WikiProject Law Enforcement Barnstar Proposal Poll[edit]
Hello there MacGyverMagic/Archive/Archive 2,
We here at Wikiproject Law Enforcement are currently in the process of deciding wither or not to make this WikiProject Law Enforcement's official Barnstar award. Being that you are a member of Wikiproject Law Enforcement, we are humbly asking you to voice your opinion here about our new Barnstar.
Thank You and All the Best, Mifter (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I recently wiki'd Outl4w and was brought to your page. I think you should do a page for Outl4w - also i'd be willing to help, one of my good friends is the drummer (hence my search)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.113.116 (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shrine of Remembrance has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.--Avala (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I am a full-time corporate magician and illusionist. I would like to volunteer to work WikiProject Magic areas of stage illusions, current full-time nationally known illusionists, and bios of notable professional magicians in Las Vegas, and in the New York / New Jersey / Pennsylvania areas. Anything that is needed to know before jumping in and getting started? I was going to add a few items to the list of grand illusions, such as the Origami illusion. Thanks!
MotivationalMagic (talk) 20:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources cited by Urbanfunkmaster are reliable, they're just stuff like Discogs and Amazon and interviews. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Might I ask why this article was deleted? In the log, the reasons you provided were A7(bio) and G11. The article was not a biography, nor was it an advertisement in any fashion. Horselover Frost (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, and thank you for using templates on Wikipedia. On one of your recent edits you used a template that should have been substituted but you did not subst it. Please subst templates that are meant to be substed in the future. Please take a look at Substitution to learn more about it. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you need any more help or want to reply to this please contact me on my talk page. Thanks. ·Add§hore·Talk/Cont 13:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated the article on Sheikh Mohiuddin Ahmed for deletion, giving the reason I highly suspect it is a hoax. Given the fac I am new to wikipedia, I ask you to help me get this thing done for I am not very good with this. What is the common procedure for deleting articles? How long does it take to get an article deleted? And do you think the article is just a hoax or might it even be self promotion from someone? J.B. (talk) 11:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS, as a reply on your message at me talk page: If this so-called Sheikh were of such importance there would be more to find of him. Besides: how could it's creator know the guy lives in Ireland and information like that? Such information might suggest the person who started it might be same person the entire article is about in the first place. Just check the articles history; I did and I am very sure it is pointless self promotion and a hoax. J.B. (talk) 11:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, MacGyverMagic. May I ask what led to the decision of CSDing the article? It seems odd, as it did make claims of notability (writing a book, leader of a political party in exile), so I'm curious as to what you changed your mind. - Bilby (talk) 11:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well Bilby, it was something I said that convinced him, that was what MacGyverMagixc told me on my talk page. The article was a self-promotional hoax. Just look at its history ! J.B. (talk) 11:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suggest this whole thing is one big made up political party. Since the parties so called leader, a non-excisting sheikh, has just today been removed, I strongly suspect this entire article to be a hoax. Again: no sources or references, no real links, and a story about the fictional sheikh being tortured which has to be nonsense for any such thing would have been in the media or news. Please take a careful look at this, i just nominated it for deletion, what do you say? J.B. (talk) 12:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You declined a speedy deletion on this one. Problem is, the criterion was G7 author request. Please look at the article's edit history, the creator's talk page and my own talk page. Also, consider the fact there's an AfD headed for a snowball delete. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 14:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MGM. I was going to leave some statements requiring sourcing on the talk page of this one for you. However, I notice User:Ruslik has already gotten busy with sourcing the article. You might follow his lead if you want to work on it. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 13:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have finished referencing the article, at least, in the first approximation. So you can copy-edit it now. One of the problems that I see is overlinking and overuse of such terms as Great comet of XXXX. Ruslik (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Main Page Redesign proposal is currently conducting a straw poll to select five new designs, before an RFC in which one will be proposed to replace the Main Page. The poll closes on October 31st. Your input would be hugely appreciated! Many thanks, PretzelsTalk! 15:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was a discussion held on Talk:Main Page that initiated the proposal, but I can't seem to find archives for that talk page; perhaps you can.
Please remember that "the decision to overhaul the Main Page" has not been made; this is solely a proposal put together by a group of users. The top five designs from this straw poll will be used to create one proposal, which will be put to an RFC against the current Main Page. PretzelsTalk! 18:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
it may be more helpful to actually say something like keep and merge at afd, rather than just call it a comment. DGG (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Can you tell me why this cat was deleted? The page says the cat was empty but it was certainly well populated last time I saw it. I'm trying to find out what happened to it. Thanks. --Kleinzach 08:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I came across it, it was no longer populated. It had been blanked too. The content before the blanking was:
{{History of European art music}}
:{{catdiffuse}}
:[[Era]]s of [[European classical music]].
