User talk:Od Mishehu/Archive7

Speedy deletion

Hi, An article I created was deleted with speedy deletion. I created a first draft and while I was still editing my notes on my laptop the article already got a speedy deletion tag. I added an hangon tag, and thought that I can then work on the article the next day to improve it.

The notes for the deletion say:

• 11:18, 18 March 2008 Od Mishehu (Talk | contribs) deleted "Lobstersoft" ‎ (It is an article about a company that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7). Importance must actually be indicated in article.)
• 10:05, 18 March 2008 Od Mishehu (Talk | contribs) restored "Lobstersoft" ‎ (3 revisions restored: Giving the author a fair chance to fix up the artocle - he has made an attempt to stop the deletion on the talk page)
• 10:04, 18 March 2008 Od Mishehu (Talk | contribs) deleted "Lobstersoft" ‎ (It is an article about a company, corporation, organization, or group that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. ([[WP:CSD#A7|CSD)

I thought the point of the hangon tag was to give the author the chance to improve the article. What should I do know to create an article which meets wikipedia's guidelines?

Alkasalka (talk) 05:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The point of the {{hangon}} tag is to give the author some time to improve the article. However, if for an hour there is no improvement, or reason to think there will be imminent improvement, the page will be deleted. What happened here is:

1. I deleted the page at 10:04. What I saw seemed to be an obvious case of CSD A7 - "
2. Immediately after deleting the page, the software pointed out to me that there was a talk page - I usually check this out before deleting articles, especially when there's a {{hangon}} tag, but didn't that time aparently.
3. I undeleted the page, and responded on the talk page.
4. Over an hour later, when looking at the candidates for speedy deletion, I saw that this article was still no better off, and you didn't react on the talk page. I deleted the article, and added a comment at the end of the reason for deletion - "Importance must actually be indicated in article".

If you weant to create a new article about this company, which does indicate the importance of the company, feel free to do so. If you want me to let you continue what you started, I can undelete it and move it into your namespace, where A7 doesn't apply, and then you can move it back when it's ready. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Your Templates

Hello, I'm the one who requested the double redirect fix on Krystal (Star Fox) a day ago (thanks for the repair!). I was looking at your userpage and noticed your templates. Many of them could be used by the Uncategorized Task Force. Would you mind if I added them to the page? Also, would you like to join the task force? Thanks for considering it. ~EdGl 16:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Bell Racing Helmets Europe under article 7

You deleted this article on march 11 at 16:00 hrs under article 7. I would like to contest this as the achievement of being partner to the FIA to develop new standard of protection for helmets, or being the only company to have made these helmets available is really very significant. The research of this standard took several years and over a million of dollars of the FIA institute. It gives 40% added protection in certain types of impact and really saves lifes! Second reason: wikipedia does have a mention on Bell Sports - which is a related company - with does not have any notable facts in the article and has not achieved our standard. Thank you for answering.

Bell001 (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It's unclear that this company has separate notability from Bell Sports. In addition, I see a conflict of interests on your part, and the only source you could give was the website of the company in question. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Od, thank you for your reply which means you are trying to protect the seriousness of Wikipedia, and I realise it is difficult to sort the real stuff from the fraud - however please note that Bell Inc has sold off certain of its rights, that various companies own the rights to use the Bell name and that they have no links whatsoever with each other :

<Formatting of the next section done by Od Mishehu>

1. Bell Racing Europe is a company which is incorporated under Belgian law and that has no common ownership which Bell Sports or Bell Inc.

   The owners of Bell Racing Europe bought the rights to use the Bell name in 2001 and operate on a TOTALLY INDEPENDENT basis and have no links with Bell Sports Inc other than the fact that Bell Inc owns the name. This is a public fact. The company is run by its owners since 1994. Therefore any achievement or merit by Bell Racing Europe only reverts to Bell Racing Europe. Bell Racing Europe has to be considered on its own.

2. What notability does Bell Sports have which justifies publication, that Bell Racing Europe would not have ?
3. What conflict of interest is there as I cannot see it since it concerns 2 separate companies operating on different continents?
4. My source are the owners of the company Bell Racing Europe (I am their press officer ) and several published documents both in the specialised press and on relevant websites
5. Bell Racing Europe is to launch a new project soon without precedent which will again set standards in this business which is auto racing and the most visible such as Formula One.

