Jump to content

User talk:Sjb72/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Although I may be independent from being mentored...

I still have one more task for you. Check them out on the mentor page. Thanks! - Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN 10:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone has done that, unfortunately. - Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN 00:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Stephen! Coming... 10:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

Happy Holidays!

7107Lecker Tischgespräch, außerdem... is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.

Unfortunately, I will not be spending my time at Wikipedia at the moment. I have to prepare for real-life events, and one of those preparations are Christmas specials. I'll be back by February, but edits will remain sporadic. 7107Lecker Tischgespräch, außerdem... 11:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

Disruptive editor

I found this new editor to be extremely disruptive. On Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation, this editor posted comments, asking to be blocked. Then when he was warned with a lv-3 warning on his talk page, he reverted the warning and makes the same attacks on the edit summary. Can you please block him for doing so? 7107Lecker Tischgespräch, außerdem... 10:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

He reverted the warning again. He told me that it was unreferenced, while all the time he knew he was attacking in his own talk page (with an edit summary). 7107Lecker Tischgespräch, außerdem... 10:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
First off, there is nothing wrong with removing warnings from your own talk page - that is allowed. Yes, he has been disruptive, but reporting to an admin on their talk page is not the way to go. I am online at the moment, but in a few minutes, I might not be. As a result, it may be a long while before anyone deals with him. Also, you have chosen an admin who has not got any experience with dealing with disruptive editing like this. You need to report the editor at WP:WQA where there are plenty of experienced administrators who will be able to take the appropriate action.
As an aside (I was about to drop a note on your talk page about it, but I'll mention it now) I reverted a speedy deletion notice you dropped on a user's talk page [1], as you never nominated the article for speedy deletion. I can only assume you were about to do so, then changed your mind and decided to tag it for Unreferenced BLP. If you do drop a notice on someone's page which turns out not to be needed, please can you remove it? Also, BLP (Biography of Living Persons) only applies to people still alive. As the chap in question passed away in 1632, you needed a different tag (I've changed that too). Stephen! Coming... 10:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Really? Well, I have to claim, that I am Wikipedia's stupidest, clumsiest anti-vandalism patroller, and instead increasing vandalism. However, you do realize that I just began my anti-vandalism patrolling carrer. As for the tags, can you please explain the correct tags for the CSD. 7107Lecker Tischgespräch, außerdem... 13:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
All the correct tags for CSD are on WP:CSD, along with the criteria for their use. Stephen! Coming... 15:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

AGF of Vandal?

I have a question, and hope you can help? On one of the pages that I am working on, a recent edit appears to be vandalism, as this anonymous user had inserted this name into another page in a more obviously unreferenced manner, although that time as a registered user. I'm not sure what the proper response, as an editor, would be to this? My immediate reaction would be to simply revert it, with the reasoning that a person needs to be notable enough to warrant their own Wiki page before being included in a list of 'Notable Natives'. However, I would like to learn the correct procedure. Yunchie (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI...looks like another editor beat me to it, but I would still like to know. Yunchie (talk) 14:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, sorry about the delay in replying. One of the principles of Wikipedia is assume good faith, so one should always default to the belief that the other user is trying to help the article. However, there is also a guideline (not policy) called WP:DUCK where if something looks like vandalism then the chances are it is.
What you should do in cases where you are not sure is have a look at the contributions of the editor. Are they doing vandalism elsewhere? Do they appear to be a genuine editor? That should help guide your actions. If you still aren't sure, but are not convinced that their edit is sound, you can revert it. However, I would recommend that you put your reasoning in the edit summary (but don't call them a vandal), and then drop a note on the editor's talk page to come to the article talk page and discuss their sources.
It could be that you have someone who was in the film and who wants to help expand it, or someone who wants to cause trouble. If the former, then notify the powers that be as per WP:COI and milk the source for all your worth! If the latter then you can give them warnings (useful warning templates at WP:MLT). If they persist in vandalising, then the vandal can reported at WP:AIV
Hope that answers your question. If not, just ask! Stephen! Coming... 11:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, that pretty much answers my question, except the part about the anonymous vs. registered user? In this case I suspect the registered user JoePizzie was probably at best, an extra in the film. (however, it is probably a joke based on the addition of the 'Hot Blond') I can find no reference to any credit for that name, except a web page that apparently copied the Wiki article at the time, word-for-word. I cleaned up the cast listing on that page, working directly from the credits of the original film itself, which seems to me to be the best source. As for this edit, my question was regarding the criteria based on an unregistered editor. Thanks, and also, no need to place a template on my talk page, as I am watching yours for a reply. Yunchie (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I was so focused on one part of the question, I clean forgot about the rest! OK, I shall try and capture all the parts. There is nothing wrong with including someone in the article, even if they are not notable enough to have their own page. As for linking to a non-existent page, there are two schools of thought: some editors are vehement that there should be no red links on an article; others say that there should as the more red links to one article is an indication that this person might be notable enough to have their own article. Me? I have no strong feelings either way. So be bold, and make the decision of what you would like in the article. It can always be changed later. Having said all that, including the non-notable name (red linked or unlinked) in a cast list is one thing, but on a list like Notable Natives for an area... the general consensus is to not include them until they have an article page (although I am sure there are several exceptions to that concensus).
If you can't find anything about there being a "Hot Blond" in the sources to hand, then change it to something more appropriate, and explain in the edit summary why you are changing it. If it gets changed back, then start a discussion to form concensus.
As for unregistered vs registered users, treat them both the same. There are some very good editors out there who have taken the decision not to register; that is up to them. Likewise, there are vandals out there who keep on registering - there is good and bad in both areas. It might be that the registered and unregistered editors are the same person. It could be that they got logged out and made the edit anyway. Or maybe they did an unregistered edit, and then decided to register. Or maybe there are two different editors both interested in the same article - all scenarios are possible.
The long and short of it is to work towards what you think is how the article should look. If it differs with how any others believe it should be, then discuss on the talk page, and reach a consensus that you are all happy with. If you give good edit summaries and explain why you are making changes, then there is less likely to be a problem. If you just revert without any explanation, then someone might get annoyed.
Did I get everything this time? LOL! Stephen! Coming... 01:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Perfectly. Merry Christmas. Yunchie (talk) 04:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