:[[Category:Music history]]
:[[Category:Historical eras]]
:[[Category:Classical music]]
:[[eo:Kategorio:Muzikaj epokoj]]
User:CharlesGillingham probably blanked the page and resorted the entries based on the catdiffuse template you inserted in June. -- Mgm|(talk) 08:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, I'll go and reply now. J Milburn (talk) 11:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does "plans were made for appearances on daytime television programme This Morning, as well as for an appearance on Children in Need on 16 November 2007" work? J Milburn (talk) 12:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She did appear more than once, but I don't think the appearances were all planned at that time. I'll fix that now. J Milburn (talk) 12:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your help. J Milburn (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want to be to demanding, but just to inform you: you forgot to the delete the talk page on Sheikh Mohiuddin Ahmed! By the way: I have been removing unreferenced and undue weight links to the guy all over wikipedia. I am planning on writing some articles later one, one a Frisian historian, J.Kalma. Maybe you could help me with that later on... J.B. (talk) 11:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for nominating that for AfD. I hadn't noticed (or forgotten) that software and other products are not eligible for CSD#A7. DoubleBlue (Talk) 11:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please undelete this article? I feel that it was not a valid A7 at all. "As of 2007, the company's properties consisted of 23 malls (with a total leasable area of 20.6 million square feet), and four community centers (with a total leasable area of 1 million square feet)." is definitely an assertation of notability to me, and the article needed some TLC, not deletion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After adding that this manga series (Axis Power Hetalia) will be animated (albeit I did not give a source), I felt that it was enough info to give it notability. In fact I could have later added more information that would confirm it's notability.
Can I please start the article again without it being deleted? -- 21:02, 31 October 2008 User:Psi_edit
Hi MacGyverMagic, and thanks for supporting my successful request for adminship. It was nice to see all the kind comments I got from my supporters and I hope that I will be more useful to the community now that I have the tools again.--Berig (talk) 15:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not the one who added the Harpswell mention. But here, here's some stuff I found just now: [1], [2], [3]. DS (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mgm, concerning the comment on Expansion ratio, you're fully right, however the preparation of such is opposed in practice, see User_talk:Mion#Buoyancy_compensator (at that time (avaiation) didn't exist) for creating a DP with a red link, in the article itself, i tried vent valve as a red link [[4]], which was removed in the next edits, in itself looking at a list of missing articles on basics User:Skysmith/Missing topics about Chemistry and Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-08-11/Growth_study , the red links are the breeding ground of the project , but still its useless to add them. Cheers Mion (talk) 11:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your suggestion here. Should we nominate them too? Also, could you clarify you position regarding the AfD on Ask for More as there seems to be a little confusion there. That AfD has been a nightmare, particularly with the abuse I've been receiving from Reqluce (you should see his attitude too in his edit summaries). Cheers very much. :-) — Realist2 15:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, MacGyverMagic. You have new messages at Ctjf83's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I responded to your question on the HD -- Mentisock 09:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you deleted Pixmac yesterday after an AFD debate - and it has now been recreated - for the third time!!-- Myosotis Scorpioides 10:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been rewritten. Please visit the AfD discussion to see if your concerns have been addressed. Thank you. -- Banjeboi 22:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you gave your input in the deletion discussion of this article; however, the problem remains on what exactly should be done with this article and the relevant featured articles. There is currently a discussion about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Eight featured articles to be demoted. Please stop by and participate. Thanks. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 11:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you said this was published by a reliable publisher. That is because just before I AfD'd it, someone added a claim that it was published by Sage. That's wrong, it's published by Associated for Bible Research [5], dougweller (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its working. So if I need to change my color again, all I do is use the same text you gave me and just change the name os the color?
and what about fonts? what kinds of font can be used? Torque3000 (talk) 14:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please give me the text with the font impact and black color. I can use it to change my font and color in the future, by myself.Torque3000 (talk) 04:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The IP didn't move a lot of pages, what he did was go into an archive here and took the list of articles requested from the declined request and copy and pasted it onto a new subpage of our Crime project. I only noticed this because of that. The decline suggested he post his request on the appropriate project talk page. That was in March. Actually, if you'll look here, he was doing a lot of odd things. One was to start through the list on the archive to change redlinks. I saw that and contacted him, and he argued about it, saying he'd seen it before and asked for a link which specifies my claims as Wikipedia policy. It was all quite strange. I spent a lot of time this morning trying to clean up after his editing. I'm not sure why a policy is necessary when the archive page says specifically "Do not edit this page", but it would be helpful in the future. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Macgyver: Regarding your comment on the Maeve Kennedy citation, I abbreviated the citation, now it is more consistent with abbreviated Notes and full References. Not sure if what I did is standard practice, but it made sense to me... see how you like it. Zatoichi26 (talk) 02:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, MacGyverMagic. You have new messages at Maralia's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
After the speedy deletion box was put up, I put the {{hangon}} tag under it, and added new information to the article, including reasons why the band is notable. There were several more reasons on the talk page. The speedy deletion tag gave me the impression that all this might keep the article alive for a few hours; long enough for me to go to uni, come back and work on it tonight. I even asked for this extra time on the talk page. Anyway, the article didn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion at the time you deleted it, so I'd be grateful if you could restore it. Pwrong (talk) 11:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Basic things like sources? I'm sorry if I haven't mastered basic things like editing wikipedia on the bus without an internet connection, but I have no problem with sources. How about you stop deleting things until you've mastered hangon tags and speedy deletion? Lack of sources is not a criterion for speedy deletion, especially when you know sources are on the way. I will continue to start my articles in wikipedia where they belong, so that other people can contribute to them. Pwrong (talk) 11:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've provided a source for Charlie Looker being in Dirty Projectors for two months in 2006 (although the Dirty Projectors article says the same thing). They also share a drummer with Yukon. Pwrong (talk) 12:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The references to reliable sources which verify their content are in French now but I will put some in English really soon the service is international it is translated in 12 languages and you can learn 22 languages on lingueo. Competitors like ITALKI or BUSUU are on Wikipedia so please before deleting the article check the service, You’ll see that it deserve to be list in here.