Please let me know what you need to re instore the article. Thank you so much. Bell001 (talk) 10:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

1. You still haven't responded to the conflict of interests issue - you are, according to your own statement, their press officer.
2. Please don't cite the existence of an other page - talk about the merit of your page.
3. If, as you claim, there are third party sources on the web, please state them - that can only help you.
4. Your last claim has no merit - future notability is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

--

1. COI: I do not write about myself, I write about a company I represent and all facts have been clearly checked before posting. The article only mentiones achieved merits of the company. According to your rules, this is acceptable. The article is not promoting any sales or others, it just mentions merits. Again, it appears acceptable from your rules.

   After all, this concerns safety matters.

2. Your reason to delete quoted "no separate notability from Bell Sports"/ Bell Racing Europe is indeed mentioned on the Bell Sports Page which is the only reason I mentioned them. Again, Bell Racing Europe is one of the 3 companies worldwide to have achieved these merits and to have gone beyond them - the page only informs the public of the achievements.
3. The merits of Bell Racing Europe can be verified at the FIA webpage referende 8860 standard and the Snell Foundation webpage.

it is unclear to me what you require or how this article should be edited. If the editors feel that Bell Racing Europe does not correspond to the image of Wikipedia, why are we mentioned on the page of Bell Sports ? We are only linked to them because we license the name from them, any merit is individual and this goes both ways. Thank youBell001 (talk) 10:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

From WP:COI:

Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, its author's family members, employer, associates, or their business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest.

If you represent the company, and write an article as their press officer (your claim, not mine), then it's clearly done to promote the visibility of the company. If the company is, in fact, notable, then let an uninvolved user write an article about it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Try to delete User-Od Misheu tst.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Try to delete User-Od Misheu tst.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 11:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

World War II JB-2 Mobile Launch Site

I don't get your comment. The two articles are identical except for one word difference in the title. They are in fact forked, so I may have described the reason for deletion--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason for the second not to be a redirect to the first? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Shalom. There is no reason to redirect because the article is not an alternative name. The display is part of a museum. and although technically speaking it is a mobile launching site display, it is not going anywhere from the museum site, so it is just a launching site display. It just seems to me that two copies were created.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that the creation of the second page wasn't intended as vandalism, and short of that - duplicate pages aren't covered by any criterion for speedy deletion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleting R_physicist

I am trying to delete my user account R_physicist, and all the others that go with it, but seem only to be able to "rename". You have reverted one of these redirects. Could you please tell me how to simply delete everything? Thanks R_Physicist (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleting R_physicist

I am trying to delete my user account R_physicist, and all the others that go with it, but seem only to be able to "rename". You have reverted one of these redirects. Could you please tell me how to simply delete everything? Thanks R_Physicist (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no account deletion. What there is, is the right to vanish. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

129.11.76.229

Sure, I don't particularly care much. But it's a school ip, which means it'll probably be reblocked soon enough. It's often better to leave them blocked and just get people to email unblock for accounts with school IPs. WilyD 13:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

re Category:Alternate Wikipedia accounts of LessHeard vanU

Thank you for your message on my talkpage... I have read the pages linked, and attempted to resolve the matter, and have now thoroughly confused myself. Is there any possibility of you sorting this out for me? You may need to look at my contrib history and undo some of my flumping around... Sorry about this, but even after all this time Categories is something I am unable to get my head around. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I may have resolved it - I'm not sure how - since the template was removed from the above Category. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed uai

Per your comments, I have removed ReapeRs PreY from the list, thanks. Troplock (talk) 12:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Neve Gordon

I very strongly disagree with your decision to refuse protection for this article. Over the past month, there have been thirteen apparently libellous edits by confirmed or suspected sockpuppets of Borisyy, as well as several by sockpuppets of Runtshit. They all violate WP:BLP, and many of them repeat statements already found by two courts to be libellous, with the result that the subject of the article has been awarded damages. It is irresponsible to leave this article open to such abuse. RolandR (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I see 4 attacks in the past 2 weeks, 1 of which by a user who signed up 4 weeks earlier (and therefore autoconfirmed already). 3 attacks in 2 weeks (or even in 1 week) usually isn't enough for protection. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have the page on my watchlist, and if the attacks continue, I will be making a further request. Meanwhile, since at least three of these, and probably the fourth, are sockpuppets of a banned user, is there any action we can take to stop further ID registrations from the IP responsible? RolandR (talk) 08:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday I made such a request for Runshit. (Keep in mind that I don't know the IP address.) The request was replied with not-so-clear results. If you know of an other set of sockpuppets - feel free to make such a request yourself, you don't need to be an admin to make such requests. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

