comments

My comments are not odd, nor is my account compromised. The comments I made on Malleus's and CoM's pages are direct responses to the ridiculous edits they made on MY Talk page. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, that's completely unacceptable. Please maintain a mature and professional demeanor when dealing with other users. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When are you going to make the same warning to CoM and Malleus for their edits on my Talk page? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because COM's edits on your talk page were not inappropriate, and Malleus is currently blocked for an unrelated issue. I have no intention of being unfair, but it's not necessary to issue warnings to those editors at this time. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) More to the point, this isn't third grade. Permission granted to be an adult about the situation. Protonk (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Declining protection

Hi Juliancolton, considering this: I respect your decision, but I don't agree. I try to write something of an article there. In the past weeks I have had several edit conflicts with vandals (or Cluebot). Of cource I can easily get my text back and copy-paste it, yet it really pisses me off to be interfered in this manner while trying to add content. If the amount of vandalism is high enough to make normal contributing more difficult, a semi-protection is imho not such a drastic measure. Making it easy to contribute should have higher priority than the right to vandalize. Best regards, Woodwalker (talk) 05:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at the time, there had only been a few disruptive edits in the past 24 hours or so. I try to only apply protection when it's absolutely and undeniably necessary, since, after all, Wikipedia should be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Most IPs and users act in good-faith when they edit a page, so again, unless the vandalism reaches a point where tools such as Huggle can't keep up, I generally choose to decline to protect it and instead watchlist it. While you're working on it, perhaps you could do so in your userspace to avoid edit conflicts? Hope this helps, –Juliancolton | Talk 14:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Janet Allison

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Janet Allison. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issues resolved!

Alright, I got my computer troubles sorted out soon after my last note - finally! So whenever you're ready, I'm ready. How does this Saturday sound for you? Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that would be great. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks. :) Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sunday works as well! :D Honestly, whenever you're ready - I'm in no hurry. Just let me know, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Darn, I entirely forgot! Sorry about that. I'll have a nom written up tomorrow. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all! Take your time. I imagine you already have a lot on your plate, so don't go out of your way. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be sorry! Really, it's no problem at all. I'm fine with anytime that works for you, so don't feel rushed! Just drop me a note when you've submitted it. Thanks again for everthing, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot Julian, I really appreciate you taking your time for this. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ACT Theatre

I see you deleted ACT Theatre; the deletion really surprises me. It's probably one of the three leading present-day theater companies out of over 100 in Seattle. The other two on its level - Seattle Repertory Theatre and the Intiman Playhouse - both have articles (neither a particularly good article, but so it goes), as does the far lesser Taproot Theatre Company. Its an Equity company with about 10,000 annual subscribers, located in a building listed on the National Register of Historic Places. There are about a dozen incoming links.

I can see that there wasn't much citation in the article, and there was a bit of a laundry list of productions, but that can easily be fixed. Any objection to my undeleting and salvaging? - Jmabel | Talk 06:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done in accordance with the prod policy. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've started a rewrite. Still need to track down more citation, but I think that it now looks basically like a (short) Wikipedia article rather than a vanity piece, and notability should already be pretty clear. - Jmabel | Talk 20:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, that was quick

Julian, thanks for semi-protecting Sesame Street. I literally made the block request, looked at it on the page protection page, and returned to my watchlist, and found that you had already protected it. Not even three minutes! Wow, you're faster than Super Grover! ;) --Christine (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad to help. I saw it on my watchlist and was bored, so there you have it. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 15:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Putting up a good fight

You're putting up a good fight at pissing contest, but I have the distinct impression that no minds are going to be changed amongst the more eager deletionists. The article as it exists now bears very little resemblance to the one that was AfD'd (only 3 hours or so after its creation) anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think with a bit more work, it could be turned into a reasonable little article. There's plenty of reliable sources out there that cover both the physical competition and the term, so it'd be a shame to have the article deleted based on a fairly inaccurate interpretation of WP:DICDEF. Either way, I agree, and I'll likely be stepping out of the discussion shortly. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you remove my lobster bit! :) I tried to stay away, but was unable to resist participating in the pissing contest that is ongoing. The argumentative discussion made me pissy, so I'm going to try avoid further involvement. I'm a bit concerned and defensive about people removing interesting and well sourced content to satisfy critics who want the article deleted regardless of what's included. Sorry if I sucker punched you in the process. I'm going to try to get outside and take in a little sunshine. If no one honks near me, I may be able to restore some calm. Ommmmmm.... ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moira Sullivan

Don't ask me why, but there is still weird edit warring going on at this closed afd. Since you initially protected it, I thought I'd let you know I just ramped it up to full protection. I have advised the latest person to post there, who is apparently actually the subject of the deleted article, to pursue DRV, but they are claiming this going to ArbCom. Just what I need right now ... Actually the objections don't seem to have anything to do with my closing of the afd. Per your sage advice on my talk page, I'm gonna steer clear of this one. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, that's fine, thanks for the heads-up. I'll keep an eye on it (but like you say, I think it'll be wise to keep my distance). –Juliancolton | Talk 20:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monitoring

I just saw this comment of yours and I was forced to wonder - is it normal for you to monitor the talk pages of AfD participants? Or was it Wolfkeeper's contributions that you were monitoring? Whichever it was, it is troubling to say the least. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I'm not stalking anyone. :) I was about to leave a message at Wolfkeeper's talk page but then noticed that comment and became sidetracked. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fyi

Hi. I know that you already indicated your thoughts at the Rjanag RfC, so this isn't a request for you to do so. I did want to mention, though, that I've just now added a diff to the RfC that includes your comments here. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much!

Darren23 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

I can't say how thankful I am, but I hope with this I can at least give you a token of my gratitude. Darren23Edits|Mail 22:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mention it! –Juliancolton | Talk 22:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor tweak to remove white space

Please put the white space back as it was before. It is an inconvenience! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.11.46 (talk) 00:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're referring to my edit a couple months ago on the Main Page? Actually, it was another edit on another page that caused a formatting error. Should be fixed now though. Cheers, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Prudhoe mad dog

This user says that his account is used by a group of people what are wp's policy in such circumstances where a single account is being used by a group of editors --NotedGrant Talk 09:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA push

Hey Julian, how are you? Anyway, I am asking you a favour (again :P). I am trying to get my first GA on this article. Do you have any suggestions for how I can get thsi to the standard? Regards. AtheWeatherman 17:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks decent. I'll give it a copyedit later tonight and see if I can get it up to snuff. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Four Award

As a past WP:FOUR awardee you may wish to comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Four Award.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed link to User space

As much as I understand why you removed the link to the user space, I'd appreciate if you actually moved (i.e. started) a new article and copied the content. If I wasn't an IP-only user I'd do it myself but since IP-only users are not allowed to start new articles I can't do it.

The original user doesn't respond to messages left on his Talk page. Furthermore I've also made a few changes to the article while still on his pages.

Thanks for help.