- OK no prob I'll wait to have more source to put it online thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlinleroy (talk • contribs) 17:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. Before I put on the speedy, I did a pretty good search and came up with precious little. I've nominated for afd. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I invite you to take a look at the article and the afd again for comment? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI -- Your reply to this user on his talk page is probably likely to confuse and/or frustrate them more than help, as it turns out, but not because of anything you would have known when you CSD A7'ed the article. I had tagged this article at first as an {{autobiography}} and for a quick, merciful, painless {{db-music}}. When I did so, the user wrote me on my talk page and told me he actually wasn't Sonny Hopson (he was just using the name of an actually notable person as a user name) and Mr. Hopson was apparently a music figure significant in the civil rights movement. Since that struck me as plausible, and as an assertion of notability that *could* be made by the article, I pulled my tags down and set about helping this new user learn the ropes of making his first article work. I didn't put the assertion into the article because it wasn't specific enough for me to word and insert. I pointed this user to the username policy and made a procedural report to WP:UAA while I worked with him on getting his username changed, since it is a possible impersonation issue. It looks like someone else must have tagged the article in basically the same way I initially did after I pulled my tags down, and you (quite properly, given the article itself) pushed the button. My fear is that the user might become frustrated because your response is basically the same as the first message I sent them, and it may feel to them as though they're starting over explaining what's going on. I'm worried they'll become frustrated and leave the project, since so much seems to be going wrong for them at the start. I don't blame you for not reading the (rather long) talk page where this is detailed in depth because I've been trying to help this user out. I'm sure you get many, many "Why did you speedy my (apparent) autobiography?" type questions, from obviously new (from the nontechnical formatting of the post) users and made an understandably quick reply. I'm just hoping you could modify your reply here to help this guy out. Anyway, I'm finding this case an interesting theory lesson in WP:AGF, given that article and a denied attempted change of username to "WebRX". I'm not sure what that means, since I wouldn't do anything I did differently (including the initial tagging I made of his article), and I don't fault anyone else for their assumptions in this case, but he seems to just genuinely be running into all kinds of trouble by doing stuff that makes him look bad. Anyway, sorry for the long rundown on a 2-second delete, but I wanted to bring you up to speed, because I'm asking you to pull/change your comments to him and wanted to explain why. ⇔ ∫ÆSdt @ 19:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support for the above recent FAC and useful comments. This is my co-nom User:Zatoichi26's first FA; he did most of the hard work. Brianboulton (talk) 11:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem.It's my first attempt at an AFD and I got a bit lost in the middle-I put the edit summary in the wrong page and it didn't quite come out like I'd expected! Thanks for letting me know-I think it's all sorted now! Lemon martini (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why was Alice Albinia deleted without a discussion?[edit]
Why was such article deleted without a deletion?
Beside this, you didn't gave a day to write more (useful material) which proves that she meets Wikipedia Notability set for an Author as she achieved Royal Society of Literature Jerwood Award for her recently published book Empires of the Indus; The Story of a River.
