User talk:B1atv/Archive 1

Hi

No worries, I also noticed you never received one of these so have one now --

Hi B1atv, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

---

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

• Table of Contents

• Department directory

Need help?

• Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
• Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.

• Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
• The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:

• Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

• Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

• Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

• If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
• If you'd like to tell us about yourself and meet other new users, be sure to introduce yourself at our new user log.

Good luck, and have fun. --♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You may also want to have a look at your speedy deletion notice on Disabled students allowance as whilst it is a pretty low quality article it isn't really blatant advertising for a company as it is a UK Government sponsored scheme, and is almost certainly a valid article. It does need work doing on it to bring it up to wikipedia standard and a refs section added and so on though. Have fun on wikipedia! ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, just spotted your message on the talk page of the Disabled students allowance article, and I don't believe your adding the tag was a "bad faith" at all, just perhaps the wrong tag to add only. I will have a look at the article later and try and clean it up a bit! Keep up the god work! ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

John Bryan

I declined speedy on this one, because there is an assertion of notability, given the source and being an elected official which some people think is sufficient. Any way, I did nominate it for deletion at WP:AFD because I think it fails WP:N. Carlossuarez46 21:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that - perfectly reasonable. I've already spotted that AFD replaced DB and have cast my vote (I know, I know, it's not a vote!!) B1atv 21:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Sri Shailendra Sharma

Hi!

it is regarding speedy deletion recommended by you for the article on sri shailendra sharma and its subsequent deletion. can i repost the article with a lot of changes. can you help me on this ? Mysticyoga 19:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for your message. I can't see how the article can be re-written to meet WP criteria. He isn't notable so far as WP is concerned. The three pieces he wrote were published on his own website; not by reputable third party publishers and, as you said yesterday, the reason you posted the article was that others could follow the way advocated by him. WP is not an platform for proslytising. You could always retry - but I would warn against it. If the article was re-created and then deleted again it could be considered to be vandalism and some editors could call for you to be blocked. It would probably be better, if you feel he is genuinely notable, to include some details in one of the related articles - but keep it notable, keep it properly sourced (reputable verifiable third parties) and keep it neutral. Writing or editing an article to persuade people to follow a particular religious path is not neutral. B1atv 19:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your sincere advice. I dont want to hurt the sentiments of anybody and would like to maintain the decoram of WP, as I have high regard for this Encp.,this is the reaseon I have asked for your help and not posted the article straightaway. Further what I meant by 'others could follow the way advocated by him' is not that anybody should follow His path blindly. What I meant was that He is a Guru who teaches the well known path of Kriya Yoga on the lines of Lahiri Mahasaya and those interested in Kriya Yoga would definetely like to know more about the Gurus and the path. Further the books authored by Him are also available in print, it is only for the readers to get freehand information that they have been put on the website freely. Further I would like you to know that Yogeshwari Shrimad Bhagwadgita: A Yogic Commentary is perhaps the first comentary from the viewpoint of a Kriya Yogi and explains to a large extent the Kriya Yog. Anyway can I send you the text before posting so that you can give comments before it is posted to avoid unnecessary deletion. If yes how? Mysticyoga 05:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Tagging of Arab Communist Party

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Arab Communist Party. I do not think that Arab Communist Party fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because with sources asserts some notability, generally any party getting press gets kept at Afd's although we expect more from its distant laggard candidates - a compromise of sorts. I request that you consider not re-tagging Arab Communist Party for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. You are, of course, free to tag the article with {{prod}} or nominate it at WP:AFD. Carlossuarez46 19:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. At the time I tagged the article the only source given was a link to a 1960s press release and two unrelated wikipedia articles. A Google search produced results for the phrase as a generic term but no clear results for a specific group with this name. Since I db'd this article further information has been added. It seems the editor is editing as he goes along rather than using his sandbox. I'll keep it on my watchlist and if it is not significantly improved in a few days I'll nominate as afd; but I'll leave it to see how it brews. B1atv 19:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Thanks for keeping WP clean. :-) Carlossuarez46 23:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

U of St Mary's Kansas

Instead of putting the adv. Why don't you edit what you feel is an advertisment for the schoool. All I did was make a stub for the school giving it location who runs it and how many degrees it gives out. Smith03 20:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I may do that at some point; but tonight I do not have the time to do the research. The article reads like an advert because it repeats the university's own mantra (see the source page of its website home page) and talks about what is on offer. It offers no context; no history; no claim of notability. I'm not suggesting the article be deleted; but it does need more work to prevent it reading like an advert. You yourself must have had the same concerns as in your first edit summary you specifically state that it isn't an advert. B1atv 20:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I stumble upon this article that had been deleted. I took the old article and edit down to a basic stub. That gives it location who runs it and the number of degress it gives. Appartently in the past someone from the school wrote it and it someone else believed it was an ad and deleted. To me it seems like a better idea to take what was written and edit down to a stub (with basic factual info). That way at least there is something as opposed to nothing with several links . I am in no way connected to the school. As a general rule I would rather see people "fix" something that they feel is an ad as oppose to just tagging it Smith03 21:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure how you can stumble across a page which has been deleted. Once it has gone from WP it is gone. And if it has been deleted recreating it could be a breach of WP guidelines unless you have sought advice from an administrator or disccused it at deletion review. Personally I would prefer people didn't create stubs and left things alone until they had the time to do a proper and decent job. B1atv 21:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Admins (I am one) have the ability to see deleted pages histories. Since it had been deleted due to being an ad (hence how I knew about it). I just took the old article and edit to a simple stub. ( I think a stub is better than nothing) Smith03 23:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Polluto (magazine)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Polluto (magazine), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dog horn publishing. Thank you. Carlossuarez46 23:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Pano

Pano, along with most of the other MÄR character articles, are recently created, and, as Wikipedia notes, most articles start off as stubs, and MÄR should be no different. I suggest you wait until we're done cleaning up and improving the character pages before coming back. I'll send you a message once that is done. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 21:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I had actually removed the db flag prior to receiving your message having seen the changes you had made to the article. The article as originally created wasn't a stub - it was nonsense which didn't make sense. Stubs are short articles in need of expansion; your article was incoherent. You should use your sandbox to play with articles until you are happy to unleash them to the world. B1atv 21:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Normally I do (instead I just fiddle around with the uncreated article first, actually), but a large number of articles were just created, and I wasn't allowed that priveledge. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 22:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Prods

Good catches, all of them. but it would help the reviewing admins, such as myself, if you could indicate the field of interest of the subject, rather than just "non-notable" -- not everyone is competent in every subject--for example, I dont try to evaluate articles on musicians, and can go faster if I just skip them. Thanks, DGG (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Are you saying it's better to use the templates rather than the manual {{db|insert reason}} flag? B1atv 17:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Sandy Walkington

I'm sorry, but though you ask not to question your motives, I think that questioning them is justified. You admit yourself, that you are a yourslef a PPC. That means also, that you are probably of a member of some party. Would you suggest an article about a PPC of your own party for deletion? I think not. I wouldn't suggest any article about a PPC of any party in the future election for deletion, though it is true that I wouldn't create one about a PPC of competing party. Still there are such articles, for instance about Wilfred Emmanuel-Jones, but that one you haven't nominated. I wonder why? Do you really think that all the PPCs of your own party meet the WP notability test, but the PPCs of other parties don't? --Libs 12:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It is never justified to question to motives of other editors - see Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I am not a PPC and have not admitted this. I have, however, been a political candidate in the past both as an independent and as member of a party. Would I suggest an article about a PPC for "my own party" be deleted? Yes I would and I have. You are merely showing deepening evidence of bias when you talk about "competing parties" in this way and as such you should not be edited WP articles about party related themes as you can't do so with a neutral point of view. WP is an encyclopaedia not a promotional vehicle.