174.6.69.67 (talk) 02:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's generally not nice to move other people's userspace articles into mainspace if the editor has not said they're ready yet. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 14:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Making a point?

I can't help but think that you were making a point in not inviting me to join your "let's all be nicer to each other project". Don't be alarmed, I quite understand, and I wouldn't have joined anyway, although perhaps not for the reasons that most would assume. Good luck with it; nothing changes unless decent people band together to force change. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that certainly wasn't my intention, although I apologize if it came across that way. I was simply inviting a list of respected users I could think of off the top of my head, so eventually I would have likely gotten to you. Either way, you're welcome to help out. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not much of a joiner anyway Julian, so no need to make excuses. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 04:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Masters at Wunderground

In today's blog post on Ida, he used the Wikipedia article on Hurricane Kate as his source: [2]. Go team. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 15:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! Might be an incentive to work on that article a bit. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit?

I've added Oakwood Cemetery (Troy, New York) to GAN. Care to give it a read-through and copyedit as you go along? Any comments would also be appreciated; you can leave them on the talk page. Thanks in advance (assuming you're up to it... which I'm sure you are!). upstateNYer 21:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, just give me a couple days as I'm running on limited internet at the moment. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Fifi

I've done a full search of Journal articles and Books on Fifi and they have nothing more to add. I should probably be able to finish the researching tonight so you will probably be able to give the article its major copyedit before going for gold. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 17:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WOTD

Congratulations, Juliancolton! For your kindness to others, your hard work around the wiki, and for being a great user, you have been awarded the "Wikipedian of the Day" award for today, November 11th, 2009! Keep up the great work!
Note: You could also recieve the "Wikipedian of the Week award for this week!

December21st2012Freak 00:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! –Juliancolton | Talk 02:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thanks! Are you a part of some kind of moss cabal, or are you referring to a different article? If you created Ashokan High Point, I must admit it made me a bit suspicious. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Ashokan High Point was mine. I guess I made it a bit too blatant.. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 02:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please block 203.59.136.136

I just reverted some vandalism on History of climate change science that was done by anon 203.59.136.136. I noticed on User talk:203.59.136.136 that you had already given a final warning. So...would you be so kind as to put the smack-down on 'em? Much thanks--CurtisSwain (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 24 hours. Regards, –Juliancolton | Talk 02:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Rollback

Thank you very much. Regards --Rrm·Sjp 05:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 15:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History Merge

[[3]] with Cyclone Phyan please? Thanks Jason Rees (talk) 07:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This one I missed....

Please userfy Big Cartoon Database to me at User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Big Cartoon Database. I missed the AFD, else I would have then jumped in with required sourcing. Let me have a go and I'll make ya proud... specially as the site itself has been covered by numerous reliable sources. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, good luck;  Done. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I noticed after it was gone how the article had been around for 2 years and that it survived last January with 3 keep comments... and yet 10 months later was not saved. I'm kind of sad that more editors did not comment ay either AFD. Considering how many other articles now have redlinked sources, I think this is well worth saving. I'll report back to you after my work to see if you feel that concerns have been addressed. I know that returning deleted content is cause for a G4 tagging, and the content (yet to be re-done) may be similar to the deleted page... but there was no flaw in your closure, and I'll wish your blessing before returning it to mainspace. Do you think it sensible that I do my work and then move to incubator for evaluation? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well once you're done it with, I can look it over briefly to see if the concerns have been addressed. If I'm not satisfied, you can bring it up at WP:DRV to be evaluated there. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thought I'd check in with a progress report. I spent a few hours today in the sandbox and trimmed much of the fat, neutralized the POV, and added a few sources toward notability and acceptance and use of it as a source. Its much sleeker now, and I think it's clean enough for me to consider moving (with yourblessing) over to the Incubator so others mght join in (I shouldn't be the one having all the fun)... but I thought to first see if you might think that THIS is a tad more encyclopedic than it was BEFORE. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent; much better! I'd say go ahead with it. Thanks for your hard work. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 03:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I'll refer back this conversation over at the Incubator. And since it was mentioned at the AfD, I'll take a look at the sister article. Best, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WT:FOOTBALL

Hello Julian, could I possibly get your input here? Thanks, GlassCobra 20:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look a bit later. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nCircle Page Review

I would appreciate it if you could take a look at the page found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rpelton/NCircle I have extensively reworked the page since you moved it to my user space and hope that you can give me some feedback on any parts that can still be improved before I move this to the mainspace.

I appreciate your time in looking at this and for your help in the past! Please pass the page along to anyone else you think could give me constructive feedback. I really am trying to make it work!!

Rpelton (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, if you post at WP:Content noticeboard, you'll probably get several independent evaluations. I'll try to review it and post my thoughts at the talk page. Cheers, –Juliancolton | Talk 23:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text help

Julian, I've seen your Alt text comments at FAC/FLC. Can you check if the alt text at List of India women ODI cricketers is ok and/or any changes needed? I've received some feedback at the FLC discussion on a couple of issues I didn't know about (taken care of now), perhaps I'm missing a bit still? cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 21:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, will do. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added the "women" bit in as I was asked to do so at the FLC discussion. Any better way to do it? cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 02:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! My first image at a FLC, so having trouble understanding the concept of the alt text! cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 02:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motto of the Day contributions

This is a general message to get people to contribute as we are running out again so if you could please do. Please also see Wikipedia talk:Motto of the day#The Future. Not to anyone who reads this, WP:MOTD/N. Simply south (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6,001st edit

6,001Tothwolf hereby uses his 6,001st edit to leave a note on Juliancolton's talk page.

--Tothwolf (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 23:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

courtesy notice

You are Wikipedia's Mr. Hurricane. As a courtesy, look here. This discussion could undo much of your hard work. See the bullet number 4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(news_events)#Discussion_about_changes Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 01:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to help you, not argue. I don't want Wikipedia to lose Administrator Hurricane or get Mr. Hurricane involved in fighting to keep good hurricane articles. Fighting to keep articles drains anyone's energy to edit. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Philippe_(2005) One could argue that this doesn't deserve an article. I disagree but this article could fail several sections of the proposed policy, including "A minor earthquake or storm with little or no impact on human populations is probably not notable." Now it is safe because the proposed policy is only proposed. That's why I applaud discussion but am not quite ready to add "Support" to make the proposal a policy. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think "A minor earthquake or storm with little or no impact on human populations is probably not notable" is accurate. Of course, it is equally ambiguous, as a "minor storm" to the general public might be historically significant to experts in the field (example, Tropical Storm Zeta (2005). I'm going to see what others have to say, but I'll likely be supporting the proposal to implement this new page as a guideline. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it may become a policy. Perhaps you should eventually support it as a guideline but oppose it as a policy. That way there is flexibility about storms. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 02:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrarily0's RfA