I noticed you have done the speedy-delete on some of the articles made by Amey72 (talk·contribs). You may want to salt Association of International Wealth Management, Certified International Wealth Manager, and Information System For Analysts, as well as whatever else that user made. Those articles have been recreated with substantially the same violations, sometimes before the Amey72 account itself was created, and his talk page implies he's been recreating them repeatedly himself since creating his (latest?) account. I don't have admin access, so I can't see what deleted articles he's created or which usernames created them before, but it looks like it's been going on as far back as January 2007 in the case of Certified International Wealth Manager, even though his account is only 5 months old. --Closeapple (talk) 11:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't found any other capitalizations. I found one other registered user by looking at what links to the (deleted) articles: Rfaraut (talk·contribs) apparently got tagged for Certified International Wealth Manager in the past. 59.95.40.143 (talk) has been involved in the same set of articles as Amey72, including adding the abbreviations to CIIA, CIWM, and ISFA. 72.156.96.91 (talk) also touched CIWM. I can see some log entries: log for Certified International Wealth Manager shows it deleted in January 2007, long before Amey72 existed — I assume that was related to Rfaraut's edit. The log for Information System For Analysts shows it being deleted in June, just after Amey72 got an account. I don't know if admins can see what now-deleted articles a user created. We mortals can't see them, though — once an article is deleted, it disappears from the user's public log like it never happened; the only way to tell is if someone's talk page still links to it. That's one of the reasons I linked all the article names on Amey72's page. We can see the deletion entries, but not the creation entries. --Closeapple (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was the only page I salted as it was clear that Information System For Analysts was repeatedly recreated. I've also cleaned up the dab pages you mentioned. - Mgm|(talk) 12:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to improve the recently deleted "BattleSoup" page, by making it more encyclopedic.
It is a popular youtube channel (with over 400 subscribers, and has been featured twice on New Zealand's main youtube page, and once on Australia's) that people want to know more about, and newcomers to the BattleSoup channel would love to see how it got so popular, much like Pure Pwnage.
International youtubers (such as Cyr1216) want to know more about BattleSoup as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TommySoup (talk • contribs) 11:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a real album I made with my other friends. My cousin's best friend's father is in the record industry, and he loves this album, so it'll become popular soon I promise! Let me recreate the article please, and if I can't, please tell me why because it's not vandalism. Needssleep (talk) 12:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, MacGyverMagic. You have new messages at Darkspots's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
This is a more detailed response to your post(s) in the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jason E Ramsey and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jarredland discussions. Special:Contributions/Johnbuckman shows that the bulk of contributions the editor made to Wikipedia were to his own articles, or articles created for/created about, his authors/friends showing the editor to be a SPA who was making COI edits. There were edits made to BookMooch, Magnatune, Amarok (software) and John Buckman. Also Interesting is the Peter Cox (author) article that that the editor started. Took me all of 30 seconds to find this: "With Peter Cox, literary agent" posted by John Buckman on BookMooch : The Official Blog. The editor also did a lot of work on the Ramsay Wood article, and "Ramsay Wood" is a member of "BookMooch" and who, as an author, has written "A Cat May Look at a King", which is "distributed for free to members of BookMooch.com as part of an experiment in reciprocal generosity." Also one has to take into account that the user page for User:Johnbuckman was created August 24, 2007 while his first edits were on October 30, 2006. The first version of the user page that was created on August 24, 2007 was simply "Redirected page to John Buckman" and it stayed that way until June 13, 2008. The User:Johnbuckman page was MfD'd this month and was an overwhelming "keep", not based on the user being a SPA, not based on the user making COI edits and not based on the users "notability". All of it was based on What may I not have on my user page? and it was well laid out so even if, as I stated, disagree with allowing an SPA editor to have an "I" user page It was a consensus that What may I not have on my user page? does allow for it as long as it is "not excessive". The user pages in question now have only existed since October 12, 2008 - one month - but meet the same criteria that were laid out in the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Johnbuckman. For example USER:Gotyear said: "Or in #3 of WP:UP#NOT, excessive: 'Excessive personal information (more than a couple of pages) unrelated to Wikipedia' ". The other editors all appeared to support that as well. As some of the comments alluded to the "notability" of the user so I asked if that was a factor and was emphatically told that it did not matter at all. USER:Metropolitan90 said "Yes, the replies would still be "keep" if the user were not notable" and USER:Collect said:"Absolutely related to WP, and a strong user page. Anyone who sees another such page as MfD, even for a "non-notable" person, please tell me so I can vote Keep for non-notable persons as well." Thanks. And I need to point out I am not canvassing here, only going into more detail as I see you participate a lot is these discussions. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that I'm not entirely sure exactly what you're asking; could you try asking in more detail, or maybe with an example? --ais523 20:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Why should this article get any special consideration? If they can later establish notability I'm not against recreation. I've tagged this twice and its sat tagged for months at a time with no one doing anything except eventually removing the tag. I've been more than patient. I nominated because I highly doubt anyone will find sources to establish the notability.