User talk:Logan/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Logan. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Hello, there is an upcoming, very informal discussion on IRC on the freenode channel ##chzzalpha ^connect (quick webchat link) on the 6th March 2011 at 17:00 UTC concerning ways to improve help over IRC, and other matters relating to Wiki?edia channels in general, but mostly about #wikipedia-en-help.

This is just a friendly, informal chat. Nothing official, no fixed agenda. There is nothing 'secretive' about it - anyone is quite welcome. Some of you had a chat there, the other day. We wanted to invite them to carry on discussions, at a prearranged time - and thought it courteous to ask group contacts and channel founders too. Or if you signed up manually.

If you aren't at all interested, feel free to remove yourself from the names we've spammed this to, which is in User:123Hedgehog456/IRC informal chat users. If you didn't sign up, well, people have been adding loads of names to the list, so someone might have accidentally added your name.

Thank you,  Chzz  ►  and 123Hedgehog456 19:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC).

Message made by Chzz, with help from 123Hedgehog456.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of 123Hedgehog456 (talk) at 22:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC).

Am I not allowed to format the pictures into a nice format before I continue uploading the rest of the images? The best image so far has yet to be uploaded. I upload, edit, preview changes until I get it right (by reading other wiki pages and see how they handled the tables so I can copy them). 20 minutes later, I get multiple people complaining that I have everything wrong.

They want me to merge this into the mahoning river main page. sure, I'll merge it but I just wanted to clean up the main page from all 18 flood images. 00:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wheller007 (talk • contribs)

I edited the other page but not sure if I did that correctly. I use this username all over the internet so I am comfortable with it, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Takealeftdoug (talk • contribs) 03:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Königlicher Notar Hugo Peus.jpg :-D --MGA73 (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe...? :P Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 18:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Please explain the concern that caused you to flag John Pope (traveler). I'd appreciate a few words on the article's talk page, and other editors probably would as well. While there, would you consider giving your opinion on whether to move the article? — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 13:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the move for clarification. I have done so on the article's talk page. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 16:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

May I politely suggest that adding five Template:Empty section (talk · links · edit) tags to New York City Ballet 2011 Winter repertory when it already has Template:Under construction (talk · links · edit) at the top, while not harmful, is not terribly useful? — Robert Greer (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to remove them if you find them unconstructive. Since the article is under construction, it provides a gateway for others to provide more content. Please note that this is not an {{inuse}} tag, which would not warrant these tags. Happy editing! Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 19:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, saw your reverts go by to the article, which were good, but I don't think you needed to warn the IP - a simple note that we don't need to track every race result of the season would suffice; calling the IP's edit disruptive seems a little bite-y to me. umrguy42 23:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The comment was already written in the article, so the user was clearly adding the information to be WP:POINTY. However, in the future, a personal message would be more conducive to better editing. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 23:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Done! You shouldn't have any problems, but as the userright is newly turned-on here, just keep an eye out for anything strange with the feature. Thanks, and enjoy! --joe decker^{talk to me} 00:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the vandalism patrol. Much appreciated. MarmadukePercy (talk) 05:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. :) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 05:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah... really. What just happened?!?!?. One moment, things are going normal, the next, everything is absolutely mental. There was so much vandalism! It looked to be comping from a specific group of people. Almost like it was planned.... Bped1985 (talk) 05:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:DENY, I am not going to say the website that coordinated the attack, but we are aware of who is causing the vandalism on video game articles. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 05:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Haha, ya I know which one it is also. One of the... "misguided editors"... *cough cough* was smart enough to post it on a few of the articles he "contributed to"... *cough cough* and I noticed it as I was reverting. Bped1985 (talk) 06:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't know about the video games, but a lot of articles on my watch list were getting hit. Anyways, thanks to all you vandal-fighting ninjas! MarmadukePercy (talk) 07:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, regarding this. Please verify it yourself if you don't believe it. The site's link is already given and what I added isn't subjective or some fact that needs to be reference. (And you actually readded unsourced material, btw.) I know it's because I'm an anon and you got some fun tool you use to revert people, but please slow down. 75.4.146.74 (talk) 08:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we generally use inline citations for every fact stated in the article, as that shows where the information is coming from and how reliable it is. For help with formatting inline citations, you can see WP:REFB, which will give you a good tutorial. The content was reverted because it was an unsourced statement. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 12:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but would you cite something that can be verified by going to the primary source? That would look silly if you had 100s of links to the same exact source after every sentence. It's not subjective or original research like I said, so there's no need for secondary sources. The whole article is about the subject. Why doesn't the first line "ImageShack is a free image hosting website" need a reference? Or any other sentence without a little number after it? Can I just remove all that? (Rhetorical, btw.) I understand. It was because of the way I worded it. I said a the dirty phrase "[someone] claims..." without a direct citation, which caused an immediate reaction on your part due to your training. I'm sorry for that and should have expected the result. The thing is, you readded unsourced stuff I was removing. I would really like to link to the direct quote for what I added but I can't because you have to upload something first in order to see that page. What can I do? 75.4.146.74 (talk) 05:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I've seen your edit. I want to move the article from "Hungarian people" to "Hungarians", because in the lead it is already used this form. Don't you think it would be a necessary move? (Iaaasi (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC))

