User talk:CastAStone/2008

Malayan Breeze

I've declined the speedy tag you placed on Malayan Breeze. The reason is:

about the album, not the band

For your information, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

J Wyatt

Hi, I noticed your suggestion to speedy delete this article although someone else had already removed your tag. If I can explain about the notability criteria for cricket, it is confusing because there are several match classifications. But, if the person has played in at least one match that is classified as major, Test, first-class, ListA (sic) or international then he is a notable subject for WP purposes.

This man Wyatt played in the 18th century at which time the key classification was the major cricket match, the highest standard at the time and the exact equivalent of first-class cricket today. The team he played for, Essex, is a major county team (the equivalent of a major league baseball team).

In addition, the inclusion of his career details on the CricketArchive site and particularly in the standard Scores & Biographies source, confirm his notability. He wasn't a great player, true, but he was good enough to play at the major level.

All the best for 2008. --The Ghost | ^séance 09:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:EpsilonKappaOmicronCrest.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:EpsilonKappaOmicronCrest.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Aardvark game

A tag has been placed on Aardvark game requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Hi there.

Good evening,

Thanks for the pointers. I was instrumental in creating the wiki article (and the audio processor) at www.hydrogenaudio.org and felt that it was not unreasonable to copy the article intact. If this is unacceptable, I firstly apologise and would secondly be grateful if you should remove the article should this be case.

Best regards,

Nick. [edit]Nick CNA (talk) 09:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[/edit] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick CNA (talk • contribs) 20:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge It

Could you possibly merge the Alien and Predator Timeline to the Alien vs. Predator Series page or tell me how to? Either way would be great. If you decide to merge it just add the timeline as a content section in the AvP page and I will come in and edit it up.(I am almost always on)

Thank you for your time, --Tj999 —Preceding comment was added at 21:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Repeated deletions of articles that appear to be encyclopedic

On my talk page, you have written that

Any article comparing two things, even if those comparisons are sourced and based on fact,is Original Research by it's sheer nature. Articles on each subject can include a section of differences from the other, but an article on the subject can never have an encyclopedic tone.

I have never seen such a policy. My understanding is that both of my articles were encyclopedic from the beginning and that all attempts to delete them were in conflict with Wikipedia policies. If your statement above is in Wikipedia policy, please cite it. Otherwise, the only interpretation I can make is that you are inappropriately deleting encyclopedic articles that have been carefully prepared in good faith. Lumturo (talk) 04:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge, there is no Wikipedia policy or guideline anywhere that explains how a statement which is "not written down" is "accepted as a guideline for inclusion in Wikipedia by widespread consensus of many editors" solely because a handful of editors wanted to delete a couple of articles. If you can cite a policy or guideline to the contrary, please do so. Wikipedia does have widely accepted policies on inclusion such as WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY, but their nature as policy is clearly stated.

Unfortunately, your actions regarding these articles disrupted my evening and harmed Wikipedia by removing well-written, encyclopedic articles. You are welcome to participate in Wikipedia, but please refrain from disruptive, harmful activities. Thank you. Lumturo (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus says exactly that. Please do not accuse me of being disruptive for following consensus.CastAStone/^/(talk) 16:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to be accusing, but unfortunately, your actions did disrupt my evening. As to following consensus, virtually the entire page you cited is about consensus in editing documents. The page also says that policies and guidelines document communal consensus (See the box at the top of the page). It says nothing to the effect that unwritten statements should be considered policies or even guidelines, that comparisons are unencyclopedic, or that the deletions of my pages were in process. My suggestion is to just let it go and move on. This is taking your time and mine, and it isn't accomplishing anything. Thank you for your consideration. Lumturo (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

(exdent) I have brought this to the attention of other administrators at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and, if you have any further comments, that may be the most appropriate place to make them. Thanks for your efforts in this situation, they are appreciated. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Nana Okada

I noticed that you were watching the page, and you did muse your displeasure at inappropriate use of WP:CSD#A7, which is exactly what I had tagged on that page before its deletion.

I'm wondering about your thought on whether "Nana Okada is a Japanese model and actress." can be considered a sufficient claim of notability. IMHO, it merely states the subject's profession. Now, if it stated specific works that she appeared in, then I'd go through a more deliberate process.

