User talk:WereSpielChequers/Archive 4

Home

Bling

Content

Userboxen

Editcount

Talk

Guestbook

Email

This is where I archive 2009 threads that are mainly about deletion. I have also made some notes on this at User:WereSpielChequers#We're Spiel Checkers - thoughts on deletion.

Re:Scorpion Lrv

Hi WereSpielChequers, Scorpion Lrv looks pretty good - excellent job salvaging :) - Fastily (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Nikos tatasopoulos

Ok, let's give it a try then. I put a tag on the page, so others may contribute to the article and establish further notability. De728631 (talk) 15:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks WereSpielChequers 16:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

RUDDY1.jpg

Hello! You declined my deletion request of File:RUDDY1.jpg. G7 does contain "If the author blanks the page (outside user space), this can be taken as a deletion request", and I'm thinking that replacing that original image with a patch of brown something would be the equivalent of a blanking in the File namespace. Doesn't that make sense?

The history hints that the photo is of the uploader. That user already has another photo of himself, and as he is not encyclopedically notable, RUDDY1.jpg serves no purpose (especially not in it's "blanked" state). Would you reconsider your decision? Perhaps you could delete it under "housekeeping" or something instead...

PS: There is something wrong with your editnotice, the text below the edit box is also pink ("Content that violates any...") Plrk (talk) 08:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point, now deleted. thanks for the editnotice advice I'll look at that later. WereSpielChequers 08:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit notice also now fixed. WereSpielChequers 11:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

re: Joseph Atick

No problem :). -Senseless!... says you, says me 20:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Jazz Laker

Hi, I noticed that you deleted the article under a different criteria (A7 instead of G10). I no longer have access to the article, but I seem to recall some wording to the effect of "I wrote this all by myself", that made me pick G10 as the best criteria. Was I in error, or do you feel that the article could have been deleted under G10 as well? Thanks in advance. decltype (talk) 10:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi decltype, I read it twice and didn't see an attack, but you left something in your tag along the lines of probably also A7 and I deleted it per that as I agreed with you there - we get lots of pages about awesome teenage actors, sportstars and so forth but unless they've done something outside their school they almost all fail notability. Can I suggest you have another read of wp:delete and wp:speedy? If you read G10:

Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage or threaten their subject or some other entity. These are sometimes called "attack pages". This includes legal threats, and biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral version in the page history to revert to. Both the page title and page content may be taken into account in assessing an attack. Articles about living people deleted under this criterion should not be restored or recreated by any editor until the biographical article standards are met. Example: "John Doe is an idiot who likes to curse at little kids"

I think they key phrase here is "and unsourced" as opposed to "or unsourced", so "I wrote this all by myself" to my mind wouldn't be a G10 as though its unsourced, "Awesome Aussie Actor" is not negative. Conversely David Irving, David Icke and Russell Brand all have negative info in them but we try to make sure its all sourced. WereSpielChequers 10:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for a very thorough answer. To clarify: My rationale for G10 was the fact that the entire article was so poorly written, together with "I wrote this all by myself". I therefore saw the entire article as a (possible) deliberate attempt to ridicule the subject, thus G10.

I will have another read of WP:CSD, in fact I do all the time :). I try to seek clarification every time my speedies are deleted under a different criteria. Usually it's just a matter of opinion, but I nevertheless see it as an alarm bell that I might be misinterpreting the policy. Again thanks. decltype (talk) 11:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, on further rereading of the article I think I see your point, though in my opinion it wasn't an attack WereSpielChequers 13:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Claude LeClerc article

I noticed you declined the speedy on this. On the talk page, I pointed out a concern with the article, i.e. not that there aren't any good sources, there aren't any for "Claude LeClerc" sculptor. And frankly, that was my concern, lack of sources. I do a lot of reviewing of CSD'd and prodded articles and my research into this one was really frustrating (and fruitless). 74.69.39.11 (talk) 12:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it probably fails notability and will probably end up being deleted, but speedy deletion is for noncontentious deletes where there is no assertion of notability. In my opinion a sculptor whose work is in many collections worldwide is an assertion of notability - (but I confess my knowledge of sculpture is insignificant). However this chap is of a generation that is underrepresented online, there may be many offline sources that cover him, hence I categorised it and downgraded it to a notability tag - if it hasn't greatly changed in a few days then by all means take it to AFD. WereSpielChequers 12:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Not at all challenging your right to remove the speedy. My comment was was actually more along the lines of wondering if you found a source that I had missed. I am all about keeping articles, and I think the only time I've actually tagged something was a clear cut {{{db-copyvio}}}. I also agree there is too much emphasis on web sources, which forms a sort of prejudice against people whose notability came pre-1990. I'm just trying to improve my research skills, which is why I was wondering about the source.

74.69.39.11 (talk) 13:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

OK understood, if I'd found a source I'd have added it. But sculpture really isn't my subject area (except for Moai), however I did categorise it and sometimes that brings things to the attention of those who are interested in that category. WereSpielChequers 13:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Nearshore Outsourcing

Dear WereSpielChequers, thank you for your quick reply, I appreciate it very much. I agree with your statement that if Nearshoring and Nearshore Outsourcing are two names I should improve exisitng rather than creating new article. But the problem is different, Nearshoring is not quite common at all, most of professionals use Nearshore Outsourcing as derivative of Offshore Outsourcing. I contribute to one blog with the same name Nearshore Outsourcing, but the article Nearshoring is not focused to serve the current needs in this industry and provide specialists from related areas with the relevant information. When interested users looking for Nearshore Outsourcing they don't use Nearshoring, we made a research. So, if it possible, I will be very glad if you can help me to sort it out.

With best regards Sergey

(Sergeyl1984 (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC))

Hi Sergey, because of the redirect if people look for either name they will now reach the article. But if you still want it renamed I suggest you start a discussion on Talk:Nearshoring with a suggestion of renaming that article Nearshore Outsourcing and making Nearshoring a redirect to it. Have a look at the history of the page and drop an invite to the editors there to join the discussion and if after a few days you have a consensus there you can get the article shifted. WereSpielChequers 14:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Re Jacob menson

Hi there, I don't think I actually tagged that article, I just reverted it when someone removed the Delete tag. Not sure as I can't see the history now that it's been deleted. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 06:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh well its gone now and I can think of three categories one could have argued for it. WereSpielChequers 07:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL DON'T DELETE THAT PAGE IT IS IMPORTANT TO DR ROBOTNIK AND HISP PRRRRRRRRRRRRRRROMOTIONS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.21.249 (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Giuseppe Mitri

Not sure your speedy decline rationale holds water, so I've AFD'd it Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giuseppe Mitri. Please provide evidence of meeting WP:ACADEMIC. My research indicates he doesn't. Rd232 ^talk 13:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

To decline a speedy you only need an assertion of notability, which I considered the article to have. By all means take it to AFD but please make sure the article creator is notified. WereSpielChequers 13:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Station wmxh.png‎

If you look under the "History of Image:Station wmxh.gif" section (gotta scroll down a little) you will see I was the original uploader of the image. 718 Bot went through awhile back and changed alot of .gifs and .jpgs to .png files. So, while 718 Bot bot uploaded the PNG file, I am the orginial uploader. Also, the file is orphaned at the present time, another reason the {{db-author}} tag was added. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 22, 2009 @ 19:10

Hi, OK that makes sense - now deleted File:Station wmxh.png per your request as author. ϢereSpielChequers 19:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 22, 2009 @ 19:56

Re:Shen Si

Hi WereSpielChequers, Thanks for pointing out that mistake to me - my bad in not picking up that point - Fastily (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem, just remember that speedy deletion is for the totally uncontentious stuff - for example on notability only an assertion is required (though earlier today I deleted the "most awesome guy in the world" as not notable). ϢereSpielChequers 19:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for defending the article. They player was reputable at his time. Leonard sh (talk) 07:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Your very welcome, may I suggest if you create more articles on chinese sportmen (and I hope you do) its worth reading wp:ATHLETE and quoting why they meet that criteria in your edit summary; eg an edit summary of 'Creating bio of player in World Cup 1966 per wp:ATHLETE' will give the new page patrollers a good idea of why they should flag your article as patrolled instead of flagging it as a possible deletion. ϢereSpielChequers 11:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Lajinaa