As you will have seen from the list of suspected sockpuppets, we do know several IPs being used by this vandal. However, most of these seem to be proxies accessed via an anonymising service, which makes it difficult. Some, however, can be identified. In addition, I am convinced that the same person is operating as Truthprofessor, Zuminous and Borisyy, making a total so far 0f 450 sockpuppets with almost 2500 edits over the past eighteen months. All of these operate in a similar manner, target similar articles, and make similar defamatory attacks on Jewish critics of Israel. Although each of these tends to focus on one set of articles (Zuminous attacks Barry Chamish, Borisyy attacks Neve Gordon, Truthprofessor defends Steven Plaut and Runtshit attacks me personally), there have been some crossover edits, reinforcing my belief. It is almost certain that Plaut himself is behind this. He has a history of operating in this way, and evidence from other sources shows a strong link between his proven vandalism elsewhere and the vandalism here. It is immensely frustrating that, despite the intervention of dozens of admins and countless editors, this vandal is still able to create new IDs daily and continue his attacks. Do you have any suggestion how to prevent this? RolandR (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The most that can be done is:

1. Block any sockpuppet of these users as soon as identified as such.
2. Requst at WP:CHECK to have their IP addresses blocked. The request can be made by any user, only checkuser users can actually see which IP addresses and ranges to block.
3. If any one article is attacked a lot in a short time span (3 attacks in 2 days is the minimum, probably), semi-protect it.

I see no other possible steps to take here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

But this is where we came in. I originally requested page protection for Neve Gordon after an admin refused to block an obvious sockpuppet of Borisyy, on the grounds that there had only been one edit. So, if the page can't be protected, the socks can't be blocked, and the use of anonymisers and proxies means that checkuser is ineffective, are we fated to go through this cycle endlessly? What a lovely prospect! RolandR (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I said 3 attacks in 2 days, not 2 weeks. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Danielpwnz

Hey, I really don't think this name was a username violation. "Pwn" is a username flag not because it's a violation, but because it's sometimes an indication of a vandal account. Since this user hadn't made any edits yet, I don't think we should automatically assume he's up to no good. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, why doesn't it have a WAIT_TILL_EDIT flag? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No idea. You'll have to talk to the guys that program that thing. Either way, "pwns" isn't supposed to be an automatic ticket to Blocksville, regardless of what the bot says. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the programmers; this is the users -mostly the admins, as the page is fully protected, but other users can make {{editprotected}} requests. The blacklist is at User:HBC NameWatcherBot/Blacklist. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Victor Allis

I must strongly object to your deletion of this article. Both the content of the article as well as the pages that link to it clearly demonstrate that he is a considerably authoritative figure in the field of abstract strategy game artificial intelligence, specifically when it comes to solving games. -- Dissident (Talk) 22:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:John Arthur Andrews

Footnotes still blocked for mysterious reason. At the same time there is a tag requesting footnotes! Bizarre. Jeremy (talk) 03:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Block on Thenationalohsunnysgodandhiderekworkersparty

As noted on WT:U and WT:UAA, the username policy has changed. It is no longer acceptable to block people solely for having a confusing username, because there are better ways to deal with such situations that do not involve blocking newbies except as a last resort.

I understand that the change was very recent, but before you make more username blocks, I'd ask you to reacquaint yourself with the username policy and the discussion surrounding it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It would probably be more helpful if you add this info to the header of WP:UAA. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi there. I just wanted to say thats for reverting the vandalism on my page! Sorry i dint say thanks sooner but you only really notice what has happened when you look in the history. Thanks again. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 12:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If I see vandalism, I revert it - no need to thank me. I was informed (via WP:UAA) of a suspicious account name, I checked its contribs to see if it seems to be a violation, and found that edit. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of the redirect left from moving your talk page

Okay, no problem SunCreator (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Dodona block