Did you mean to write "Arbitrarily0 committed over 6,000 edits in a fairly wide range of areas, from deletion to vandalism..." in Arbitrarily0's RfA? Has s/he really been deleting and vandalising Wikipedia pages? ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 15:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did indeed. "Vandalism" is a specific area of the project's administration, and given the candidate's history of vandalism removal, that statement is, AFAICT, accurate. (Same goes for deletion, etc.) –Juliancolton | Talk 15:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the wording needs changing from "from deletion to vandalism" to "from deletion to vandalism patrol". At the moment, it reads like Arbitrarily0 is engaged in vandalism! I think that was the reason for Dr Dec's question! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 16:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, changed. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Julian, I will soon call for a block of your IP-range for an indefinite period of time, or suggest some other form of reprimand. The reason for this is your outrageous denial and undermining of the extensively widespread rape in Bosnia 1992-1995. To deny and/or undermine the events in such drastic measures as you are doing is definitely not acceptable. The sexual violence conducted by Serb forces is a legal fact and an extremely well documented historic event. I refuse to condone your behavior by excusing it with a possible lack of knowledge, as I actually do believe that you are very familiar with the facts, you just do not wish them to be available to the people reading. However, just in case of any ignorance from your side, the war in Bosnia was no "small thing". It demanded large percentages of civilian victims, including women and children. Of the victims 88% were Bosniaks (fact), and among the rape victims that figure is even larger (95%+ were Bosniak women). So to state that "many women" were raped on all sides is a plain distortion of facts. Principal victims were Bosniak women, and principal perpetrators were Serbs. All other details of the conflict regarding rape are second to this and have only a slight relevance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.136.93 (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow. Regardless, though, I assure you that any on-wiki actions of mine are not made to push a point of view. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian of the Day

Congratulations, Juliancolton! For your kindness to others, your hard work around the wiki, and for being a great user, you have been awarded the "Wikipedian of the Day" award for today, 13, November 2009! Keep up the great work!--Coldplay Expert 00:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: You could also recieve the "Wikipedian of the Week award for this week!
Thanks! –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UAA

Hi - fyi, I didn't want to include this at the UAA page (because it is more of an RTV / SPI point) but the user with "stupid" as part of their username has made comments and and used tone that clearly make it sound like they've been here before... although their formatting skills (messing up my sig and not signing their own) make me wonder. Just thought I'd mention it. Thanks.  7  03:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for the heads-up. Cheers, –Juliancolton | Talk 04:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me

Juliancolton-- you have recently helped me with various problems with some pages I am editing and I'm hoping you can help me again. Someone went to one of these pages and very inappropriately attempted to out information about my username. When I put this on the page where you report such things an administrator decided to speedy delete (without discussion or anything else) both articles I had posted. He then threatened to allow me to edit anything in the future. the user is: Toddst1 and you can find all his notices on my talk page.

Personally I don't understand how a wikipedia admin is allowed to continue harassment or to delete any pages I've created due to information that was put up while 'outing' me. I'm not confirming it's correct but this admin seems to think it is. so instead of protecting me and my privacy he is assuming that the information that was put up is correct and that I have some how done something wrong on these articles.

At the very least I'd appreciate it if andrew stroms and tk keanini could be moved to my userspace because I have worked very extensively on them to make them good articles and believe this is very unfair.

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks Rpelton (talk) 08:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julian, the related thread is Wikipedia:Ani#.22outing.22_involving_personal_information. and more here on my talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 08:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I'd appreciate your input on the situation in the DRV articles.

Andrew Storms (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
TK Keanini (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Not sure if those will take you to where it's supposed to go so if not it's under November 16, 2009 in the DRV stuff... any help is appreciated. Rpelton (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luc Castaignos

Hello, Julian! Could you be so kind as to tell me what happened with the afd in question since the afd tag was removed from Luc Castaignos as "outdated" 7 weeks after the article was nominated for deletion?[4] Thank you!  Barocci  08:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was restored subsequent to my deletion with the AfD tag still on it. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Electricopossum

Re the unblock request, the user was reported at AIV. The diffs I looked at were this, this, this and this. I don't consider those edits to be constructive, but am open persuasion that sufficient warning will have been given by the block. If I unblock, it will be on the strict understanding that further vandalism will lead to the block being reimposed. What do you think? Mjroots (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the edits were undoubtedly unconstructive, but I'm not quite ready to stop assuming good faith. I think it would be reasonable to provisionally unblock on the aforementioned conditions. Cheers, –Juliancolton | Talk 19:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've unblocked him, not sure if there is a template I should have used but the talk page is still showing in the temporary user pages category. I've left him a bit of advice re future editing and discussing the problematic editing before insertion into articles. Mjroots (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Word Alive

I was wondering if I had the sources to have the page restored. It was deleted because of lack of notability and I think they might have charted on Billboard Heatseekers. These websites say so, but I was wondering if you could look at them to see if they are reliable

If these sources are reliable could you possibly restore the page? I don't know what the first page that was deleted looked like but I created the article the second time and I'm pretty sure that I had a page that was relevent and had good sources and such. --Łoshɢooþii (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The two deletion discussions are here and here --Łoshɢooþii (talk) 22:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lay, Lady, Lay (album)

Hi, this is jimmuhk. I am the author of the article Lay_Lady_Lay_(album). You deleted this article back in September [1]. I hadn't realized that this article was up for deletion and as a result the WP:PROD expired. I'm confident that this article did meet the criteria of WP:NSONGS, Ministry is a notable ensemble and the Lay, Lady, Lay single was an officially released album. As it stands, the reference in the article, Ministry_discography, points to a page about Bob Dylan's (original) version of that song. I am contacting you in an effort to reinstate this article.

Thanks, jimmuhk

[1] 00:13, 27 September 2009 Juliancolton (talk | contribs) deleted "Lay Lady Lay (album)" ‎ (Deleted because expired WP:PROD; Reason given: non-notable cover version with incorrect disambiguator, not worth redirecting per WP:NSONGS. using TW)

Jimmuhk (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prairie Avenue TFA nom

You had previously supported a November TFA date for Prairie Avenue. It has been renominated for a December date.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waterfalls, waterfalls, waterfalls!

Feeling wikistress? Wish you could have a vacation someplace with two dozen waterfalls? Well the next best thing is here!

If you want to, please come look at pictures of waterfalls and pick which ones you like best. You'll be helping make a better article too.

Thanks, Dincher (talk) and Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. That wikilink again: User talk:Ruhrfisch/Waterfalls

LOTMITC

I think the best way forward after our disscussion about the list, is too talk to other members of the projet today 14/11 and see what they think about the title.Jason Rees (talk) 05:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really a big deal either way, but yeah, we can ask CB later today. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Law practice management

  • Please reconsider your close of this AFD in which you wrote, " Many of the arguments presented in favor of retaining the page are weak and lack citations to appropriate policy, hence no consensus." Please note that:
  1. I cited two policies — WP:BEFORE and WP:IMPERFECT.
  2. I made the strong argument that numerous books are devoted to the topic.
  3. Only two editors opined for delete (vs 3 keeps and a redirect)
  4. They cited no policies
  5. They used weak arguments such as WP:UNENCYC and WP:RUBBISH

Please take another look as I wish to establish whether I need to write at greater length in these discussions.