There are many sections in the article I don't believe. The claims where this object can be found in the geography section are nonsense. I'm an archeology student and except WWII bombs(yup, they're still explosive) and other WWII weapons that are quite common in Germany, we rarely do find weapons, especially if there was no ritual deposition. The story about the clips to shoot it is nonsense. Yes, you can shoot the depicted object with a crossbow, but not with clips. There's the slight possibility that the author confused it with the clip on a crossbow that's used to clip projectiles. I have doubts that this weapon was spinning. You'd have to fasten fins(out of raw leather or metal) at the pommel of the object for this purpose while still having the aerodynamic problem of the large blade that would move a lot of air when spinning. This simply doesn't work. It would make sense to fasten a thick cord at the pommel to improve short range flight stability. In combat, it could have been a cheap alternative to something like Apache revolvers that combined shot and knife (There are more and older similar weapons, but somehow I don't find them yet.). All in all, there's the possibility that this author wrote a distorted article about a real and rare weapon. I requested sources on the article's page threatening to remove anything unsourced. I'll also write the creator of this article. If he's not able to source we're save to delete it. If he names sources, we have to verify these. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, one of the editors of that article is a hoaxer so I was suspicious, but I agree with your plan of action. ϢereSpielChequers 15:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Boys or Ballet?

No problem - but is the book notable enough for it's own article per WP:BK ? Surely a redirect to the main article would be more appropriate ? CultureDrone (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Culture, per Wikipedia:Notability (books) Books don't get speedy deleted, but if you want to prod it go ahead. I declined the speedy "Articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article." because I was able to identify what it was about. I have no view as to whether or not it is a notable children's book. ϢereSpielChequers 15:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahh...well, that explains it. I think I'll redirect it for now in case someone wants to improve the article :-) Intriguing name btw....I'm still not sure how you could be a lycanthropic tree, but it's probably best not to think too hard about that :-) CultureDrone (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah a merge probably makes sense. As for how I came to be a lycanthropic tree, do any of us truly understand our nature or creation? But I do try to avoid editing under the full moon. ϢereSpielChequers 14:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:User CVU4-en

Hey. Just wanted to let you know that G7 only applies if the page has had one contributor. On a side note, that template was transcluded on dozens of pages, so you might want to check Special:WhatLinksHere in the future. Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well its a judgement call "The author of the only substantial content has requested deletion in good faith", in my view the other changes were quite minor and the original author was the only substantial edit. But it makes it easier to decline - I'm well aware that deleting the template made a lot of userboxes turn into redlinks, I was hoping that they'd no longer appear as speedy deletion requests! ϢereSpielChequers 18:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I consider a minor edit to be fixing a typo at best, so adding links would be a substantial change in this context. Regardless, I hope you don't mind that I temporarily restored the template. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem, as it says at the top of this page if a more experienced admin wants to revise one of my admin actions I will treat it as a learning opportunity. ϢereSpielChequers 21:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Anubys Gutierrez

Anubys Gutierrez appears to be (essentially) bullshit about a non-notable person. Evidence that the person in question is either lying or unimportant; He was born in 1991, making it unlikely that he has won "three championships" since he's about seventeen, I can find no evidence that World of Wrestling exists, in Texas or anywhere else, and the wrestlers he claims to have been in relationships with both draw similar blanks through the normal channels (en-wiki, google, etc). In addition if you look at the sites used as references; they look like they were designed in MS paint. At best someone in a tiny, unremarkable wrestling circuit, at worst a complete hoax. Ironholds (talk) 05:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh huh, sounds like it needs to go to AFD then - I declined the speedy because even I can understand winning heavyweight championship as being an assertion of notability. PS are you up ridiculously late or bizarrely early? ϢereSpielChequers 05:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculously late; I've been up since 2am-ish. I don't know what your excuse is :P. I'll send it to AfD then. Ironholds (talk) 05:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Bizarrely early - too much coffee late last night, OK and I've notability tagged it - I agree with deletion but not the route. ϢereSpielChequers 06:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review

Hi, WereSpielChequers. Thank you for trying to assist me with the deleted article "List of Exalted comics". However it is my opinion that the article should not have been deleted under criterion A3. Nihonjoe has now closed the deletion review, despite the explicit deletion review statement: "A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least five days. After five days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists." In my opinion, he has closed the deletion review in order to deflect attention away from the fact that he inappropriately deleted the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Axl, actually he's closed it early because the article has been userfied to a sandbox for you at User:Axl/List of Exalted comics. So it hasn't been deleted, its been put into your user space so you can work on it and move it back to article space when its ready. ϢereSpielChequers 21:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I know what he did. My point is: he should not have deleted the article in the first place. He closed the deletion review in order to avoid scrutiny of the deletion. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Axl, having reread your article I suspect this is down to interpretation as to whether "This is a list of comics produced by UDON Entertainment Corporation based on the roleplaying game Exalted." is "a rephrasing of the title" or something more significant. May I suggest that if you have the data to widen the list of those 6 comics to include extra columns with data such as frequency of publication, distribution area or first publication date then in my view you'd take it clearly out of A3 territory. ϢereSpielChequers 22:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course I was planning to expand the article. That doesn't excuse Nihonjoe's actions. Actually I am considering taking the matter to ANI because of Nihonjoe's misuse of CSD A3 and deletion review. This is not because I am offended or defensive about "List of Exalted comics"; rather it is because Nihonjoe thinks that he has implemented policy correctly, and therefore will continue to do this. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Axl, have you raised this with NihonJoe on his/her talk? ϢereSpielChequers 23:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I raised it in my request for deletion review. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

::: Please comment here. Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Alex crawford stevens

Hi there, sorry to bother you, I just have a couple of questions. Did I tag this article for speedy deletion? And if so, which tag?

Thanks in advance. decltype (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope not you, it was radiant chains. ϢereSpielChequers 17:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. The deletion popped up on my watchlist, and I had no recollection of tagging the article. decltype (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

re

Yes, I normally put them on the PNT page, but that page looked like very bad english with no structure and I could make no sense of it ;). Anyways, thanks for deleting it. - Kingpin13 (talk) 11:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Lorilei Guillory‎

Perhaps you could enlighten me, because I could see no source, and felt that talk of murdered children was negative. Kevin (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Errh yes on second thoughts it was certainly negative about the murderer; and the BBC reference was not linked - only one of the BBC hits is currently live http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4458032.stm and that doesn't mention the play. Nicely tidied up. ϢereSpielChequers 07:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Northern Ireland Schools

This article is probably the same as Northern Ireland School Uniforms which I see you speedied G3 and protected a few days ago. I wasn't sure about G3, so only PRODded it, but you may like to zap it again. The author RobbieSavage (talk · contribs) seems to be new - if you blocked the earlier author, this one may be a sock. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Ta, tis toast. ϢereSpielChequers 08:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

FredGoverno

Hi,

Can you help me edit the page you deleted about me. It was my biography. Also i understand you can undelete the page and attach it on my account. Do assist

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredgoverno (talk • contribs) 22:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Fred, I've done that and moved it to User:Fredgoverno however it currently looks more like an advert than a biography and I think you'll need to make some changes for it to comply with our policy on what you can have on your user page. If you only wanted it restored so you could copy it elsewhere just tag it with {{db-author}} when you've copied it. ϢereSpielChequers 23:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Frank Gallagher

Thanks and understood, I normally would not do that but the attack and vandalism were well hidden in the article and I was afraid they might be missed by a cursory look. I appreciate your points about an attack label. Sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Porturology (talk • contribs)

Sungenis Article

Thank you for your help with the Robert Sungenis article vis a vis "speedy deletion". An editor who has previously been reprimanded and who is on Robert Sungenis' board of directors is the one objecting (Mark Wyatt - WyattMJ) see here - scan down the list of signatories: http://lordylordyhavemercyonme.blogspot.com/2009/02/call-to-catholic-action-pope-benedict.html

The article on Robert Sungenis is the result of a lot of back and forth and careful research. Although of course it's possible there could be some things that are out of date or whatever.