As for the article Wilfred Emmanuel-Jones: No, I wouldn't nominate this for deletion because he is clearly notable as The Black Farmer - and this is the bulk of that article. The fact that he is a PPC is mentioned but it isn't the subject of the article. In the articles you created you merely stated that the people concerned were "candidates" for a constituency. That does not provide the notability required for a WP article. You keep talking about "my own party" and whether all the PPCs of my own party meet the WP notability test and all other PPCs don't. Actually, as I have tried to make clear, being a PPC for ANY PARTY doesn't make anybody notable enough for a WP article. I have nominated two of yours because one came up as a new page when I was doing a new page patrol (see my edit history to see that this is what I do - read new pages and nominage them for deletion if required). When I nominate one page for deletion I look through the edit history.B1atv 12:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[[Wikipedia:Assume good faith]: "Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary..." and I think there is. I knew you wouldn't suggest the article about Wilfred Emmanuel-Jones for deletion. What's special about a black farmer? There must be million of them in the world. And is there a case to make an article about somebody simply because he is of a certain common ethnic background, and is in a certain common occupation? Sounds a bit strange. Maybe you shouldn't do any new page patrol, if you are so inconsistent.--Libs 13:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If you knew I wouldn't suggest the article for deletion why mention it? Yes, there are lots of black farmers, but this man has built a business as "The Black Farmer" which has become a notable brand. You will find articles for other notable brands. There has been an element of acheivement and notoriety which gives the subject notability. If you think the page should be deleted nominate it for afd and see if the community agrees with you. There is nothing to be gained by continuing to argue here.

I have nominated two of your articles for speedy deletion. If the administrators agree with me they will be deleted; if they disagree with me they will not be speedy deleted. Either way arguing about my motives doesn't help your case. B1atv 13:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

(corrected B1atv 13:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll let it for them to decide. Unfortunately I can't spend the whole day on the computer, so I'll let other people to discuss for a change. --Libs 13:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Coffeebean66

Thanks for correcting my mistake.--Thw1309 12:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

no probsB1atv 12:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Albany Junior High School

I'm not convinced that Albany Junior High School is really a speedy deletion candidate. There still isn't agreement among the Wikipedia community regarding whether schools are notable. I removed the speedy deletion tag, and I'd suggest listing the article as a proposed deletion or at WP:AFD. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 13:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I think WP should find some way of addressing this and finding a consensus on policy otherwise every school in the world would claim the right to a WP article. I'll take this to afd later today. Thanks again. B1atv 13:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Replaced speedy tag

About the csd tag on Bighorny sheep - when I opened the "edit this page" screen, it was an empty page. We must have made the edit pretty much at the same time, and I just saved it a second after you did. If I'd seen your edit, I wouldn't have replaced it. --Bonadea 14:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. B1atv 14:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Today Tonight

You got tricked by a vandal! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I spotted your correction and I've already apologised to the user who originally created the article. I was convinced I clicked on my "new pages" shortcut instead of "recent changes". Ho Hum! B1atv 07:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Shiva

What is wrong with calling Shiva as a personal supreme God for Shaivites? The Divine does not mean anything. for example, this is the entry on Allah: Arabic-speakers of all faiths, including Christians and Jews, use the word "Allah" to mean "God".[2]

Do they call Allah to mean the Divine? If you want to more accurate, you should say Shiva is Ishhva, a personal supreme God and for Smartas, different manifestaions ofSaguna Brahman/

Thank you.

Raj2004 10:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Oscar Mink

You recently nominated the article Oscar Mink for speedy deletion. I have moved the article to AFD instead. You are invited to join the discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscar Mink. Aecis^Brievenbus 11:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ashley Wood

Thanks - you have just convinced me as to why we will in future keep all bios and information strictly to our webpages and not place relevant information on Wikipedia. Excuse us for attempting to keep fans and the curious updated with our progress, as information provided by the fans who originally put the page together hasn't been the most accurate. We are the horses mouth and are completely verifiable. Bambaland 11:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)BambalandBambaland 11:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I am answering this on your talk page to keep the conversation in one place. B1atv 11:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

CSD G4 use

CSD G4 is for recreation of material deleted at an WP:XfD. CSD G4 is not for recreation of material previously speedy deleted. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 17:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - I'm using Twinkle and it only said "Deleted Material" - I'll remember that in future. B1atv 17:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

TexTra

Why did you delete the Textre entry. I am a fan of Textra. The people and the information can be verified. the same thing have been doen for the Dawn and Dave show from the PodShow network and it hasnt been tagged for deletion. I think that may be miscontrued as biased. Vsnlweb 03:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't delete TexTra, I merely nominated it for deletion, because the article didn't meet Wikipedia standards. My nomination was then checked by an administrator who agreed with me and deleted it. I haven't seen the Dawn and Dave show entry but I will have a look at it now. If that too fails to meet WP criteria I will also flag that up. The TexTra entry was very short and contained very little information - specifically it failed to include any verifiable information as to why Textra was notable. Being available on YouTube or other websites doesn't make somebody notable. If you think they are notable then you could try re-creating the article, but this time include independent trustworthy verifiable sources which indicate why they are notable. B1atv 07:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Penn Foster College

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on this article. I didn't start it, but have been editing it trying to make it better. Taylor W. 00:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. B1atv 00:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

CSD A7

Hi. You've obviously been doing a lot of good cleanup around Wikipedia. :) I just wanted to drop you a line to clarify WP:CSD#A7. This criterion is for people, groups of people (professional, club, musical) or web content. WP:CSD#Non-criteria specifically excludes all other article types, so it doesn't cover albums, like The Blackout! The Blackout! The Blackout! and We Are the Dynamite!. That seems to be a very common source of confusion. :) Non-notable subjects that are not people, groups of people or web content must be deleted through WP:PROD or WP:AFD. Thanks, and keep up the good work. --Moonriddengirl 02:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't clear which one to use so I nominated two of these for afd and they got speedily deleted! B1atv 07:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly a case of WP:IAR. :) --Moonriddengirl 11:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

September 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, all but two of of the external links that you allowed to remain in the references section on the page IBM Project Zero do not comply with our guidelines for external links either and thus have also been removed. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

But actually I think the blog link I was inserting is the most notable thing so far about Project Zero, and if the article stays that link should too.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.204.210 (talk • contribs) September 23 2007

• COMMENT AND NOTE TO REVIEWING ADMINS: The user who posted this (an anon ip at User:76.103.204.210 has been warned by me about adding a spam link to a blog on the IBM Project Zero article. This unsigned warning appears to be his "retaliation". B1atv 11:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the admin on the noticeboard, this is a content dispute not vandalism. If anything I am guilty of making a WP:POINT by deleting all the other blog links, but I undid that myself. Your "precious" userpage was the only thing I vandalized. And my edited boilerplate above was actually more of a (admittedly weak) "mockery" than a "retaliation".... if you'd "read" it or clicked the "link" you might have realized you're being foolish to delete the one useful critical blog link while leaving all the advertising ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.204.210 (talk) 11:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my userpage right after I saw it! :D -Domthedude001 16:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