Hi, I didn't nominate this page, I only retagged it. The nominator was User:Wuhwuzdat. The difference between nominating and retagging seems to escape many of the automated scripts. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 13:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. The automated script detected you as the latest tagger, so it notified you, but you were clearly not the original nominator. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 16:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You removed the A7 speedy template from Write This Down (band) with the comment "Speedy deletion contested. Criterion A7 does not apply: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7". What criteria of WP:BAND exactly does it meet since I don't see it? Since I don't see it, I have applied the A7 again. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You are confusing notability with significance. Significance is a lower standard than notability. A7 does not apply to articles that make a claim of significance, even though it may not be notable. Notability discussions are usually relegated to WP:AfD. Also, please do not readd CSD templates before discussing first. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 16:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Smart_Cover_DYK_removed. Mono (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

If you are going to make edits such as this can you at least check afterwards that Citation bot filled in all of the information from the citation correctly, and fix it when it doesn't? In this case the first reference had broken math formatting in the title, the third one lost its authorlink, the third and fourth titles are both overcapitalized, the third and fourth authors lost their first names, and the fourth one lost its link on the journal title.—David Eppstein (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I actually immediately reported the bug at User talk:Citation bot, as the latex code was causing the title to display incorrectly. I did not realize that authors' first names were lost in the edits, however. I'll be more careful with {{cite doi}} in the future, but it tends to clean up the citations section significantly. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 23:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It may clean things up, but it also loses information, such as the wikilinks on authors and journal names. The bot can't reasonably be expected to look those up (they're not usually on the same spelling as in the citation), so it takes manual cleanup. In this case, there was nothing wrong with the original citation, and you gave me 20 minutes of editing work cleaning it up just to restore it to its previous good state. That doesn't seem like a good tradeoff to me. In addition I am somewhat suspicious of cite doi for a couple of reasons: (1) when editing the main article text it's difficult to tell which code goes with which citation due to the lack of human-readable information in the doi code, and (2) the cite doi subpages aren't likely to be on anyone's watchlists so if they ever get targeted for vandalism it could be a long time before they're found and cleaned up. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Logan, please note that the following IP Address (86.161.191.236) is Vandalising the 'Pierre Lewis' page, please could you ban them from this or give warning. Greatly appreciate your time, many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.179.245 (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I have a source Nfl.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.197.253 (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

There. Am I doing better with the paperwork? ;-) -- llywrch (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello Logan, as you see I am a newbie. Maybe it's because I'm not a TV watcher but it seems there are an amazing number of unimportant TV personages in Wikipedia. Were you saying that this man should not be deleted, or that he should not be SPEEDILY deleted? How unimportant do you have to be before you get booted out of Wikipedia? Who decides? Jane Peppler (talk) 12:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

I don't understand this edit. What is the connection between Tripoli and mitiga? --The very model of a minor general (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Mmm, it was redirect vandalism that triggered the tool to detected mitiga as an alternative term. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at User talk:Ajl772#Speedy deletion contested: MGCV's talk page. Message added 04:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC).