As I said on the talk page for the article, if someone feels that additional information about other aspects of Sungenis should be included, by all means, add them in. But the information there has been well documented and has been out in public. It can be difficult keeping up with articles that appear and disappear, etc. But people have made a solid effort to get the facts right. I don't know of any original argumentation in the article. Are there arguments on the facts themselves? If so, what?

Sungenis has been a highly controversial figure in the Catholic Church, to the point where bishops and dioceses are publicly distancing themselves from him. Sungenis himself doesn't seem to shy away from it at all, and has really been quite confrontational about it. But in the past WyattMJ (a year or two ago now?) has tried to cover over or silence things that Sungenis himself wasn't the least bit shy about. I hope this is not going to be another exercise like the one a year ago or so. It was a long, drawn out affair and it did not make the article more informative for wiki readers.

There's still a warning on the page saying that the article "contains unsourced or poorly sourced controversial claims about a living person." To my knowledge this is not true. Everything on the page has been verified and checked. There is nothing controversial about the claims to my knowledge. No one disputes the fact, to my knowledge.

IMO, WyattMJ doesn't like the article because it accurately documents what the president of his organization has done and is doing. And the facts are sometimes not very flattering. But all sides to the argument that have been published are posted, to my knowledge, both pro and con. Any defense he's made or explanation is in the article and the cites are there.

Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liam Patrick (talk • contribs) 08:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Liam, thanks for the explanation, I delete a lot of attack pages but I've also been involved in controversial bios such as David Irving and I know how difficult they can be. I put a note on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Robert Sungenis, so you may want to repeat your note there. To be frank I'm trying to cut down my involvement in contentious biographies and focus on Richard Dawkins, Russell Brand and Marilyn Manson. But I have found the BLP noticeboard helpful in the past. ϢereSpielChequers 08:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at [Karl Keating] he is one of the biggest, well known Catholic apologists out there. If anyone deserves a long, detailed biographie (i.e., relevance) he does, yet he gets a few mweasly paragraphs. Why? Because no one wants to attck him. This is a biography of a living person, and clearly it is getting out of control. Wyattmj (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wyattmj, if Karl Keating needs expansion that's scarcely a reason to delete Robert Sungenis. I turned down the speedy deletion nomination because the article has sources. Speedy deletion is only for very clearcut cases such as no assertion of notability, or unsourced attacks. Hopefully mentioning it at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Robert Sungenis will attract one of our biography experts in with a fresh eye, but the ideal solution is to discuss the disputed bits on talk:Robert Sungenis. ϢereSpielChequers 15:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems that Sungenis' board member has found a sympathetic admin or two who have essentially gutted the entire article without even any discussion. It's a joke right now.

Liam Patrick (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Liam, have you tried discussing the article with the new editors? If reliably sourced information has been removed the first step to getting it back is to open the discussion at talk:Robert Sungenis. ϢereSpielChequers 22:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

pretty confused & Cistercian mess

Hi. I was following up on an AIV report and came across this edit of yours. I suspect there's more to the story than you blanking stuff. Can you elaborate? Toddst1 (talk) 23:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yup I'm trying to cut that down to a NPOV article, with the Abbot moving it to his own marketing spiel and another editor writing a hatchet job. ϢereSpielChequers 23:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I figured it was something like that. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 12:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Alas, I'm heading out myself. One of these accounts is the head of the Order; the other is determined to "expose" them. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Computerology

[1] → I would agree with you, but this is also being spammed on the main space (see Computerology as well as the corresponding AFD. I think they're actually serious about this, even though it's either vandalism or purely madeup stuff. Anyways, I'll wait and see what happens with that AFD before I consider taking this user page to MFD. MuZemike 18:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, well I've voted in the AFD but won't bother participating in any related MFDs. I deleted a lot of user pages earlier today after someone searched for the word "suck" in userspace. Not that thats an argument for keeping nonsense per se, but there's nothing like an hour of deleting attack pages to put pretty much anything else in perspective. Take care, and thanks for the explanation. ϢereSpielChequers 22:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. Unless the user provides any further disruption in that sense, I won't even bother to pursue it any further. I just hope that the userpage will not be used as a web host in the process. MuZemike 04:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, If that happens it would be an MFD matter. ϢereSpielChequers 15:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Danny morris

Yep, it probably would have been deleted if I had used another template, but I used the context one. I didn't use notability as I have actually heard of him, so I tagged him under context. [[Andrew RACK]] (talk) 10:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

If you'd tagged him as {{db-bio}} I'd have downgraded it to notability without raising it with you as I see the character as having marginal notability, and if you'd taken it to AFD I wouldn't have commented. But no context is really for paragraphs of verbiage where you can't figure out what the author is actually writing about. I had two of those recently - one I managed to salvage as an armoured car and the other a dried up river bed, but in both cases I could understand the patroller reading it twice and not being able to make head nor tail of it. PS it seems the author has now added BBC and Echo refs so it looks like he is notable. ϢereSpielChequers 10:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Miroslav Donutil

OK and thanks. I'm still a bit surprised, that many people add tags and templates without careful checking. I'm new at "speedy" - few nominations and deletions, few rescued articles. It's funny and somewhat frenetic in this area. Have a nice day WereSpielChequers. --Vejvančický (talk) 13:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Vejvančický, and a nice day to you too. Over enthusiastic new page patrolling is a phenomenon that a number of us are concerned about, and there's a thread at WT:RFA#CSD tagging which is discussing this. I find it a fascinating flood of input with incredible variety of topics and quality of writing. But it does worry me that some people see it as a binary choice between deletion and retention rather than primarily an article improvement zone where new articles get categorised and wikified. ϢereSpielChequers 14:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Zahckoh mitchell dos santos

OK, more diplomatic and more accurate, thanks. Can you look at this, please? CSD G3 is maybe inaccurate.--Vejvančický (talk) 08:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that was an attack. - it names someone and is pejorative and unsourced. Vandalism targeted at an individual is one type of attack page. ϢereSpielChequers 09:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for prompt answer. Is there any well arranged table with deletion templates, which I could add to my user page? Wrong speedy template is confusing (and sometimes offensive) for article creators. --Vejvančický (talk) 09:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, try Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion there are also some interesting essays on this which I'll dig out later. ϢereSpielChequers 09:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Dugout and posted to:User:WereSpielChequers#We're Spiel Checkers - thoughts on deletion ϢereSpielChequers 15:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

CSD for athlete

Gotcha, my mistake. Thanks! Jwkpiano1 (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: Middle

You are so right, I always check, but it slipped out of my hand this time, sorry for that, and thank you for being there to correct my mistake :-) Maen. K. A. (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem, it can happen to any of us. ϢereSpielChequers 13:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Michael Messenger

Hello. Of course I don't mind. After reading the article again I suppose his notability is apparent. The article still looks horrendous, but it is in no need of deletion. Hopefully tomorrow I'll get a chance to send paulwest a few ideas for improvement. After viewing his user page there is small COI but I think if we work with him a little it shouldn't be a problem. Beach drifter (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Article linked to Miorat

Hi, I was stub-sorting and found William Dugrogid a bit suspicious - no google hits on the man or the fish - then found that you'd deleted Miorat. Are they associated, do you think? PamD (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm 3 edits, one of which mentions that hoax, plus a fourth and deleted edit to talk:Moriat yup I sniff something socky. ϢereSpielChequers 23:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I deleted it per G3. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Article on Paul Starling

Hi Were Speilchequers,

The article on Paul Starling has been nominated again & seems deleted (non-notable? ), however this was previously denied, can you please confirm status...thank you.

Shizuoka_budoka —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shizuoka budoka (talk • contribs) 10:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion is the process whereby admins like myself make uncontentious deletions for reasons such as vandalism or as was suggested in this case non notability. An article can be speedy deleted within minutes of being created. I declined the speedy deletion of Paul Starling as I considered that the article contained an assertion of notability. Someone has now taken it to wp:AFD which is a more deliberative process where discussion takes place over 7 days, this gives plenty of opportunity for you and others to find third party sources that indicate why the subject meets wp:athlete. Hope that helps, links to articles about him from major newspapers would be perfect. ϢereSpielChequers 10:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see, then I have made a mistake as there did not seem to be a good reason the 'delete button' user by-passed criteria on World Championship Athlete; this info has been added now to the discussion page etc. At any rate more sources and evidence have been added to the article accordingly ,however, more time may needed if more are necessary as so many sources are available in the press and media. However these additional references may not be necessary as there are plenty appended already. Thank you very much for your help as this is all really very confusing.

