User talk:I42/Archive 1

Archive 1

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, I42, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ironholds (talk) 13:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

San Diego Thunder

I have updated the San Diego Thunder entry. It now includes references to multiple websites that prove the validity of the team. These sites include pages that cover the teams championship games, historical data, highlights, and also validate their league affiliations. I apologize for not posting these references immediately. This is the first wiki entry I have ever posted so I would like to thank you for your patience.

We are quite well known within the area. In fact this season, the Chargers have given us permission to wear their old powder blue jerseys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdthunder (talk • contribs) 09:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

-Sdthunder

-Sdthunder —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdthunder (talk • contribs) 09:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

iJustine

Yeah, not great at this Wikipedia thing yet...I've only been on here a couple of years..lol

Still don't know templates and stuff like that...Thanks...--seattlehawk94 (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, I42. You have new messages at Dank55's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 00:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Lucy Powell

Hi, I noticed that you left a note on Caulde' talk page about the above article. I thought I'd let you know that I'm going to delete his talk page as the user has exercised his right to vanish, and it's very unlikely he'll see the message or partake in the discussion. Nev1 (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. The message was posted by Twinkle as part of the AfD nomination. I42 (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Are there many articles about prospective candidates out there? I've no idea how you came across her article, there aren't exactly many links to it. Nev1 (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Quite a few. I did a search for "parliamentary candidate". I42 (talk) 07:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Thank you for participating in my recent RfA, which was unable pass with a final tally of (45/39/9). I plan on addressing the concerns raised and working to improve in the next several months. Hopefully, if/when I have another RfA I will win your support. Special thanks go to MBisanz, GT5162, and MC10 for nominating me. Thanks again, -download ׀ sign! 01:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: The Real MacKay

Not a big deal; I reverted the merge. Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

File:DianaVickers.jpg

How were the deletion notices invalid? Do you feel that the image should be kept? J Milburn (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Bizarre - I only intended to delete the "Licensing" header and the content {{Non-free album cover}} - it was not my intention to remove the deletion notices, and I'm not sure how I did. The image is not an album cover and the contributor was mistaken in using it. I42 (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

STOP SCOLDING ME... and understand what I CLARIFIED

You just don't seem to understand... PLEASE stay away from me!.... Worldedixor (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Beryllium carbide

I stubified it and added cites. Bearian (talk) 01:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - good resolution. I42 (talk) 22:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Buses in Portsmouth

Thank you very much for taking the deletion tag off, I have just started that page, and I had to finish off something for a short while. Thanks again. '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. :-) I42 (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

		The Minor Barnstar
		For noticing that sppedy deletion tag was incorrect. Thanks. '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Church House (TV Series)

I have a strong suspicion that all of Addyjuly's contribs are blatant hoaxes. I'll tag them all as {{db-hoax}}. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree (and the speedy deletion of the articles indicates we are not alone). Whilst it seems clear that the articles are the work of kids I stopped short of saying "hoax" in the nomination because they could have been describing some YouTube content they were working on and "merely" guilty of excessive exaggeration. I42 (talk) 06:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Mei Ping Wu

I met Mei Ping and went to Wikipedia to find information on her but no articles, so I start and hope others will help expand.

Mei Ping Wu president of Yasheng Group very giant company in China, over 15,000 employees.

~ She is Founder and president of Silk Route Museum www.silkroutemuseum.com. 100,000 square feet exhibition space. VERY larger. Bigger than American Museum in most city in America.

~~ Please help with 'What is American standard for "notable"?'

~Can you help me with these my first articles?

~~ If you write one sentence with proper reference for Mei Ping Wu article, I can copy your style and method and finishe more sentence with proper reference.

Thank you for help.

ChinaUpdater (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I copy this and put new names from my own new talk page, so I hope I do correct.

Hello, I42. You have new messages at ChinaUpdater's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ChinaUpdater ChinaUpdater (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

speedies

Please check the history of an article before you place a speedy. All those motorcycle speedies were previous declined by another administrator, so I declined them also. We normally respect underconstruction tags for one week--certainly for a few days--and an infobox with significant information added is content, for it could almost automatically turned into an article. If nobody improves the article by this time next week, consider either doing it yourself, or reminding the ed. who started them.. Per our deletion policy, deletion is the last resort.DGG (talk) 20:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I hadn't noticed the speedies were declined previously so declining them again would have been the correct action. Note, though, that those nominations followed five "test" nominations within the series - which were speedily deleted - which I placed to establish consensus (including stating so in the edit summary). See also the discussions at User talk:BenjaminPQ. The opinion of all has thus far been that (a) all those empty stub pages should not be created; the articles should be created and worked on in turn, and (b) there is insufficient difference in the subjects to warrant so many articles; there should be groupings into fewer articles. I42 (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Many admins do incorrect speedies. In particular, some tend to cut off new articles while they are being written. Many editors don't realize the need to protect themselves against this when writing articles, presumably under the assumption that we encourage writing articles. I gave the user you mention some advice on how to do so. Whether the articles will in fact be valid is a question for AfD--in the past I have often !voted to merge such articles on specific models into an article for the product line. If I had the time to do it, I would take all articles deleted this way by him and others to deletion review, and discuss admins who routinely delete in this manner in the appropriate places. As for the (different) admin who deleted earlier ones as spam, why he thinks an article with a bare infobox on a model is promotional, escapes me entirely. But he & I & others are now discussing the use of that criterion in general, not for this particular cases, at WT:CSD. DGG (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Dub-core

I've deleted your AFD on Dub-core; a discussion already exists here. It looks like three people nominated it simultaneously. – iridescent 22:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Good call; I was just wondering how to sort out the mess. I make it four simultaneous nominations! I42 (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Brad A. Myers

Could you Userfy the deleted Brad A. Myers page for me? IMO it included information about his notability, but the article got speedy deleted without giving me time to react. Diego (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sebastian Fronda

Hi. Thanks for voting with me on the Fronda AFD but the article was improved enormously by User:Theleftorium and I have withdrawn the AFD. Please see for yourself; I wouldn't want you to think I am acting capriciously. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Cherokee Pass, Missouri