At the time I read the page I saw little context. The page was quite confusing and did not mention as much as it does now. However, I should have just written on the talkpage for that article, rather that hastily nominating it for deletion. I have written my suggestions on the article's talkpage. CP72 03:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do something else for a while, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.85.132.134 (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you please tell me what constitues as a reliable source. I am not trying to vandalise, just trying to update their biography, everybody in Ireland knows they are homosexuals and there are many web articles confirming that.

Thanks, SM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.66.150 (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Logan—

The assigning of patronage is something which is always rooted first and foremost in the development of local cults for a particular saint, Marian apparition, etc. My recent addition to the page about patron saints is based solely on my experience, having lived in those communities and participated in the local veneration of saints who are considered special protectors of a place. In this case, Houston, Texas and Knoxville, Tennessee. I have no citation, but the saints I added were the appropriate saints in question. I notice on that page that of the hundreds of saints listed, only one saint is given a citation: St Benedict, whom nearly everyone knows to be the patron of all Europe. No saint is listed for the places I added, and my citation is simply personal participation in the local cults in question.

Sincerely, Brother Francis Damian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.86.45.95 (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

One question - who would possibly WRITE anything ABOUT an online music magazine, just as such, about it´s existance etc - without the obvious connection "business partners" (labels, promoters, bands using quotations from reviews/interviews) - which seems to be the only acceptable reference/source for Wikipedia reviewers here???? How far from reality are you? Where I come from, no competing media e.g. print magazines/newspapers mention each other, write about EACH OTHER... unless their editors have a quarrel ... A friend - an artist - has warned me already that this is a weird reviewing system with nowhere to appeal/complain. His photo uploading request was denied, although he had made those photos all by HIMSELF, of HIS OWN ARTWORK, reason: he doesn´t own the copyrights. So an artist does not own the rights of HIS OWN artwork, his OWN photos???!!!! just ridiculous... don´t worry, I try next time only when I have my title page of MIRROR, SUNDAY TIMES, COSMOPOLITAN, PLAYBOY and THE TIMES, of course. bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.108.22.71 (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

   Please revert immediately your recent talk-pg Rdr, or explain why reversion of is not necessary.
--Jerzy•t 16:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

All other CSD talk pages redirect to Template talk:Db-meta, as it helps centralize discussions. There is a box on that page that says, "To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, all CSD template talk pages redirect here. For discussions on each individual template prior to July 2008, see the histories of each talk page." They probably forgot to redirect Template talk:db-disambig to Template talk:Db-meta, which is my reason for redirecting. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 16:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I have also copied your suggestion for Template:Db-disambig to Template talk:Db-meta so that it is not lost in the history. Sorry about the confusion! Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 17:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

   I'd argue that the Rdr'd (former) talk pages also require central archiving of the old discussion, but thank you for your thoro explanation, diligently moving that page from my

WTF?

list to my

I can't fix every WP problem [frown] -- nor in practice any of them, if i insist on seeing every one that i notice thru to its complete resolution! [shrug]

virtual list. Happy editing, and thanks again.
--Jerzy•t 17:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You said the article was in English. It is in Dutch (hence your tag). I am beginning to suspect that English and Dutch are pretty much the same to you.--The Master of Mayhem 16:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The reason why the speedy was declined was because A2 only applies to articles that exist as exact copies on other Wikipedia languages. This one did not - it was only written in another language, which means that it cannot be tagged as an A2. I changed it to a {{notenglish}} tag accordingly. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 16:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I am opening a dispute against you. We have been working with Caltech for the last two years to develop a method of forming parts from amorpous metals using capacitor discharge technology. What expertise do you have in this technology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilrlw (talk • contribs) 01:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

IWT was contracted directly by Caltech to develope a method of forming small part from amorpous metals using capacitor discharge power supplies. This is a fact not promotionalism.Neilrlw (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Where would you suggest that this breakthrough in capacitor discharge technology be discussed if not in the area it was designed to work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilrlw (talk • contribs) 02:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Please see WP:VPT#WikiProject Saskatchewan newsletters filling up CAT:CSD, and this edit which fixed the problem. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Logan, I have no idea how to use Wiki much less talk to you, but my link was detected as spam and I can assure you it is not. Several people told me to add my link rearding Stieff to Wiki because I have up to date photos I shot myself of the factory on my web page and a very special never before seen photo of a family picnic of the Stieff's.