Shizuoka budoka (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Thank you again for your latest message, I checked the talk page, however there doesn't seem to be any actual 'talk' on it. Thank you also for helping with the info box, I just couldn't get the html to work...looks vgood now though. Have placed more references in the article however will be adding a lot more when I can get to the archives later in the week...hoping there are enough though at present and adding even more references will give more substance...cheers again!

Shizuoka budoka (talk) 12:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ryan Torda

I tagged this article as nonsense since it's completely fictional - none of it is true by checking of 3rd party sources on the internet. Wasn't 'nonsense' the right template to use? Please verify. 123.125.10.105 (talk) 00:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

PS I'm absolutely sure that a lot of those links of Ryan Torda that you see on a Google search are just fake ones. If you dig slightly deeper or ask a 'topic expert' this will check out. 123.125.10.105 (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, I didn't spot this coming in at the top of my page rather than the bottom. {{db-nonsense}} is for "This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion as a page that is patent nonsense, consisting purely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history. This does not include poor writing, vandalism, material not in English, badly translated material, hoaxes, etc." So if you think its a hoax then either prod it or take it to wp:AFD - but hoaxes are not something that I'm allowed to sp<script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:VoABot/adminlist.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:VoABot/botlist.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Voice of All/Dates.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Voice of All/monobook/parse.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>eedy delete without others having a few days opportunity to discuss. ϢereSpielChequers 13:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look into this. Bit of a learning curve getting started but it's just annoying to allow stuff like that to remain up there. Thanks 117.79.64.45 (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

PS I've put the deletion tag on Ryan_Torda but require a registered user to nominate for deletion. Would you mind doing this? Thanks. 117.79.64.45 (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Emilijus Zubas

WP:ATHLETE is "plays for a professional/highest amateur team". It has generally been accepted, at CSD and AfD, that simply being signed isn't good enough, one must actually play. As this player has (according to his own article) no caps, he fails the guideline. Ironholds (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The article says played for but the info box contradicts this. I agree it would probably fail an AFD, (unless the website turns up a match he has played in) but CSD's threshold is much lower. ϢereSpielChequers 17:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: The Modular Man

Thanks for informing me about my mistake of the CSD tagging on this article. I should've tagged the OR template instead. I'll try to remember that next time. Agagin, thanks, and happy editing! -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 07:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. you may find some of the resources here of interest. ϢereSpielChequers 07:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Left Islamist Alliance

Hi Were, thank you for your doing what you did. I will see what I can find from more neutral observers. --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I am having little luck finding neutral sources and unfortunately I can't disagree with Duncan that googling the phrase finds "very little" that is not from right-wing websites. In any case it appears I'm outvoted. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi BoogaLouie, AFD is supposedly a !vote not a vote, so the participants will discuss and the weight of arguments counts not mere numbers; so if other sources can be found or POV points resolved then the debate can completely shift. That is why AFD is a seven day process whilst CSD can be anything from 7 hours to 7 minutes. May I suggest that you look at the Respect and Answer articles, partly because Answer in particular struck me as addressing a contentious subject quite neutrally, and partly because they may have sources that you hadn't come across. Also Left Islam may not be the only search query to use. ϢereSpielChequers 00:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Joachim Alda

Thank you for your notice. That's very strange. The article I translated it from, from de.wiki, has since been deleted. Maybe this guy doesn't meet notability requirements after all - I've not been able to find concrete statistics - I merely translated it from the original de.wiki article. I had intended to translate as many of these as possible - but I think I gave up about three years ago after writing three or so articles!

All the best. Bobo. 11:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bobo, I've seen a few squad members of notable teams have their bios deleted for never actually playing in the team - though my German is only good for ordering up to five beers not for comparing de notability policy with EN! But IMHO any deletion discussion of that sort of article should be via AFD not CSD. ϢereSpielChequers 11:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Odja Baba

Hi, I would like you to revert the delition of the entry Odja Baba. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IoannisKaramitros (talk • contribs) 12:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ioannis, I'd be happy to email you a copy of the article you wrote, but I've had another look and I don't see anything in the article that would indicate that team is sufficiently notable for a wikipedia entry. Can you tell me why you think it complies with WP:CLUB? ϢereSpielChequers 12:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

reply

So you are saying if I wanted to write a spam page for the neighboring garage band all I have to do is say that they are important???? Tepid water (talk) 01:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much yes; but remember, that would only get you through CSD - to survive wp:AFD you'd need reliable sources that backed that up. Also you need to say why the subject of the article is important or significant. So "made xxxx headliners of the largest alternative rock festivals in country yyyy" should get you through CSD. At AFD people can discuss whether its a hoax or real and whether the largest alternative rock festivals in country yyyy take place in football stadiums or garages. But "zzzz is important and significant - she's our school prom queen and has the most amazing eyes in the world" gets a speedy deletion. Also there are a bunch of other reasons why articles can be deleted, and spam is one of them check out wp:CSD for the full set. ϢereSpielChequers 06:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the help Tepid water (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Precious Bible Promises

Hi Excirial. I think Precious Bible Promises is about a book. ϢereSpielChequers 08:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what to do with that article. About 95% of the content is just a page from the book itself. Normally that would be a copyvio, but the text is dated from 1750, thus copyright is guaranteed to have expired. Still par WP:NOTTEXTBOOK Wikipedia is not for placing books.

If i were to remove the section there would be almost nothing left of the article. The text would be "Book A is written by B. Reference: The book. External link: Online version of the book". Since the article offers no further information, i also cannot make a stub out of this, as even for that to little information is in the article. Any advice? Maybe prod it or take it to AFD? If so, on what grounds?

(And by the way, do i recognize that menu bar from somewhere? ^^)

Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 08:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Excirial, I'm not sure either but in such circumstances I tend to categorize and hope that brings it to the attention of people interested in that category. As its a brand new article I would be inclined to give the author some time to improve it - thats why I replaced the speedy tag with a notability one.

As for the menu bar I like to think of it as a pastiche and a hybrid influenced by more than one source; but if yours was the original of that genre of user page I'd be happy to attribute or remove the bar. ϢereSpielChequers 09:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps that is indeed the best course of action with the book. If i, as a deletionist, have a hard time finding a guideline that would allow for removal of an article then that most likely means that it should stay. Thanks for the comment on that one

As for the menu bar, that type of yellow menu bar was indeed made by me; But please, we are working on a free encyclopedia, what are the chances that a simple menubar here would be copyrighted or owned by someone?. Everyone has permission to copy any part of my userpage and hence, some people use its basic templates with some color modifications to build their own page. The only reason for me commenting on the menubar was that i am happy to see that people actually use it, which means they must like it :). Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 10:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've now attributed it. ϢereSpielChequers 12:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sitaleki Timani

'what makes you think Sitaleki Timani is a hoax?'

The infobox ('Notable relative(s) - Notorious B.I.G.') made me suspicious, and I'd also swear that the external link when I clicked it did NOT go to the named player. It appears that I was mistaken. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The link was to the wrong page but the right site, a quick search on that site found the page so I fixed it. ϢereSpielChequers 15:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Tom Benjamin Williams

could you please delete the page again ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Benjamin_Williams ) and warn the creator of this page not to continue to do this please. Avatar 06349 (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Avatar 06349 (talk) has given you a WikiCake! WikiCakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of cakes by adding {{subst:GiveCake}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you for your diligence in the removal Avatar 06349 (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Ta, tis toast. For future reference attack pages are better tagged with {{db-attack}} - they go to the top of the speedy queue and a more serious warning is generated. ϢereSpielChequers 22:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

GelBrush

GelBrush inventor put his article back in immediately after you deleted. It's no longer spam... but it's certainly non-notable product with COI (stealthy advertising). Re-CSD or do we go through prod/afd? JCutter (talk) 00:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Also now IP-socking the talk page asking for information on how to buy... JCutter (talk) 01:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm the article needs AFD, and I need bed. ϢereSpielChequers 01:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: User:Salavat/Harpoon series

Yeh i finished the text and sent it straight to the main article so now the sandbox is redundant. Salavat (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