--Crossmr (talk) 13:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel so strongly about it, you're free to list it at computer and video games, I'm not going to be upset or angry about that and I expected that it would find its way there anyway. But I'm not sure why this article should get any special consideration over any of the other dozens of articles nominated each day.--Crossmr (talk) 14:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MacGyverMagic. - See my recent edit to Comparison of web conferencing software. Facts are incorrect, comparison points are too obtuse to mean anything, verbiage about audio description at bottom, what the heck does it mean? Also unlimited?? Does that mean 6 billion people can join the same meeting? Does it mean connectiivity? Or bandwidth?? I've disliked the article since creation, I expended about 10 hours digging through history to conclude there is more than meets the eye here but it is tricky to spot. Hint: The author and a spammer took a sudden interest in creating this article when the spammer's business article was deleted. Also some interesting IP traces relating to Houston. Anyways, I tagged the article as per my concerns, feel free to revert my revision as you see fit. - cheers - DustyRain (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to my talk page: I noticed you had deleted similar articles so I thought you might be interested in the subject. - No worries if not, have a good day. DustyRain (talk) 08:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - please review Zoho_Office_Suite - lots of external links, they make edits that disguise themselves as having separate articles (they link to their headings as separate products rather than link directly to their article). It's kinda misleading. Also, their article is a weak for referneces (most links are to their own site or blogs). If such practices are acceptable no reply is necessary. Otherwise, please comment. - Cheers - DustyRain (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I wanna ask why you deleted the Pixmac page? It is not an advertising. It's quite important microstock agency and should be here. If you delete Pixmac page, delete also Fotolia, Shutterstock and iStockPhoto. Thank you for reply.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolisek (talk • contribs)
Let's be honest though, the deletion process really -doesn't- take much time at all. So far this whole thing has taken up about 10 minutes of my time in total. Not really a lot of hours wasted ;p Like I say though, I'm not fussed whether it gets deleted or becomes a redirect. Makes absolutely no odds to me. Prophaniti (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MacGyverMagic, please help me remove the alerts on the Starlims page. I have modified and done everything by the book, and made as many changes as I can to comply with the Wiki requirements. Please advise. Your help is very much appreciated. --Ohadtpa (talk) 08:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beowls you deleted the article under A3, do neologisms fit under A3? Or was it because the article was A3 anyway? Because I have never been sure what criteria they fit under. Thanks, – Jerryteps 23:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for clearing this up. – Jerryteps 03:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the page because the material was inserted by a banned editor. As for what I think of the "sourced" version, if you examine it, the sourcing is dubious at best. As an example, one of them is a term paper assigned in some "Obadiah" school, and published on the website of a carpenter. Are you really taking responsibility for that content? Jayjg (talk) 01:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just leaving my compliments on perhaps the most intricate and decorated user page I have ever seen. Very nice. Daniel Christensen (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I came here see your views/interests of things (articles you edit/create) because you chose Delete on the deletion nomination on one of my articles.
No, it certainly didn't put me off wikipedia; I've already written 5 more pages sice then; my total is now 68, and I've only been a Wikipedian for a month. I am a power-creator (parody of power-seller) of Wikipedia articles. I find things that I think are notable, and if I can quickly find significant info on them, I make an article usually in like 10 minutes. I have seen enough pages to know what is usually sufficient in an article, so don't worry, my articles are not all spammy stubs. Just look at my userpage. Towards the bottom (or right here) is a link to a list of articles I have made that are pretty good, actually. And most and sometimes all of their content is original by me, not additions by others. Daniel Christensen (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea! I think a lot of users, even some of our more experienced ones, could benefit from this. I'm not the most prolific article writer myself, but let me know if you need any help with the lessons, I'll be happy to help out. Hersfold(t/a/c) 18:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've placed myself on editor review at Wikipedia:Editor_review/Cosmic_Latte, and I'm reaching out for feedback to editors who seem to be reasonably familiar with my work. If you have a moment to comment there, your feedback would be most appreciated. Thanks, Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for updating me on your comments. But I think this is a case where we will have to consider agreeing to disagree. I track three WikiProjects and have checked out about a half dozen others. I just don't see any of them making use of the {{expand}} tag. They all track their articles very efficiently using the WikiProject template class/importance assessments. This makes it extremely simple to select an article in "stub" or "start" class and, if so inclined, to work on improving it. The {{expand}} tag (IMHO) is redundant. I honestly do appreciate your ideas on using the tag and I doubt very much that a consensus will be reached to make any significant changes other than possibly labeling the page as inactive/historical. Thanks again for including me in the discussion. JimVC3 (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have moved Ferdinand stock to Ferdinand Stock because there was a typo in the name. I think we don't need a redirection. So I have set the deletion tag. Bye.