No probs. I've reported him for administrator intervention as he's already received a final warning for it. B1atv 16:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

PokerTracker

Hi, thanks for the comments on this article. It's not vendor-spam, I have no connection with the vendor. It looks like this is a legitimate program with real uses, see the discussion I've linked in Talk:PokerTracker. Is there a problem with the vendor spamming this program? Also, can I remove the wiki-spam tag form my talk page as desired? Thanks!! Edgriebel 15:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The difficulty here is that the article you created had no sources to verify the claims made in it and was written very much like an advert. The discussion you linked in Talk:PokerTracker is not a verifiable third party source, as defined by WP standards - it was anonymous comments to a newspaper's blog. A reliable source would be credible news reports about the software rather than a website user talking about it. The suspicion of spam came about because of the speed by which you placed a (again, unsourced) comment about the software in an unrelated article with a wikilink to your article. However, I always assume good faith and accept what you have to say.

I won't remove the comment on your talk page because as a policy I never remove them - I believe they should stay (that includes when I have made a complete pigs-ear of a mistake and end up posting an apology and clarification underneath them when it would be easier (and less embarrassing) to simply remove them. The same applies when people post spurious messages on my talk page. I won't be offended if you remove it yourself or if you post a link underneath it to this discussion here. B1atv 15:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point about the unsourced initial comment, thanks for the tip about it, I didn't know that's what would trigger a scriptbot. Edgriebel 15:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Please undo your change that removed my edit for PokerTracker, I don't think it is fair to remove it as it is legitimate and not vendor-spam. I would do it myself but don't want to get into an edit war with you. Edgriebel 17:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't revert it as you added it without a source (and the main article is STILL unsourced). There is nothing to provide any evidence of the notability of this software. I have flagged the PokerTracker article for CSD; it would be hypocritical of me to then re-insert a sentence about that software into a completely unrelated article. The Online poker article has no mention of any poker related sofware - it isn't relevant to that article; and so a sentence about the software you included with a link to the PokerTracker stub is neither justified nor helpful. B1atv 17:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I will bring it up again or reformat for relevance when PokerTracker is properly sourced. Thanks for the feedback!! Edgriebel 17:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Lehigh Valley Arts Council

Marked for deletion - Please provide instruction for having this organization listed.

Mission: The Lehigh Valley Arts Council (LVAC) was incorporated in 1989 as a 501(c)(3) not-for- profit organization and continues its mission today to promote the arts; to encourage and support artists and their development; to assist arts organizations; and to facilitate communication and cooperation among artists, arts organizations, and the community.

As the Lehigh Valley’s only regional arts-services organization, LVAC drives initiatives that impact economic development, cultural enrichment, education, and individual creativity. Currently, LVAC serves 125 nonprofit cultural organizations, plus 400 artists, arts patrons and business members. But its services also extend beyond membership—to the educational community and their students, to the business and government communities, and to the thousands of arts patrons who seek information and access to the Lehigh Valley’s rich cultural offerings. The belief that “the arts are essential to the economic prosperity and quality of life in the Lehigh Valley” underscore all of LVAC’s programs and services.

LVAC has partnered with Americans for the Arts to administer multiple Arts & Economic Prosperity studies, economic impact studies of the region’s nonprofit arts industry. The organization compiles data from over 100 regional nonprofit cultural organizations and audience intercept surveys from various arts events. Analysis and a detailed report are available to the public at no cost and are presented at a public forum.

Thanks - --Lehigh Valley Arts Council 16:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

To start with, now that the article has been flagged as an article for deletion, you need to contest the deletion. To do this go to Articles for deletion/Lehigh Valley Arts Council and edit the discussion. Start a new line at the bottom and type * (that will flag your comment as a new contribution to the debate); and then the words "keep" or "delete" (I assume you want to "keep"!) and then your reasons why. Format the "keep" so that it is in bold and then sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).on the articles for discussion

As for the article itself, not every organisation in existence is entitled to an article on Wikipedia. Organisations must be notable. In Wikipedia terms this means that it conforms to the policy at WP:NOTABLE. To prove notability the article must cite a number of independent verifiable sources. I have done a search on Google but all I could find was the organisation's own site, various local directories and a number of blogs. Are there any news services that have mentioned the organisation? Is there anything to suggest that the organisation is notable as opposed to merely existing?

The third thing is that the article has to be written with a Neutral Point Of View. There are a couple of Wikipedia guidelines that help here, including WP:NPOV and, WP:Autobiography (although that mainly refers to people the same issues arise with companies and organisations).

If the article survives the afd discussion (we shall know in about a week); and if you can provide some proper sources, then I will be glad to have a go at editing the article to ensure it is written with a NPOV. But one thing you need to bear in mind: nobody owns articles on WP and other people are entitled to change anything you or I put so long as they are able to verify it.

I hope this response is helpful. B1atv 16:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

PokerTracker

I have removed the speedy delete tag on this article, because the discussion on the talk page suggests that this isn't a clear cut enough deletion for speedy delete. If you still think the article should be deleted I would suggest you pursue the articles for deletion process. Natalie 19:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I thought is was pretty clear with all talk page contributors apart from the author! I've completed the afd process as requested. Thanks again. B1atv 19:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Shad Valley

I've removed the speedy tag. I think you need to take it to AfD if you want it deleted. --Dweller 12:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay. No probs

Help Me: Sock puppetry Case of User:Geekfest and User:Really here

Is there anybody there (!) I think I have reported a suspected sock puppet but I suspect the reporting process hasn't worked correctly. Could somebody take a look at User:Geekfest and User:Really here and let me know if I've done it correctly. TVM. B1atv 17:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You did fine. Both are now blocked.--Chaser - T 19:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much! B1atv 20:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:UAA reporting

Just a quick note to say that names such as "Xhottie73x" aren't violations of the username policy, certainly not blatant violations. A name sounding like the user may be trouble isn't a blatant cause for a block. If you think they may be trouble, there's nothing wrong with "keeping an eye" on them to see if they fulfil your worst expectations, but there's no problem with the name itself.