How come it seems All You People Do is take things away not put things in if You Correct the Article put more Relevant Information to Replace it I would like to See the History of Cherokee Pass, Missouri and how it got it's Name but about everytime something is put in Acticle one of You just take it away witch is OK if it is Wrong but Replace something Right Thank You Tim Sticht

Content such as 'always stop at Cherokee Pass at Dog n' Suds for a cold frosty rootbeer' does not belong on Wikipedia. I42 (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Nighthawk Custom

A "db-ad" tag is not commentary. Can you explain your reasoning behind removing it? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

There was an edit conflict - apologies. I was removing the "please don't remove this page" plea as it did not belong in the main article. FWIW, I think the article should be given an underconstruction tag and the editor given a chance to work on it. I42 (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

VSPB University

I don't think the speedy deletion tag that you put on VSPB University was correct. At the very least, the criteria you cited was incorrect. The tag itself excludes schools from being speedily deleted for lack of notability. If anything, it's a spam page, but I can't really tell. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 22:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right - I should have spotted that. Thanks! I42 (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for feedback: -graphy

You voted to delete this article. I need your input on how to fix the article...

I noticed this article was actually a list (in fact, a glossary), so I've been doing some work on it.

I've renamed it to Glossary of graphies, have cleaned it up a bit, and have added it to Portal:Contents/List of glossaries.

I've posted my rationale to its AfD.

Please let me know at the AfD if anything else needs to be done to the article in order for it to serve justifiable purposes of the encyclopedia.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist 23:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Rachael Stewart

You put a speedy deletion on this because it was a 'reposting' of previously deleted information when in fact it was not. The previous postings, which I did see in the past, had no information at all on them and seemed to be nothing more than a name holder. I tried to expand the article considerably, but it was delted again, despite more info added. I did get the notifaction about the hangon, but not until today, when it was already deleted so I did not get a chance to speak my case or rectify any issues with the article.

I was made aware by another admin about some of the external links (none of which were very good I grant you), which I logged on to fix today, only to find that the page had been delted.

Given that this was an actual article with actual information, I don't feel that it shoud have been delted, rather I should have been given more than a few hours to fix it. Can you please advise? I don't want to repost the article only to have someone delete it again without looking at it. Iamtherealnakedclaire (talk) 10:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You could ask the deleting admin User:Jclemens to restore the page into your user space so that you can continue developing it, and then move it back to article space when you are done. However, the article was deleted because of notability concerns and unless something significant has happened to address those I would advise putting your efforts elsewhere. I42 (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Sajan Ghar Jaana Hai

Hello I42, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Sajan Ghar Jaana Hai has been removed. It was removed by Survir with the following edit summary '(Removed the tags and cleaned up the page (added reference to support the article))'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Survir before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Jac Vanek AfD nomination

Don't forget to add the AfD to the AfD log per WP:HOWTO step three! :) Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 07:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! I used Twinkle and it missed that out. It also missed the tag on the article itself - I spotted that one, and missed this. I42 (talk) 07:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Clique Girlz: You Think

It's completely okay with me for you to delete this article, as long as there is a section made in the Incredible article for singles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revamp1001 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Clique Girlz: You Think (please do not delete!)

I just started the page, I was just trying to bring information to Clique Girlz fans, like myself.

PLEASE DO NOT DELETE IT

Signed, Revamp1001 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revamp1001 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

CSDs: Take 2

Hi there. You may want to be more careful with that CSD button, as it seems you're tagging quite a few pages that don't deserve to be speedied and mistagging others. It looks like you're on new-page patrol, as a lot of your nominations are withing minutes of the page creation, and as someone who does that from time to time as well, I know it's sometimes tempting to try to be the first to tag a page. However, it would probably be worthwhile to give the articles a quick run through Google/Google News before you nominate them.

To give you an idea what to watch out for, here are a few that -- as best as I can tell -- were misfires.

• William R. Gregory: Candidacy for US Congress seems to be an obvious indication of notability. Further, a Google News search reveals that the subject easily meets the GNG.
• Argyle Sweater: Although short, this article provided enough context to explain what it was about. CSD A1 would probably be better used on an article like this.
• Carol Daniels: The article is in somewhat rough shape, but noting that her murder was national news is an assertion of notability that precludes a CSD. A Google News search confirms that the murder is indeed being covered extensively. A BLP1E case, perhaps, but not a CSD A7.
• Vobus: The page may have been nonsense, but it was not vandalism.
• Dose of Adolescence: The page includes an assertion of notability, specificially the band's status as a finalist in the Airwalk contest. That may be a flimsy claim to fame, but it's still enough to require a PROD or AfD instead of CSD.
• John Levy (chairman): Doesn't look like a test page. However, the notes at the bottom show that the material is a reproduction of copyrighted material.

Hope this doesn't sound like lecturing. Godspeed. — Bdb484 (talk) 02:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree.

• Unelected politicians are not inherently notable - WP:POLITICIAN. Candidates using WP to raise their profile is a constant problem.
• Argyle Sweater gave no context at all: all it said was that it was a comic strip. What publications (if any)? What country? etc.
• Being murdered does not make you notable, and WP is not a news outlet.
• Vandalism includes obvious misinformation, which Vobus was.
• Dose of Adolescence was borderline speedy, IMO. I don't see being nominated for the Airwalk Unsigned Hero Contest as notable, in fact it kind-of confirms the subject is not notable. WP:MUSIC #8 and #9 specifically require "major" music awards / competitions, so I discounted it.
• At the time I nominated John Levy it was entitled "Submitting a new article", which suggested it was a test.

I42 (talk) 05:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Flying Snooker

Hello I42, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Flying Snooker has been removed. It was removed by Glynandtess with the following edit summary '(Added picture, removed deletion warning)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Glynandtess before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 22:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Matt Brown (Canadian politician)

As an admin, I've removed your speedy tag at Matt Brown (Canadian politician). Although the article may well fail notability requirement, this is not, in my opinion, a speedy candidate. You may want to take this to WP:AFD Bucketsofg 22:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

renaming page

Hi - thanks for your comment on my talk page. In fact the only history for the original page was my creating that page: I had just forgotten to capitalize a couple of the letters in the page title (tex v. TeX). Simplifix (talk) 08:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Pam Spaulding and Pam's House Blend

Apolgies, I meant to create these pages in my personal namespace. Still, is it policy to flag an article for speedy delete within seconds of it being created? How, then, does ANY article about an individual or group get written?