Why does your link for new messages on the top of your talk page link to User_talk:Booksworm?--Ben Ben (talk) 13:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that -- I didn't mean for you to look like a nitwit. I definitely should have added the previous discussion onto the db template. Thanks for your help. — CactusWriter |needles 15:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain about creating a bio for Emil Odepark. He's a young guy who appears to have only one film credit under his belt. That is, of course, only a quick scan on my part and there may be more there. But if that is all there is than I think he may need to wait for a little more weighty coverage before having a stand-alone bio. The movie he's in doesn't even have a page yet. The writing boot camp idea project looks interesting. I've actually tried to start something in real life on that end. I'd be interested to hear some details about your idea. — CactusWriter |needles 15:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My idea in real life hasn't yet happened because I proposed it for students who were too young (Folkeskole age). I would like to propose it as a project for gymnasium-level students (16-19 years old) for their English class. They would develop a topic from Denmark, research it, and write it up for inclusion on the English Wikipedia. They would improve their English as well as their paper-writing skills. Of course, they would also learn how to "wiki". As far as picking up "boot camp" students here on Wikipedia, how do you think they will find you? And just on the practical side, it seems to me that the vast majority of people who start on WP already have a specific page in mind, so they are not really looking for help in choosing a topic. Unfortunately, they seem to quickly disappear after building the one page. That's just my personal experience from helping people edit a new page, and then encouraging them to join a particular wikiproject. I really haven't had any success along those lines. Yet, I mean. Have you? — CactusWriter |needles 13:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do think it is a good idea -- especially as it provides a place to direct people for finding help on building a page. My own dark-niche hobby area here on WP is watching over the Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biographies. Too often, people are adding worthy names there (with references or links) and I think, "why not just write it up yourself?" It would be a real plus if those people could be directed to a page which would help them do just that. — CactusWriter |needles 13:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, I have no idea on how to make an "invisible table." I am quite stinky when it comes to working out tables!! :( Could you point me in the right direction? Thanks and have a nice day! CarpetCrawler (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll go and experiment later in my sandbox. Thank you very much! :) CarpetCrawler (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis did you close this less than one hour after it opened? What speedy criterion applied? I was quite prepared to defend this article. I'll say why in more detail after you reopen it, but it is not to soon for people to start speculating about the next election, and there will be sources. Crystal would only apply if there were no reason to think the elections would be held, and in any case it is not reason for speedy deletion. (I notice the article is at the moment moved, at United States Senate elections in 2014DGG (talk) 03:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Author recreated article you previously speedied. (previously Saba Software). See http://www.saba.com/company/index.htm - They are an HCM software and services company (human capital management). The Saba Centra article I tagged for speedy is advertising a product, it is not about the Saba company. - DustyRain (talk) 06:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that, as the winner of the second series of BGT, Sampson's article is an important one. I've written my other BGT articles (Talbot, Andrew Johnston, Faryl Smith, Kate & Gin) fairly organically- I picked them up when the subjects were only just notable, then added to it as new sources became available. There will probably be a wealth of sources already available on Sampson. That said, I wouldn't really be sure how to write an article on a dancer anyway- it's a bit different to a singer. I'm willing to help out- I'll add it to my watchlist and take a look when I'm in the right mood. J Milburn (talk) 12:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google News archive is always my first stop to find sources. Interviews are also great- off hand, I know there's this one with a lot of stuff in. J Milburn (talk) 13:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a trial court, there are 62 of them! Nevertheless, I closed the AfD for Frank Gulotta because I found an obituary in NYT. According to that source Gullota was an New_York_Supreme_Court,_Appellate_Division judge. Notable enough for me. Pcapping 14:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might have been helpful to relist that discussion, since it's still not clear exactly what kind of role he had with the Jets. He has no statistics listed at Pro-Football Reference.com or any similar sites, so it doesn't seem like he ever actually played for the team. Zagalejo^^^ 04:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for answering my question. I'm a little surprised to read that the article is referenced. There are two "notes". One is to an article about a USTA tennis player who appears to be a different person. A second link is to a list of hall of famers at Farmingdale junior college. That's it.
I don't think asking for good references establishing some kind of notability for McKinstry = an I don't like it argument. I could see a no consensus close, but to close as a "keep" is a real stretch. McKinstry made the hall of fame at a junior college and made the roster of the Jets for one year and apparently never played. If that's enough for inclusion I'm okay with it, but it still needs better references. The facts don't support the conclusions you've reached, however, and the discussion included good questions that were never answered. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I completed my first nomination for delete - Zoho Office Suite. See Articles for Deletion/Zoho Office Suite. I previously tagged as speedy but since someone removed the tag I nominated. Would you mind confirming that I performed the processes correctly since it was my first time? - Suggestions regarding my nomination statement would be appreciated. Thanks in advance - DustyRain (talk) 06:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you performed the process correctly, but I'm afraid I don't agree with the nomination (even before DGG worked on it). The article listed several reliable references. I believe the correct course of action would be to send this to some Cleanup project or WikiProject, because it was obvious salvageable. Still, I applaud you for using extensive reasoning and encourage you to keep doing so. Too many people say "Non-notable, delete" without providing any reason why that I spend more time dragging information out of people than actually discuss the article. Don't make the same mistake. -- Mgm|(talk) 08:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I too believe the company and a few of their products are notable, but in my opinion the article was specifically designed to be an advertisement brochure. It is also pushing the limits of WP:V. Hopefully DGG will work on it and provide references, company information and history etc. Currently, it contains far too many unverified claims and it's only focus is products and features (a brochure). For example, just imagine adding a few pictures, reformat content and it is a brochure you could hand out at a trade show. As such, it is not a dictionaly article. - Anyways, thanks for your comments and I'll take your advice and continue to be clear as to the reason for a nomination. - Cheers - DustyRain (talk) 08:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dusty, it is a misuse of the AfD process when you are nominating notable subjects. AfD is not a means to push people to improve articles on notable subjects. There are tags and other ways to encourage this proccess, or better yet you can do it yourself. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Today, I nominated the article on Touch the Clouds for Good Article because in the last few days it has been greatly improved in quality. Perhaps you could help me out here? You know, watching the page, maybe contacting some experts on the subject, that sorta things. Just let me know whether or not you can find some time to help out a newbie. Thanks in advance, J.B. (talk) 12:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your quick reply. Now what I really want to know is this: do you think that the article, in its current form, could pass GA nominations? And if not, then what should be done?