Colonel Warden (talk) 09:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi. Firstly, "no consensus" is, for all intents and purposes, the same thing as "keep" with a stylized name. With that aside, in the Law_practice_management AfD, among the arguments I saw for keeping it were "It has Google hits" and "It has books" with little or no evidence that these sources even exist, let alone are reliable. While admittedly the nominator could have set forth a better case, their argument that the article lacked sufficient context or claims of notability is valid; this also applies to those who voted in accordance with the nominator's statement. However, the debate became more complex once the article was expanded well beyond its initial state, making the early votes a lot less sturdy. Given the fairly complex circumstances of the discussion, I felt it was better to close it as no consensus than keep (deletion was, obviously, not an option).

    For the Land recycling page on the other hand, the nominator and the delete voters (I know—not a vote; it's just a more convenient term) cited WP:OR in their reasoning, which is, again, a valid opinion in the context of AfD. However, others refuted this argument, so from my angle, it wasn't really feasible to decide who's "right" without examining the article itself and basing my decision off of my own personal opinion. Another voter suggested that the article be redirected, and of course a few additionally voted to keep. In spite of the influx of keep votes towards the end, among the arguments advanced was "There are Google hits", which again is not an especially persuasive assertion. All this considered, "no consensus" was also appropriate here.

    Hope this helps, –Juliancolton | Talk 14:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kittens

Hello I joind so I could write about cats and kittens but after I joined i found I could not edit the kitten page. The cat page is also stopped from editing. Thank you ! User fluffykitten —Preceding unsigned comment added by FluffyKittens (talk • contribs) 12:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Those articles are semi-protected, which means that very newly-registered users like yourself are unfortunately unable to edit them because of vandalism in the past. Once you're autoconfirmed, which means you've been registered for 4 days and have made 10 edits to other pages, you will automatically be allowed to edit them. Hope this helps. ~ mazca talk 12:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you I will look for some other pges to edit - fluffy kittens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FluffyKittens (talk • contribs) 12:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Thank you for granting me rollback rights. :) TheTito Discuss 17:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what have I done

Wikipedia_talk:Content_noticeboard#in_Arbitration. If you feel that this would detract from the original purpose of the noticeboard, I will change the proposal so that the notices go to another noticeboard such as AN. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian of the Week

Congratulations, Juliancolton! For your kindness to others, your hard work around the wiki, and for being a great user, you have been awarded the "Wikipedian of the Week" award for this week! Keep up the great work!--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 01:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: You could also recieve the top award, "Wikipedian of the Month" for this month!


Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Manning (talk) 02:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Adamantius (journal)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Adamantius (journal). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cirt (talk) 06:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

stop

you have deleted my user page now put it back because i'm annoyed with you.--User:Anthony 5432 (talk) 08:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Anthony 5432[reply]

Half a league, half a league, Half a league onward

I remember something else in there about riding into a valley of death. Anyways, RfB is a go. I accept. :) IronGargoyle (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! I'll have a nomination statement written up in due course. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been editing for almost four years, not almost three years. And I'm male (as specified on my userbox). :) IronGargoyle (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ton That Dinh

segmented YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 06:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Future Garage page recreation

Hi I was going to start to re enter the Future Garage info and thought I should contact you first as per the wiki guidelines. I have a number of sources to remove the neologism status so I think everything should be ok. Should I create the page and allow you to make any needed changes? thanks for your time More420 (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As that article was deleted using the proposed deletion procedure, I can restore if it you feel it's necessary. Alternatively, you could initiate a thread on Deletion Review to see what others think. Cheers, –Juliancolton | Talk 14:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong page is transcluded to WP:AFDTODAY

Hi, Fadi Kiblawi was just nominated for AfD for the second time. There is a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fadi Kiblawi (2nd nomination) but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fadi Kiblawi is showing up at WP:AFDTODAY; I don't know how to fix it. Can you please explain what to do? Thanks J04n(talk page) 04:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, not sure what's up with that. Might be a good idea to post at WT:AFD. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone else fixed it, I'll have to look at the history so I'll know what to do if I see that again. J04n(talk page) 14:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry RE page

Julian- I hope all is well. I am somewhat new to Wikipedia, so I am learning the way things work. A page that was recently created, Pettao, was deleted by you. I certainly wish that more of a discussion could have taken place about that page. (I was out of town most of the seven days; I believe it was just seven days allowed for discussion.) It is a movement of feeding pets according to both Western and Eastern medical and veterinary principles, so it is a very progressive philosophy of helping dogs and cats, related to Traditional Chinese Veterinary Medicine. Would Pettao be a better fit the Wikiproject Food and Drink section? There is a wikipedia page for Mother Hubbard and Wellness Pet Food Company. Could you please explain why these pages exist, as they are simply pet food businesses. Thank you for your assistance. Dougmac7 (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the note. That page was deleted in accordance with the proposed deletion policy, which allows for an article to be summarily removed if there are no objections after seven days. As an article deleted via PROD may be restored at any time, I've gone ahead and reinstated it. Hope this helps, –Juliancolton | Talk 14:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fribbulus Xax's RfA

Thanks, Juliancolton, for supporting me in my RFA. It passed unanimously. I am very grateful of your input – if you have any further comments, let me know!
Fribbulus Xax (talk) 12:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations! –Juliancolton | Talk 14:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protected Pages and Uploading Images

Hi Julian, you recently archived a discussion on deleting the Celebrity Fitness page. I'm now trying to upload the company's logo, but am being told "Unable to proceed" as "This page is currently protected and can be edited or moved only by administrators." I am attempting to use a jpg image that is well below the size limit, select logo in the licensing section, and enter the following information in the summary box:


File information
Description

Celebrity Fitness logo

Source

www.celebrityfitness.com

Date
Author
Permission
(Reusing this file)

See below.



I would really appreciate any advice or explanation you can give as to how I can remedy this issue. Many thanks...