swampfreaks

Hi.. got your mail about the Swampfreaks page..firstly I did not put the page up. I was correcting some mistakes which someone had put up about myself on my page..( for instance I was not born in Newcastle,,but Co.Durham ) and a few other things that had being annoying me for a while when I noticed the side was there. I don't know who put the page up for Swampfreaks or even mine, Andrew Mcdermott. but there was very little on the Swampfreaks page so I was trying to at least make it truthful and up to date..as for not being of importance . Well I take this rather personally. after 20 years in the music biss. and 17 LP'S I would hardly call myself unimportant.The last two albums I did with threshold both reached the German and Dutch album charts and received over 19 albums of the month in international press. therefore if my old bands are of importance then so too should my new band ( which by the way is already getting National radio air play in the USA.. I hope this sheds some light on the matter.. thank you 

Andrew McDermott  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Judgeangry (talk • contribs) 13:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
It does sound notable, and as such it should have an article. The problem with the articles (both the version I deleted and the one deleted since then) had no indication of notability whatsoever. Unfairly, it gave the band the impression of being like every other independant newly created non-notable band that people insist on putting up on Wikipedia. Yes, I should have done a bit more investigating before deleting it.
I don't know anything about the band, so I am unable to write a stub to even indicate notability, so I have done a compromise action - I have made it into a redirect page to your article page - there is nothing to stop someone from changing it to a proper article - hopefully with notability indicated this time! Stephen! Coming... 10:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

Christopher Figg

Apologies for the CSD tag on this, it's obviously not a candidate for a SD and I have tidied the article up. I'm at a loss to know why I tagged in error. Must be old age! :-) Paste Let’s have a chat. 17:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries! Cheers for the clean-up help. Stephen! Coming... 17:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
It's unsourced, so it's removed (under BLP rules); cheers for spotting that. At the moment there is no COI, as the original editor has not really contributed to the article a huge amount. If he keeps on adding, then COI will come into play. Stephen! Coming... 17:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed and thanks. Paste Let’s have a chat. 17:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

Urban voodoo machine

I am quite perplexed at your decline of a speedy for this article, as there is no credible indication that this group meets WP:BAND. I have taken the article through the tedious AfD process now. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't have to necessarily meet WP:BAND, it just has to assert notability. As a review or two from notable publications had been referenced, this is sufficient assertion of notability. I agree, it probably won't meet WP:BAND, but you do have to remember that the criteria for CSD is very strict. Simply put - this was not a candidate for speedy deletion. Stephen! Coming... 17:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it was. Band articles have often been speedied with more so-called "assertions" than this. But never mind, it's at AfD now (sigh). - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Me thinks you and I will have to agree to disagree on this one. Just because other articles have been speedy deleted with better assertions is no indication that they should have been speedy deleted. The following is an extract from the criteria: "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible.". As there was one credible source included, the article is not a candidate for CSD. Stephen! Coming... 17:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

DELETION?