OK tis gone ϢereSpielChequers 14:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, Salavat (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Chrissie Armstrong

Hello again, hope you don't mind but I've declined this deletion as I think I've managed to establish context (glad I'm editing anonymously, I'd hate it if any of my mates knew I'd identified that subject). ϢereSpielChequers 11:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, i see the article was improved. This was the revision i tagged, and back then it made no sense whatsoever to me. I simply took it for some attempt to create an autobio. Glad you identified it - but seeing the context where "Mates" is often used, i cannot help but agree with the assessment it is better they don't know :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 11:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Dand

Thanks for bringing that to my attention — it really pans out in Statistics Canada's 2006 census community profiles, but only as a neighbourhood within a larger municipality, not as an incorporated town with a documentable population in its own right. 4-H, for what it's worth, is a youth social club that's fairly common in rural farm towns in North America, but it's not the kind of thing where each community's own local club would be notable enough to merit mention on here. I've restubbed the article. Thanks again. Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

And to think I thought Dallas was a small place. ϢereSpielChequers 19:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Mischa van die peen

Hi, I've tried a Babelfish translation of Mischa van die peen from Dutch to English and I don't see an attack. ϢereSpielChequers 11:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is removed now, but believe me - it was attack page. In short it was **************** (Not exactly a great thing to read since i was eating a rice cracker) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 11:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, presumably some Dutch speaker found it. ϢereSpielChequers 12:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Oliver McGough

Hi,

I wanted to ask about the above article, as I notice you declined the speedy. Do you mind if I take it to AFD? I'm reasonably sure this article isn't accurate, and had already removed the claim from the BK Avarta article, along with a number of other vandal/hoax edits. Thanks --Kateshortforbob 18:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kate, if I hadn't been dashing out I might have done so myself. I suspect a possible hoax, and don't know how notable being a manager of that team is - so yes it belongs at AFD not CSD. ϢereSpielChequers 20:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, while I've been away, it seems someone has pipped me to the post with a prod (and prod2), so we'll see how that goes. He's listed as manager on Oxford United Stars F.C. also, and I'm still searching for anything to verify that; otherwise I'll remove. Thanks for the reply --Kateshortforbob 23:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: Naseem Vicky

No, no problem at all i tagged it because there was no references but i googled his name and found quite a lot of stuff so no problem. Cheers Kyle1278 18:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Mahendran (actor)

Oops, I should have read through the article a bit more carefully. Hopefully I won't make the same mistake again. Thanks for letting me know! :) TheLeftorium 15:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Sheila McNamee

Hello, Sheila McNamee edited some of the information on the page I created about her. She felt it was unnecessarily long.

( I previously asked her if she minded if I created an article and she allowed me to access her CV).

Now she is concerned about the alerts on the article and wonders If there is anything that can be done. Any suggestions? Dialogical (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Notability

Although it may not be clear in the wording, Sheila McNamee is one of the founders of an important philosophical movement: Social Constructionism. She is also co-founder of an international institute and has been instrumental in founding other theories such as Appreciative Inquiry.

When I was researching this topic, looking for a university program,for myself, I found very little information. After I enrolled in another university, I became aware of her work and the institute using google alerts. I felt that this philosophy(and it's founders) that has been around for 30 years, deserved a page, so other prospective students would not have the difficulties I had.I asked permission of Dr. McNamee to create the article.

I am a new editor and am awkward at it.I am sorry. Advice welcomed.Dialogical (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dialogical, and welcome to Wikipedia. Sorry if the notices are a bit intimidating. I would suggest you both read wp:COI as there are some things that you need to be aware of when writing about subjects where you may have a conflict of interest. There is a big difference between a CV and an encyclopaedia article - Richard Dawkins is an article on an academic that you might want to cast an eye at. ϢereSpielChequers 21:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Wes Cusworth

Hi. Got your message about not speedy delete Wes Cusworth based on 'media awards'. I have only found one award, and added a link based on that. But it's quite a minor award, will consider putting RfD on it. Thanks for your help. peterl (talk) 10:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not sure it would survive wp:AFD, but the threshold for speedy deletion is much lower. ϢereSpielChequers 12:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Declined Speedy

Ahh...so that was a foreign language (Turkish), not gibberish. I'll try and do some searching to see if the name draws up anything.Tyrenon (talk) 08:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

List of Church House episodes

Where is the context? - nothing in this list gives any context. – ukexpat (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi a little sleuthing looking at the other edits by that author established that it was an episode list for a Jamaican TV series. I'm not convinced it will survive AFD but context is achievable. ϢereSpielChequers 18:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Zully Montero

Good to know WSC! :) Thanks for agreeing with my assessment. Kind regards. Calaka (talk) 11:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

KTM 300 MXC

Hi Hairhorn, I've declined some speedies of yours as it seems those KTM thingies were motorbikes. ϢereSpielChequers 11:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

If you say so. But see User_talk:BenjaminPQ for a little more context. Hairhorn (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hairhorn, I neither know nor care enough about motorbikes to know whether individual models would be deemed notable or whether they would be better as redirects to a smaller number of articles. But those speedies were no context and I was able to identify that they were about motorbikes. Also the author seems to have already filled in the missing details for at least one article. ϢereSpielChequers 16:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Chris Gilmour

Hi, this is in reference to your message dated 29 May 2009, concerning the criteria for notability of artist Chris Gilmour, for whom I have created a page. I have added a few links to the page to articles I found about him. Grateful if you could let me know if now things are OK and the criteria are met, or if something more substantial is needed. best fabrizio (Fabbs67 (talk) 10:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

Hi Fabrizzio, thanks for your note, an interesting bunch of links. I've removed the notability tag and turned one of the external links into an inline citation. I think with a bit of work in turning these into inline citations it should get to wp:Good Article standard, also you might want to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts. ϢereSpielChequers 11:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I will take a look at the good article and visual arts guidelines and continue working on the article. Best Fabrizio (Fabbs67 (talk) 08:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

Heh.

I smiled at your comment when archiving the disscusion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Sorry that it didn't go too well for you, its good that you can joke about it though :). All the best Spitfire^Tally-ho! 14:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, in hindsight I should have put myself in the neutral column as I don't really care either way but just wanted the matter clarified. ϢereSpielChequers 14:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

G10/A7

Still new to this, read like an attack but I wasn't sure what template to use. On a learning curve, Cheers! GainLine ♠ _♥ 11:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem, there was just one small reference between that and G10. If you're still on a learning curve you might find some of the material at User:WereSpielChequers#We're Spiel Checkers - thoughts on deletion helpful, interesting or at least amusing. ϢereSpielChequers 12:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hiphohumanizm

When I went to Google Translate to determine the language, the program gave me the rough translation as well, and it was based on that translation that I tagged the article an A1.

You may want to take a look at a recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Nonsense in foreign languages. The wording of the G1 criterion has been tweaked to close a loophole that was exposed in that discussion. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the link, I wasn't aware of the policy change but in this particular case I don't trust Google translate because of the words it doesn't recognise. ϢereSpielChequers 08:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Anna Cymmerman

Hi, I understand your rationale for removing the speedy perfectly; I hope you understand that my interest in restoring it a couple of times (it wasn't mine to begin with) was to let the process take its course. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Another speedy: on The Still Night's Aurora, User:I dream of horses placed a speedy tag which was removed by the author, and I dream subsequently received a note on their talk page from another user. I looked at that note, and I dream's response, and the article (again), and Google, and found no claim of notability nor any likelihood thereof. I have restored the speedy template--please tell me if I was wrong to do so, and go ahead and remove it if I was. Thanks for your time, Drmies (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, one problem with Google is that it doesn't pick up on Polish language references to the Polish spelling of someone's name. But on a wider note, the CSD notability test is whether importance or significance is asserted, if the author has asserted importance but you don't think the subject is notable then its probably best to go to AFD. ϢereSpielChequers 06:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