Yes4us (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not able to identify an issue right off the bat, but have you followed the instructions listed here? –Juliancolton | Talk 14:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got me moving in the right direction and now solved. Thanks Julian. Yes4us (talk) 10:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commented noted

"I'd appreciate if they would make better use of edit summaries". I've been making much more use of edit summaries in article edits lately. I didn't really value the use of them before - I've seen a lot of meaningless and misleading edit summaries - but I'm going to turn on the prompt now. Fences&Windows 02:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Best of luck with the RfA! –Juliancolton | Talk 14:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a Job Well Done

Juliancolton, Thank you for the good work you have been doing. You have shown yourself to be a great asset to Wikipedia in many ways. One of your many fans! Thanks Again - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, thanks. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motown

Can you please look at a discussion I recently discovered regarding swapping names of articles and redirects for historical accuracy? The discussion is at Talk:Motown Records#Article title. I believe the contention of the two editors in agreement there is correct, that "Motown Records" should be the redirect and "Motown" should be the title, not the other way around as it currently is. I believe the move would involve a little titling gymnastics so that the histories are preserved, possible creation of a third temporary article that is then deleted once the desired title switch is made. Let me know if I am correct and if you can handle the swap as discussed on the talk page. – Sswonk (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete User: Secret Saturdays/Signature

Hi, I'm here to request the deletion of my subpage User: Secret Saturdays/Signature because I don't use it and I believe it is taking up too much space on Wikipedia. If you have any questions, please refer to my talkpage. Secret Saturdays (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to see this on my Watchlist. You can just put {{db-g7}} on that page, and it should get deleted soon. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 02:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done NW (Talk) 02:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Warpath (talk) has smiled at you and showered you with WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:User:Cometstyles/smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy 3 years on wikipedia Julie  !! sorry couldn't afford a virtual cake, its a bit too expensive for me ..--Warpath (talk) 04:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's happy about it? Err, I mean thanks! :) –Juliancolton | Talk 04:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blimey how time flies!!! Jason Rees (talk) 04:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for addressing my request about the featured article. Suppose I am so used to working at DYK with the cascading template protections I assumed they all were protected. Right after I hit the save button, I saw the notice stating the reason why it is not protected in advance. Thank you for your swift and correct responce (and indirectly reminding me to read unfamiliar areas carefully). Kindly Calmer Waters 17:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem; it's an easy mistake to make. Regards, –Juliancolton | Talk 20:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting at RFC after it closed

Re: your comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Orderinchaos which was made after the RFC closed to a positive resolution agreed upon by both parties - I guess I did not make it clear enough at the RFC page that it was closed? What else should I do to make it obvious that the RFC is now closed? Cirt (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added an ambox notice to the top of the page [5]. Anything else I can do to make this more obvious? Cirt (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, didn't see that! I'm not sure what happens to RfCs after they're delisted; never really followed one that closely... Could be worth adding archival templates to the page? –Juliancolton | Talk 20:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you add that then? Cirt (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, done. Cheers, –Juliancolton | Talk 20:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Cirt (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 20:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say...

...thank you! I must admit, your offer to nominate me caught me by surprise - but judging by the result, your decision to do so was met with confidence. Thanks again for your kind nomination, I really appreciate it! Best regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marriageable age in Judaism

Hello, I'd like to ask you to review your closure of the above.

While I agree that the consensus does seem to be to merge. I disagree with where you think it concluded it should merge it.

The votes were

  • 8 somewhere specific other than Jewish views of Marriage (Atari, Bearian, Owenx, DGG, Whoosit, Jheald, Dfass, me-Newman_Luke)
    • of which 2 explicitly NOT Jewish views of Marriage (Jheald, me-Newman_Luke)
  • 4 Jewish views of Marriage (IZAK, Yehoishaphot_Oliver, Alansohn, Avi)
  • 1 non-specific merge (JFW)

I'd also like to point out that Debresser voted twice.

So by my count, that's 8 vs. 4, with the majority NOT saying Jewish views of marriage. Newman Luke (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; as I specifically noted, my closure was not an endorsement of any particular target for merging, but merely a placeholder. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But you also stated "I'm chosing a target which seems to have the most endorsement at the moment". My point is that the target you chose does not have "the most endorsement"; in fact the very opposite is the case - the most endorsement goes to the target not being that. Would you therefore be able to consider changing your note there to simply "merge, somewhere. The specific merge target should be discussed outside this afd" (or similar) ? Newman Luke (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it makes a difference, but regardless,  Done. Hope it's now satisfactory. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly, you still have a destination. Can you not leave that unstated, since the discussion didn't actually have a result as to the destination? Newman Luke (talk) 14:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there needs to be some kind of placeholder to prevent the templates from breaking and the discussion from dying. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need your opinion

In your opinion, do these references

  • An American Physician in Turkey" by Clarence D. Ussher,Sterndale Classic titles, 2002, 118pp
  • The Tragedy of Bitlis", Grace H. Knapp, 1919, pages 150-160

Support this[6] edit. Or am I looking at someone's Original Research? Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't access those references, but I doubt it. The edit seems very POV. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ciaran Barnes

Hi Julian. I was wondering if you could let me have the last contents of this article, which you deleted last year. I'm considering a DRV on it. I presume it was a basic stub, but if possible I'd like to see it anyway. I'd probably userfy and improve it before DRV, as I'm not convinced of the best course of action at the minute. See my last comments at Talk:The Belfast Telegraph if you want some background. Cheers, Stu ’Bout ye! 10:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restored and userfied to User:Stuart/Ciaran Barnes. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks for your help. Stu ’Bout ye! 15:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Satellite image comparison

A page got deleted last month, and I was not on to defend it. This article, in question, is a supporting article for another article...and I believe it is discussed as such in its talk page. Deletion attempts had been made earlier, and even a compromise was made to give it a different name. For a variety of reasons, I ask that this be reversed. One being that it resolves many issues that the main article cannot, and allow the main article to maintain encyclopedic flow. I am also open on how to fix this, as this has been one of the old (minor) but unresolved issues for the main article--water vapor. For the past four years, the main article has been under constant scrutiny, largely due to the fact that some information or some sources about the topic are not readily available for public access/view. It has been a massive barrier in completing this article, and maintaining Wikipedia guidelines. Whereas, the main article has a constant history, the deleted article did not, as it was concise and to the point, so its edit history may have ended years ago. Will research for food (talk) 14:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know which article you are referring to. Could you please give me a link? –Juliancolton | Talk 14:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Satellite Image Comparison —Will research for food (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reinstated then. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your assistance. —Will research for food (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spacetime

Hi, Julian!

I would like to avoid editwar at Spacetime page in history section. You can see the discussion here: Talk:Spacetime#Pacha: spacetime in Incas' mindset. I guess mentioning Incan concept of pacha is quite interesting but my worthy opponent thinks that it isn't to serious to mention in the strict scientific context. Could you be the arbiter? Raoul NK (talk) 15:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Over zealous deleting of Diamond Calk Horseshoe Company

What's the point of having an online encyclopedia and a project like Wikipedia (and my contributing to it), if pages like the Diamond Calk Horseshoe Company are deleted on a whim...?

Surely the idea behind Wikipedia is to constantly improve what's there, not delete it because the one source isn't liked. Its why pages are rated, to indicate the reliability of the information....

Pages have got to start somewhere and I'd say that this particular company, a major name in the industrial history of the world needs to be in Wikipedia.