I tagged it based on the lack of content, lack of any assertion of notability and lack of any notability found when I searched. Creating in userspace is a good idea, but you will need to ensure you satisfy WP:N. I42 (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, I42. You have new messages at Zhang He's talk page.
Message added 22:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Zhang He (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Diana Vickers

As you noted, this was the wrong venue for your request. Would you mind placing a {{db-g7}} tag on it so it can be deleted? Thanks, GlassCobra 19:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Done; thanks! I42 (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Jandu

BTW, a page move can be undone by any autoconfirmed editor as long the remaining redirect hasn't been changed.--Tikiwont (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I didn't know that. I42 (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: 101 Dalmatians (2009 Musical)

Hello I42, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of 101 Dalmatians (2009 Musical) - a page you tagged - because: Not unambiguously promotional. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. NW (Talk) 23:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, we are both entitled to disagree and you, of course, are entitled to remove the CSD tag. I strongly disagree with your assessment, however. From the peacock term at the start (the director is not merely listed, he is "acclaimed") to the full list of venues where we might go to see the show at the end, he article was one long (unreferenced) press-piece placed by the show's promotor. I have now pared it down to a stub. I42 (talk) 07:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yvonne Koay

I have declined the CSD nom for Yvonne Koay; there is definitely an assertion of notability in the article (design of a sports centre). I don't necessarily think that makes the subject actually notable, but that's not what CSD is for. That's why I had WP:PRODded it before you put the CSD tag on it. (You can add {{prod2}} if you agree.)  Frank  |  talk  12:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio tag on Illness among Jews

The Jewish Encyclopedia was published in 1901. It is in the Public Domain. See Jewish Encyclopedia.

And especially the WikiProject Jewish Encyclopedia topics, which exists to bring articles from that encyclopedia into Wikipedia.

Newman Luke (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, caught up with you; another author (below) rightly re-removed the tag; I removed the {{hangon}} text I placed on the talk page as it is not not necessary.I42 (talk) 23:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Illness among Jews

Hello I42, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Illness among Jews - a page you tagged - because: It is from a source in the public domain. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. NW (Talk) 23:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Jedward vandalism

I think you'll find that you're wrong. There is no reason for that article to be a redirect without discussion and if you check the history you'll find that other users think the same and that by redirecting you are making the mistake. 3RR is for edit wars,not vandalism. Please stop undoing it and discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.197.89 (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You are right 3RR does not apply to vandalism, but this is an edit war. I42 (talk) 23:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Stolen identity?

Good catch! Thank you. :) I changed the signature back to what it should be. Another user actually said "delete per woohookitty" or something similar. Anyway. Thanks for alerting another admin. I really appreciate another user looking out for me like this. Thank you. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 01:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Question

May I ask why IMDB is not a reliable source? GhostfireScott (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

See Internet_Movie_Database#Sources_of_data. Essentially, the data is user submitted. I42 (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

X Factor articles

Do you think it would be a good idea to fully protect some of the redirects to stop the pages being constantly recreated? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Good question. At the moment there does only seem to be one editor who is doing this - and they seem pretty determined, so it's quite likely the articles would just spring up under a different name anyway. I am finding it a bit tiresome cleaning up after Hassaan19, but I'm inclined to think PP is probably not the thing to do. I42 (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I have raised the issue of Hassaan19 at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I42 (talk) 14:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Redirects on X Factor contestants

Thanks for your message. Regarding making Stacey Solomon a redirect, I was actually the one who created the Solomon page myself. Check history of the page... But for fairness, there was just one single individual who deemed all three finalists as automatically notable. And I immediately responded by creating the Solomon page myself. However after that discussion, articles for Joe McElderry, Olly Murs and others were all sent to redirect. I suggested a separate article on Danyl Johnson and he also was deemed not notable although he had been member in three different formations, had released albums and written many songs. I don't see why Stacey Solomon should be an exception to all this when even finalists McElderry and Murs are deemed not notable. (See arguments on Joe McElderry). I suggest applying the concensus on all contestants for now until notability established werldwayd (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Why deletion?

Initially it was deleted because it was claimed there were not enough references. I provided tons of references. why do you say it is not-neutral?

Altes2009 (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Because it is only concerned with Italian contributors. The inventions listed were developed and refined by different people across different nations, but the article attributes them entirely to Italians. I42 (talk) 07:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, I42. You have new messages at Nancy's talk page.
Message added 04:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nancy ^talk 04:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

My sig...

I have seen no problem with anyone using their first name as their sig at all in all my years here despite it being another name altogether. Also, said user under that name to hasn't edited in over three years and only has 43 edits, and I have used my name to sign for that long over near 18,000 edits without any objections. It is a common name used by millions of people, and I have used the customization options to change it so it doesn't confuse with the accountholder or anybody else. I will not change my signature. Nate • (chatter) 12:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I apologize if there was any confusion, it was never intended. Nate • (chatter) 13:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I have seen 2 or 3 user names where the signature is nothing like their user name nor is it their real name. A hypothetical example would be User:I42 whose signature is User:JK44 To me, it's weird and usually not desirable but not something I would fight about. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Dougie Swallow

An article that you have been involved in editing, Dougie Swallow, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dougie Swallow. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Singularity42 (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Dear I42, I just wanted to drop you a kind note and let you know that you forgot to inform an involved editor in the thread that you opened on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Don't worry! It's been taken care of. Just wanted to gently remind you to make sure to do so when and if you open a new ANI thread in the future. Thanks! Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Slip Slidin' Away (Camp)

Could you please explain how i could better this? I explained my reasoning on the talk page. If you could, leave me a message. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jambobamboguana (talk • contribs) 22:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

COI tag left on user page with explanation and some useful links. I42 (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Dartford Living

Hi, Re Dartford Living. I wanted to introduce the Dartford Living page because there are numerous references to Dartford Living throughout Wikipedia. Also, I have reduced the article to one factual sentence. Regards, abdelhk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdelhk (talk • contribs) 19:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Message regarding Recommind