One Short Day

Hi WereSpielChequers. I came across this article: One Short Day - I think there may be something quite wrong with this article but I'm not entirely sure. Article prod/csd is not my field of expertise and well, to avoid any possible mistakes, I'd like to ask an expert to have a look at the article and hopefully remedy the situation. Thanks, FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Fastily, I've made a few tweaks to it. The subject is not in my area of interest, and as with many of the early drafts of our pop-culture articles it reads as written by a fan or promoter. Looking at the website they are claiming an awful lot of press reviews for the musical, but it currently lacks references to the song itself. Per WP:NSONG "Most songs[note 5] do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." So it wouldn't survive AFD without some expansion and extra sourcing, but I'd be inclined to read the article as asserting importance and therefore not appropriate for CSD, and its already been deprodded. ϢereSpielChequers 09:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Nutkani

JFYI - I retagged this because with the exception of your 1-line intro it's also all copyvio (various sections) from another site. Could you please take another look. Thanks.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   07:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me, I've resolved the copyvio. ϢereSpielChequers 07:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Sandbox Deletions

Thanks for that! It was damn fast too. Do admins get some sort of thing pop up saying someone wants a page gone or was it just luck that you noticed it? --Thejadefalcon (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I and a bunch of other admins who concentrate on speedy deletion tend to keep an eye on Category:Speedy deletion, either raw or in other formats. I tend to prioritise user requests second after attacks, but that system doesn't tell you how long something has been at CSD, so they usually get deleted out of sequence. So in your case your page probably got deleted ahead of dozens of others. ϢereSpielChequers 15:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly not complaining. Thanks again. --Thejadefalcon (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy tags

See WP:ANI#Tyciol's redirects.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Understood, however Sentaku and the other two dab pages look to me like good dab pages. ϢereSpielChequers 09:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly! He's just mass-tagging the majority of the redirects without looking hard enough to discern the value. Then simply linking to that thread as if it's an explanation in and of itself if anyone disagrees with and removes the tag. I can't keep up with it, but it's heartening that some of the mods are starting to see this, so at least a good portion of these might survive. Many were taken out by more trusting mods though, so I don't know how to get them back. Nice find with Atsushi+Junpei too btw. As for Marc Canonizado, I realize the person is not currently notable enough to deserve an article, but somebody mentioned him on Tricking so that's why I added him. If he's not notable enough to redirect then should his name be removed from the page? Should I bring it up with the person who added it? I'm not sure who added the names to be honest. Also, do you remember where Silicon Master had been pointed? Anyway, in regards to Leslie Ishii, she contributed to Tatara's women song, so she may be a singer with notable other works. A single song's not notable enough for an article, but if someone who knows something else she did comes looking, they can make one later and know to be linking to Mononoke, right? Tyciol (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Speedy Deletion

I agree with you, and I'm familiar with WP:CSD, but the subject of the article has no google hits other than WP and WP-related stuff and there were no references to substantiate the claim of notability. Before adding speedy tags (unless the article is complete nonsense) I always google the subject to make sure any claims to notability are substantiated, and if they are I simply tag the article with primarysources or cleanup (see South_East_Asia_Court_of_Women_on_HIV_and_Human_Trafficking). Cheers! XXX antiuser 18:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

OK well with no google hits I doubt it would survive AFD unless someone improves it. But CSD is for no assertions of importance, they don't have to be cited. ϢereSpielChequers 00:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Saeeda Pour-Aghaie

Thanks, I wasn't sure how to approach the article. GainLine ♠ _♥ 13:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gainline, yes it isn't an easy one. The sources are in a language that I don't know so ideally we should put the appropriate language icon on them, but I'm not convinced the subject is notable and it may well go for that reason. Given the circumstances of Iran it is entirely possible that this story is correct, and though the author is I think fairly new they have made some other edits, so its unlikely to be a straight attack page on a person who exists and hasn't had anything like that happen to them. ϢereSpielChequers 14:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Chak Budho

I'm curious to know under what guideline or policy it is stated that population indicates notability - this isn't sarcasm or anything, I genuinely want to know, as I couldn't find any!

Also, just because someone says the population is 3,000 doesn't make it so - I could find the population of Pakistan (172.8 million) and within 7km of Chak Buddhu (32782 - with 14 other towns/villages, and 2 airports within that range). Were you able to find any verification that this village has the stated population?

I look forward to hearing from a more experienced editor, as all these kinds of things help me to develop as an editor myself. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 14:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Steve, good question. the short answer is WP:DEFACTO. The longer answer is that we've recently had some interesting discussions when an editor created stubs for every village in I think pre 1948 Palestine and contemporary Thailand. Also on the WP:Content noticeboard there is a draft policy about the level of human geography below that - Wikipedia:Notability (streets, roads, and highways). In this particular case we have very stubby unreferenced articles by a newbie in an area where our coverage is weak, in contrast in Ireland I've seen aticles about places with thirty inhabitants. ϢereSpielChequers 22:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply - I hadn't looked at DEFACTO (I must admit that when looking, I don't always look at some of the more important essays - I had come across DEFACTO before, but forgot about it!). Obviously, Europe and the Americas tend to get well covered, as there are plenty of online resources available, whereas India, Africa, etc, can be harder to get verification of facts, as the online resources are very limited. Thanks for your answer - it has been helpful! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 07:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

pg blanking by author

Thanks for bringing it to my attention, will watch more closely next time! --Funandtrvl (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

requested deletions

Thank you. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 23:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, hope that was just a springclean? ϢereSpielChequers 08:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. (Annual "big rubbish" disposal.) Pdfpdf (talk) 07:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

Ah, sorry about that. Thought that was the author. I'll be sure to check more carfully next time. Tad Lincoln (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Todd (occultist) (2nd nomination)

Hi, WereSpielChequers. Because you declined a speedy on John Todd (occultist), you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Todd (occultist) (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me, I declined the speedy because it was a sourced negative bio, and therefore not appropriate for a speedy deletion. I'm happy to leave the AFD discussion to those interested in the subject, and the AFD crowd. ϢereSpielChequers 16:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Sophie McKenna

Hello WereSpielChequers! User:Sofe111 re-created the same page that you deleted a few minutes ago. Can you delete it again and possibly block the user or protect the page? Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks I've salted the page. I don't usually block for a second attack, and I think the warnings have worked. ϢereSpielChequers 07:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay thats fine. But if they re-create the page, they will be blocked, correct? Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've salted it so they can only recreate the page on the same name in the next couple of weeks if they first become an admin. Which is a tad unlikely on their edit count of 2 even if they weren't attack pages. More seriously if they continue editing like that they will get blocked PDQ. ϢereSpielChequers 19:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay thanks. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Unitra

I'm aware of that the article was created by someone else, but it's virtually a copy of mine article from polish wikipedia http://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UNITRA&limit=500&action=history

It's about polish company which existed in 60s - 80s is not really known abroad so the article in english is pointless.

--Shaman (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

tolerance

A page made for a friend to show them does not constitute an "attack page" please allow others to enjoy Wikipedia as well. --Katreez (talk) 06:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Katreez, Your friend may be perfectly happy with the way you described him, but we can't really check that can we? As for allowing others to enjoy wikipedia, well that depends on what they are here to do. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, if you enjoy being part of this amazing project then actually you will find the rules intuitive and unobtrusive. Whatever or wherever you know most about there is probably a wikipedia article on it, whatever you'd most like to learn about amongst our three million articles there is probably something you don't yet know; and whether your pet subject is a particular genus of flowering plants, the history and players of your countries football team or the place you'd like to go on a dream holiday to we probably have articles and opportunities for you to add to them. But please remember, there are some nasty people out there who will try to use Wikipedia for cyber bullying, which is why we have very strict rules as to what you can say here about other people. ϢereSpielChequers 07:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Saurabh Kataria

Hello WereSpielChequers. I've nominated this redirect for deletion, since the article Swami Yogeshwaranand Saraswati was deleted as A7. --Vejvančický (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, Thats reasonable, thanks for informing me. ϢereSpielChequers 08:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Re Speedy deletion!