I do not sell photos or anything from my site, in fact I'm a trash-artist and published book author-- this is my personal blog and site, of which I do not sell direct anything so I do not understand what is going on here or why I'm being detected as spam. I don't have an account perhaps that is why.

In my article as well there are links to previously undiscovered digital articles from several sources,(you can check the post out yourself, I was really proud of it!!!) My site is a website (iramency.com) and a blog (which is why I used that particular web address), I live near Stieff silver and thought others may wish to read it. I am cutting and pasting the activity for you to review, as I have no idea how to resubmit. I would hate to think that people would not find the links I have highlighted if they are Stieff collectors as there is great interest in the history of the Baltimore family . Thanks for your consideration. My article is here below at the blog address, I hope you can read it and reconsider.

(cur | prev)  17:27, 3 April 2011 Logan (talk | contribs) m (6,160 bytes) (Reverted edits by 70.22.7.4 (talk) identified as spam (HG)) (undo) 

(cur | prev) 17:27, 3 April 2011 70.22.7.4 (talk) (6,390 bytes) (→References) (undo) (cur | prev) 17:24, 3 April 2011 XLinkBot (talk | contribs) (6,160 bytes) (BOT--Reverting link addition(s) by 70.22.7.4 to revision 420837292 (http://www.iramency.blogspot.com/2011/04/long-life-stieff-silver-factory-love.html)) (undo)

Sincerely, 70.22.7.4 (talk) 01:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Cindy Fahnestock-Schafer, non wiki account holder. email IraMency@verizon.net phone 410-908-9241 site owner of that blog and PROUD BALTIMORIAN

(cur | prev) 17:27, 3 April 2011 Logan (talk | contribs) m (6,160 bytes) (Reverted edits by 70.22.7.4 (talk) identified as spam (HG)) (undo) (cur | prev) 17:27, 3 April 2011 70.22.7.4 (talk) (6,390 bytes) (→References) (undo) (cur | prev) 17:24, 3 April 2011 XLinkBot (talk | contribs) (6,160 bytes) (BOT--Reverting link addition(s) by 70.22.7.4 to revision 420837292 (http://www.iramency.blogspot.com/2011/04/long-life-stieff-silver-factory-love.html)) (undo)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.7.4 (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC) 

Please see WP:EL for external links policy. We generally do not link to blogs in the External links section, especially if you wrote the article, as it could be considered self-promotion. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

My edit of the page was for academic purposes to spark a discussion on the viability of Wikipedia as a reliable source of information. I would appreciate you not blocking the edit for the next two hours, after which time I intend to remove the post. Thankyou for your understanding in advance.

-Andrew McBain (from Australia)

150.203.195.171 (talk) 01:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we cannot leave quasi-vandalistic edits on an article just to accommodate a user who wants to make an academic point. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

However, just to clarify, you can put such information in your userspace if you create an account. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ACC tool users' pledge, a page that you may have interest in (as you participated in deletion discussions on a template related to this page), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:ACC tool users' pledge and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:ACC tool users' pledge during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 10:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey

Just curious - for a file which is very enwiki-specific, is there any reason to transfer this to commons (besides it being PD)? I'm not complaining, simply curious, as it popped up on my watchlist.