Hi there. When an editor repeatedly replaces a speedy deletion tag with a hangon tag, it is usually not in bad faith. As a general statement, a lot of people seem to get confused regarding the fact that the hangon template is supposed to go beneath the speedy deletion tag. Rather than repeatedly reverting their edits as vandalism, I would suggest assuming good faith and fixing it for them by putting the hangon tag where it is supposed to go. Thanks! --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 23:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

On none of the three times I reverted had the user placed a hangon tag (although on the 2nd, there was an apparrent attempt to do so). Yes, I possibly should have fixed it but given this is the fifth time he's created the article and was simultaneously being reported at WP:AIV (now blocked) there's no hope for the article. I42 (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I see the history with the article and it looks like there may be little hope for it. At the same time, I thought I'd let you know that I couldn't find where the copyright violation has occured, so I elected to take the article to AFD. It very well may still be speedied for A7 or G11, but I like to err on the side of discussion. If you'd like to comment, the discussion is here. Cheers, Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 23:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No probs! I've commented. The copyvio is the Company's own profile, copied verbatim from the "About us" section at that press release to the lead of this article. I42 (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Queen

Thanks, I fixed the 'an British' mistake. Queen is a collective name for a group of individuals, and so uses the plural. Have a look at other British band articles. It's confusing, I know, and American English doesn't do this. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, I42. You have new messages at IBen's talk page.
Message added 19:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

iBen^talk/_contribsIf you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 19:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Porter Airlines destinations

Similar to Montenegro Airlines destinations, this (Porter Airlines destinations)is is a small content fork and should not be a separate article. Do you agree? Why WP:Airlines disagrees, I don't know. ʘ alaney2k • talkʘ 03:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I have commented at the AfD (different reasoning, tho'). I42 (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The glass house bistro

While I agree with you that The glass house bistro is a problematic article, might I refer you to WP:Tag bombing -- once the article has been nominated for deletion, I think any further tagging is just superfluous. If the article survives the AFD, it can be tagged appropriately (and judiciously) to prompt the desired cleanup efforts. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the article does look over-tagged, although they are all appropriate. The tags were all placed before the article was being nominated for deletion, although the last of my tags resulted in an edit conflict with the nomination. (The page history is interesting, and gives the impression much of the tagging occurred *after* nomination, in fact only the last tag was comitted afterwards) I42 (talk) 15:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Alexander Ivashkin

Hello I42. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Alexander Ivashkin, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: G12: No longer a copyright violation. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Copa Aerosur 2008

Hello I42. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Copa Aerosur 2008, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Thank you. GedUK  17:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

A1 or A3 SD tagging

Hi there. Thanks for your speedy deletion tagging, but please don't tag articles for speedy deletion on the A1 or A3 criteria just after they are created. See the top of Special:Newpages: "Note: articles should not be tagged for speedy deletion as having no context (CSD A1) or no content (CSD A3) moments after creation." Mike Eustace was tagged one minute after creation; it's a good idea two wait four or five minutes, as the edit interface may be confusing to new contributors. Mm40 (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion Absolute Cards

Hello, the article is justified because the company is a well renowned, well established, award winning business - the shop was voted for by hundreds of customers, and is therefore a well known, renowned business. Also, the article is not "overly promotional" at all! It simply states what it stocks. I therefore oppose the deletion on the grounds that I believe that the article is fully justified.

I have not nominated for speedy deletion so you can comment at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Absolute_Cards. I42 (talk) 10:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

I don't know why you feel the need to make accusations, but I am in no way related to this company. Please consider your comments before jumping to conclusions. Blaze42 (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I jumped to no conclusions. According to what you wrote when you uploaded the logo, you created it. If you created it, you have a connection with the company. I42 (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I added that so that I could upload it - I was going to change it to the correct one, because it wasn't listed. If you keep adding to articles that I am related to the people mentioned, then I am going to report you. Blaze42 (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Right, firstly I am NOT related to them - I am not going to argue this fact. Secondly, what if there was? Who are YOU to say that my articles are rubbish, just because you think I am related? Are you an administrator? No. The information is FACT, that's all there is to it. There is zero conflict of interest. Blaze42 (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Aidan Davis

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Aidan Davis. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aidan Davis. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks for reverting that vandalism on my userpage earlier. Cookie for you! - Zhang He (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! I42 (talk) 18:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The Foxes (band)

I do have links to relevant articles, but have been rather busy at present. I would be more than happy to provide those shortly. Blaze42 (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Command substitution

Don't you think you were a little quick to delete the page I started on command substitution only 4 minutes after I started it? You redirected to the C shell article but if you go look at the history, you'll notice I wrote the stuff you're redirecting to in that C shell article. If I'd wanted to redirect to something I'd already written, I think I could have done that myself. But the C shell is not not the only shell that supports command substitution nor was it even the first. Also, some shells (e.g, Bash and Microsoft's cmd.exe) use very different syntax to implement this feature. I expect a finished article should cover that. Why not wait and give it a chance? At least more than 4 minutes. Msnicki (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

C shell Overview of the Language section

I see you've raised an objection to C shell "Overview of the Language" section, because you believe it's "how to" material. I disagree, but I've presented the question for discussion on the C shell discussion page. Msnicki (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Songs from the Tainted Cherry Tree

Have you got the link for the previous AfD that this article was deleted under, as you have placed a speedy tag on the article without the link, best. Mo ainm~Talk 14:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It's ok I found it. Mo ainm~Talk 14:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Songs_From_The_Tainted_Cherry_Tree. The different capitalisation keeps fooling me. Given the total recreations of the article I would suggest SALTing, but there is a good chance the album will chart soon and recreation would then be appropriate. In the meantime I am watching the page(s). I42 (talk) 14:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It can also be found here Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Songs From The Tainted Cherry Tree, in incubation. Mo ainm~Talk 14:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Nick Barham

Um, I don't know why you would nominate my article for deletion exactly. I didn't include a lot of references I know, but there's not a whole lot on Nick Barham on the Internet that isn't his Twitter or MySpace pages. If you could give me some suggestions on how to improve the page so it doesn't get deleted, just give me a holler.

