Thank you for participating in my RfA. It was successful, and I am now, may God have mercy on us all, an administrator. Look at all the new buttons! I had heard about 'protect,' 'block user,' and 'delete,' but no one told me about 'kill,' 'eject,' and 'purée.' I appreciate the trust the community has in me, and I'll try hard not to delete the main page or block Jimbo. -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hi Charlie, just a quick note to say thanks for participating in my request for adminship. It was successful and I now have some shiny new buttons. If I can ever be of help, please let me know. Happy editing, mattbr 10:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for participating in my RFA. Hiberniantears 17:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs The Basketball Diaries (film) Vegas World The Mint Las Vegas Tyrone Power J. R. Ackerley List of television shows shot in Las Vegas Moving Units Frog Eyes Convergència i Unió Wrangler Jeans Tim Sale (artist) Fremont Hotel and Casino David Wojnarowicz Socialists' Party of Catalonia Democratic Convergence of Catalonia Dale Hibbert Pat McCarran Felix Cavaliere Paul Morrissey

Cleanup Kimmy Gibbler Quiet Riot Skitch Henderson Merge Las Vegas Grand Prix Nellis Air Force Range Biometric word list Add Sources Mandalay Resort Group Locals casino Downtown Wikify Crime Story (TV series) Yori Boy Campas Nino Rota Expand Cynthia Watros Plaza Hotel & Casino Selle Français

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 22:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I neeed people like you to fix my spelling! --Amandajm 16:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome! Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 22:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing to the Disambiguation page but after spending some time studying it I can't find the answer to my question which is how to get a search for 'William Shepherd' to go to the Disambiguation Page instead of to one of the five articles referenced on that page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.138.204.108 (talk • contribs)

First of all, I will assume you mean a search with Wikipedia's search tool, rather than, say, a Google search. It is worth pointing out that Wikikpedia's search tool is far from perfect. However, the main answer to your question, as far as I can tell, is this: a search for 'William Shepherd' will point to whatever article is named 'William Shepherd'. There are two means of disambiguating, and they depend on the relative notability of the articles to be disambiguated. If there is one very famous and notable person/thing, but also other articles using similar titles, you will have a James Bond situation. The "James Bond" article is an article about the notable character, but then there is a link to the Disambiguation page at the top. However, in order for a search to point to the Disambiguation page first, you would need the second situation: several subjects, about equally notable. In this case, the Disambiguation page can be moved to the "main title", William Shepherd, and each of the child articles can be moved to, say, 'William Shepherd (astronaut)'. For an example of this type, see Las Vegas. Now, I'm not sure if this move would be appropriate, because I don't know much about the relative notability of the various William Shepherds, but that is how you would get a search to point to the Disambiguation page. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 22:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to Wikipedia and have been on a fast learning curve, and making a lot of mistakes in the process - but not too bad for a VOM (very old man) ha ha

I've tried adding references to the article on 'William M. Branham' but now they all seem to have disappeared, along with the last section of the article (everything after "Branham's legacy and influence"). Can you please help? I note you made some changes to the article 11:18, 20 July 2007 and I don't want to try to "undo" anything yet in case I make it worse!!!

Contents 1 Early life, conversion, and ordination 2 Successful public ministry 3 "Angelic visitations" and "supernatural signs" 4 William Branham's doctrines and teachings 5 Death 6 Branham's legacy and influence 6.1 Current Followers Beliefs 6.2 Location and Size of Following 7 References 8 See also 9 External links

Rev107 03:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Ken O'Dwyer, Western Australia[reply]

Hmmm... it looks like the "references" section got split up into different parts of the article, so the templating wasn't displaying correctly. I reverted the edit to the previous version, and I think your best bet would be to try adding the info again, but be sure you're placing it in the correct place (ie not inside a "ref tag"). If you need any more help, let me know! Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 13:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This afd has led me to realize that I've been allowing my desire to see Wikipedia be perfect RIGHT NOW interfere with my judgement, and my interpretation and use of policy and process. Therefore, to maintain my karmic balance, I pledge to only enter deletion discussions in which I will recommend keep for the next while, and to begin helping out at articles for creation. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 15:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hey, I just read the Wiki on Blak Prophetz and found you, Echuck (some wiki idiot, wanna be editor) asking for proof. I must say I find your request for proof stupid and disrespectful. Do you want these guys birth certificates? Do you follow Hip Hop or know if it's culture or individuals behind it? The answer to that is a definate NO. I bet you can't even prove that your name is Echuck anyway. I've read that wiki on the BP's and I've followed these guys since the Chapter One release and have almost all but one of the releases by these guys. I find your comments rude and asking the imposible. Not only that but you complain that you want proof but at the same time can't even prove that the actual proof you require is unreal. If you had any guts you would say exactly what statements you believe to be untrue.