[stwalkerster|talk] 11:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I have changed some settings to help reduce the crap that fills up the IRC channels I am connected to when my connection resets. I have turned off auto-connect (a huge hep) and have agreed to have me kicked (NOT BANNED) from a channel when I am spamming to much. All you need to do is get promoted to operator, right click on a user, hover your mouse over operator commands, and click on "kick from channel" or something like that. I hope this helps you. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^(Shout!) 01:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Glad that you have made those changes to your client. I only temp-banned you due to the spam - in no way was it permanent. I actually removed the ban soon after you left. Let me know if you have any further questions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I have changed some settings to help reduce the crap that fills up the IRC channels I am connected to when my connection resets. I have turned off auto-connect (a huge hep) and have agreed to have me kicked (NOT BANNED) from a channel when I am spamming to much. All you need to do is get promoted to operator, right click on a user, hover your mouse over operator commands, and click on "kick from channel" or something like that. I hope this helps you. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^(Shout!) 01:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Glad that you have made those changes to your client. I only temp-banned you due to the spam - in no way was it permanent. I actually removed the ban soon after you left. Let me know if you have any further questions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice 'assist', cheers.

Also - why aren't you lurking here? You prob should :p  Chzz  ►  23:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

On this article The Sims 3 Generations. lolifofo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolifofo (talk • contribs) 21:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry if this IP address has made any unconstructive edits, or vandalism, but it is a public computer and many people use it. Just to say, if you see this IP make any other edits, know that it isn`t one person. Of course, I will respect the editing guidelines if ever I do edit. Have a nice day! --207.164.143.162 (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for that response. As you may already know, creating an account will prevent you from getting those notices if you didn't make the edits, as your edits would no longer be associated with that IP address. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 17:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, i'm a fan of Kelly Kelly, and i follow all latest news of her. And i'm tried to add some info about her, and why all the info has been removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princez81 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only ‘’’5 minutes’’’ cooldenny (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I remind you that this is a part of WP:Deletion policy, and you might want to read it before listing additional articles for deletion. The BLP prod of Alexander Rofé was especially ill-advised. Did you read the article, or just look and see no reference section? If their books can be verifiedf, as they can, it isn't a valid BLP prod, and he is pretty much unquestionably notable under WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I cannot find the article to which you are referring. What was/is the title of the article? Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 11:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

sorry for the typo, its Alexander Rofe. similarly, though perhaps a little less obviously, Meg Waite Clayton. Enrico Rossi (politician), and some others. (It was other eds. whoi removed most of the prods that were removed. True, the first step is to identify them, which is certainly true, but if the first person who works on it does a very quick check, then it can save a good deal of work for multiple people further on. Below a certain level it probably doesnt make sense to check if the check is likely to be difficult--I'm perfectly ready to do the non-obvious ones after the 10 days when they're ready to be delete before I actually do the deletion. (though I must admit I've given up on African footballers) But above a certain level, where if the material is true there will certainly be a ref, it does make sense. (for one thing, it lets us get the clear hoaxes out faster by speedy). DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Please note that I was going through an extensive database report just to clean up the backlogs. My PROD BLPs had nothing to do with the articles' notability; it was simply added when no references existed in the article at the time. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 20:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

DGG is getting his wires crossed. WP:BEFORE is ONLY part of the AfD policy and process, not the WP:BLPPROD policy. I believe that a BLPPROD can be an important tool in getting the article creators to do the correct amount of work and actually only create sourced articles - I wish that there wasn't a need for the burden to be transferred to editors like DGG and that it was kept with the article creators. The-Pope (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, you make a very valid point. I'm still not sure what WP:BEFORE has to do with BLP PRODs, as you said. Case in point, they're good at "prodding" the writers to write sourced articles, no matter what the notability is of the living person. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 14:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The inclusion or exclusion of BEFORE in BLPPROD has been discussed many times... Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion_of_biographies_of_living_people/Archive_2#WP:BEFORE was before it even was implemented and "encouraged" was the terminology agreed on, and I'm sure it's been discussed on many other WT: pages too. DGG has been a constant supporter of including it, but I reckon that it would only be useful if we ever moved the March 18 2010 creation date cutoff backwards, as most article creators from back then wouldn't still be around, so the "saving" work would all fall on the deleting admin - ie DGG et al. For still active editors, I see no point in looking yourself for sources for articles on people you have no idea about or interest in. For older articles without still-active creators, then I tend to just try to source them (ie "obey" BEFORE). Regards, The-Pope (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked this user for three hours for repeated removal of referenced content from Lee Richardson (politician). I expect that s/he will return when the blcok expires, and would appreciate your assistance. Thanks, Ground Zero | t 18:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Logan,