Thanks, -Qotsa37 (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

According to the article he is notable only for his membership of one band, and per WP:MUSIC should not have an article independent of that for the band. Redirect is appropriate, but you reverted that so I took it to AfD for discussion. I42 (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Foster v British Gas plc

The article Foster v British Gas plc has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not exactly a copyvio, but is not a notable case, either

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)#Broadcasting stations

You have recently participated in discussion at an AFD for a broadcast station. I have recently posted the above topic on the talk page of the notability guideline for organizations and companies, to see if there is interest in adding language related to the notability of radio and TV broadcast stations to that guideline. Your input would be most welcome. Thanks. Edison (talk) 01:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Candy

I suggest Redirecting it so no useful information is lost?--SitDownOnIt (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. If it charts following release then it can obv. be recreated (and IMO Aggro Santos would be sufficiently notable for an article to be recreated). I42 (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

List of short nz films

I had thought that you meant the entire article was copied from the one page you gave as a source; thanks for clarifying the situation. First off — if it's a copyvio, don't copy the text on my talk page; it's equally a copyvio whatever namespace. Secondly, the only possible copyvio is in the synopsis text. Now that I understand your point, I agree that that text is problematic; however, each list of people who played various parts is simply a list of facts (there's no other way to express the titles or positions occupied by each individual), and as far as I can see, there's nothing else here except lists of facts and problematic synopses. Since the synopses are short, their problems are a small enough portion of the entire page that I'm simply going to rewrite the ones you pointed out and invite you to rewrite the others if you find that they're copied. Nyttend (talk) 10:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. As noted on the talk page, they are all copyvios - and the films also appear to be non-notable. To me, the article appears to consist of (a) some unreferenced original research about short films, and (b) some copyrighted biographies of non-notable short films. I certainly don't have the inclination to fix up the copyvios when the article would still be fatally flawed. You clearly see more potential in the article than I, given that you've declined speedy deletion twice and started addressing the copyvios, but my inclination is to take this to AfD. I42 (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Wan Kuzain Wan Kamal

Hi I42. The reason I put Wan Kuzain Wan Kamal to AfD was because of the fact that at first glance, some of the sources appear to be notable. Specifically this one as many who would glance at it without close inspection may assume that Bola Today is a reputable news source when in reality it is a blog site that anyone can contribute to. In the past I've had situations where speedy deletions have been declined on this basis, and typically in these situations it has had to go through to AfD, so I preempted by taking it to AfD to begin with. This way if the article is deleted and someone decides to recreate it, as the subject's name seems to be spammed relentlessly on many internet forums, the AfD consensus will exist to allow a speedy deletion in the future. Keep up your good work! HarlandQPitt (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thx! My AfD comment was to emphasise how clear-cut it is I think the article should be deleted. IMO, raising the AfD was unneccessary, but not wrong, and there was no intended criticism of your action. If you did not see it as quite so clear cut then I agree that seeking wider opinion is no bad thing. I42 (talk) 19:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Big data CSD

Please review Wikipedia policy regarding CSDG4. You tagged this 3 minutes after it was recreated. I see that you did participate in the original debate and likened the phrase to a generic definition. But I cannot imagine that you were able to follow the guidelines. "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies..." I appreciate the work you are doing, but hold off that Twinkle trigger on this entry and consider reading the wealth of supporting content? jk (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The article was deleted primarily because the term was considered to be non-notable. You have recreated an article about the same subject using the same term, so you have clearly disregarded the consensus established at AfD, and speedy deletion seemed (and still does seem) appropriate. You should instead have taken the article to WP:DRV if you believed the original reasoning no longer applied. Threatening to leave the project if the article was deleted was akin to the tantrum of a petulant child, but it did seem to sway the opinion of the admin who removed the tag. I42 (talk) 06:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The new article was substantially different from the deleted piece and directly addressed a key concern of almost all "delete" votes. My frustration is to notice you tagged CSD in three minutes, which makes me assume you didn't review the full case. I'm not calling anyone names, nearly expressing frustration when admins rush to remove well-considered content. Please assume good faith on Cirt's behalf here; I certainly appreciate his/her willingness to spend the time to find rough consensus and respect running code.jk (talk) 08:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Note on Canvasing

Thanks for the note - I was not aware of this norm. I will send notes to others who held "delete" opinions on this debate as well to avoid votestacking. jk (talk) 04:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; that would be the best resolution. I was considering how to follow-up on this, becauase if I informed everyone else, that could also be seen as votestacking. Please use a neutral message merely reminding them that they had commented at the first AfD and that the article had been renominated; your own opinion will be obvious to them then they visit the AfD page! I42 (talk) 04:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

All done. With your help I was able to revise my actions to make them: Limited posting AND Neutral AND Nonpartisan AND Open. Friendly notes in this case are warranted because the previous debate dragged on with lack of participation to consensus. Cheers. jk (talk) 05:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep; thank you. I42 (talk) 05:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Oz Griebel

Do you have any suggestions as to how I can make the article about Oz Griebel acceptable? I strongly believe that Griebel meets the Wikipedia definition of notable. If I can do anything to emphasize neutrality, I would be happy to. I am not Oz Griebel, nor am I an employee or affiliate of his campaign. I simply believe that voters should have access to information on all candidates, and he is one that I am familiar enough with to start the article.Jsrgnt (talk) 17:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If you can add references to non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject that show notability outside of his campaign then that should satisfy inclusion requirements. All the ozforgovernor references (and similar) should also go IMO - they are not independent of the subject and they reveal, or appear to reveal, an agenda behind the article. I42 (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You edit on my Profile

Thanks for fixing the new subpage I added for my contributions. I am still learning the ropes around here. LeonidasSpartan (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

False!

I'm not trying to prove a point. What I'm saying is that the only difference between Austin Carlile and Nick Barham (see, it redirects) is that Carlile had another band and made a few guest appearances. There's no notability that states that he's important to Wikipedia other than the fact he was previously in Attack Attack! and Of Mice & Men.

And, by the way, the only reason I kept re-copying Barham's page back in was because Carlile had a page for the same reasons I stated above.