PS: I re-added the see also sections, although expanded. I do not see why that one had to go for the names in it are completely relevant. J.B. (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry what you said made sense, i should of put Redirect originally. Thanks for the message, im still trying to get use to things on here. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I re-read the article, I think that I would be better off redirecting. Thanks for the advice. TopGearFreak 20:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, MGM. Just out of curiosity, did you intend to bump your question down the calendar one date here (showing two edits). If you did, then all is well, if not, I will move it up again, because ... well, because I'm anal retentive, I guess ... ---Sluzzelintalk 15:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Before claiming something is "extensively referenced", you would do well to actually find the references and read them, which you did not do before making that really inane remark on my talkpage. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You both mentioned on the talk page that reliable references were needed regarding the “notability” of Dom Martin. Below are three references regarding Dom Martin and the art gallery in the Bom Jesus Basilica (a World Heritage Monument in Old Goa, India):
The first reference is to a page on the website for the Archdiocese of Goa, which contains a copy of the official brochure for the 2004 exposition of the body of St. Francis Xavier at the Bom Jesus Basilica, and states:
“Art Gallery in the Basilica, featuring: a) paintings and crayons on Christian motifs by Dom Martin, well-known exponent of Surrealism, of Goan origin, now settled in the United States of America; . . .”
The second reference is to the website of the Christian Art Museum, Goa, India, which indicates: “The Bom Jesus Basilica art gallery. http://www.dommartin.cc/Basilica%20ptgs/Basilica%20ptgs%20index.htm This gallery was established in 1976 and quite easily, is the first and largest one of its kind in the eyes of onlookers. With the exception of the Archaeological Museum in Old Goa, the Basilica art gallery predates most -- if not all the galleries and museums mentioned above.” [Note the direct link on the Christian Art Museum website to the artwork of Dom Martin in the Bom Jesus Basilica Art Gallery.
The third reference given above is to a photocopy of an article that appeared in a 1980 Boise Vision magazine [appended to Dom Martin’s website]. Boise Vision states: “In 1970, the Jesuit Rector of the Basilica, commissioned a relatively unknown painter, Dom Martin, to decorate the Basilica’s art gallery with paintings depicting the Saint’s [Francis Xavier] life as well as works illustrating other religious themes . . .”
These references, spanning more than a quarter of a century, should be sufficient to establish “notability” as well as verifiability. I would like to mention that I personally first visited the art gallery at the Bom Jesus Basilica in 1980 and was most impressed with the volume and scope of the paintings there, as well as to find such intense surrealism at that time in a country like India. I was further amazed to find that it was all the work of one young artist, Dom Martin.
Meantime, it is truly dismaying to find that the article has been deleted even though I had inserted a “hang-on” tab. I trust that the above references will provide the administrators with the necessary information to be able to repost the article as a meaningful contribution to Wikipedia.
Two of the reference links you provided contained viruses (the cover.htm and the abbefaria.com link). I'll look into the new references you provided. - Mgm|(talk) 08:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Patriciamaier2"
Thanks for your reply and willingness to undertake further review of references. Regarding notability, it should be realized that the artworks by Dom Martin in the Basilica Art Gallery are quite old and more significant (notable, if you will) from a historical perspective – thus, the lack of media coverage from an art critique perspective that one typically finds with an artist who continues to newly exhbit from place to place.
Because of the volume and size of the artwork by Dom Martin on permanent exhibition for several decades now, viewed by millions of people from all over the globe who tour this World Heritage site, it seems the following “Aditional Criteria” would apply:
“Creative Professionals . . . the person’s work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition . . .” [emhasis added]
And under “Any Biography”: “The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)
I was hoping you could shed some light on how the Wikipedia process works in terms of whether a concensus of administrators is needed for either the inclusion or deletion of articles. It seems frrom what just happened that one administrator can independently decide to delete an article. And then, for example if another administrator decides to repost it, how is this resolved?