Hello Od Mishehu. I saw you shortened the block on Dodona. As I mentioned on that page, that was an Arbcom-related sanction, the relevant decision states: "Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue." I'm not sure, do you feel you have fulfilled this? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

the original, 3 month block, was. The later, indef block, was due to sockpuppetry. I left a 3 month block, effective as of the date of the discovery of the sockpuppetry. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This seems a rather risky interpretation to me. Fact is, this unblock is likely to be controversial and you should have brought it up with at least the blocking admin or on the noticeboard. (Heck, you should always do that, not just for Arbcom cases.) I'm certainly not happy with it, being the person who's going to bear the brunt of Dodona's renewed onslaught once he'll be back. The problem with Dodona's promise of no sockpuppetry is, we have gone through that same promise before (I had it on his word of honor, his Albanian "besa", no less.) But Dodona's "besa" always comes with an implicit disclaimer: I will keep my promise as long as you treat me fairly. Treating me fairly, in this instance, means: never blocking me. Thus, the promise only means: I will use no socks as long as I don't need them. Remember I told you so. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This whole block is the first time - if there are similar problems with this user later on, I won't be willing to accept this kind of thing. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not the first time, by a long shot. See why it's a good idea to talk to people and get acquainted with a case before making unblock decisions? This user had a year-long history of disruptive editing through anon IPs and throwaway accounts. The whole "Dodona" account thing was a second third fourth chance out on parole after a previous quasi community ban. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI, here's a selection of links and previous discussions dealing with this user. You will understand that I'm growing increasingly tired having to bring this up time and again. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of PIRRO BURRI. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You should never have shortened this block in a million years, and certainly not without consulting me first. At the time of the original 3 month block I explicitly warned Dodona that if he evaded the block with sockpuppets he would be indefinitely blocked. He did not listen. He has been given around a zillion chances. Please restore the indefinite block, or I will restore it myself and take you to ArbCom for undoing WP:ARBMAC blocks without proper consultation and familiarisation with the situation. Moreschi (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

LesTout.com New Wiki Content Posted

As requested, LesTout.com new wiki content posted in my user talk page. Thanks.--Shivaji Mitra (talk) 03:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Waiting for a decision. Not sure whom I should contact now. I left a message in my user talk page also. Thanks. --Shivaji Mitra (talk) 11:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"As For Now" album

Hi, Od. The user who posted that article also posted several other similar articles about his band and they were all deleted, so I put a custom speedy notice back on it. Brings up a good question, though: Should there be a new speedy category for self-released albums by non-notable bands? Do keep up the good work.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If you think so, bring it up at WT:CSD. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Check your email

Please check your email for a question from me. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I answered you by e-mail. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for deleting the page that i no longer needed i just have one question how to i take it off the archive box on my talk page just wondering if you know how?

I Really Appreciate it

Thank You

Staffwaterboy ^Talk♂ 16:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to restore the to pages that were deleted it was suppose to before the second to last one and the last one on the archive page /talk page

Category:2008 births

Please create Category:2008 births, if for no other reason than because Princess Eléonore of Belgium, 5th in line for the throne, was born in 2008. Her article is up for AfD but the vote is at least 8-4 in favor of keep. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Disregard, it's been taken care of:

• 01:25, 24 April 2008 Bencherlite (Talk | contribs) restored "Category:2008 births" ‎ (2 revisions restored: restore, no longer empty)

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

I'm not asking for a barnstar, but even though you hardly ever give those out, you may see Wikipedia:Barnstars for more info.Kitty53 (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for CarDomain

An editor has asked for a deletion review of CarDomain. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Narcissa

I've initiated a discussion to convert the said redirect to a disambiguation page. Further details at Talk:Harry Potter universe#Narcissa, where your opinion would be surely welcome ;-). Regards, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 07:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The Little Kicks Deletion Outrage

Hi, I'm aware you have a Barnstar for diligence, yet a kneejerk deletion of this page seems somewhat extreme in the light of ALOT of effort put in to arranging for a disambiguation page for this issue. Can you please undo the deletion of this page? Plus can you create a disambiguation page. Seen as you know how these things work better than I do, clearly. I have avoided simply hitting undo as I want to resolve this debate and not inflame it. Many thanks, Ed.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwalton (talk • contribs) 16:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Victor Allis

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Victor Allis. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Dissident (Talk) 23:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)