Once again, the same user from 89.243.223.206 is attempting to vadalise the Pierre Lewis page, please may you give them a warning? many thanks for your time, greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.191.246 (talk) 18:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

		The Account Creation Barnstar
		Great job! Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey Logan, noticed you tagging two files; namely this and this under CSD. I'm nothing of an image expert, so just curious: how do these files meet the F2 criteria? Regards, Yes Michael? •^Talk 18:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi there - the reason why they're F2-eligible is because they are description pages on Wikipedia for files on Commons, thus redundant and not containing any content. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 18:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, ok :) Thanks. Yes Michael? •^Talk 18:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, I've created Pratika (radio presenter) and Swapna (presenter)), which you have nominated for deletion for lack of references there. I as a contributor look for the references everywhere, and some of the articles that I create do not have references in English and are only there in vernacular languages. That is precisely the problem with India related article, most of them are not documented. And these two people are popular with vernacular mediums. I hope you understand the problem here. Randhir 04:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey - sources in the native language are fine with me for the most part, as long as they are reliable, third-party sources. Feel free to add those as references to the article. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 18:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Logan,

Many thanks for your help in the past, unfortunately it seem the pest is back (89.243.223.206) This individual is set on vandalising The Pierre Lewis page and distorting it with misleading and damaging information.

Please would you give them warning and or look to block them for a longer period of time. many thanks for your time, its greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.191.246 (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks like Mike Rosoft has already blocked that IP address. Thanks for your continued vigilance! Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 17:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(You seem to prefer Wikipedia so I'm posting this here; if you want Commons business on Commons then feel free to move it there)

You recently turned down my move request for File:Boston - metro 01.JPG on Commons. I understand your reasoning, as it's not one of the standard move reasons.

However, I believe this file - and a number like it - should be moved. "Boston - metro 01" is almost as ambiguous as "IMG 01"; it tells almost nothing about the image - i.e, that it's the entrance to Symphony Station on the Green Line - and does nothing to distinguish it from several hundred other images of the system.

The file rename policy is explicitly somewhat flexible, and I requested this move (and others) by analogy of the listed reason of changing unidentified species to their proper names. If you're willing to accept the move by this reasoning, then that's great.

If not, that's fine. In that case, could you recommend where I should ask to seek consensus on turning this into policy? I can't imagine it'd be terribly controversial; it would only affect a relatively small number of lightly-used images, but it would be hugely helpful to those of us in Wikiproject Trains.

Cheers! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that the file renaming policy only allows for such renaming if the file name is completely meaningless, like IMG 01.jpg, as you said. This, at least, specifies that it is a metro station in Boston. However, I by no means represent the general consensus of Commonists, so feel free to bring it up at the Commons Village pump and see what the response is there. Hope this helps! Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I was trying to revert this clown's stuff, but by the time I'd undo something, he'd have already updated again, and I don't have rollback privileges.

Kopitarian (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Have you considered using Twinkle to revert vandalism? It doesn't require rollback privileges, and it's a great way to start out. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 22:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I like to do it manually, because sometimes the vandalism makes me laugh. People get creative with it sometimes and it can get pretty funny at times. Kopitarian (talk) 23:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Haha, to each his own, I suppose. Have a good one! Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 23:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

i was just trying to put related data and links to the content. what not good in it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehsonsaeed (talk • contribs) 09:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Logan,

I have put the link to Blog do Rugby because this website covers every match and training of Brazilian Women's National Rugby Union Team and received from CBRu (Brazilian Rugby Confederation) the award of best coverage of Brazilian rugby in 2010. I believe these are sufficient creditials to became a source of information for anyone that desires to know more about the subject of that article. Some months ago I startet do replace some links to the defunct website Rugby Magazine (www.rugbymaganine.com.br, but I was also blocked without a conversation. So, I must say that I am glad that you have gave me the opportunity to talk about my motivations.