You do make a fair number of good reports, in my opinion, just perhaps a bit eager. WP:UAA is just for blatant violations of the substance of the username policy. SamBC(talk) 21:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Sambc; I guess it was the name coupled with the half-sentence attempt at a user talk page which cried out "vandal". I accept I am guilty of not AGF here, but I'm learning to spot trolls at 10 paces ;-) B1atv 21:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The ones spotted at 10 paces probably warrant waiting until they actually do something wrong. No complaints about the intention though ;) SamBC(talk) 21:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It's okay, I knew what you meant - and I know you're right. I don't normally jump in first and do normally monitor. B1atv 21:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Reverting your talk page

No worries - people are odd sometimes, and some comments don't really need reading! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 21:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Lovely Torrisholme

The two users creating that garbage and related silliness are socks of user:Graham Heavy. They've been adding that crap to Torrisholme and related pages for about a year now. We've taken to denying them recognition (not that it seems to help) by not adding sockpuppeteers to the accounts. If you see any more of their additions, feel free to report them immediately to WP:AIV without warnings. Cheers! -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 02:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that explains why they were so quick with a fairly detailed page. I'll keep an eye out. B1atv 06:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks for removing vandalism from my talk page. Arthurrh 23:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Bou (An Cafe)

speedily deleted

I'm not being mean but i only deleted the speedily deleted sign on the Bou (An Cafe) page cause i fixed it up a little if you think that it needs more work and put the speedily deleted sign on again then i will do more work on it again if that dosnt work i'll just wait for someone to delete it cause its not worth me going back over & over again fixing it if its wrong. ~ User:YukiLuvzbou 04:21 October 2 2007. —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

never mind

never mind about the bou page. ~ user:YukiLuvzbou 04:25 october 2 2007 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove speedy deltion tags. To do so on articles you have created goes against wikipedia rules. If you contest the deletion you should add {{hangon}} to the page directly below the {{db|''reason''}} tag and then state your reasons on the article talk page. The speedy deletion tag is there to alert an administrator. Sometimes they will agree with the request and delete and other times they will disagree and remove the tag. They will always look at any comments made in the discussion page if the {{hangon}} tag has been used; and they will also look to see if the page has been improved since the tag has been added. But if you remove the tag yourself this is considered to be vandalism and another editor could roll-back or revert the vandalism. Many anti-vandal tools used on WP assume that if a vandal is active (and removing speedy deletion tags is considered to be vandalism) then all their edits are vandalism. So rolling back to when the Speedy Deletion tag was put on the page could remove any legitimate improvements you have made. I don't know if that's what happened in this case, because I logged off shortly after flagging this article. But I have seen that happen elsewhere.

One other point, your username User:Yukilovsbou suggests that you are approaching this without a Neutral Point of View. All articles in Wikipedia must be written without a Conflict of Interest. This is absolute and without exception. You may like to consider this and write on other subjects. B1atv 07:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Asset Acceptance

Thanks for your removal of that attack paragraph. I'm embarassed I didn't notice it myself when I restored the article. Luckily you came along within about 2 hours and fixed it. Keep up the good work. Mangojuice^talk 05:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for your comments. I didn't spot it at first when I flagged the page as a CSD candidate - it was only as I was clicking away from the page that it caught my eye. I've read that page through so many times in the past couple of days that you tend not to spot things! B1atv 06:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your notice about my post on Asset Acceptance, LLC. I can see I clearly needed to read some of the rules on defamatory posts before posting that. So, I have been spending some time doing it. I really don't want to let this go, since I believe that what I posted was accurate. And I believe that, when dealing with this company, people will do, as I did, Internet searches and find this page. However, I don't want to break any rules. "representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)", certainly must not mean that negative views can not be posted, provided they are backed up by citations of reliable published sources, of which there are several I am familiar with in this case.

I will spend some due diligence researching the Wikipedia policy on this issue. May I return with questions for you about the subject of defamatory posts and, specifically this case? Is there a more appropriate avenue for this? I sincerely do not want to be considered a vandal, but I believe that, based on personal experience, that information needs to be available on this company that will help people who are daily dealing with them. Slaughli 16:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The question is not whether or not people can find out how bad a company is, but whether such information is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. You say there are several reliable published sources. What are they? Newspaper articles? Reports from regulatory groups? Or simply internet blogs and attack sites. I will gladly answer any questions you may have but please ensure that your questions do not include anything defamatory as that will not be allowed to remain on Wikipedia. Any edits must be done without a Conflict of Interest - and clearly your only reason for posting such comments on this article is because of your bad experience. This means you are not approaching it with a Neutral Point of View. B1atv 16:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say that having a corporation listed on WP in a descriptive way, gives that company an air of legitimacy. If the point of WP is to provide information about a subject, in this case a company, then it seems that it is pertinent to include negative views. Certainly, an interested party that wants to disagree can do so. In terms of COI, well, that just doesn't seem to be an issue here. I am certainly not posting any information that is promoting myself. And I doubt that anyone posts information on a subject about which they have no personal interest. So that fact that I have had any experience, positive or negative, with this company does not mean I have a COI, it means I have an interest. And that interest is, genuinely, the desire to "fairly" represent a significant view of the subject. So, it seem like the issue comes down to citation of "reputable" sources. I think that your post of "internet blogs and attack sites" seems a little biased toward one point of view. If an individual posts accurate information about their experience with a company that uses unethical collection methods, is that an attack? SO, anyway, citations... The FTC website has many reports filed against this company for violating Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Bud Hibbs has listed a commentary on the practices of the company in question. But perhaps you consider that an "attack site".

I can certainly understand your (and WP) concern for keeping biased information out of the wiki. But that leads me to wonder, philosophically, whether it is appropriate to publish information about companies at all. As I wrote earlier, I believe that having a neutral entry about a company lends that company an air of legitimacy. If it turns out that there are a great number of complaints against that company, then it seems reasonable that those should be mentioned. I think if I were to publish on this page my personal anecdotal experience, that would not be proper for inclusion in an encyclopedia. That would just be a blog. But to point out that a company has had numerous complaints filed against them with the FTC seems reasonable. The reader can certainly go to the FTC website and see the complaints filed.

Anyway, I am, at this point, over my desire to publish any of this to WP. But, I am in discussion with my congressman about my particular issue. Assuming anything comes of that, I would imagine that any official action would be reasonable for inclusion in a company's WP page. Would you agree? Slaughli 18:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the multiple updates. I guess I am having a hard time getting used to the wiki entry format. Slaughli 18:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

My user name

Actually, my user name is identical with the magical formula IPSOS, being in all caps, while the company is mixed case. But thanks for you concern. IPSOS (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Captain Richard Avery Hornsby

Actually I DO mind you butting in - and I would like to set you straight too. I have included THREE references to Captain Hornsby on the page:

Book: The History of the Town and Port of Sunderland, by James Burnett. Published in 1830. Houghton Hillside Cemetery record of burials: http://www.houghton-hillside-cemetery.org.uk/names_churchyard.html The ballads to Captain Hornsby can be found at: http://www.traditionalmusic.co.uk/navel-songs-ballads

The fact that little is known about him now is reflected in what I wrote in my first paragraph... he is 'almost forgotten' in everywhere except Sunderland - yet was hailed as a national hero at the time.

Seahamlass 20:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

My apology was intended for User:Whpq as it was his or her Talk Page I butted in on. You do not own the article and you can't stop other editors expressing concerns over the article or editing or changing or deleting it if that is what the consensus decides. A number of editors have expressed concerns over the article. Instead of arguing with them, take a break, count to 10, and then work with those editors on improving the article. If I've got it wrong then I will gladly say so. I nominated it as an possible deletion without talking to you first because your posts on the article talk page and on User:Whpq's talk page suggest that you do not wish to engage positively with other editors about this. I have done a Google search and nothing came up. I would expect that something would, if he was notable, even for something that happened 200 years ago. The deletion discussion has already produced another source after just a few minutes; so although not the intention, a discussion at articles for deletion can actually help to improve legitimate articles. I searched the burial records and couldn't find any mention of Richard Hornsby (I did find a Richard Hornby) but all that concludes is that a person was buried. We don't need to prove he existed, we need to prove he was notable. Another user has flagged up (in the deletion discussion that it does list a Richard Hornsby and I've checked since and have also now found it.