Echuck, you need to grow up and seek some knowledge on the very subject you try to find faults with. Be accurate in your statements and back up your accusations.

Gary Davidson Dallas, Texas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.252.208.156 (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:CIVIL. I don't doubt that these people really exist, and really are in the hip-hop culture. However, Wikipedia has certain standards it expects articles to follow. One of these, is that articles must be cited by reliable sources. The article currently is not. Once again, I am not disputing any statements in the article. I merely posted to ask for reliable sources to be provided, and inline citations. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 19:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, how are you enjoying your trip to England? Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 01:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your most recent reply in User_talk:151.203.127.31!

My point about users of XY not knowing about some other products was simply that the a core group of users who frequent the XY support forum are generally much more knowledgeable about competing products in that specific category than your average user, and possibly WP admins. Your typical "average joe" user may not even be aware that one can have an alternate to Windows Explorer, or that they exist! While the sample set of users may be small, it's not so much about notability in other sources as being known to those who specialize in that area of expertise.

And could you comment about my point that while XY may well not deserve a stand-alone page for the product, why should it be excluded from the comparison table? Does a product need to be notable to be included in a list such as this?

It would seem (IMHO) that there should be a distinction between the criteria for notability for a unique article versus simple inclusion as an item or entry within another article.

For example, in another similar table Comparison_of_image_viewers, Picasa has an entry and due to its obvious notability, also has a WP article of its own, while the following entry, "PicLens" does not, but ALL entries there have a URL link to their source site. That second type of listing is what, I believe, XY has enough of a following/user-base to qualify for at this time. As one can see in the Image Viewer table, there are a sizable number of program entries that do not have a WP article themselves. These additional entries are valuable to me, as a potential new user, when researching options for a solution to my problems.

There is no present column in the File Manager chart for URL and the addition of that (maybe in place of Creator?) would make this chart more user-friendly and usable, IMO, and more consistent with the Image Viewer table. Also, a URL is much more valuable than the name of the creator for a potential reader of these articles.

Remember, I've basically given up on the fight for a WP article for XY itself, but still see a major issue with the selectivity in which items are allowed to be listed in some OTHER article, especially a chart such as this.

Again, I compare it somewhat to an article for a music group, where just because some songs they wrote and performed were not widely known, they shouldn't (based on what appears to your and WP thinking) be listed at all, which makes little or no sense.

I'm NOT trying to be argumentative, but given the obvious inconsistency that I've seen, just wanting to have a level playing field for all products in both of these categories of software. 151.203.127.31 19:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my comments applied to an article, as well as mention in a list. Yes, we have different criteria for the two, but not very different. I honestly don't have an opinion on whether XY meets our standards or not, but if a consensus is reached that it doesn't, that does not mean there aren't less notable things still listed. It's very much a level playing field in that sense: editors just haven't noticed the other ones yet. I really can't stress this enough: you keep citing examples of other products that have a mention in a list, but their existence says nothing about whether XYplorer should be included.

As far as the song example, I don't think this is a good analogy here. If an artist is notable, it should be no problem to list their songs somewhere: even if the individual songs never made much of a splash. This is because being notable enough to have an article, means we can include a bunch of information related to them. However, the specific products in lists of "products that do a certain thing" are not all written by the same artist, or related in a specific way. They're not all specific information about one notable topic. Instead, they are independent products, all of which happen to do the same thing. Songs gain their "notability" because they are all written by a notable artist. But, that isn't the situation with products all doing the same thing. A better analogy would be something like a list of musicians that play the same type of music as a certain notable group. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 20:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I keep citing examples of other products was to show, in this case, how another table on WP has already handled the situation in a much better manner, IMO. Without the inclusion of these lesser know products, the article as whole is thus misleading and should rather be titled something like "Top 5 products in the file manager area" or "Best known file managers" or similar.

Also, should removal of an company specific article thus cause the complete removal of that company from all text in every article on WP? This essentially appears to be the case here, and has been, IMVHO, a dis-service to the users of WP.

Remember the users? They are why a web site exists. I will use WP to locate information, and if the information stored here is so tightly screened, then it loses its appeal to me. That's why I always thought WP was a good thing: Lesser known items could be found here. Now that doesn't mean I think it should be totally wide open. As I've written numerous times, having a line item in a table is a FAR cry from a stand-alone article. But I'm seeing that WP is trying to be SO exclusive that it is just like all the other sources, and in some cases, worse.

I think having ALL these various products listed in the table is a good and proper thing, and as each one gains notabiliy, they can then get "promoted" to having either a product and/or company specific article as well.