Thanks for the guidance & placing the tl tag! Danke schon! AshLin (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I've amended the criteria for non-speedy deletion. AshLin (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Kalpesh dave

Fair enough; I tried to revert the blanking and Huggle told me it had been blanked by the creator and asked me if I wanted to tag it as CSD. Sorry for the mistake. --NellieBly (talk) 13:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem, that's an interesting explanation, I wonder if Huggle whether knew that the IP was the creator, or whether Huggle has a bug? I'll drop Gurch a note. ϢereSpielChequers 13:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

La Pianista's userspace

Hey. I've just restored these pages per the user's request, and we're currently working on removing the old CSD tags. Could you hold off on deleting them? Thanks. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 06:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes just spotted the date on those U1s ϢereSpielChequers 06:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

David owuor

Hi WereSpielChequers. :) I noticed you recently declined my A7 of this article, so I did a little checking on him and found out that the article as it is now is a direct copy of this. I thought I would tell you as opposed to retagging it and seem rude. :) Best, @Kate (talk) 11:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me and for the help cleaning it up. I had to wade through a lot to find the assertions of importance, so I wasn't going to make an issue of the A7. But I think it is now reduced to something that doesn't count as a copyright violation. ϢereSpielChequers 11:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Do not trust this website... trust me

Sorry about that was trying to do it here User talk:74.15.87.237 his edit here tricked me and i made the page with {subst:uw-test1}!! LOL ...........tks alot LOL LOL .....Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

No probs, thought it was something like that. If you don't want it in its new home just put {{U1}} on it, otherwise its an extra sandbox for you! ϢereSpielChequers 20:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Brian Condenanza

Hey! I am new here. My first article (Brian Condenanza) was deleted. So, How can do for change my article? And why do you was deleted my article?

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Expertoftech (talk • contribs) 23:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Expertoftech and welcome to Wikipedia. This is an Encyclopaedia, so we are looking for wp:verifiable and factual information and you would be very welcome if you add that to articles. If you want to describe yourself as "President of the Internet" on your userpage that would be perfectly OK, but encyclopaedia articles need to be truthful. ϢereSpielChequers 08:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. But I am not Brian Condenanza. So, if you wish, I can see you many newspapers or webpages for create the article about Brian Condenanza, or if you wish, I can write other articles. Please, I hope your answer. Thank you very much! --Expertoftech (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not Brian Condenanza

Thank you for your answer. But I am not Brian Condenanza. So, if you wish, I can see you many newspapers or webpages for create the article about Brian Condenanza, or if you wish, I can write other articles. Please, I hope your answer. Thank you very much! --Expertoftech (talk) 22:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Expert of tech, I'm not sure from Google whether Brian Condenanza is sufficiently notable to justify an article on Wikipedia. According to this site he has won various awards, but you'd need to track down who awarded him those accolades to see if they were credible claims of his importance. If they do check out as OK then yes go ahead and write an article citing them, but if you are in doubt as to whether they are reliable sources I suggest you put a question at the wp:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. The key thing is this President of the Internet title, if you simply quote that title your article is liable to be deleted as a hoax. I suggest that instead you start your article Brian Condenanza is an award winning celebrity blogger who styles himself as "President of the Internet". That way we are not repeating his claim, merely stating that he makes it. ϢereSpielChequers 15:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Museum of Lassanis Mansion

Hi WereSpielChequers, the text of the article is no more than its title, ie "Museum of Lassanis Mansion is a museum in Kozani, Greece". Where is the sufficient content to be a stub? The links I placed there are the result of my searches before I tagged for speedy. There is no more information I could find. If this is not the way to go for speedy, please let me know what I should do instead. I a: m doing cleanup work for WP museums and here is the work page to determine what is to keep and what not: User:Hoverfish/Sandbox. Thanks. Hoverfish Talk 18:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Well from the links I would suggest renaming that one as the "Museum of Popular Instruments", congratulations on finding the links, nice bit of salvage work. All you need to do now is add some data about those 1200 instruments. ϢereSpielChequers 18:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks indeed like Museum of Popular Instruments. Redirect maybe.. Himalayan 19:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, since the title has been mirrored by several sites and has got in various lists by now, a redirect makes sense. Hoverfish Talk 19:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Oops, there's more to it than I thought. The Lassanis mansion in Kozani IS just a traditional house with no museum whatsoever [2]. The article I have mistakenly taken to refer to it and added in the external links (and the reason the speedy deletion was declined) does not actually refer to it, but to a mansion in Plaka, Athens, built by George Lassanis in 1842 which houses the "Museum of Greek Popular Music Instruments" (Greek only) whose address coincides with the article in English I had provided [3]. It also does already have a stub for itself: Museum of Popular Music Instruments. So I suggest we delete per speedy A3 the former and develop as museum the later. Hoverfish Talk 21:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that's what I've done except I've left the Lassanis as a redirect. - I suspect the whole Kozani thing was an error that crept in somewhere. Are either of you happy enough with what I've done to remove the notability tag? ϢereSpielChequers 21:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Since the redirect title does not limit it to a mansion in "Kozani", yes, I think this solves the problem. If there is any future interest in developing articles for the hundreds of traditional restored mansions in Greece, the redirect may become then a dab page. Thank you and sorry for the confusion. Hoverfish Talk 21:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for finding that source. I've deleted one and prodded Limnea Museum - I suspect prods are probably the best way to go on the ones that exist but are really just one display case in a hotel. ϢereSpielChequers 22:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance and for pointing out the prod possibility. Hoverfish Talk 07:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome - I find prod an underrated way of solving such things ϢereSpielChequers 08:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of GIGI BURRIS

A tag has been placed on GIGI BURRIS requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. FlyingToaster 16:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the template, but I didn't create that, I moved it to Gigi Burris. ϢereSpielChequers 17:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

GIGI BURRIS 

The legal name of GIGI BURRIS is capitalized. I was not shouting when I created that title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreyarenz (talk • contribs) 18:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

whoops, in that case I apologise, we do get a trickle if new articles where authors seem to use caps for emphasis and I'd never heard of someone capitalising their name. But then I guess designers do tend to be different. ϢereSpielChequers 18:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Luka nervo

I have nominated Luka nervo, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luka nervo. 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.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. WuhWuzDat 18:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I declined a speedy as it asserts importance. But I didn't create it and have no strong views as to whether it should survive AFD. ϢereSpielChequers 18:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, as You moved the page seconds before I AfD'ed it, you were the creater (of the redirect that twinkle tagged). Will notify the author now. WuhWuzDat 19:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wuhwuzdat, I thought it might be something like that. I might drop a note at the Twinkle page as this isn't the first time its happened, - it doesn't bother me getting these templates but I am concerned that the author gets missed out. ϢereSpielChequers 19:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Attack page

I deleted User:Keegscee as an attack page despite the fact that you declined the speedy deletion on those grounds. A page that serves no purpose other than to direct people to vandalize another website is an attack page and we don't keep them up for 7 days as we discuss them on MfD. I reflects poorly on Wikipedia to allow ourselves to be used as a platform to attack another website. I hope you do not mind me taking action in this matter. ^Chillum 00:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Not really, It was near 1am for me so I took your reversion of my decision as a prompt to go to bed. Before I declined the {{G10}} I did click on the link and the page involved had a pretty prominent breach of Godwins Law. Hard to tell how much of that site is a parody and how much its for real, but arguably the attack was not unsourced. However further reading of that site shows they claim not to be a parody and to block users who add parody - so not appropriate to steer vandals there except for those who try to shift our line to one that would belong there. In retrospect rather than simply revert to the prevandalised version and ask the user to tone his page down, I think I should have reverted to a version from before the attack on the other website was added. As per "These pages should be speedily deleted when there is no neutral version in the page history to revert to." Unless you object, I'm minded to offer to restore the userpage to the point before the offending paragraph was added. ϢereSpielChequers 13:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Conservapedia? Judging from our article on the subject, it is all to be taken very seriously. decltype (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Well on their current main page we are described as "the House of atheism" and I won't repeat here the breach of Godwin's law in the article below it. I appreciate that the Political scale is very different on opposite sides of the Atlantic; For example one of my friends is an elected Conservative Councillor on this side of the pond but he spent some time in the last US election as a volunteer in the Obama campaign. Perhaps its a good thing that I stay clear of Political articles, but that site looks like a parody to me. ϢereSpielChequers 15:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You are of course correct that I should have checked for an acceptable prior version of the page. I have restored the deleted page and reverted to a version not advocating vandalism. As for Conservapedia, I will withhold my opinion. ^Chillum 16:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Chillum, and thanks for not trouting me for not spotting that in the early hours this morning. I've dropped a note on User Talk:Keegscee to remind him of the userpage rules and tell him why his userpage has been restored. ϢereSpielChequers 17:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I am very careful with my trouts and keep them unloaded and locked in a cabinet. ^Chillum 17:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sinhalese