Have a nice day,

Qotsa37 (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :)

Thanks for supporting me, I42, on Shawn Dailey's deletion page. I know we've had our quarrels in the past, and this is the first time we've agreed on something. Just wanted to say thanks. :) Qotsa37 (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

We may well mull over the same subjects again in the future. Past discussions are never a consideration. I42 (talk) 08:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

"Past discussions are never a consideration." I'm afraid I don't understand. Could you clarify please? Thanks. Qotsa37 (talk) 11:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't hold a grudge! I try to ensure that past discussions never influence present ones. That is, even though I disagreed with you on our first encounter, that had no bearing on my comments at the Shawn Dailey page, nor will it in the future. BTW - I appreciate the word of thanks. Thanks! I42 (talk) 12:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't understand what you were saying. :D Thanks, dude. Qotsa37 (talk) 12:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't Let Me Stop You

Why would indexing be wrong? Done quite extensively on country songs, seems logical that if we keep the redirects to add to performer, year and songwriter. It's not as if I am (re)-creating articles. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I would say, [1] applies. Would it be better to take this to a wider discussion? --Richhoncho (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan Rhys Meyers

Hi. I assume you mean well, but that's a good edit and if you've an interest in this issue, please pop by WT:ACTOR#Sortable tables. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 16:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Mattheisen

Own work, Christopher Mattheisen --Vadszederke Agnes Modis (talk) 19:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Please, help me, This article incorporates information from this version of the equivalent article on the Hungarian Wikipedia. --Vadszederke Agnes Modis (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Please, please, please,

--Vadszederke Agnes Modis (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Good Faith Offer

See my offer at Talk:Nullo space. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It's at AfD now. It was clearly nonsense to me but maybe it's not so obvious - letting the AfD run its course probably makes sense. I42 (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

thank you

thank you for your notes on my recent article. I had included two references. I hope that helps.

Johnhiltoniii (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Chad H. Webb page

--Note from user johnhiltoniii--I have not adequately explained in Wikipedia what Chad Webb does as administrators of Seminaries and insitutes. This is a worldwide program with 800,000 students. What should I do to help show how he as a person (or really, the position of administrator) merits an entry on Wikipedia? Note that his peers within the church educational system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Educational_System) Kim Clark and Cecil Samuelson both have Wikipedia pages. Johnhiltoniii (talk) 03:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You could expand the article and make the case at the deletion discussion. The discussion asserts that the individual is not notable; to counter that you must provide references in reliable sources independent of the subbject that demonstrate that he is. See WP:V, WP:N and WP:RS. See also WP:WAX - the existence of those other articles is largely irrelevant. I42 (talk) 06:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Where is the "deletion discussion" where I should make the case that you discussed. Thank you for your help! Johnhiltoniii (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chad H Webb. 21:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Derek DeSantis

Hi, I just wanted to inform you that the WP:BLPPROD that you placed on Derek DeSantis has been removed. Sources have been added to the article. J04n(talk page) 11:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Please undelete Phil Davis(Australian footballer)

It should be undeleted because it has some good information about the footballer. If not, how could i get it not deleted! Tell me on my talk page. There should be a link somewhere here! Cobras21 (talk) 09:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not the quality of the article but the notability of the subject. See WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. I42 (talk) 09:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Phil Davis (Australian footballer)

Just a quick note to let you know that I removed the speedy deletion template you placed on Phil Davis (Australian footballer) because the article did not seem to meet the speedy deletion criterion A7. The subject is a professional athlete who plays for a notable team. He almost certainly meets the WP:ATHLETE standard for notability, and certainly meets the "credible claim of significance" threshold to be safe from A7 deletion.

Please be aware that is normally inappropriate re-add a speedy deletion template when another editor (other than the creator of the article) has removed it, because speedy deletion is only for uncontroversial deletions. If you believe the article still needs to be deleted, please consider WP:PROD or WP:AFD which can be used for deletions which are not covered by the speedy deletion criteria.

I am not an administrator and I do not have any special authority in this matter. If you feel that I have made a mistake, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. Thparkth (talk) 11:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Deprod Portland Jr. Pirates

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Portland Jr. Pirates, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Bhockey10 (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• In addition to the verifiable sources already on the article when you placed the tag, I have placed additional references.

Revert

When I reviewed the diff, what I saw appeared to be just more spam and advertisements for whatever company he/she is talking about. Sorry if I made a mistake and mistook it for ads/spam. --Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs) (Report a Vandal)} 19:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hard to be Human

And why the album is not notable? In en:WP there are thousands of albums which are not notable too... I can't understand it. Please tell me a reason for your decision!

I mean there many of articles about demo cds which are not notable in wikipedia but they have an article. Why Hard to be Human was deleted by you with the reasoning album not notable?

Please put article on the lemma. I worked for a long time at it.

There is nothing in the article - nor could I find anything - which indicates that either the band or the album meet the Wikipedia notability guidelines. There are indeed other articles which are equally suspect - see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I42 (talk) 08:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I found an interview with singer George William on Examiner.com. I loaded the video-links up to spirit-of-metal (Save Our Souls). Can you watch the videos and request me if there is some notabile information so I can start a new article about Save Our Souls becouse my Youtube don't work.

Goroth —Preceding undated comment added 17:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC).

Boyfriend (Lou Bega song)‎

An why exactly did you removed this Article previously? was is not NOTABLE enough?! and now it is?! Editors like you infuriate me, I understand that I am not 100% positive on how to structure the Articles according to Wikipedia standards but this gives you no right to just simply 'get rid off' an article. Having said that I would like to thank you for your informations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IE4gle (talk • contribs) 18:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The WP:NSONGS guideline is pretty clear that non-notable songs should redirect, which is what I did. You did not establish any notability; nor did I find any before I redirected. I did not "get rid" of the article; I redirected to the artist - citing the guidelines, and preserving your original in the article history. Undoing the reversion without explanation could be seen as the "infuriating" action. I have since established that the song was a minor hit in Germany and have added that information to the article, but the guideline still suggests redirect is the correct course of action: "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". I42 (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Nortec Software - COI

Given that the article is written in both in a "neutral and reliably sourced" manner without any blatant advertising and one with creditable sources such as the wall street journal, marketwatch and fox business news, I believe that the COI should be taken out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajmalsheikh (talk • contribs) 22:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: White Magic (album)