I had references for Iamerror I made sure they were typed correctly but it said the references don't have tags, I went back to make sure low and behold there were reference tags but the message still said that there were no reference tags. I had to find out more about the bands biography and then I was going to reference that stuff too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Br00talsamitch (talk • contribs) 18:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I must confess that I am not very good myself with adding references. However, there is a page that should help - WP:CITE. If you are still having trouble, I would recommend posting a question on the Help Desk, as there are lots of experienced editors there who monitor the page and will be more than willing to help you out with formatting and referrencing. Stephen! Coming... 10:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Mildew

For the love of whiffle dust, Stephen -- don't mention HIS name in a public forum! I've moved three times in the last seven years to get away from HIM. Next stop is witness protection. Run Amok (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL! Did you see in the EG my last encounter with FM? It was a while ago. Stephen! Coming... 10:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Page Deleted

Hi, I was creating a page about the company Spafax so I could write about how they are a leader in inflight entertainment. It got deleted because you said "it did not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". I understand that it may not be much but I am just starting that page out so I can later come back to it to edit and add more content of relevance and credibility to the topic. Do I need more references/backing up/etc so that the company i am writing about shows legitimacy?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Elel82 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest you write the article initially on a sub page. WP:SP explains how this can be done, and how to move it afterwards when it is ready. Also have a read of Your First Article to help you put it into a good shape and avoid deletion. However, if the company isn't notable, then it will be deleted. Have a read of the notability guidelines for companies to see if it is a notable company. Finally, if you are associated with the company, I strongly recommend reading the Conflict of Interest policy, as that will effect you. Hope this helps! Stephen! Coming... 10:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Stephen, thank you for the link. I am not associated with the company. I just find that wikipedia's lack of content for such a company to be a waste because they work with many notable organizations that all have wikipedia pages. I just think it is important to note the engines that oiled these organizations as well. I have re-entered the content for Spafax in the page you deleted with significant references and notations that showcases their credibility in the airline entertainment and publishing industry. If I am missing anything, please let me know. I would like to be responsible for this page and any other pages that is relevant to airline entertainment and custom publishing; should there be any other future news relevant to Spafax arise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elel82 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
The page looks to be in better condition now; good work there. There may be related articles to do with airliners - have a look at WP:AIRCRAFT. Even if it doesn't cover subsidary companies, the chances are that someone involved with the project will know of articles that need worl, or even writing. Also, the editors in the aircraft project will be able to give you better guidance on articles than I ever could (I'm more of a "behind-the-scenes" Wikipedian).
Whilst it is good to take responsibility for an article, I should point out the guidance on Ownership of Articles. I'm sure that you aren't the type of editor who will go into conflict with other editors (the manner at which you approached me about the Spafax article is giving me confidence in your positive approach to Wikipedia), but it would be remiss of me if I didn't at least mention it. Stephen! Coming... 18:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

About the Murray Brunning article

Hey, can you take a look through Murray Brunning and the related AfD discussion? Since you declined the speedy, we've done some looking for sources, and we cannot verify that Brunning appeared on Popstars: The Rivals. Between the lack of verification and his appearances being, at best, the same level of appearance as a guest appearance, I'm not sure this is really an assertion of significance or importance. I'd appreciate your opinion on the article and what should be done with it, since you previously declined to speedy delete it. —C.Fred (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The assertion of notability was enough to save it from being speedied, but you're right, it doesn't look as though there is enough out there to back up the assertion. I've added my comment for deletion. Stephen! Coming... 22:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

Help me clean up my CSD queue?

Can I get a verdict on these articles?

Some of them are pretty straightforward... Thanks in advance! XXX antiuser eh? 09:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure! Stephen! Coming... 09:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I guess it gets pretty bare around these parts at this time... I'm trying to fend off insomnia by monitoring new pages. XXX antiuser eh? 09:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Younis Junejo

Why you deleted it? information was correct! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Younis Junejo (talk • contribs) 13:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It may well have been correct, but there was nothing in the article to indicate that it would be notable enough. Have a read of WP:BIO for more information. Also, I see that you share the same name as the subject of the article, which leads me to think that you were writing about yourself. It isn't recommended to write about yourself (have a read of Your First Article for more information); information like that can go on your user page, but be careful about putting personal information on there. Stephen! Coming... 13:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