BTW, I'm coming at this from a perspective of having been involved with personal computers since approx 1978, and thus have seen the Net evolve to present form. 151.203.127.31 20:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I am neutral on whether or not the product meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I say this, because I don't want you to feel like you're wasting your time convincing me of something: regardless of how I feel about XYplorer, it won't change my view about consensus on this issue. We have policies to determine what should be included and what shouldn't, and we should do our best to follow them. If they are grossly wrong (the policies), we should work to change them. I think it would help you to look at the bigger picture here: the editors participating in the deletion discussion came to a consensus that the product wasn't notable. Having it mentioned in other lists, but it not being notable enough for an article, starts to look like spam, or at least advertising. This is an encyclopedia, so yes, it is trying to be "just like the other sources". In fact, if something isn't covered in the "other sources", where this means reliable, independent sources, it shouldn't be covered here at all. If this one incident, in an encyclopedia with 2 million articles, makes WP "so exclusive" to you, then I assert that you aren't looking at the wider picture. We're only as exclusive as the people who edit think we should be, and consensus can change! Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 23:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I much appreciate the chance to have a discussion like this about this matter. As you may have gathered, I and other power users of XY were blind-sided by the removal of it from XY without us having any chance to either rebut some discussed items that we believe were possibly incorrect or provide additional information that those admins may not have located that we were aware of which might (or might not) have affected the outcome. Because everyone can't be an expert at everything, which we understand, not allowing us (by notification thru some mechanism) as experts at that program (and in some cases, that type of product) to provide background information for its defense prior to removal makes it seem like a "kangaroo court" or a stacked deck against us. Part of the reason given for deletion was the infomation in the XY article being too commercial. Ok, fine. I'd agree. But then why not someone make it less so without deleting it entirely? We as users would have been happy with a shorter less detailed entry than none at all obviously. But then again, the Image Viewer table gives URL's for many of those products, some of which are paid, thus that column should be removed to satify Shoessss concern about the link to site where one can find the products advertised, right?

Another reason given was that most all edits were done by one person. As I've stated elsewhere, should that disqualify an article? Must everything be always written by a committee? Had any information there been incorrect, be assured that someone familiar enough with the product to know the correct data (a power user) would likely have changed it. But then, they would have had a COI! So how do you be a 3rd party but have enough knowledge to recognize bad entries? I don't see how that is possible for certain software, like this. Now if we're talking about general details, like company web site, then it's easy, but more technical aspects could be a real challenge.

It seem from reading the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/XYplorer that no one there found the two web newsletter references that I have referred to. Granted, that may not have affected the outcome, but as they were not mentioned or listed anywhere there, I have some doubts as to the ability of those participating to completely and accurately search for sources. BTW, the blog review mentioned by Alistair as having soft-porn also shouldn't disqualify that from being a valid technical review. Using a loose analogy, that would thus disqualify the CBS network as being a news source just because of the Janet Jackson's SuperBowl incident.

Believe me, the time I'm taking from my other duties to write this is somewhat of an issue, but I was SO offended by the removal based on what I perceived as somewhat incorrect or incomplete facts, that I feel the need to try and understand why, ok? thanks! 151.203.127.31 00:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, a quick note. Try and look at this from the average Wikipedia editor's point of view: you come across an article for some software you've never heard of. It doesn't look all that notable, and the only sources the article provides are to places to download the software, and other non-reliable sources. An easy explanation is that the users of the software are trying to use Wikipedia's high google rank to promote the product: not good! The opposite of what we want! Wikipedia should reflect things that others have already said are notable, not promote things so they become notable. Then, you look at the history of the article: basically written by one user. Now, it looks even more like one (or a small group) of people wants this article to be up on Wikipedia, to promote the program. So, AFD might be a good plan. You put a tag on the article, and a five day debate is initiated. For five days, any visitor to the article can see the tag, and participate in the discussion, yet no one presents any reliable sources during this time. From that point of view, deleting only makes sense.

Further, you mention that no one seemed to look for the web newsletter reference. It's not a question of not finding the references: web newsletter references are not generally reliable sources, so looking at them won't accomplish anything. And the Janet Jackson metaphor misses the point: the softcore porn goes a bit further to indicate that the blog is not a reliable source, that is, there is no fact-checking and editorial oversight. This is the salient point about reliable sources. CBS has fact-checking and editorial oversight, regardless of whether they covered risqué incidents.

Here's what I would suggest. I know you're upset about this, but try to just take a step back, and examine the situation from some distance. Take a good, long look at why you want XYplorer mentioned on Wikipedia. Do you 1) know it is notable, and you want the Wikipedia article to be complete, and that it will be the better for the addition of XY? Or do you 2) think XY deserves to be listed, and will be better off if it is listed on Wikipedia? If the first is true, and you really believe you can get a hold of the kind of sources and information that Wikipedia looks for, you should create an account. Once this is done, you can use your userpage to develop an article, adding sources and making improvements, and then solicit others' opinions on the article. I would be quite pleased to help with this, personally look at it, and see whether it is appropriate to go "live". Then, after getting a few opinions on the matter, you can copy the content into the main space and it will be on Wikipedia. If the second is true, however, then you will always have this conflict with Wikipedia, until the software becomes notable enough that someone who isn't a power user feels compelled to write an article. The inclusion on lists just looks more like advertising, especially if this is the case.