Hello I42. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of White Magic (album), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A9: There is an article about the artist (Ceo (band)). Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Florida International University School of Computing and Information Sciences

Hello I42. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Florida International University School of Computing and Information Sciences, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to schools. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Tagged as spam and a copyvio instead. I42 (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Gone. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thx. I42 (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

BLP PRODs

Hey, thanks for your work in new page patrol- it's an endless and thankless task- but please be careful not to be too trigger happy. I just deleted P.R (producer), but you tagged it with a BLP PROD less than ten minutes after its creation (the author's first ever edit). With articles that aren't completely inappropriate, there's no harm in leaving them for a few hours or even a day or 2 to see if the author returns to improve it rather than tagging it and potentially putting them off returning altogether if they think it's going to be deleted. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank You

For the reverts to my talk page. I must have upset somebody, but the IP that did it had never made any contributions before! - I suspect he wouldn't do that under his user name, but maybe now the IP address is blocked, he might have problems.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Conduit Speedy Deletion

It took me a long time to build those pages and I don't know how to put the hangon template tat thing on! --Schmeater (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Just put {{hangon}} under the speedy tag (do not remove the speedy tag) then explain on the talk page how you think it is not a speedy deletion candidate. I42 (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You do not need to do that for article proposed for deletion; you are allowed to just remove the prod template (though it's expected you'll provide a reason in the edit summary). I42 (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, if you delete it, it's okay with me. I'm just getting it all onto a sandbox. If it is deleted, could we have a characters page?--Schmeater (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I got it in the sandbox, delete the mythology page. But I'm still going for the other pages to stay. --Schmeater (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hassaan19

I've run out of patience and have blocked Hassaan19 indefinitely. I probably should have done that the last time & saved us from the current clean-up. Nancy ^talk 12:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I feel sorry for him cos I know he has good intentions. He just keeps getting it wrong. Well, no longer. AnemoneProjectors 12:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I know what you mean AP - I think that is why I kept giving him second/third/fourth chances...... Nancy ^talk 13:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It is regrettable it has come to this because properly directed their contributions could have been positive. But you gave them every last chance, Nancy, and I certainly agree with the actions you took; thanks for sorting it out yet again! I42 (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

MAKIO Model why is it being deleted

Why is my creation of the MAKO Model being deleted? What do I have to do to keep it posted? It is not an essay. It is a model I created for use in IT Governence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marccrudgington (talk • contribs) 18:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I am new to adding content to Wikipedia and may just need help. Please help me and don't delete my article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marccrudgington (talk • contribs) 19:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Essentially, the article just does not belong here. Wikipedia reports on existing notable subjects, it is not somewhere for you to publish your work. See WP:N, WP:OR and WP:COI I42 (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Declined

Sorry, you can't win them all. See Talk:Manson K. Brown, U.S. Coast Guard  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Good find! Thanks for letting me know. I42 (talk) 05:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting all those edits made by the IP on the Warrior book novels! Derild4921☼ 22:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Foot odor

I have proposed that Smelly socks be merged to Foot odor. Since you contributed to the recent AfD on Smelly socks, you might be interested in participating in the discussion to merge at Talk:Foot odor#Merger proposal. SnottyWong ^spout 05:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Why my page about a business man is being deleted ?

Dan Serfaty is the co-founder and CEO of Viadeo but is most of all a business man. I believe his business life is not only linked to viadeo anyway. Many CEOs of well known companies have their own page. Tks in advance for your explanation! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julielaurent (talk • contribs) 11:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The primary issue is verifiability. You wrote about the subject without providing references which supported what you wrote other than the subject's own biography on his company website and that is not a reliable, independent source. See WP:BLP for more explanation. Additionally, you have a conflict of interest, per your own userpage, which is an obstacle to producing an article objectively; as a result you have produced a highly favourable biography ("He successfully turned the business around", "a huge success", etc). If the subject is truly notable someone else will write about him. I42 (talk) 11:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point! but you were to quick for me!! (the article was not finished yet ie: lack of references). Someone created a while ago his biography in fr.wikipedia, so I thought it made sense to create an english page for him as well. If you believed I was to compliant, you could have edited the text...Tks!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julielaurent (talk • contribs) 12:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of New Indian Rupee Symbol Controversy

I saw the speedy deletion comment that you added to User talk:Internet spider, but there was no such tag on the New Indian Rupee Symbol Controversy article itself, which I believe is necessary to actually make the page listed for speeding deletion. I have added the tag now.

Incidentally, I agree with the motion to delete. If the information were to be re-worded to avoid copyvio, it would be better placed in the existing Indian rupee sign article. —sroc (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

That is because the article, with tag, was deleted but the same editor then created another version of it. The new version is significantly pruned from the first. I42 (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the article has been re-deleted and re-created, once again losing the history. This is unhelpful as others cannot see the history nor would they see any discussion on the subject. How can we stop this from happening? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sroc (talk • contribs) 14:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If you view the page history then "view logs" you can see the page was deleted twice. However, only admins can see the page prior to the deletion. I42 (talk) 14:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for setting up a redirect. You may have seen that I also added a note on the talk page to explain the reasons but you were too fast for me in setting up the redirect in the meantime. I have also left a note for Internet spider so he/she understands why. —sroc (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Responded there. Thanks! I42 (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Why you are trying to censor the information here? And please explain whom copyright i am violating? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Internet spider (talk • contribs) 15:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

No-one is trying to censor the information, but there is concern that there be balance and no WP:UNDUE weight given to this. I have not taken issue with copyright in the latest version. I42 (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Trainlight(band)

How unintelligent can one person be? It's like those bank robbers who write their demands on the back of letters that are addressed to them... -- role^player 23:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Sweet Like Cola

What exactly is your problem?! The song has huge media coverage in Germany, its a hit on many german radios its number 38 in German charts Get a life will you and stop deleting the article!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by IE4gle (talk • contribs) 22:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Replied on your talk page. I42 (talk) 22:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no interest in thoroughly researching the guidance provided by yourself or following up the allegations you have made against me. I have made those edits with best intention and not as a vandalism. To be frank I do not care what you say or think.

I accept the wiki policy but your lengthy and wordy posts are just pathetic and very patronizing, The article is "notable" enough so END OFF.