Global360

Good call on that guy. I noticed he was a music promoter but wasn't sure if I could really call him on it-- well done sir. AlexHOUSE (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries. It was when he posted the information about his company (including telephone number) on his user page that he gave himself away... LOL! Stephen! Coming... 18:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid he might be back. The article for "Imam Thug" was recreated, word-for-word, about an hour later by (brand-new) User:Exit404. The article is tagged for speedy deletion and the two of us have exchanged a few words on E404's talk page. Not that the situation requires "immediate administrator intervention," but it could use some help by a more experienced Wikipedian (and one familiar with the situation). Thank you! AlexHOUSE (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about the delay in replying - was in bed when you dropped the note! It looks like someone else has deleted the article, and as the username is not breaching the username policy, no blocks are needed. If the article keeps on getting recreated, then salting might be needed. But otherwise, nothing needs doing at the moment. Thanks for the update. Stephen! Coming... 10:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Band deletion

dude. why did u delete my bands wiki page. All im trying to do is have a wiki page, to get noticed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.124.227.122 (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Have a read of this article. Stephen! Coming... 20:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

Richard Cash

Hi StephenBuxton,

I hope you are well! My page for Richard Cash was deleted (twice). The first time I realized my errors and changed the format, included citations etc. I am confused as to why it was deleted a second time when it appears I followed protocol. A reason given was "does not show relevance" (or something to that effect... sorry I can't remember the exact wording) I think the very fact that he is listed on the Wikipedia SC Third Congressional District Page is reason enough for creating a page that gives info about him. I followed the exact format of another candidate, James Galyean (now no longer in the race), and Mr. Galyean's wikipedia page has not been deleted. Could you please provide me with some direction? I am new to wikipedia and do regret that all the time I spent on the article is now gone. Thanks so much! Bryanne Barker bryanne@richard4congress.com

Bryannecampaign (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The article was originally deleted as it was a complete copy of the Richard Cash website, and copyright violation is a HUGE no-no on Wikipedia. I've just had a look at the second version, and whilst it did include a bit of a copy, it was better sourced. However, from guidance for notability of politicians, I couldn't see anything in there that applied to Richard Cash.
Normally, in circumstances like this, where someone has asked for help on recreating an article, I would undelete it and move it into into a user sub page for you to create at your leisure and move into the mainspace when ready. The problem I have here is that you are very closely connected to the subject, and as such you might (intentionally or unintentionally) present an unbalanced view of the subject. I urge you to have a read of the Wikipedia policies on neutrality and Conflict of interest.
If you want to create your article, I would suggest you go through Deletion Review. But, and I cannot stress this strongly enough, you must declare that you are working for the campaign for Richard Cash's election. That way, should they decide to undelete it, then someone can make sure that the article remains neutral and balanced. If you don't declare, and someone later realises your connection, then the article may be deleted as a promotional article.
As for the article about James Galyean, you should be aware about the arguments not to use for deleting or keeping articles: Other Stuff Exists. It may well be that this article should be deleted, or that the article is remaining for other merits.
I hope this has helped. If not, please feel free to drop me another note. Stephen! Coming... 20:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


This is extremely helpful- thank you so much for taking the time to walk me through it. I really do appreciate it and completely understand it now. Thanks!

Bryannecampaign (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Stephen! Coming... 20:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Eternal Carnage

hey man were part of the local fanbase in eastern north carolina for Eternal Carnage. they are shaping the metal scene of the greater NC. they are impecable. theyve got a couple of demo songs out already, they just need a start and you can help them with that.just give them a shot let us post a page. we can show you that there are people that want to hear about this band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eternalcarnage (talk • contribs) 12:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Whilst I can see you are keen for this band to be publicised, until they are notable they aren't legible for an article. Have a read of WP:BAND to see the general notabilty for bands and musical ensembles. If you can provide suitable references for their notability, I'll help your article get started. Stephen! Coming... 12:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

IP vandalism

Hey Stephen! You've been very helpful to me in the past, and thought I might bring to your attention User:63.139.203.146, an IP tied to a California Christian school. I'm really not sure of the right route to handle this, or even if it requires any attention, but the account seems to be used predominantly for vandalism and has acquired 30+ warnings since '07 and a temporary block in '08. What's the policy on that kind of thing? Thanks again. AlexHOUSE (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Alex! I've had a look at the account you mentioned, and they don't appear to be active at the moment (so I can't block them just now). In general, the rules on blocking IP addresses follow the same process as registered users: recent final warning, and are currently active. The two policies that cover most blocking instances are these WP:BLOCK and WP:IPB. With shared IP addresses (such as schools and companies) it is not always possible to say if it is the same person doing the vandalism, so blocks tend to be shorter in duration. With schools, we usually assume good faith and start afresh each school year (in the hope that the vandals from the previous school year have left).
What you can do, when reporting at WP:AIV is to mention some of their past history, particularly if they are gaming the system by doing a few bad edits, having a break, then doing some more a week or so later. Those who monitor at AIV tend to just look at recent history and past blocks, so a gamer might easily get overlooked. Hope this helps! Stephen! Coming... 10:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Aha. Yes, it absolutely does. Thanks! AlexHOUSE (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Glad to be of service. Stephen! Coming... 23:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

Recurring 'vandalism'?