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.87.52.148 (talk) 00:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi there - blog links are usually avoided per WP:ELNO unless they are written by a recognized authority. Is this true about this blog? Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Logan. This is absolutely true, you can verify in the oficial website of CBRu (www.brasilrugby.com.br, in the section "Eventos". Enter in the hot site of Troféu Brasil 2010). Blog do Rugby is not anymore a blog, but a full website, which has kept the name due to the fact that this became a widespread name among Brazilian rugbiers. That is a misunderstading about the name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.87.52.148 (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Logan,

I was just looking that the discussion for the TAM article which you closed as leaving in place instead of deleting. I understand the value of having an article about such a system, but this appears to be original research with the references listed being related but not necessarily supporting the content of the article. This is not to say the article is wholly incorrect. It's got some good ideas, but it's not a fully functioning system and it's not something that should be listed here as established. It's only recently popped up (like September of last year) and was immediately added to several linguistic and grammar pages within wiki. I really do think it should be deleted in its current form because it gives the reader the sense that this is an established and accepted system. It's not, and honestly from an linguistic standpoint it wouldn't work in practice because there are just too many holes in it and there are far too many things the authors either don't understand or have failed yet to recognize. If it's to be left undeleted, may I recommend that a reword be required which makes it clear that it's an unproven theoretical framework and not established linguistics.Drew.ward (talk) 00:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

There was a clear consensus to keep the article at the deletion discussion - I would recommend bringing up the aforementioned ideas on the article's talk page in order to facilitate a rewording or other remedies. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

This edit that you reverted was likely a good-faith edit. Marvin Morgan did actually say that, although the quote was incomplete. I've since updated that article with the full quote as given by the source. It might be worth removing the warning from the editor's talk page. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, interesting. When I looked at articles with the first part of the quote in them, they only mentioned the "Where is that going to get you?" part. I'll strike out the warning. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 23:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, okay, I see it now. Thanks for letting me know. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 23:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page and for reporting 78.148.44.67 andd 77.105.29.28 to WP:AIV, Best ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 23:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. :) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 23:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

How can those facts be sourced when they it is a collation of information that is on other wikipedia pages that are sourced???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.21.161 (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Logan, I created the content. Cheers Nick carson (talk) 03:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Awesome. I had an administrator undelete it, and now it says that you are the source of the image. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! By the way, is it normal to delete an article's entire history when the article itself is deleted? What if content within the article is to be used elsewhere? Nick carson (talk) 03:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

When an article is deleted, the history is (mostly) maintained in case the article needs to be undeleted in the future, and just for general legal purposes, I suppose. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by your question, but cut & paste moves are usually discouraged - see WP:C&P. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I see you relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ncompass Records. I don't want to make assumptions about your reasoning, so could you explain why you chose to relist? —C.Fred (talk) 04:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Usually, discussions aren't closed without at least three outside opinions besides the nominator, and possibly two if it's a speedy. That's pretty much the reason for relisting. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 04:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

So it's strictly a quantitative decision without consideration of the qualitative merits of the discussion?

I agree that an AfD discussion with only two !votes is very limited. However, I think the reasoning given for the deletion is sound. I also think that, without some new sources emerging, the article would stand a snowball's chance of surviving even after another week of discussion. In my judgment, the discussion could safely be closed as a delete.

That said, there was nothing inappropriate about your relisting—there is a judgment call involved. Do you think the article would benefit from another week at AfD, or would you consent to me closing it now as a delete? —C.Fred (talk) 04:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It was mainly the "per nom" vote that made me pull the relist trigger. But, looking at the pure lack of decent sources in the article right now and the subsequent lack of them on Google, I'd say that a deletion would be plausible if you want to go through with it. Snow-wise, I'm not positive that it will be delete all the way through, but it's possible. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 05:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, it's Dragquennom (the nominator and the one who undid your edits) I'd like to comment that the person who voted didn't only say "per nom" as is done often. He actually added "no evidence of notability" so please don't "misunderstand" him. Dragquennom (talk) 05:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's certain, but I'd say it's highly probable. On the (IMHO, unlikely) chance that somebody presents a policy-based reason for keeping the article, I'd restore it and relist the AfD. If they presented the missing sources, of course, that'd completely change the game, and I'd restore the article. —C.Fred (talk) 05:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