Can I ask you to please use talk pages correctly - use proper headers to start new sections (use "==" before and after the title) and indent each reply with an addition colon ":" to the response above. That will make it easy to follow the conversation. Finally, please start new sections at the foot of each page, while keeping replies about existing sections within those sections. Thank you. B1atv 20:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that you should mention other editors expressing concern - I just got a very nice message from an editor expressing concern over why YOU reported me for vandalism!

And I quote:

"I don't think you're a vandal. I agree that you did not vandalize Mowbray Park; I'm not sure why the above user (B1atv) interpreted your edits as vandalism, but I don't see it." -FisherQueen

Perhaps it should be you who learns to use Wikipedia correctly.Seahamlass 22:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Please calm down and relax. I didn't report you for vandalism on Mowbray Park or anywhere else. In fact the user who reverted your edites was User:AFUSCO. I have just had a look at that article and I agree with User:FisherQueen in that I can't see why the edit would be considered to be vandalism either. But that's the nature of Wikipedia - People make mistakes.

I may have made a mistake with nominating the Captain Richard Avery Hornsby article for deletion under the Articles for Deletion process. So far only one other editor agrees with me; one is not sure and is looking for more information and three others say it should be kept. The system doesn't work on a vote but on the consensus and the arguments put forward.

Wikipedia attracts a whole lot of vandals and there are a number of Wikipedians, me included, who are known as "recent change patrollers" because of the activities we do. We aren't a clique, we aren't all powerful (in fact we have no powers whatsoever) but we work our way through new pages, monitoring them to ensure that comply with Wikipedian standards and where we feel they fail we can flag up a concern on the page - this alerts the article creator and other editors of the concern so that the page can be dealt with. Sometimes the issues are minor and instead of flagging we do the edits ourselves. There are times, however, when flagging an article isn't sufficient because we feel it needs to be deleted. Please note, we don't delete them - we merely flag the article to be checked by an administrator who, if they agree, can delete and if they don't agree can remove the deletion tag.

If we think they are total nonsense or meet other laid down criteria we can nominate them for speedy deletion. That didn't happen with Captain Richard Avery Hornsby as nobody thought it was total nonsense.

If we think the page doesn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion but that the deletion won't be controversial we can propose them for deletion. In this case, unless anybody - including the article creator - can remove the tag. If it remains in place for five days then the article can be deleted.

If we think the article doesn't fit into either category but is still unsuitable for Wikipedia then we can take it to the Articles for Deletion section to seek the views of other Wikipedians. As I said above, this isn't a vote but an opportunity to seek a consensus. Normally, before articles are taken there attempts are made to build consensus by talking the article through with the articles creator and other people interested in the article on the talk page of the artice.

Unfortunately, you were unwilling to debate the issue with other users as your edits on the article's talk page and on the talk page the user Whpq who flagged the article as reading like a story, demonstrate. For that reason, and having first checked to see if I could find any sources myself to confirm the article, I nominated the article for discussion to seek a wider Wikipedian consensus. I note you haven't taken part in the discussion so far - please do so by clicking this link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain Richard Avery Hornsby. The discussion is open to all Wikipedians, not just those who've been around a while or those who are administrators. Have your say.

But please, may I make two pleas: Firstly, remember that you do not own articles on Wikipedia. When you make an article or edit an article you licence your contribution to Wikipedia. That means that anybody can edit articles you created and raise concerns with you about them. This is all part of the consensus approach to Wikipedia - so please don't take umbrage if other editors ask you questions about your edits - work with them to improve Wikipedia. Secondly, don't take what has happened in the past day or so to heart - Wikipedia can be very disconcerting for new editors and users; the policies are all over the place and the rules and regulations are always very clear. I know it can appear as if you are being got at or bullied if several people jump on your articles at once; but that is not the intention. Your article on Capt Hornsby does make interesting reading and if you work with people who understand Wikipedia standards because they've been around a while you can learn how to do articles to the required standard and I am sure you will be a great Wikipedia contributor. People who can create pages on subjects were not a lot is known are vital to the continued success. So don't let me, or anybody else, put you off. B1atv 07:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Block me then Asshole

I added a hang-on tag and you deleted Kevin Muller anyway. The 7th criteria for speedy deletion says "If controversial, list the article at Articles for deletion instead."Wogsland 17:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't delete. An administrator who reviewed the article deleted. And thanks for the abuse. I will now report you for a block, bt the decision will be an administrators - not mine. B1atv 17:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Subpar

Heh. Cute. The above linked article has been getting recreated as a redirect to a number of targets. I deleted it, and was about to salt the title, when I realized that rather than salting, the name would work better as a protected redirect to the Wiktionary definition article of the same name. Never occurred to me that someone might try to tag it for CSD in the middle of that. I'm guessing you used one of the automated tools that tags and warns in one action. Your tag itself did not work, as I had already protected the Wiktionary redirect. If you still feel that it qualifies for CSD, we can see about getting an opinion of my actions from an independant admin. - TexasAndroid 16:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I think I nominated for CSD in between you creating the page and you protecting it. I couldn't understand why anybody would create a page with just a redirect to Wiktionary. However, the tagging didn't work because you protected the page - and included the reason why on its protection log. Seems eminently reasonable with that explanation and I won't therefore nominate for CSD. I hadn't realised that Twinkle had gone ahead with a warning on your talk page when it couldn't actually tag the article. B1atv 16:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Anandannagesh

That's strange. I opened the page to remove the copyvio and add a warning then had to take care of something else. When I hit save I should have got an edit conflict. Restored now. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I assumed something like that could have happened, but was concerned if there were worries about the language of my original warning. Thanks for putting my mind at rest. B1atv 09:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I hope that doesn't happen often as it could cause problems. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Josh Costell

Hello. I removed most of the Biography section that I think is considered "Like Resume" Please let me know when you get a chance if I what I have is not acceptable. Thanks.

Note - according to the Revision History, the above unsigned comment was added by User:CelebrityReel at 15:25, 12 October 2007

Thanks for this. It was vastly improved, but still didn't quite conform to Wikipedia standards. I have given it a copy edit, moving the three feature films next to each other (as the most important aspect) and then putting the smaller videos in one section. I've removed most of the external links to writers, actors, producers, etc as Wikipedia prefers links to go to Wikipedia articles rather than external sites. Once people have clicked through to the relevant Wikipedia article they will find an external link if that's what they are looking for. The article still needs some more external sources to confirm some of the claims in the article and also his notability. You have got the Yes Weekly article - are there any other news sources which attest to his notability? Thanks, and keep it up. B1atv 15:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It is definitly a lot better. He was featured in his local paper and I will add the source today, I have the hard copy information at home, and the article is also available on-line but only with a subscription so I don't know if that will qualify. When the films are released, and added to IMDb I will be able to add those sources also. Is the Glass City website acceptable? The minute any type of source becomes available I will add them. He is also in post-audition talks for 2 more films but I won't add those until there is confirmation. Thank you for your help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by CelebrityReel (talk • contribs) 16:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Adding pics

how do you add pics from other websites? ~ User:YukiLuvzbou 05:45 12 October 2007 (UTC)

With difficulty - because more likely than not such images will be subject to copyright.