I'd like some advice on how to deal with what appears to be a recurring act of vandalism on the 'Cast' section of the article One Potato, Two Potato? Listed art the bottom of the cast is Joeseph Pizzie as Fabrizzio. This entry has been made numerous times, sometimes with the additional listing of Jenifer Rasmussen as Hot Blond. The entries have been authored by user Joepizzie, Joepizzie2 as well as some anonymous users. None of these listings are referenced in any way, and as far as I can tell, these persons are not cast members. At best, this may be someone that was an 'extra' in the film. I have seen the film many times, and built the cast list directly from the credits on the film. It is also not the type of film that would have cast members with such names. I am not sure what to do about this, if there actually can be anything done. It has happened so often, that I have seen other websites that have copied the cast with these names. Any advice would be appreciated. Yunchie (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It isn't obvious vandalism, but the policy that comes into play here is the Three Reversion Rule. No warnings have been given to the person, so blocking is a no-no at the moment. To be honest, unless the user has been extraordinarily disruptive, then blocking isn't going to be an option here.
What I suggest you do is start a discussion on the article's talk page, explaining why you have removed the text, and inviting all the users who keep adding (it may be that someone forgot their username and password, so re-registered under a different name) to discuss things on the talk page. Gently inform them about WP:3RR, and how you are keen to prevent anyone from breaking those rules by discussing and reaching concensus.
If they were involved in the film, the Conflict of Interest policy doesn't prohibit them from editing it, so long as they are up-front with their involvement. Another advantage of getting the user(s) chatting on the article talk space is that you have another source of info. Of course, things should be backed up with printed sources, but you might get something from them that will benefit the article. Good luck! Stephen! Coming... 10:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I agree. But, how do I get the attention of the user in question? Just hope that they happen to look at the talk page? I am pretty sure that I already placed a message on one of the user ID's own talk page about the importance of citing a reference. I will start a discussion on the article's talk page, but in the meantime should I roll back the questionable content? Or, place a 'citation needed' notice on it? Yunchie (talk) 13:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't look like anything has been placed on the user's talk pages. If you look at the history page for the article, you can see all the contributors. Where you can see a red "talk" link, it means that the pages have never been edited (or have been deleted). So start the discussion on the article's talk page, and drop a note on the users talk pages to tell them about it. The next time they log in, they'll get the orange band at the top of the screen. Stephen! Coming... 09:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
There have been several users, all probably variations of the same person, including a couple of IP only users. Should I add something to all? Also, what about the current problem edit? Delete, roolback? Yunchie (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Rollback should not be used for anything other than vandalism. I suggest you do the following: 1) Open the discussion in the talk page, stating why you will be reverting that edit. 2) Revert the edit, making sure you include in the edit summary that you have explained the reasoning on the article's talk page. 3) Invite the last couple of people who made the changes to come to the talk page and join in the discussion. 4) If anyone else makes the change, then change it back, inviting them to take part in the discussion. 5) Work towards consensus, and make the change accordingly. If consensus cannot be reached, or the others refuse to join in the discussion and just keep reverting, then we have to move onto the next stage of Dispute resolution, but lets see if that can be avoided. Hope that helps! Stephen! Coming... 17:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Will do. Thanks for the advice. Yunchie (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

So, I did what you suggested, and actually got an explanatory response from the user in question. I responded with what I thought was a pretty reasonable explanation and possible solution. (Talk:One_Potato,_Two_Potato) However, the response from the user was to simply replace the reverted text. Now what? Yunchie (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest a 2-pronged approach. First of all, a temporary compromise. As Joe is unlikely to be (at least for the time being) notable enough for an article, leave his name on there, but de-wikify the name (remove the square brackets). The second thing you can try is an RFC (or as it involves just two people at a standstill, a third opinion. You can wait until you have the microfiche info, or instigate it now. If/when you instigate the request for comment/3rd opinion, make sure you invite Joe to take part. I like the idea of a section about using locals as extras; plus there is precedent in other articles (such as the various film adaptations of Terry Pratchett's work. Stephen! Coming... 12:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice. Just to let you know, I have exchanged comments with another editor User_talk:Mysdaao, and your are both in agreement about a course of action. However, while I am always open to compromises, I have a problem with your suggestion, as it would look like I approve of this edit in different form. My opinion is, that regardless of accuracy, verifiability, or notability, it will not belong in that location. That leads to the question as to what to do about the edit, while waiting for other opinions, reference material which may support the alternative solution that I have suggested. If, in fact, this article exists, my experience tells me that it probably featured one or several local people by name, then spoke in general about the community's contribution as a whole. Since the user has not responded to my talk page comment (which also asked some specific questions), I plan to revert the edit again, citing Wikipedia:Verifiability and see what happens. This also creates a little more dialogue before enlisting third opinion, RFC, etc. (also, fyi, you don't need to post a notice on my talk page, as I have yours on my watchlist) Yunchie (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