You were absolutely right - it was Sinhalese: [4] Good catch.  7  23:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Flash SWF Editor

Thanks for giving me notice about Flash SWF Editor. I was a little cautious about nominating that for CSD, but I thought it better to nominate it and be wrong than not nominate it and be right. Since it's staying, I took a few minutes to clean it up. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 00:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jadefalcon, its usually best to err on the side of caution with Speedy and send the doubtful ones to Prod or AFD. In this case its clearly Software and Software is not subject to speedy deletion (as I learned to my cost in my first RFA). Cheers and happy editing ϢereSpielChequers 01:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the tips. I've only just started nominating anything for deletion and PROD is the one I'm newest to, so I'm not totally comfortable with it yet. What are your views on the article, anyway? Part of me is still uncertain about it. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 01:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Great. Now I've lost confidence. Sorry about the second false positive. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 12:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm really sorry that you've lost confidence on this. May I suggest you have a read of some of the guides at User:WereSpielChequers#We're Spiel Checkers - thoughts on deletion? I'm very cautious at newpage patrol, and will often categorise something or fix a typo because just as there are things that I can turn from a good faith attempt at an article into a stub, there are also many things that make little sense to me but left for a few minutes will be expanded by the author or someone else. ϢereSpielChequers 17:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take all that on board. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 17:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Almas Temple

I see you removed the prod on Almas Temple with the comment c/e and decline prod - architecturally, organisationally and culturally interesting, however there is no indication in the article about how this building is notable nor are there any references to any sources. How do you see this article meeting notability guidelines?--RadioFan (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Radiofan, well "What links here" is often worth checking - in this case it leads you to the phrase "Architecturally notable Shriners Temples include:". Organisational well I've heard of the shriners, though I don't they exist over here, as for culture - even an old fossil like me has heard of Dan Brown. ϢereSpielChequers 19:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. The Google News hits I'm seeing would do well to demonstrate notability of the Shriners but doesnt do much for t this building. For building articles I expect to see something indicating it is a historical landmark or some sort of architectural recognition. The what links here is a bit thin as well. Let's let it be for a few days and see if it gets improved.--RadioFan (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You Murderer!

The Urnanian peoples are not pleased with your deletion of their planet. Mark Swingle I (talk) 13:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so sure of that, blurring fiction and reality can be a dangerous thing. I suspect they are quite glad not to be in this encyclopaedia - if I'm wrong get them to give you some of their histories, submit them to a book publisher and have them published as Science Fiction. If they are a commercial success I'm sure Urnania will get an article here. ϢereSpielChequers 13:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you not heard of Urnania? They are a very powerful nation and you have angered them! Mark Swingle I (talk) 13:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, according to Google either they are very powerful but have chosen to hide themselves, or they don't exist. ϢereSpielChequers 13:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The most powerful nations are the nations you do not know are powerful. They could strike at any time. Mark Swingle I (talk) 13:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

In that case, should I start making the flags that our penguin overlords will want when they rise up and smite us? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 14:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you can never be too prepared. Mark Swingle I (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It shall be black and white. With a dead polar bear stapled onto it. It'll be a heavy flag. >.> --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 14:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This user welcomes our new Penguin overlords ϢereSpielChequers

(laughs) Wish I'd thought of that... --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 17:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Now available at {{User:WereSpielChequers/Userboxes/Penguin}} ϢereSpielChequers 18:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

← (snorts) At least something funny came out of all this. (adds to userpage) Though, shouldn't penguins have a small "p"? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but only until they take control. ϢereSpielChequers 19:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course, of course, silly me. All worship, Emperor Pingu! (bows) Ommmm... ommmm... ommmm... --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense tagging

Greetings WereSpielChequers - Thanks for your note. No, I don't mind in the slightest that you changed my tag - whether or not a recently-posted article classifies as nonsense or not is often subjective - in my opinion it was gibberish. The important thing is that it comes to the attention of an admin. who is better prepared to make a technical judgement. Cheers!--Technopat (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, it seems its been moved and now prodded, but this was what it looked like when you tagged it as gibberish. Now I could sympathise if you'd tagged it as {{db-bio}} as it was very close to meeting that criteria, but please be careful when tagging things as nonsense - it really is for Wikipedia:Patent nonsense, and it can be very bitey to describe someone's writing that way. ϢereSpielChequers 00:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"ალექსანდრე ყაზბეგი" CSD

I did a google search and the text is copied from some thread on a forum. -Reconsider! 09:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, but you need to include the link to that forum in the CSD tag. ϢereSpielChequers 09:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD: Jesse Van Hamont

I stand by my speedy-tagging of this article, but fully accept your detagging, so no worries. I've listed it for deletion, however, so if you're interested please see here. --Glenfarclas (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I declined the A7 because the article says "He played in many popular TV shows, such as "De Wereldkoning" (The World King) and "Harry Poppins"." which I take as an assertion of importance or significance. If you think its a hoax that might make it a G3, but its definitely not A7. I don't know Flemish and have no view as to whether it should survive an AFD though, but thanks for informing me. ϢereSpielChequers 22:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

OK with that as the authors only previous edit I'm happy with {{G3}} closure for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Van Hamont ϢereSpielChequers 22:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Howard Hale Long

Hello LeilaniLad, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Howard Hale Long - a page you tagged - because: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. ϢereSpielChequers 15:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey there. I'm not debating your call here, but just so I understand your reasoning: Many A7's try to show significance by making claims of one achievement or another, but have no citations or rather citations created by the subject themselves (i.e. in this article the only citation is the subject's biography page at his university).

Also, I realize this person held a doctorate, and therefor has been published somewhere. However not everyone with a doctorate is significant in their field. Again I rely on citations to determine this, as well as searching Google for reliable secondary sources on the subject. In this case Howard Hale Long was discussed on a few sites, but only as a creator of yearbook articles, or alumni lists. I could not find any significant accomplishments by the subject.

Anyway, that was my reasoning behind the A7. I did not want you to think I was simply tagging articles out of hand. Any feedback you have would be welcome. LeilaniLad (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, well if they make a credible assertion of importance or significance that means they aren't A7s. They might not survive Prod or AFD, but A7 is for uncontentious speedy deletions. ϢereSpielChequers 16:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, got it. Just didn't want you to think I was a Machiavellian rampaging about and tossing db tags around the project. LeilaniLad (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No I don't think that, there are a bunch of articles which probably don't belong here but don't qualify for speedy - I nearly prodded that one myself. ϢereSpielChequers 18:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Adi4094 CSDs and Prods

I notice you gave Adi4094 a notice about using the wrong rational, I thought it might do some good to point that he has made a few questionable prods and CSDs tonight [5], [6]. I worry not so much about these but how many articles is he marking as patrolled that need to be deleted. He has also now started reverting my edits on his talk page and on my talk page as vandalism. Ridernyc (talk) 09:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

CSD

Under which CSD do these articles come? UZ (Gang) Dario robayo BTW,Happy New Year! --Adi4094 (talk) 09:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Dario robayo needs translation - I think its in Spanish. But please don't think in terms of which CSD criteria an article fits - we are trying to write an encyclopaedia here not delete one. ϢereSpielChequers 10:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Mark Green (author) nominated for deletion

Hey WereSpielChequers, please have a look and weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Green (author). Thanks, and Merry Christmas! I hope Santa puts some bacon in your stocking! Drmies (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me, and a bacon fuelled Xmas to you too. However as for Mr Green, though I declined the speedy (and consider that it definitely has context now); I have no strong views on the AFD. ϢereSpielChequers 23:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Kitamani

Was beginning to look like a typical WP in stub - names of other places linked - and a list that is linked to lists (basically meaningless to the actual bali context) - I did a cleanup - you are most welcome to modify or re- add - but the thing is it is a small stopping place on the edge of the caldera - it is not an area. SatuSuro 01:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, my involvement was to decline an {{A3}} and Wikify a bit. But I've never been to Bali, so if you have information to improve the article go ahead. ϢereSpielChequers 01:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - cheers SatuSuro 02:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)