Wikipedia doesn't allow linking to images on other websites because if the other website changes the image on here can end up broken or replaced with an unsuitable image.

If you find a picture on another website you wish to use it will need to be uploaded to Wikipedia. But before that can happen you need to obtain the permission of the copyright owner - not just to release it to Wikipedia but to release it under a GFDL copyright clearance licence (all material on Wikipedia is licensed under those terms which allows anybody else anywhere to use it for any purpose). Full information on Wikipedia policies about images, copyrights, suitability and technical details (ie, how to upload, caption, provide copyright information, etc) is available on this page. B1atv 09:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

User category deletion nominations

Hi. I just want to let you know that the six user category deletion discussions that you initiated at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 13 have been relocated to Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#October 13. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I hadn't realised that user categories and categories were dealt with in different places. B1atv 14:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

My new account

Are at least you OK with my new account User:AcHades? We have been talking recently on User_talk:Leonid_Aleksandorowitsch_Kuvayev but Alas! you decided not to answer me any more... (No answer is of cause also an answer...)
--AcHades 13:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Your current username doesn't appear to break Wikipedia policies. As for not answering you; I hadn't seen your post as I hadn't used Wikipedia since you posting it and this reply here. People do not use Wikipedia 24/7. So, no answer isn't an answer - you have to give people time to answer. B1atv 14:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Check the wikipedia Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean)

Check the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean). According to Wikipedia naming convention,

Per the vote that took place from 18 July 2005 to 8 August 2005 here, this is the new naming convention for the body of water that separates Japan and Korea:

1. For all international articles use: [[Sea of Japan]]
2. For all Japan articles use: [[Sea of Japan]]
3. For all Japan/Korea and South Korea articles use: [[Sea of Japan]] (East Sea)
4. For all Japan/North Korea articles use: [[Sea of Japan]] (East Sea of Korea)
5. For all Korea and South Korea articles use: [[Sea of Japan]] (East Sea)
6. For all North Korea articles use: [[Sea of Japan]] (East Sea of Korea)

Per the conditions of the vote, use (East Sea) only once at the first mention.

so, Sea of Japan (East Sea) is right.Panelequal3 07:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

So why didn't you abide by that then? You state that in international articles the agreement was simply to use "Sea of Japan" and you then give examples for use, presumably, on other Wikipedia language projects. You changed every mention of "Sea of Japan" to "Sea of Japan/East Sea" in the article text. This makes for poor readability and is not in compliance with the material you posted above. In any event, we are not talking about naming conventions here, but article text. I was trying in my edit to respect the views of those who wish the name "East Sea" to be clearly referenced while sticking to Wikipedia conventions on readability and the use of standard English titles and names. I thought (and still do) that it is a reasonable compromise. The dispute can go on and on to nobody's benefit or editors can accept a compromise (if not mine then somebody else's). B1atv 07:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

1. i did not changed every "Sea of Japan/East Sea" article.

2. that East Sea is not only for japan but also South Korea and North Korea's.

3. ::: According to IHO's technical resolution,

It is recommended that where two or more countries share a given geographical feature (such as, for example, a bay, strait, channel or archipelago) under a different name form, they should endeavour to reach agreement on fixing a single name for the feature concerned. If they have different official languages and cannot agree on a common name form, it is recommended that the name forms of each of the languages in question should be accepted for charts and publications unless technical reasons prevent this practice on small scale charts. e.g. English Channel/La Manche. [1] [2]

'sea of japan name use exclusively' did not permited. internationally, "sea of japan/east sea" is right.Panelequal3 07:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The IHO does not set Wikipedia policies. B1atv 08:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read over WP:NC.Panelequal3 08:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not a naming dispute; it is about article text. The two are different. B1atv 08:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I Have Something To Ask You

Do you believe in superstition? My talk page is available. How about it? Pokemon Buffy Titan 09:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

What on earth has this got to do with encyclopaedic collaboration? B1atv 09:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The Blackout! etc

I closed as merge as the original article was rather stubby and general guidelines are that sub-articles with marginal notability are merged into their parent articles. It's not a hard and fast rule, though. ELIMINATORJR 09:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

StoresOnline

Deleted Again under WP:CSD#G11. If it appears again I'll salt it. Let me know if you see it turn up! Thanks for your hard work on that one. Pedro :  Chat  11:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"You will shortly be blocked"

Don't tell users that they will shortly be blocked. You can't guarantee that they'll be blocked, and there's also no point in taunting them if they are.-Wafulz 14:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Your edit on "Taye's Beat" Talk page, RE: "Taye's Day" User page

I appreciate your assistance in using or not using re-directs. However, I was told by an ADMIN some time ago, that when changing User pages and/or User names, to use a re-direct from the "old" page, to the "new" one. It's hard to teach "new" tricks to old dogs, but I'll get there eventually! Thanks...

Taye -- 16:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said on your user talk page, I don't know what you're trying to do. This is NOT how a user changes user names - and in any event, both accounts were created today and the only contributions have been to the user pages and user talk pages. Why not simply ask an administrator to delete the one account? Why not go through the formal name change procedure? Why create two accounts with one user page directing to another? I am trying to assume good faith, but your explanation for your unusual edits do not make sense. B1atv 16:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, B1atv! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. β^_command 05:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

TLAs

Hallo. I think the section about "three letter agencies" seems useful, no need to delete it. The two redlinks are to topics which may quite reasonably be covered in WP in future, and anyone looking for TLA in those senses is better served by finding an expansion and an indication that WP doesn't yet include a page on the topic, than by finding nothing at all. WP:DAB#What_not_to_include doesn't include any prohibition on red links in dab pages, so I don't see on what grounds you've removed them. I've added an ext link for each now, confirming that they're both real. I replaced your reworking of the Fillmore item, which I agreed was an improvement. PamD 06:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

A disambiguation page is purely for navigational purposes, not for information. There is no Wikipedia article on "Three Letter Agencies" and therefore it should not be included on the disambiguation page - likewise the other two links. In addition, disambiguation pages exist to promote navigation within and around Wikipedia - not to external sites. I am going to restore my revision, and suggest you take a closer look at Wikipedia:Disambiguation and to the manual of style linked from it (see below) for what should (and what should not) appear on Disambiguation pages - in particular, I refer you to the sentence which states: "A disambiguation page has links to a heterogeneous set of concepts. It is purely for navigation, not information [my emphasis], and should have minimal formatting and follow the strict set of rules at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)." B1atv 07:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I've read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#Redlinks and I believe it justifies both those items. There's a longstanding Massachusetts Library Association article so it can't be said that the Texas LA comes under "articles that are unlikely ever to be written, or likely to be removed as insufficiently notable topics". I don't know about The Lazy Admin, but it seems harmless compared to much of the junk on WP. The three-letter agency usage is valid, see http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=112360, and again seems harmless in the page. PamD 07:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I had difficulty understanding how an article about a local association of librarians (or any other profession) could be notable. So I took a look at the Massachusetts Library Association. I was right. It isn't notable and I've nominated it under afd. I have done a search for The Lazy Admin on Google and all that comes up (in the first 100 results) are the software's own site and various bloggs and commercial listings. These are not considered to be reliable sources under Wikipedia guidelines. Therefore the software is not notable and no Wikipedia article is likely. You say differently. Will you please therefore provide me with some sources to back up your claim. Wikipedia is a sourced encyclopaedia. You can't simply include things on the basis that "it seems harmless". You say yourself that "I don't know about The Lazy Admin". If you don't know about it why are you insisting it goes in? - And why risk breaching the 3RR to insist that your will be done on a subject which you admit you don't know about. I don't know about it either - which is why I looked it up - and I found no sources. I invite you to reconsider your latest reversion of my edits. If not, I will await the conclusion of the afd discussion on the Massachusetts Library Association and then re-do the edits. If you revert again after that I shall seek community consensus - to continually revert another editor's gf, sourced, policy-based edits on the basis that "it seems harmless" is disruptive. B1atv 07:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Connie Talbot