19NorDHEA

I am wondering why you deleted this entry? It is a valid entry of a valid compound. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebuddha5 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't. I created a redirect page to the page you made, which has since been deleted, and then someone else went along and deleted the redirect. I have recreated the link to a page that mentions the chemical 19NorDHEA though. As for the chemical page you created (19NorDehydroepiandrosterone), if you think that should be restored I would suggest you go to deletion review. Stephen! Coming... 10:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Looking at your talk page, I see that I originally lefr you a message on my talk page back in September 2008. That has long been archived, and you can find it here Stephen! Coming... 10:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

How do you argue with an idiot that says a chemical doesn't exist. Just because it isn't found in the literature explicitly doesn't mean it does not exist. It exists fully well and is on sale today from numerous supplement companies. How do I get at my old data? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebuddha5 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

If you follow the process as described here: Deletion Review, and can show evidence that it does exist, then the chances are that the original article will be restored. If it isn't restored, then drop me a note, and I'll copy the data into your user space so you can get the article into shape before it gets moved back into Wikipedia.
One thing though, please refrain from referring to other users as idiots, as this will not win you any friends; ignorance of something's existence is not synonymous with idiocy. Please read the Wikipedia policy on civility. Stephen! Coming... 12:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but saying something doesn't "exist" just because it isn't explicitly stated in the literature is ignorant at the minimum. Science is an evolving entity, not something that is static, if we only had the past to look to the future we would be lost! I apologize though for the language. Existence and referenced data are two different things, chemicals can exist just by their nature. Many things can exist without being referenced yet in there literature that's the point of doing additional studies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebuddha5 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

why was my article deleted?

i was wondering why my article was deleted but searching record labels i have found atleast 1,000 entries —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mannameddave (talk • contribs) 08:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The reason it was deleted was because there was nothing in there to indicate notability. Have a read of WP:CORP for guidelines on what is looked for with notability. Number of hits from a search engine is not an indication of notability. Stephen! Coming... 10:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Tongal

Hi Stephen!

I was hoping to get some feedback for my article User:Fightonfortroy/Tongal. You've offered some good advice about how to make sure this doesn't sound like an advertisement and eliminating the bold lettering of the name. Whenever you get a chance, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks!

Fightonfortroy (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Fightonfortroy


Thanks for the feedback Stephen! I really appreciate your constructive criticism. I will look into these issues with the article and address them. Thanks again.

Fightonfortroy (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Fightonfortroy

Always glad to be of service. Let me know if there is anything else I can do to help. Stephen! Coming... 20:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

James Bryan, Potosi

StephenBuxton:

Thank you for your zealous pursuit of vandals, however, I am not a vandal; I am an American Historian, and working hard to expand the information of Wikipedia on early Texas History and the migration from the Northeast, from the midsouth, and from places like Potosi, Missouri to Texas.

I can only assume you are not a Texas historian-- because if you were, you would have heard of James Bryan, the husband of Emily Margaret Austin Perry and brother in law of Stephen F. Austin.

Or perhaps you have not visited "Bryan's Mines" on Hazel Run, north of Big River, in SW 1/4 of Sec. 33, T. 37N. 5E., also known as "Hazel Run Lead Digging".

Please repost the article " James Bryan, Potosi" and let me get on with the important work at hand.

Or explain to me why The University of Texas Briscoe Center for American History should throw out their records recorded under the name "Bryan, James" which can be found at http://www.cah.utexas.edu/services/finding_items/archives_index.php?manuindex=b

Or the reference to as a mining entrepreneur of Missouri in the sourcehttp://books.google.com/books?id=bMpsBFGVbNEC&pg=PA284&lpg=PA284&dq=james+bryan+historic+potosi&source=bl&ots=IVDVv_G1rm&sig=i6AqsaavIpINzyhimgaHzLD9TI4&hl=en&ei=uOCTS6TxLM2Xtge_rLnUCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBAQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=james%20bryan%20historic%20potosi&f=false

Or have you ever heard of Bryan, Texas? (Maybe you have not, but surely you have heard of Texas A&M University which is located in Bryan College Station. Where did that name Bryan originate? History goes back to James Bryan.