Have a nice day —Preceding unsigned comment added by IE4gle (talk • contribs) 22:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If you did read the links you would realise that (a) the article may well not meet notability guidelines, and (b) this is a collaborative project where you are expected to form consensus. You are overriding the consensus at AfD and refusing to discuss. This behaviour may well lead ultimately to a block. I42 (talk) 07:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Blake Farenthold

Hi I42. I am writing to let you know that I rejected the speedy deletion of Blake Farenthold as I do not believe that it meets WP:CSD#A7. I fully understand that WP:POLITICIAN says that candidates are not generally held to be notable, but A7 is deliberately a lower standard than WP:N. I would consider that being a Republican candidate for the House of Representatives is a credible claim of significance or importance, if not of notability. Such articles really should be listed at AfD, because speedy deletion was devised to avoid having to discuss every article on some kid in their mum's basement, not on Congressional candidates. I am sorry for being a stickler about this. Best wishes, Rje (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Ultrastudio.org

While it may be that I made a mistake posting an article on Ultrastudio.org too early, WP:SPEEDY does not list lack of notability for the web site of this type as the reason for speedy deletion. As for normal deletion process, I cannot imagine it being done properly when the deletion discussion has been "resolved" by two people and without giving the original author at least several hours to reply. I am working on the project that seems doing well and plan to restore the article in the future. After I will do this, I think, no argumentation could be used that the article has been deleted with "consensus" of the two people and it should be treated as a contribution without the past history. Audriusa (talk) 11:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Chiba-Ken aka Save Our Souls

Hi I42 (hope I spelled it right),

you wanted deleting the article about the American Post hardcore band Save Our Souls. Well I found something which might help the article to get notable for the en:WP.

I found the official festival poster for the Sunset Strip Music Festival 2010. The band played together with bands like The Smashing Pumpkins, Volbeat, Lost Patrol, Kid Cudi and Slash. [http://pulserecordings.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/SSMF2010_Poster_11x17_web-610x924.jpg Link] there.

They will play together with Slayer drummer Dave Lombardo at the Whisky A Go-Go on the September 19tn, 2010 and they will play at the Las Vegas Hilton, where the band invited directors and producers of the Universal Studios.

By the way: I found an interview with singer George William on Examiner.com. You can find it on the german article about the band

Maybe it is notable. Please answer on my german account Goroth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.168.16.89 (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I42 has retired from Wikipedia so don't expect a reply. AnemoneProjectors 00:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Greg Pritchard listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Greg Pritchard. Since you had some involvement with the Greg Pritchard redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Softlavender (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth McCarthy

Elizabeth McCarthy....little confused why you think she is an "extra"? What knowledge do you have the film industry? Elizabeth McCarthy is not an extra in the shows she has starred in and you might want to do more research before you nominate a posting for deletion. IMDB does not list extras to films just so you know and extras are not integral to to a plot line nor do they get credits or belong to unions. You might want to check your references rather than your opinions —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizflicks (talk • contribs) 23:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I have found no evidence, despite looking, that she has "starred" in any shows. The test of whether someone is notable is whether they are the subject of significant independent, reliable coverage; if you can find that and put references to it in the article then it will be safe from deletion. I42 (talk) 23:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I have posted references from a book, magazine and from the Internet Movie Database as well as sites from Fringe I don't think you looked that hard I have also listed some of her credits —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizflicks (talk • contribs) 00:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hell- the Bible's viewpoint

Oh, it's no problem. I think AFD is better actually, since otherwise it'll be up at least a week, whereas if a few other people chip in it could be speedied even though none of the criteria really fit. Feezo (Talk) 08:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

A bit too fast, I think. There was a terrible Goodram article, which I redirected here. Wilk may not be the biggest producer but it is in Central Europe. I will improve the article gradually, but not everything at once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anotherdisc (talk • contribs) 08:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: I did not tag the article for speedy deletion; I removed the tag placed by another editor. I42 (talk) 08:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Rural Industries LTD

Hey. I'm going to re-instate my A7 tag, as it is not invalid. The IP address is obviously the editor who created the article, and so was never allowed to remove your G11 tag in the first place. If this is a problem, please let me know on my talkpage.  -- Lear's Fool 12:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Right, you've already fixed it. Thanks!  -- Lear's Fool 12:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Prone Cycle

Bite me--Degen Earthfast (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Oak Ridge Elementary

Hello I42. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Oak Ridge Elementary, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to schools. Thank you. Nancy ^talk 09:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Colonel Warden RFC

I42, I have reverted your edit, as BrownHairedGirl made it clear that she was not endorsing your view because of the last sentence. I wonder if you'd consider striking that sentence, which was a problem for other editors besides BHG. Kanguole 15:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

BHG wrote '#:' at the start of her comment rather than just a '#'. Because there was the # (to number it) I suspect it was intended to be numbered but I understand why you reverted it. It is true that most people who responded to my view do not agree with the last sentence but it was crucial to the point I was trying to make, so I do not wish to strike it. The problem is, CW has been asked over and over again, over a great period of time, to work collaboratively and he has ignored this and all advice offered to him. I think it is beyond the point of no return - even though his intention may be good his impact is negative and Wikipedia would be better off if he found another outlet for his talents. Although this may be harsh, it is in the best interest of the project as a whole. I42 (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Writing '#:' is a common way of striking a vote in a numbered list, used across Wikipedia project pages. If she'd written '::', it would have messed up the numbering.

As for that sentence, I agree with the others that a ban is premature, but of course it's your view to phrase as you please. Kanguole 17:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Userfy or Undelete Page

I nominate and or request that Chris Daniel be undeleted as it is not in violation of G11 but rather is identical to other existing pages such as Pat Lykos. The template come from her page. This article is factual in all aspects and has been properly reference. as an FYI, Harris County is the 3rd largest county in the US and the Largest in TX. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harris DC (talk • contribs) 04:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

From the obviously gushing terms such as "has dedicated his professional career to public service" and "Chris Daniel oversaw record growth" to the overall positive tone of the article as a whole, this article goes beyond being merely non-neutral and clearly meets speedy G11 requirements: "it does nothing but promote some entity, person or product and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic". I42 (talk) 08:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)