I have boldly removed the notability tag from the article again, after someone showed a reliable source talking about a new record deal she signed last week, which I added to the article. I have also cleaned up the article significantly, so that everything is sourced, so I think I have removed all BLP concerns. As such, I believe the only remaining problem with the article is that it is a stub, and it is marked as such. Have you any thoughts on the matter? J Milburn 10:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

After consulting another editor, I have re-added the tag until we have reached a consensus either on the talk page, or via AfD. J Milburn 10:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for the note. I have a rather detailed reply so I'm copying the discussion to Talk:Connie Talbot so this discussion (and my comments in particular) are available to all interested in Connie Talbot. Thanks. B1atv 11:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Quantum fiction

There was no "clear consensus to keep" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum fiction it was about 50/50, and I never saw solid proof of complying with WP:NEO. At best, you could call it a "no consensus". I'm considering taking it to DRV. --Itub 08:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Quantum Fiction is not a neologism - it isn't an invented word; but a genre of fiction. That genre had numerous sources. Take away the bickering from the afd debate and the clear consensus was to keep. Arguments like "it was 50/50" don't help because afd isn't a vote. I closed the debate as a non-administrator because I felt the consensus was clear taking into account Wikipedia policies, the arguments put forward and the sources cited. All afd closures are subject to review; and as a non-administrator I am more than aware that my actions in closing afd discussions to help clear backlogs deserve extra scrutiny. So feel free to take the matter to deletion review if you feel that is appropriate. B1atv 13:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Quantum fiction. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Itub 16:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting me to this. I have responded to the review neutrally. B1atv 17:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Sterling David Allan

I see you were one who voted for deletion of the page here at PESWiki about myself, saying that I am non-notable. The reason I am not noted in mainstream media is due to the maxim: "He who is one step ahead is a genius. He who is two steps ahead is a crackpot." Retrospective history will paint me favorably, though contemporaries often spurn.

Consider the following sampling:

• I launched and headed the effort to draft Ron Paul for President in 2004. Now, this time around, he is the most popular candidate on the web.
• My family of energy websites are considered as the best, most up-to-date collection worldwide of cutting-edge, outside-the-box energy technologies -- many of which hold promise to lead the world out of fossil-fuel-dependence in the coming years.
  • Our coverage routinely shows up in the top three in Google searches, often even ahead of Wikipedia. [3]
  • The traffic that the sites receive (35,000 page views/day) is adequate to bring in sufficient revenue for the project to be self-sustaining.
• I founded the New Energy Congress, whose Top 100 Energy Technologies listing is reviewed seriously (non-publicly) by academicians, VCs, researchers, governments, and industry experts per the phone calls I get regarding it.
• The American Study Group that I founded fresh out of the University grew to around 4,000 members in the Rocky Mountain West, several hundred participants of which were excommunicated from the Mormon church for "apostasy" due to extreme beliefs in around 1992-1995.
• I founded Remnant Saints Inter-Continental Congress whose purpose is to establish a world governance document based on the principles of freedom as enshrined in the Constitution of the United States -- a conservative answer to the liberal / socialist-leaning U.N. Though on hold due to lack of funding, the project is very forward-looking and continues to stir productive thought.
• My dad is an atomic clock physicist formerly with NIST in Boulder, whose "Allan Variance" to this day is at the heart of international timekeeping, which is one of the underpinnings of modern civilization. [4] He built a solar home that integrates 7 different major principles. My mother is a gifted herbal and natural healing practitioner. That is the immediate heritage upon which I have built.

I realize that Wikipedia does not typically highlight envelope-pushing, but waits for things to become well-accepted before giving them coverage. Hence the nemesis relationship between myself and Wikipedia, due to the axiom: "All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident." Wikipedia typically only covers things when they fall into the third classification; while I focus on things while they are yet in the first stage. That is my specialty, and when those things that are now ridiculed matured to where they are accepted as self-evident, my role in history will be appreciated, and not spurned.

Meanwhile, I can understand why Wikipedia and the Media in general keep their distance. And you can see why there is an antagonistic relationship between myself and the groupies at Wikipedia. They have no guts, no spirit of adventure, but prefer to go with the mainstream flow. I find that shallow and unfulfilling. That is why I founded PESWiki, to give leading edge energy technologies a place to be featured, without narrow-minded Wikipedia hacks mercilessly deleting them as soon as they poke up their heads. PESWiki is now approaching 20 million page views. [5] We long ago surpassed Wikipedia in vision in the area of emerging energy technologies.

Non-notable? No.

Bleeding edge? Yes.

That is why you routinely delete my stuff when I venture to post it here.

No need to respond. -- Sterlingda 00:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This self-important rant is why people associated with articles should not edit articles about themselves. Is everybody who supports Ron Paul notable enough for a page? Who says you websites are notable (and if they were surely there is a difference between a website being promotional and the people behind that website being notable)? You should be aware that Google searches is no testament to Wikipedia. There are thousands of websites on which my name appears which come up top in various categories - it doesn't make me notable (news coverage would); If your technology list is reviewed seriously why is it done non publicly? Are they ashamed? If it isn't public how can it be verified? Extreme beliefs don't make anybody notable - and even if the group you mention is notable does everybody in that group inherit the notability? And now you claim your Mum and Dad are notable. Does this make all their children notable? What about their grandchildren? Brothers and Sisters? Aunts and Uncles? Why don't we have them all on and rename this site wikigenia? You say there's no need to respond. If you don't want a response don't launch rants on talk pages. You've had your say, I've had mine and the matter is now closed. I suggest that rather than hanging around here posting further claptrap on people's user talk pages (the afd discussion was the place for this, not individual user talk pages once the afd discussion had closed) you take a break from Wikipedia and go on developing your notability in the real world. B1atv 06:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

UK Election expenses

I was checking some edits by User:Libs and noted your comment on their talkpage and, whilst I completely agree with you on the NPOV point (and I don't believe the candidates listed so far do satisfy the criteria even though I know some of them!) I just wanted to correct you on the expenses point. The law was changed a couple of years ago and now being declared in print as a "candidate" does not start the expenses list running. In all cases now the earliest date the expenses limit kicks in now is the day after nominations close. --AlisonW 18:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. My last involvement in Party polictics was the 1997 general election - and not as a PPC! I've been a political candidate but not for Parliament. I'm sure that these new rules will be of enormous benefit the governing party and whichever of the main two (wealthier) parties are in opposition. I wasn't trying to get at Libs over this, but she wasn't reading the situation, nor the messages, right at all. In the end I simply butted out to prevent the situation escalating into an even more heated situation that it had already got to. I was going to nominate the articles for deletion but it was the party conference season and I didn't want to do so when those with a more active interest in UK politics were at the seaside. when the conference season was over I simply overlooked it until your message. Thanks again. B1atv 17:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The Geek Media deletion tag

I removed your tag for speedy deletion, The Geek Media here on wikipedia. There are many pages I can point you to of companies very similar to this one and, their pages are written in a similar format. The page as it is now, shows the notability of the company and, the significance of the company as well; listing it's history, purpose, notable events and guests - as many other companies have on their pages. If you would look at the affiliated sites and guests listed, you will see that each of them have given a public nod to the company, verifying that it is a notable company. Maybe not as well known as other companies listen in a similar fashion on Wikipedia but, it still is a valid company that should have an article as well.