Or no less than the United States Supreme Court case Bryan v, Kennett which discusses details of land transfer from Moses Austin to James Bryan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_v._Kennett

I understand the name of the article in question is odd. Unfortunately, no historian has evidence of which I am aware of James Bryan's middle name or middle initial. This makes succinctly naming the James Bryan article-- a fairly common name-- very difficult. As it happens, James spent the majority of his life in Potosi, Missouri, where he was an entrepreneur, miner, and family head.

Perhaps I should rename the article "James Bryan of Potosi" or "James Bryan, Entrepreneur."

Please put the article back up with as much speed and judgment as you summarily deleted it. Bull Market 17:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bull Market (talk • contribs) Bull Market 18:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Bull Market 18:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The reason I deleted it was not to do with vandalism. It was because there was nothing in the article to indicate that he was anyone of note (see WP:BIO). You have indicated more in the above few paragraphs about why he was notable than in the article you created. All that I could tell was that he was related from a lot of people and that the place called Bryan was named after the Bryan surname (not after the person).
I'll restore the page, but as it is likely to be deleted almost immediately in the current format, I'll move it to an area within your user space so that you can work on it until you are ready to have it moved into mainspace. Let me know when you are ready for it to be moved, and I'll put it in the proper place (the original article title isn't in Wiki format, so I'll need to do a bit of deleting and restoring for you). Stephen! Coming... 19:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The article is now at User:Bull Market/James Bryan Stephen! Coming... 19:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Magic Boiler page

Mcolijn (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Dear Stephen, I wrote an article on Magic Boiler which you deleted because of "advertising". I have written the article as a reference point for micro-cogeneration technology, and have now focussed specifically on that area of the company. I now want to upload this page, but don't know what happens if I do. Can you please advise? Regards, Michael ColijnMcolijn (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The newer article looks a lot better than before; it reads less like advertising copy and more like an article. Can I just check - are you anything to do with the company? If so, please read the conflict of interest policy, and make a declaration about your connection.
As for what will happen to the article now, if it meets the notability requirements (see WP:ORG) for companies and organisations, it will be left on Wikipedia, and anyone can edit and improve it.
Hope that answers your question. If not, please let me know. Stephen! Coming... 19:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

James Bryan / Bull Market

I will finish the page up. Thank you. Bull Market 19:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bull Market (talk • contribs)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

James Bryan

Stephen:

Thanks for helping out with the James Bryan page. It was kinda hard with that Brother Bryan guy getting in the way of James Bryan.

Best,

Bull Market Bull Market 05:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bull Market (talk • contribs)

No worries, glad to be of service. Stephen! Coming... 10:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Stephen..Need your help

How are you. I would like to get your help concerning a page that I have tried to help with. The person is Brett J. Salisbury. He played quarterback with my cousin, Doug Musgrave while at the University of Oregon. Anyway, My wife and I have been following his book which is the best selling book currently in the country at number 6. I have put my time in trying to make the page clean and unbiased and cleaned it up. I was wondering if you could help too. If you could make the page where it doesn't have anything on the top to make the references better etc. I'm not sure what else I can do. I just know he had changed my wife and I life with his book. I'm trying to due do justice for this man but don't know the wikipedia ways of making the page clean and without errors. Anyway you can help would be great.

Thank you Stephen, -Jeff Moore (24.253.27.16 (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC))

I had a look at the page, and it has been deleted as a copyright infringement of [this page]. What I would suggest you do is register as a user, and then create a sub page to your user page where you can work on the article to your hearts content before it gets moved to the main Wiki. However, and this is extremely important, you must read the policy on conflict of interest and declare your connection to him. It isn't a huge connection, but if you are upfront about it at the start, people will be ok about it. Hope that helps; if not, please drop me a line. Stephen! Coming... 12:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Emily Austin Perry Picture

Stephen:

While I work hard on getting research done, I'm kinda new at doing the photos. There's a photo from a local museum (Brazoria County Historical Museum) of a portrait of Emily Austin Perry. The photo is found at http://www.bchm.org/Photos/P83-006-0024.jpg and elsewhere online. I would like to upload this to wikipedia commons but I could not answer all the questions or get it done without getting some kind of warning about copyright. There is no copyright holder here of this literally ancient picture by an unknown artist at or about an estimated date of 1835.

Can you assist me?