It was a mistake to delete it. I respectfully suggest that you re-instate it. Hethurs (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't deleted on a whim; it was tagged with a proposed deletion nomination seven days prior to its deletion. Nonetheless, as the proposed deletion policy allows an article to be restored upon request, I've gone ahead and done so. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK Julian. Fair enough and thanks. I don't log on to Wikipedia that often, so the seven days notice thing wasn't really long enough. Messages on the talk page don't seem to be forwarded to my mailbox. I'm hoping that other people will be able to chip in and improve the Diamond Calk article, which is what I thought Wikipedia is supposedly all about. I'll also see what else I can find out about the company, maybe via contacts at a certain Motor Museum that I know of. I've just stumbled over "The British Indestructo Glass company Ltd", in an article from 1939, so I'll see if I can work that into Wikipedia somewhere: that new discovery is why I logged-on. But having seen that the page on the Diamond Calk Horshoe Co had been deleted, my enthusiasm/interest/motivation was instantly destroyed and I wasn't going to bother. I will now though...Hethurs (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Youssef Allam

Hi, There was as AFD discussion on this article that you closed as "no consensus", but the afd template still remain on the article. I would remove it myself, but am not sure it's permissible. --PinkBull 22:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Totally permissible. Sometimes, in the course of admin work, steps can be unintentionally overlooked. Katerenka (talk) 04:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article Assesment

Hey Julian, I was wondering if you could do me a quick favor and assess National Weather Service Central Illinois an article I recently created. The two people who are most knowledgeable on Illinois weather both quit Wikipedia so if you could please just give it a quick assessment for WP:WPMET that would be appreciated. Thanks -Marcusmax(speak) 23:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You -Marcusmax(speak) 04:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work on the page! –Juliancolton | Talk 04:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Juliancolton. You have new messages at Dabomb87's talk page.
Message added 05:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Dabomb87 (talk) 05:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cluebot

I saw you're online and was wondering if you'd know why ClueBot's not running? =/ A8UDI 16:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, can't see anything at first glance. It hasn't been blocked, anyway. Perhaps ping Cobi (talk · contribs)? –Juliancolton | Talk 17:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your IRC channel

Resolved

Hey Julian, I don't know if you're on right now, but when you do get on would you mind removing my ban from your channel. I was complaining about something, and Killiondude didn't want to hear it. When I said his opinion didn't matter to me, he banned me. That's obviously not appropriate, considering IRC has the /ignore option, and I didn't do anything disruptive, whatsoever. Thanks, iMatthew talk at 23:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look in a second. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can weigh in here constructively. iMatthew was, as killiondude and PeterSymonds put it, being a whiner, and they grew tired. It's Julian's channel, though, he decides. ceranthor 01:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:La Pianista's userspace

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

-FASTILY (TALK) 06:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Game Show Congress

You might be interested in this thread. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmmm... well, I guess my only suggestion would be to create an account here and discuss it at WP:DRV. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was A7'd, overturned at DRV, and then taken to AFD per consensus at the DRV. Do you really think another DRV is in order? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar

What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
I can't believe no one ever thought of that... You are credit to team! bibliomaniac15 05:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Glad you liked it. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 05:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing username

Hello. A bureaucrat or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up as soon as possible. Thank you. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello Julian, thanks for advising. I have already made an usurpation request at User_talk:Humboldt. What else should I do? Regards, Humboldt 12:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djoehana (talk • contribs) [reply]

Looks good, so far. Now just head over to Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations and place another request there; barring any issues or backlogs, your request should be accepted in a week. Cheers, –Juliancolton | Talk 15:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Okeedokee, cross fingers. Thanks again! Humboldt 16:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djoehana (talk • contribs)

My first FAC

Would you be interested in reviewing Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kiliaen van Rensselaer (Dutch merchant)/archive1? I'm not asking you because I think you'll be lenient or anything, but because you're an FAC regular. Discussion has gone stale, at a negative point, because the article doesn't contain original research (even though it's allowed by policy). upstateNYer 19:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, will do –Juliancolton | Talk 01:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar

Thank you for the recent presentation. It's nice to feel appreciated from time to time. Brianboulton (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think far too many editors go under-appreciated, hence the barnstar. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 01:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MfD closure

I just wanted to let you know that I've just speedy-closed an MfD in which you !voted, with a result of delete as attack page. I'm letting you know because you had previously declined the speedy, but upon reviewing all the circumstances, I really could not see allowing the page to remain for another six days. I don't want to further publicize the page here, but you can find it in my contribs. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Thanks for letting me know! –Juliancolton | Talk 23:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Post edit

Ummm.. You must have made a mistake, because I didn't alter your post. Look in the talk page history. Revision of your post was at 01:53. Hurricanekiller1994 (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, you're correct. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No hard feelings. Everyone makes mistakes every now nad then. Hurricanekiller1994 (talk) 02:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child marriage in Judaism

Hello again, I'd like to ask if you could review your closure of this one as well. You state that the difference between the amount of keep opinions and that of merge opinions "is marginal".

So I was wondering why you didn't put no consensus as the conclusion, rather than merge, which you state is barely supported more than keep.

Newman Luke (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD determines whether or not an article should be deleted or kept. Editorial decisions like "merge", "redirect", effectively default to keep, as they usually fall outside of the scope of a deletion discussion. Therefore, in this case, the outcome was non-binding and I deferred to the community to work out whether or not merging is appropriate, and if so, where the page should be merged to. Hope that helps. –Juliancolton | Talk
The WP:AFD#How an AfD discussion is closed says that the closing admin would use no consensus. The difference is very important - you currently have a tag on the article saying AFD concluded it should be merged, but you seem to suggest that AFD actually had no proper consensus about that. Having that tag on the article fixes its destination - it becomes an unchangeable decision - as the rules prevent the tag from being removed. Newman Luke (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that page states "If there has been no obvious consensus to change the status of the article, the person closing the AfD will state No consensus, and the article will be kept". At the discussion in question, there likely was, to an extent, consensus for merging somewhere, but it's not the closing admin's job to finalize the merge. You're welcome to bring any of my closures to WP:DRV, although, as I said, the difference between "merge", "keep", and "no consensus" boils down to little more than tweaking the {{oldafd}} template. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. You have also placed an afd-merge tag on the article itself. A keep result would not have that tag. The tag undermines any further discussion about the article's fate, by presenting the proposal to merge as a fait-accomplis. Its my understanding that only the AfD process has the authority to remove that tag - so its basically only removable if you correct the closure to no consensus. Newman Luke (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the tag is to stimulate discussion, not to "undermine" it. AfD decides whether or not an article is kept or deleted; the rest is up to the editorial community. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If that were the case, why is it that the tag would not be placed there when the debate is closed as no consensus? There'd be no tag if it was closed as keep, so the presence of one presents the merge as an official decision already made - not something up for discussion. If you needed to stimulate discussion, a tag more like this now-deleted tag would have been more appropriate. Newman Luke (talk) 16:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. I've tweaked the AfD templates to make it clear that a destination page hasn't yet been decided on. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. However, it still implies that there has been a decision to have a destination page. It implies that merge rather than keep was the consensus. My point is that there was no consensus - that there shouldn't be a tag on the article itself at all. Its not just the destination that's disputed, its whether there should be one at all. Newman Luke (talk) 18:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'd say that it's pretty clear there was a general consensus to merge. Again, though, merging is up to the editorial community, and the merge tag is not indicative of any sort of official status. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coke Zero Facial Profiler

Hello,

I have a few questions about why the Coke Zero Facial Profiler entry was deleted.