I just want to get your thoughts on this and get some intellectual banter going. Kelvinc (talk) 01:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Portrait Professional

Hi,

I noticed you added a notability tag to the page I started: Portrait Professional. I've added a bunch more secondary sources talking about it. It's now up to eight including the New York Time and the BBC. Is that enough? I could add more. I'd appreciate any help as this is my first wikipedia article. For the avoidance of doubt, I am affiliated with the product, but I have tried to keep the nascent article to a neutral point of view. If you think I've failed at that please let me know too.

Thanks,

Tony —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonypolichroniadis (talk • contribs) 09:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nowlin_Middle_School

I went and closed it as keep, since I saw the sources. The reason for it establish notability, the way I saw it, was that it seems like notability and sourcing are becoming increasingly intertwined, and that with the amount of sources added, presumably at least one would show some form of notability from the school. In a way, I guess I'm taking an eventualist stance in this case. I understand your concern (and honestly, had I been in the discussion rather than the closer, I probably would've "voted" to delete), and I'm not too thrilled about the notability definition myself. Just keep doing what you're doing with schools. They're quite iffy, and I'll check back on it in a few months to see if it's improved, since it's not in great shape. Wizardman 22:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The Hockey News list

It seems that this article is going to be deleted. If I have a permission from The Hockey News to publish this article, will it be not deleted? (((o: Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasooon (talk • contribs) 05:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The list is taken from a newspaper feature article (and since then, published as a book), but it is the articles about each player that would be the most contentious material, and none of that is included in this article. The list itself is basically just the table of contents, and I think that constitutes fair use. If not, we should include at least the top 10, and include an analysis of the full list (e.g. # of players by country, # of players by position, etc.). − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 14:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Philip Solomon (medium)

I've cleaned this article a little, and it now isn't looking in such a bad state. Still needs improvement, yes, but I think the columns, radio shows and work associations, plus various books, appear to assert some notability- this person isn't a nobody. If you still think this should go, feel free to take it to AfD. J Milburn (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't delete!

I am planning to add more to these pages, but I do not have time right at the moment to do so. I wanted to get the pages created, so I could pick up right away whenever I find the time. So, there will be more content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Campbellka (talk • contribs) 20:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

re: David Vanneck

Thanks for leaving the message on my talk page - when you did I saw the article was blue-linked - deleted it again and blocked the IP for 31 hours. —Random832 21:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

In the future, placing it on WP:AIV in these cases is more likely to be helpful than repeatedly putting back the CSD tag; I just happened to be looking at the category at the right moment to see it. —Random832 21:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleting Saros page

We'll keep slugging it out then. The band is new, but if the Weakling entry made it on Wikipedia and has a link to the band Saros (which related), you are being a bit impertinent in inciting that this link remain blank. The whole reason for posting this was so that internal link wouldn't remain empty. As far as the sources not being credible - they aren't any different from the sources sited on hundred of other band pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harbard the Ancient (talk • contribs) 23:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

speedy of Adelphia (fancies)

Please see my note regarding my recreation of this article. Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Re your comment: User:Evrik is an active editor of many things Philadelphian. We've had spats, so s/he might support the article without supporting me. I do not know if s/he has any direct connection to a Mummer's club, though. S/he certainly has a history of some sort with User:Chiefsalsa (who has also had spats with me) who certainly either is or was a Mummer.

In this case, though, "my two cents worth" is probably overpriced.

Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFR

Why is your statement in latin? Poeloq (talk) 04:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I used an external link in mine initially and apparently it couldn't handle that and defaulted to the default nature of the template, which included latin. A bug in the Template.--CastAStone/^/(talk) 04:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Bill Francoeur

it does site sorces look at the link Melbrooksfan101 talk 21:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Replied

You can't! You know why? It's not my responsibility to identify the notability. It's author's responsibility. WP:V says Wikipedia is verifiability not truth. Please go and do some research on them first rather making random search on Google. Cheers. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 15:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Hey, thanks for the rewriting of Ospel ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wobster (talk • contribs) 17:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Okey, thanks ;)Wobster (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear*****

I don't want to talk about my football team. I do want to be sure to see you at pledging. Will you be there? Brother "Love that hot asian sister of yours"  DavidJ710  talk  06:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Mitra

I have given one. Hardly enough, but surely a starting point?--ppm (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, Thanks!