Note - according to the Revision History, the above unsigned comment was added by User:MenuetRanit at 02:09, 22 September 2007

Note: Adding a signature to enable this to be archived B1atv 16:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Christopher best

No, I am not administrator. I read the entire article before giving it a stub for biography. May I suggest that you read the entire article before you request it for deletion? Aflumpire 22:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have read the entire article. It is blatant nonsense. For a start, the Bay of Pigs had nothing to do with pigs! It is nonsense and I have flagged it as such for an administrator to review. Administrators should remove CSD notices, not other editors. B1atv 22:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm jumping in here but this is incorrect. Anyone can remove CSD notices except the original author of the article in question. --NeilN 00:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd question the validity of that (unless obviously a bad-faith nomination, but bad-faith nominations constitutes vandalism and anyone can revert vandalism). The purpose of the csd notices is to alert an administrator to check the article. An administrator is unable to check the article if somebody else has already removed the csd notice. In this particular case the article was so obviously nonsense that I am perplexed by the actions of Aflumpire. B1atv 05:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

From WP:CSD: Any user who is not the creator of a page may remove a speedy tag from it. The creator may not do this; a creator who disagrees with the speedy deletion should instead add {{hangon}} to the page, and explain the rationale on the page's discussion page. In the last couple months I've removed about good faith 5 speedies (always with an edit summary) when I've felt the material was not speediable. --NeilN 17:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This edit

Thanks! He's being an ass. I've put him up for blocking because of his username, so he won't be a problem for much longer! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 22:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No probs. I spotted that he was an ass when he described your username as "absolutely ridiculous". Personally I think it's the best one on here; and certainly more creative than mine! ;-) B1atv 22:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe. It's more cumbersome, sadly. You're being very civil with him, well done! More than i would do, sadly! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 22:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Cut and paste moves

Please do not make cut and paste moves as you did to Bescot Stadium as this loses the page's history. If you wish to move an article, please use the Move tag at the top of the page. If this does not work, please do a WP:RM. I should also note that a discussion on WikiProject Football came to the conclusion that stadium articles should be located at their traditional name rather than a sponsor name (where one exists). Thanks, пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The move of that page took place over a month ago and I now understand the way pages should be moved. I've looked for the wikiproject football discussion you talk about it but can't find it. Such a "policy" should not be agreed by only a wikiproject as it contradicts the wider Wikipedia naming policy and should be discussed with the wider Wikipedia community. Supporters of teams playing Walsall will know from their tickets, their own club website and the media that Walsall play at the Banks's Stadium. They will therefore look for Banks's Stadium, not Bescot Stadium. In accordance with Wikipedia's naming policy the article should therefore be called Banks's Stadium. I'd be grateful for you further thoughts. B1atv 17:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't contradict a naming policy - see WP:COMMONNAME. Bank's Stadium gets only 16 hits on google - compare that to 40,000 for Bescot Stadium. It seems very few people use the sponsored name. Personally I don't believe that many fans use the sponsored name - the ground has been known for years by its proper name. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Google is not an accepted source on Wikipedia. And, as I have said on the main discussion, Google includes all the pages created when the stadium was the Bescot Stadium as well as those now it is the Banks's Stadium - and besides, I get 727 hits for "Banks's Stadium". When you say "The ground has been known for years by its proper name" (my emphasis), you are wrong. The proper name, as of today, is the Banks's Stadium. It is not for you or I to decide what it is called, the people who own the stadium have decided. See Walsall Council's list of [approved venues for civil partnerships], or the same council's [news story about a climate change conference]. You can argue all you like, the FACT is, the VERIFIABLE FACT, is that the stadium is now called the Banks's Stadium, whether you like it or not. B1atv 06:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason you got so few hits on Google is that you spelt it incorrectly - "Banks's Stadium", not "Banks' Stadium". B1atv 06:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed the POV tag because you seem to be the only person with a problem. Please also read the thread at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Stadium_names - no-one is backing you up on this issue. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. B1atv 09:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

(a) Do not use misleading edit summaries and (b) do not "warn" users for vandalism when it is a content dispute. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not use misleading edit summaries; and the constant removal of templates turns pre-existing content dispute into the realms of vandalism. Stop telling other people what they can and can't do and start looking at your own actions. B1atv 09:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop your illegitimate warnings now, or I will take it to WP:AN/I. Thanks, пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, grow up. You are the one constantly reverting. Why do you not accept the fact that the discussions clearly ended in favour of keeping non-sponsor names? пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Stop being abusive

2. The discussion isn't over - I have told you on that discussion that I am seeking wider community consensus

3. You should not revert warning templates on articles where it is your edit which raised the concerns

4. I told you last week that I would cease discussion of this issue with you because it was getting over heated and circular in nature and that I would seek the best way of getting wider community consensus yet you chose to bring your abusive discussion back

5. I had intended to leave the discussion for a few days of cooling and then flag it up in the appropriate forum for wider community consensus but your actions this morning means I have no choice but to report you to the administrators for breach of the 3RR - and removing warnings from your userpage does not remove them; they remain in your edit history for administrators to review.

6. I don't care two figs whether "sponsor's names" are used over "non-sponsor's names" - I care that the real, verifiable, factual names are used as per wikipedia policies. Bescot Stadium no longer exists. It is called the Banks's Stadium. Your POV against sponsors is clouding your judgement on a clear, factual, verifiable statement. This is my last word to you as I am putting this into the hands of administrators and I refuse to rise to your abusive bait. B1atv 09:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Where are you intending to bring this up? You've already brought it up at WikiProject Football. Are you going to try elsewhere because you didn't get the result you wanted? Reporting me for breaking 3RR is a bit pointless when I have not made more than 3 reversions, and I also know that those warnings remain in my edit history (I am an admin myself, so am aware of things like that). Nevertheless, I would welcome the input of an independent admin to stop this. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

(undent)Just wanted to let you know, B1atv, that I've replied to the conversation that you were involved in, on No.57's talk page (in case you aren't watching it) SQL^{Query me!} 21:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Anvil records

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Anvil records, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Anvil records is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Anvil records, 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. CSDWarnBot 06:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I fully endorse this deletion. It was me who prodded "Anvil Recording Co" after finding no reliable sources to substantiate notability. This page (Anvil Records) was created automatically by a page move to correct name of the company. B1atv 06:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)