I'm new to this process and any guidance you can provide would be monumentally helpful.

Is the deletion due to the fact that the language was not impartial enough? Or is it because the sources cited were not in line with Wikipedia's standards?

The app is new and still in its introductory phase. It's set to officially launch at the end of this month/beginning of December.

As a result of the app not having officially launched, most "reference information" currently available is from bloggers.

The app is unique in that it will enable users to run face recognition searches for free, via Facebook.

As this is new technology – and the process of "finding your doppelganger" is somewhat unsettling to people – we had hoped to have a wikipedia page in place to help reassure users that the app is legitimate.

What, if anything, can be done to re-instate the page, or a variation of it?

Any feedback would be welcome.

I appreciate your time.

Regards,

Chad Lynch Lynch8274 (talk) 03:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please see this page for the discussion that led to the article's removal. In short, the general consensus was that the subject-matter failed to meet notability requirements. If you'd like, I can restore a copy of the deleted content into your userspace to allow for you to attempt to bring the page up to snuff in your own time. Best, –Juliancolton | Talk 03:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

If you would restore a copy of the deleted content into my userspace to allow me to revise and improve the content, I'd greatly appreciate it. Many thanks.

Chad Lynch Lynch8274 (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move request

Can you move User:Cyclonebiskit/Linda09 to Hurricane Linda (2009) please? Thanks, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please undelete Kiss All the Boys?

Last February, you deleted Kiss All the Boys after a deletion discussion which noted the lack of reviews available. Since then, I've compiled a listing of reliable reviews for the subject, and another user has agreed with me that the book now passes WP:BK#1. Could you please have another look at the article and undelete it so that I can add in the reviews? Thanks. --Malkinann (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough for me, although it would be safer to seek a more binding decision at WP:DRV or such. Would that be acceptable? Cheers, –Juliancolton | Talk 03:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I'm confused. DRV says to ask the closing admin politely first, as DRV should only be used if we can't resolve the situation between ourselves? If you feel the listing of reviews is good enough for you, I'm not sure what to do next? --Malkinann (talk) 04:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Claudia Costa

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Claudia Costa. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tim Song (talk) 02:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lay Lady Lay (album) article

I posted here recently inquiring about a article I started that you had deleted. In my original post I indicated my reasons that the article merited reinstatement. However, my post was deleted from your talk page without comment. Did I miss the comment or some type of etiquette around my request?

Thanks, Jimmuhk (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. Sorry about the delay, I missed your initial note. Regards, –Juliancolton | Talk 04:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I improved the article. Jimmuhk (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tera Online

I am not an editor, just a user of Wikipedia. I wanted to find more information on Tera Online. It's a game that I've been trying to get more info on. I searched and found that you removed the article. You or somebody please put it back online. --69.73.16.202 (talk) 16:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, and welcome! Sorry about the inconvenience, but the page was deleted following a deletion discussion which concluded that the topic is not adequately notable to be included. If you're able to find sufficiently credible sources to establish the subject's notability, it would be worth another look. Hope to see you around! Regards, –Juliancolton | Talk 23:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

out of date link

Note #7 link to Republic 368a does not work. Here is the working one: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Plat.+Rep.+2.368a Eameece (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)E. A. Meece Nov.24, 2009[reply]

Sorry, I don't follow. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

out of date link

Note #7 link to Republic 368a on Plato page does not work. Here is the working one: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Plat.+Rep.+2.368a Eameece (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)E. A. Meece Nov.24, 2009[reply]

Request

Haven't done one of these in a while :) Anyway, Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 25, 2009—On the Origin of Species needs to be italicized. Same with Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 26, 2009. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 01:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coaching

Hi, I don't want to seem pushy, but....

Were you aware that I had answered the last questions on my coaching page?

Obviously, I realise that you could just be too busy! But I just wanted to make sure that you knew that I had answered the questions!

Thanks, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 01:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, looks like I forgot to add that page to my watchlist... –Juliancolton | Talk 01:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! I have now completed the CSD questions. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 09:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have completed the IAR questions (along with a comment on PRODs). -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spacetime

Hi, Julian!

I would like to avoid editwar at Spacetime page in history section. You can see the discussion here: Talk:Spacetime#Pacha: spacetime in Incas' mindset. I guess mentioning Incan concept of pacha is quite interesting but my worthy opponent thinks that it isn't to serious to mention in the strict scientific context. Could you be the arbiter? Raoul NK (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Sorry, but I'm a little short on time as of late, and since I'm fully unfamiliar with the topic at hand, I think it's probably best to contact another admin. I can help out with any specific tasks, though. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question about deletion of The_Big_Switch

I followed the link from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Carr looking for information on Carr's book "The Big Switch: Rewiring the World, From Edison to Google".

It appears that this article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Switch - was deleted with the reason "Non-notable TV show". I was looking for information on the book by Nicholas Carr, not a TV Show.

Is the reason given incorrect? or was the article mistakenly deleted? or was the link originally pointing to a TV show article.

If there was a good article about Carr's book, could it be restored?

Michaelplevy (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)michaelplevy[reply]

Looks like the deletion was indeed accurate, as a glance at the former article seems to suggest it was about some sort of TV show. However, it was in a rather poor condition, so it's possible that it simply lacked adequate context and it was, in fact, a book. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Friday Night Live! with Mike Koncan

An article that you have been involved in editing, Friday Night Live! with Mike Koncan, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friday Night Live! with Mike Koncan. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I agreed with your refusal to speedy this; I left a note on the talk page suggesting that this seemed to be primarily web content because the TV presentation would have such a limited audience (I think fewer than 100), but I suspect this might have looked quite a bit like an end-run, so I'm happy to take it to AfD, and thanks for keeping me to the strict interpretation. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Kiss All the Boys

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kiss All the Boys. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Malkinann (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calling for uninvolved admin to observe user behavior