To: Administrators Mgm, JNW, RkLawton, and ChildofMidnight: Apparently notability was not the only issue with my article about Dom Martin. Although administrator Rklawton has never communicated directly with me (Patricia Maier), I now find (in going to the link provided to me by JNW)[6] that Rklawton has assumed that Dom Martin wrote and launched his own article, thus violating Wikipedia policy. This, then, appears to be the underlying cause for the speedy deletion of my article without further recourse to what might be called 'due process' procedures of Wikipedia. I come to this conclusion since in the communications posted on my talk page between administrators Mgm and JNW regarding my article, Mgm indicates “. . . it’s not suitable for speedy deletion”, and JNW wrote back “I was preparing to nominate it for WP:PROD when I noticed it was deleted by an administrator.”
I can assure you that I, Patricia Maier, the author of the article in question, am certainly not one and the same as the subject, Dom Martin. Not only do I look nothing like the artist, being of a completely different ethnic background, but I am a woman who was born on a different continent, in Washington State, USA, some years before this man was even alive! I can only assume that Rklawton reached this incorrect assumption since I share the same internet service provider with the subject, as do many individuals with computers in the same office or residence facility. If this is going to be the criteria for throwing out articles, based on one individual’s jumping to wrong conclusions, and others then being inspired to support that erroneous opinion, without further verification, then there is no justice to be found on Wikipedia!
In all fairness, I kindly request that my article please be reconsidered and put though the “deletion review process and article for deletion discussion process” which I understand from Mgm can be utilized, and wherein a consensus is required to delete the article.
Patriciamaier2 (talk) 01:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the user page of User:Royal_Lineage, you'll note he is banned as a sockpuppet of Mod objective. As for the sources, most of them are equally dismal, and those that are reliable don't really back up the points they are intended to. Footnote 16, for example, merely states that Assemblies of Yahweh broadcasts on shortwave, but doesn't back up the claim it is used as a citation for. Jayjg (talk) 05:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey a page i created MVAPICH was removed. i was adding information in a timely passion through the week. I had a summary up. but it was deleted in 12 hrs. can you be helpful here on how i can project about adding MVAPICH/MVAPICH2 descriptions with abiding wikipedia laws.
Hi there. I noticed that you recently deleted the page for Sophia Fresh, and just wanted to ask if you copy the last revision to my sandbox: User:Cornucopia/Sandbox. I am planning to work on the article and get it up to scratch, and publish it into the mainspace when I think it's done. Thanks, Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 05:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping. :D I was hoping that there would be something I could work off, but now I can see why it was deleted. When I'm ready to publish it, I might pop up here again to see what you think. Thanks again, Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 10:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, not sure. Well, I wasn't around during 2005-2006; I just joined at the start of this year. Have a look at my userpage, User:Cornucopia, I've listed my DYK credits there. Hope that answers your question. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 10:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The DYK all-time list only goes back as far as we have gone for monthly lists. The page view data goes back to mid-December 2007, but the checking is done manually. With enough people helping, we could take it back to Dec. 2007, but there is no page view data to take it back further than that. Cbl62 (talk) 02:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, you are welcome to create the next set of hooks. Please start right away. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to use the {{inuse}} template when you do. The trick is that you do it before anyone else does. I am not the only one hook snatcher flying around here at DYK. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We usually use the template on the next update page... --BorgQueen (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I only interrupted because the inuse tag was on T:TDYK for too long and it kept users from reviewing/commenting/nominating hooks.... I was going to remove the inuse tag (since it wasn't supposed to be there in the first place) but I didn't want to cause edit conflicts.. assuming you were online at the time. Someone else removed it eventually. Well, good job setting up the rest of the queue. Like you, I'm also new to this system. Well, I was helping with DYK updates from July–October, but the most recent revamp of the DYK system really confused me, so I took a few weeks break from DYK. Anyway, if you ever need help with DYK, just leave me a message. If it seems I'm offline, I might just be editing a different wikimedia project. – RyanCross (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I was thinking is that while the exact wording of WP:BLP1E doesn't apply in this case, its spirit seems to, at least to me. The kid's good at what he does, sure, but so are many others. He's made news a couple of times, but does that warrant a biographical article, when one about what makes him interesting would contain all the important information from the article, and could possibly be expanded with information about other similar kids from other sources. Anyway, I thought it was a kind-of borderline case. JulesH (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that it could be speedied, and my comment was that it seemed to be a ripoff of someone else's scholarly work. In trying to match these up -- the Japanese list [7] is arranged alphabetically-- I'm having a tough time correlating them. There are a few things, like "alsace" and "gram" and "andvarinaut" on both lists, but the larger problem is the substitution of blue links for sourcing. Mandsford (talk) 23:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
--BorgQueen (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