In any case, let me know if you decide to userfy an article, and I can help you with the process. If not, I can't really help you much further with XYplorer's existence on Wikipedia, but I'd be glad to help with any other policy questions, or whatever else you'd like to ask. Either way, Cheers! Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 01:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A big HEARTY Thanks for your latest reply! It's calm, professional, reasoned, and answers some questions, unlike some of the other comments I've seen in regards to this matter.

BTW, I've been using XY about 18 months and visit the XY support forum at least six times a day, and in that time, I don't recall seeing any posts by the person who wrote the XY article. Now, I haven't checked it further, but one of the article tweaks was done by someone I do recognize, so that likely was just done to correct some erroneous info. We power users of XY may have only checked the WP article once a month or so, thus during that 5 day period, it's highly unlikely one of us would have seen the tag.

Regarding using WP to promote the product: Personally, I feel that ANY positive mention of ANY commercial product on WP is promoting it, whether it be software, hardware, or some other item. Having a product anywhere on WP will almost naturally result in promotion of that product. I don't think we power users were really after product promotion here, as then one of us might have been more interested in checking on the article on a regular basis. Now having just the best known products shown would be fine IF the list article was re-titled as I'd suggested, as then not having XY listed there would be more appropriate.

Because, as is, the premise of the list article is that it is a complete and thorough listing of available products in that category. With a prominent disclaimer, such as "Five most popular file managers" or "File managers available from notable companies" as I'd mentioned earlier, then XY would not presently qualify and I wouldn't have any issue with that.

Now, to answer your question about which of the two options you presented is why I want XY on WP: Right now, it's a combination of those two, in that in order for the article to fully complete, and make WP a better resource, XY and similar lesser known products would need to be listed, but NOT with their own articles at this time, and...then with the author column converted to a site URL as the other list, that would reduce the need for articles about those products/companies which eliminates a potential source of "advertising".

BTW, about the web newsletters: Given that these are both commercial enterprises, as they have paid vers, and with the number of subscribers thay have, they are definitely not in the same category as someones blog, IMO, and should be considered as potential eligible sources. And Fred Langa has a resume [1] that makes him likely known by more people in the computer industry (and the general public) than the original creators of WP are. I remember him from Byte Magazine in the 1980's, so he's been around for a while. I'd trust what he says probably more that something I found here, to be honest. Sorry! 151.203.127.31 05:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding sources: assuming the web newsletters acquire a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, I'm sure they might be considered as reliable sources, and they are indeed a step above blogs, but not up to, say, CNN. But you are correct: I'd trust what they say more than Wikipedia as well! Wikipedia, would not consider itself a reliable source: anyone can edit it!

As far as the lists being changed to "notable products" or "top five most used products", I agree with you there entirely! I think they should reflect notable products only, and that they don't leads to unbalanced coverage in this very way. If you feel strongly about this, you should initiate a discussion on the talk page of the relevant listing articles, and see what others think. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 18:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the talk page to the above article, you've made some comment about putting this article up for deletion. I don't know why, and the comment you were replying to seems quite out-of-place. The article itself is in the process of being written. There are no "players" involved, as if it is some kind of team, and the subject-matter is that of the small village and civil parish in cheshire in the United Kingdom. I think you may have been misled a little here, and a RfD would not be appropriate at all in this case.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I see now what has happened. I came late upon the scene, and it was already sorted out, with someone editing it to make it a bit more relevant. I've edited it a bit more, but i do wish people would pay attention to referencing! Sorry for the mix-up.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! When I first came across it, I wasn't sure that it was a town at all, and the article only talked about a team, and players. Since it turned out to be an actual place, I withdrew the AFD entry. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 18:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, here's what the article looked like when I came across it: [2] Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 20:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my edit to the Sherpa People article, I was trying to remove obvious vandalism in the article here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sherpa_people&diff=145951186&oldid=145884143

but it looks like DaBjork fixed it right before me and I accidentally reverted his fix.

Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.129.1 (talk • contribs)

That's fine, just try to be a bit more careful in the future. Cheers! Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 23:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your deletion of my article oPhone: I have no problem with the deletion. I saw the oPhone while browsing the requested articles page, and decided that I could fill a need. If you feel that the oPhone article is unnecessary, then I recommend that you examine the rest of the requested articles page before other unnecessary articles are written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotancohen (talk • contribs) 09:40, 29 June 2007

Ok :-) Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 03:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]