My first barnstar! Thank you so much! Now I can display it proudly on my user page. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 03:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability

Hey, do you think that the article on Dudu Nobre is now OK or does it need more references and information to have the {{Notability}} tag taken off (I already took it off but you can put it back)? Please respond in my talk page. --Nadir D Steinmetz 17:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Carol Shepp

I have nominated Carol Shepp, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carol Shepp. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Gromlakh (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm ambivalent on the nomination. The article is a stub of nothing right now, although I'd prefer the article was expanded. So whatever the AfD comes up with is fine. But I'll stay out. Thanks for the notification--CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 03:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Snorlax15

... is now blocked. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:ZetaGammaPhiCrest.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ZetaGammaPhiCrest.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:KappaChiCrest.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:KappaChiCrest.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Donald R. Lobaugh

I was just wondering why you marked a Medal of Honor recipient article as non-notible. Non trying to come off like a jerk, just wondering.--Kumioko (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

What is it that makes a medal of honor recipient encyclopedic? Their medal is a sign of bravery, valor, honor, integrity, and all of the best attributes one can find in an American, or indeed, in any man, or woman. Does that make them deserve an encyclopedia entry?--CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 21:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:PhiOmegaSigmaCrest.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:PhiOmegaSigmaCrest.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BetaKappaPhiCrest.jpg}

Thank you for uploading Image:BetaKappaPhiCrest.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our 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) 03:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Xi Chi Psi

A tag has been placed on Xi Chi Psi requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

European Year of Creativity and Innovation 2009

Hi, you tagged my page on the European Year of Creativity and Innovation 2009 for deletion. Thanks. However, I disagree with your view. This is why: This article may is one of the very few references existing so far to the planned events. You comment it is of not of encyclopedic nature but I disagree as its primary aim is to explain there is something, what it is and also give the reasons why it is there. It refers to a public good for the public interest. It is written in plain language and thus it is a contribution to informing directly the readers of the proposed Year which is evolving now. While it is not as complete as very comparable entries like the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue 2008 it is very likely to grow significantly in content and quality. The entry is the start of a longer article which will cover the objectives, activities and the possibly results of the Year of Creativity and Innovation over a longer time horizon. Last but not least, the entry is valuable information created specifically for Wikipedia. Please consider this in the discussion. Thank you for your time —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgi.dimitrov (talk • contribs) 19:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Beer category decision

A discussion has been opened on changes that have been made to the existing Beer category system. The changes reverse the decision made by the Project in April 2006. The changes were based on agreement by only two people, and by a discussion that took place outside the Beer Project. There may be some merit in the changes, and to prevent future conflict it is important that there is some discussion of the matter. If you're interested, please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beer#Brewery_cats. SilkTork *^YES! 14:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Spam in User:Mr walsh/Boxaroo

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on User:Mr walsh/Boxaroo, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because User:Mr walsh/Boxaroo is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting User:Mr walsh/Boxaroo, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 14:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:XiChiPsiCrest.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:XiChiPsiCrest.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 09:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:EAS (nutritional supplements business) logo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:EAS (nutritional supplements business) logo.png. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

On essays like WP:NME

You're right, I should have said that WP:NME is an essay, not a guideline, but per WP:ONLYESSAY it's wrong to say that an essay, especially one that reflects such a strong consensus, carries "no weight". (I was going to say this on the WMRO AfD page but the discussion closed as a WP:SNOW Keep before I could click "save page". - Dravecky (talk) 06:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

But that link itself links to an Essay, which also carries no weight. Consensus carries weight, essays describe 1) prior consensuses with varying levels of accuracy and/or 2) things that have some but not wide spread consensus; which is why they're essays. We have no rules for Radio Stations, this is fact. We have a generally accepted consensus, this too is fact. I have no problem with this guy trying to find out what that consensus is.--CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 06:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ashtangi AfD

Hi, I've reopened this debate- the nominator actually nominated the article Shanti/Ashtangi. I think the forward slash in the title might have borked the nom, not really sure. Reyk _YO! 07:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)