if you go there there really is a shelfari chatroom. it is important that people know that there is one. dont revert my edit again please. 24.196.159.0 (talk) 21:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:EL. A link to an unofficial chatroom (or any chatroom, for that matter) does not fit with Wikipedia's external links policy. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 21:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

ok, i get it now. thanx. 24.196.159.0 (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting the vandalism to my page Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 22:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

hello logan i tried to correct article "aqchah" but it is reversed. please read my comments under discussion. i also can proove with a foto if you want, will take it tomorrow if needed. we should use official names.180.222.136.15 (talk) 23:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

{{trout}} You have been trouted for: I dont know what trouted means but I was wondering how I can help Wikipedia and become a helper like you...

Trouting is a way to smack people if they've made a stupid mistake, but thanks anyway :P I'd recommend that you read the links listed on {{welcome}} so that you can find ways to help out/edit Wikipedia. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 05:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

An "independent promoter" is a firm that acts as a middleman between a record company and radio station. I created a stub about this business a few years ago when I was sketching out the structure of music industry. (At that time, there were no articles about many of the most important roles in the music business, including A & R, Radio promotion and others.) I never wrote a proper article about independent promotion, however. No time.

I don't know what happened to the article that qualified it for speedy deletion (of course, I can't see it now). Did a particular independent promoter take over the article as an advertisement for themselves? Or was there some other problem?

I've redirected this article to "radio promotion", which mentions independent promoters. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone beat me to it. Anyway, this is  Fixed. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I was just going to move Aonix to Atego (it being the new name for them), and found a redirect to the MB lorry. What I'd proposed was to do this, and to put a hatnote on the new Atego linking to the MB one, which was agreed to by User:Chjb. Have you any objections to this, or any better idea? There's always the possibility of moving Aonix to Atego (software) and making Atego into a disam. Whatever happens, Aonix needs moving to a new title and the old disam was wrong as it disamed two things with completely different names! Peridon (talk) 12:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Your info on your scream pages is incorrect and i am correctly editing it but you keep changing it giving incorrect information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.4.202.152 (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

?????? Peridon (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome to Wikipedia! It might appear trivial, but it's very appreciated.Sabre ball (talk) 17:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Logan.

I'm new to this ! On the Peter Schilling page, I wanted to add the South African chart position (no. 4) to his hit, "Major Tom", because it was very popular here. I note that all the other charts have link to the source. Mine would be http://www.rock.co.za/files/springbok_top_20_(S).html, but I have no idea how to do it.

Could you help me, please ? Perhaps you can do it for me and I can use the page as a reference until I have learnt it.

Thanks Theherald1000 (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC) P.S. Where are you situated ?

Just a quick question: was the speedy deletion tag you put on the X1 sandbox real or a test in itself? WikiPuppies! (bark) 20:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, forgot to revert that. I was testing out the T3 deletion on Twinkle. Sorry! Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 20:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I just wanted to make sure you were not seriously trying to delete the page. :) WikiPuppies! (bark) 20:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

You might try actually looking at edits before you revert them. Crazy idea, I know, but there is an outside possibility that other editors may have some clue what they're doing. A modicum of respect is actually a good thing, not some moral failing. 128.114.59.187 (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The tone that you are taking is not contributing to positive discourse. Wikipedia's policy is not to simply remove dead links, but to try to salvage/fix them. I have replaced the link with an archive URL so that it is now accessible again. Furthermore, using an edit summary helps others on Wikipedia see why one is removing content - you simply removed the reference, which led me to believe that the action was malicious. Please do not jump on other editors when they are simply following procedures. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Logan — you may have overlooked my post above, "Putting in a Link". Looking for your assistance. Thank you. Theherald1000 (talk) 22:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to say sorry for trying 2 help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornishgame (talk • contribs) 13:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You recently posted this message on my talk page. I know the message was posted by a script, but I find the tone of it rather patronising (You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages), and I have suggested to the script's "owner" that it be revised. In addition, perhaps you should think twice before, in effect, templating an experienced user in good standing. – ukexpat (talk) 13:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)