You may not choose to assist, but I see you as an administrator who rarely edits in the ACW cluster and a long-time Military History project participant. I need some uninvolved eyes to look at the user behavior of User:Valkyrie Red. The user seems to have a lot of passion for making one specific change in infoboxes: adding the modifier "decisive" to the idiom "victory". I think it's fair to say that the user seems to spend a large percentage of edits making this singular change, or arguing the position in talk. User has developed an annoying habit of actually declaring victory (in talk and in edit summaries) when other users tire of the discussion, even if a clear consensus against user's position exists. I'm wondering if a topic ban might eventually be necessary. Thanks even if you choose not to get involved this time. BusterD (talk) 03:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the appropriate actions. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't whether you feel it is appropriate, but since you have blocked the user I would like to request that if he files for an unblock or if his disruption continues after the week is over that you also take into consideration his refusal to sign talk page posts. Along with explicit and helpful personal instructions at [7] and previously [8], SineBot has left five template notices on the user's talk page regarding WP:SIG. At minimum I would like to see you strongly urge him to sign posts, as other users consider it time consuming to check page histories to verify the poster, and archiving bots require timestamps to archive outdated posts. Beyond that, I think if it is possible under admin guidelines you should require him to sign posts in the future as a condition of unblocking. I find it very difficult to assume good faith overall for this user, and also find it very hard to believe that his computer, as he claimed previous to the second diff above, makes it impossible for him to sign posts. Sswonk (talk) 04:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You don't need a keyboard to type four tildes. There's a bar of characters beneath the save button, so that shouldn't be an excuse. ZooFariThank you Wikipedia! 04:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I inaccurately typed "keyboard" when the actual word used was "computer", and quickly changed it a moment after my initial post. It looks like you read the first version and typed your response while I was changing it to "computer". Either way, your statement expresses my opinion as well, and in fact I explained that to the user in the second diff. Basically, you're right, if someone is able to edit text, there should be no problem adding a signature. Sswonk (talk) 05:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, will do. Certainly finding it hard to AGF here. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what's going on here

I noticed you reverted 3 edits to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/HYP (universities). Looks like this VfD is in today's AfD log, added by Pickbothmanlol (talk · contribs). Looks like this VfD somehow slipped through the cracks and was left open since 2005. A second VfD, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/College admissions and ranking shorthands in the United States was started on the same article several months later, and the article has since been redirected. Should the VfD be closed, and deleted from today's log? KuyaBriBriTalk 05:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, done. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blizzards

Hi, Julian. I was hoping you could clarify why it's okay for Blizzard of '77 to redirect to the article on the blizzard, but it's not okay to be the title of that article. The two situations strike me as equivalent. Powers T 16:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that such events as blizzards require some form of disambiguation, be it by year, location, intensity, etc. As I said, there were several snowstorms during 1977 that might have fit the criteria for a blizzard, and the one in western NY wasn't so dominant that it is the exclusive use of the term "Blizzard of 97". While the main title is indeed currently a redirect—and there are unlikely to be issues amongst Wikipedia pages—in my opinion anything that reduces confusion within reason is acceptable. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the presence of the redirect is itself an indication that the one in western NY was that dominant. (And trust me, it was; I can pretty much guarantee no other blizzard that year dropped nearly as much snow over nearly so wide an area.) You certainly haven't pointed any out that could make a reasonable claim to compare. Powers T 13:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be perfectly honest, I don't really have any further arguments to add. I just feel that "Blizzard of '77" is too vague for no additional benefit. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnie

Why thank you! It feels like it's been ages since I had a barnstar, so it's especially warmly welcomed, esp as CHU is usually pretty thankless (curiously, mostly even from those who get a rename). Mind you, I suppose clerks get even less thanks, so thank you for all your efforts. Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 12:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, almost all work on WP is under-appreciated. Something we need to address as the project continues to grow. Oh well, keep up the good work and see you around. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Thanksgiving!

 December21st2012Freak Happy Thanksgiving! has given you a Turkey! Turkeys promate WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a turkey, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy Thanksgiving!

Spread the goodness of turkey by adding {{subst:User:December21st2012Freak/Thanksgiving Turkey}} to their talk page with a friendly message. 

December21st2012Freak  Happy Thanksgiving! 16:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, happy Turkey Day to you as well! –Juliancolton | Talk 16:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving! I am thankful for you and your contributions here! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, same to you. :) Way too much pie though! *loosens belt* –Juliancolton | Talk 22:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback permission.

You replied to my request for rollback, and when I try to reply, the edit dialog doesn't show me the correct source of the page. What should have been added was:

Yes, I was introduced by a close friend of mine, and edited as an anon for some time. Thank you, ContinueWithCaution (talk) 03:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Once again, thank you! ContinueWithCaution (talk) 03:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good then,  Done. Cheers, –Juliancolton | Talk 03:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Small favor

Hello. You could move files at Commons, right? Would you mind moving this file to File:Gibraltar Airport panorama.jpg? Wikipedia won't let me create the file page on Wikipedia because of the title. Thanks and happy holidays :-) ZooFariThank you Wikipedia! 15:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Cheers, NW (Talk) 15:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! ZooFariThank you Wikipedia! 15:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for reverting vandalism from my user page. Your efforts are greatly appreciated. ContinueWithCaution (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help :) –Juliancolton | Talk 20:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-request for Permissions

After observing comments on my rollback permission request (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions), I have taken on editing with the use of Twinkle. Please reconsider my request for permissions so that I can use Huggle. Thanks. Morning277 (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your recent efforts. I'd like to see a couple more days of anti-vandalism work before I would feel comfortable giving you the rollback tool. Is that reasonable? –Juliancolton | Talk 20:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reasonable? ABSOLUTELY!! See you in a couple of days! Morning277 (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After reading this. I laughed out loud. At least he's eager. I see no revert problems though so, it's all good. --Frozen4322 : Chat 23:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC) (Just had to get my two bits in)[reply]
Glad I could make you laugh. At least I now know that there are people on Wikipedia who can show more than one emotion.  :) Morning277 (talk) 14:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admin coaching - I'm away but not totally...

Just a quick note to let you know that although I will not be as active during the next week as I would normally be (my brother is visiting!), I am hoping to be able to pop on most days for a bit, to check messages, etc, so I can still respond to messages left on my coaching page - but there might be a longer delay than usual! "Normal service will be resume shortly" (i.e. from Monday 7th).

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Halim Nassim Abi Chahine

You just deleted this article which has a number of images which are probably copyright infringements. For example, the uploader of this one states h'es the copyright older as the grandson of the 20-something young man in the image. Technically, almost possible, but unlikely. What happens to the images now? If they're copyright violations they should most certainly be removed from Wikipedia ASAP. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a list of the images: Image:DSCI0122.JPG, Image:crossing his arms, Hotel-Dieu Paris 1939.jpg, Image:DSCI0120.jpg, Image:amioun 8.jpg, Image:amioun 6.jpg, Image:DSCI01121.jpg, Image:DSCI0093.jpg. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, probably best to discuss the images at WP:FFD then. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nihonjoe for posting the files. I'm going to past posting these obvious copyvios for deletion, there are six files, and I've tried following the page of instructions at files for deletion before-impossible, and way too much work. Can't you just delete them? They're mostly obvious copyvios, poor quality photocopies, and they're orphans just trashing up the servers for no purpose. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 01:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that they're likely copyvios, but until we have explicit evidence, they can't be speedily deleted. (FWIW, see WP:PERF; the presence of these images really have no impact on the servers.) –Juliancolton | Talk 04:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a concern about performance, it's a concern about crap. And it's a concern about wikipedia containing material in violation of copyright. But, not my concern anymore. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Juliancolton/Archive_22"