Thank you,

Bull Market98.199.217.98 (talk) 06:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I'm afraid I have zero experience with regards to images, uploading, and copyright tags. My best suggestion is asking the question at the help desk. However, you might find the appropriate tag to use by looking at this featured photograph which is more than 70 years old. Good luck! Stephen! Coming... 10:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Stephen F. Austin

I made full edits to the Stephen F. Austin article. Can you remove the statement saying there needs to be more research done about monuments? I fixed every mistake noted. (I did not write the original article, but made the improvements. Thank you. Bull Market. Bull Market 07:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bull Market (talk • contribs)

Sorted. A change like that you may, if you wish, do yourself (be [[WP:BOLD|bold!). If someone disagrees, they can always put it back.
Just so you know, I am not going to be as active in the coming weeks, as yesterday I managed to fracture both elbows. yay. I can type (well, this is proof...) but I might not be on the pc as much as I used to be. By all means ask questions here, but I might not be able to help as much as I did. The help desk might be quicker. Stephen! Coming... 21:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

Stephen....Concerning Brett J. Salisbury getting deleted

I'm sorry to bother you Stephen. My connection to Brett J. Salisbury is simply that my cousin played football with Brett. I met him in 1991 at a Univerisity of Oregon football game where Brett was the starting quarterback against the USC Trojans at autzen stadium. Since that time I have not been in touch with Brett. I did look him up recently and found that he wrote the book the transform diet. My wife and I did the diet and it worked. Now, I did what I felt was a honorable thing and wrote a page the best I could with wikipedia. I don't understand why this was taken off wikipedia and deleted. Can you please help me and get this back up. Nothing was copyrighted. I simply went and did my due dilligence and put all the sources for Brett. Can you please write this to enable it back up. I think Brett deserves it as what he has done from writing a best seller to playing major college football and being a top model. Thank you Stephen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.27.16 (talk) 06:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Im sorry I didn't signed my name: 24.253.27.16 (talk) 06:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Jeff Moore

As I said above, the reason it was deleted was because it was a direct copy of this page. There may have been some very minor differences between the two, but not enough to stop it from being deleted. As it is a copyright violation, I'm afraid I cannot undelete it. There is nothing to stop you from writing a new article, as he does appear to be notable person. I suggest you follow the advice I gave you earlier about how to go about creating a new article. Also, have a read of this page which should help you write a balanced article.
As far as conflict of interest is concerned, I don't think it will be an issue, and you probably don't even need to mention it. However, I am a firm believer in being completely up-front about connections, no matter how tenuous - but that is me being overly cautious. Stephen! Coming... 10:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Update Did a bit of digging, and found this out... When I was looking at the article about Brett, I went by the deleted edits from your IP address. This was for Brett J. Salisbury, and that article is the copyright violation. I have just done a search of Brett Salisbury, and I can see that this was deleted in accordance with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Salisbury.
In the light of this, I suggest you do the following. Have a read of the deletion discussion, and see if there is anything in there that can now be shown to be no longer true. For example, has his book won any major awards? Has he received any major coverage in the news? In short - does he meet the guidelines for being a WP:NOTABLE notable person?
If the answer is yes, then I suggest you do one of two things. First suggestion is collate all the new evidence, and present it at Deletion Review. If there is agreement that your evidence is acceptable, then the article will be undeleted. This is by far the best option.
The other alternative is for you to register as a user, and I will briefly undelete the article, and move it to a userfied area (as I described before). You can then work on making it acceptable for moving back into the workspace. HOWEVER - there is no guarantee that the article will survive being moved back into Wikipedia, as it may still be deleted.
I'll help how I can; please let me know what you decide to do. Stephen! Coming... 10:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Stephen. See also this follow-upTikiwont (talk) 03:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I guess it is now up to them to raise it at DRV. Stephen! Coming... 19:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

Imageler Article

The article for Imageler was deleted because it did not have any reliable references, although now Imageler has been linked with Facemash.com (the original Facebook domain name). I feel that Imageler now is Wikipeida worthy because it is now a part of history.


You can test it out by going to Facemash.com and it will forward you to Imageler.com

Thanks


JoeElia (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Apologies for the delay in responding - computer problems. I've had a look, and I cannot see anything to link Imageler to Facebook or Facemash, other than it is a social network site. This is a new social network site, so to say it is a part of the history is a bit odd. It's a bit like saying that a drawing I just made of a sunflower can be linked to the Sunflower by Van Gogh.
It is possible that I am being unfair here (and completely missing your point), and that Imageler is worthy of being an article. I would suggest you review the notability requirements for web pages. If you can see anything in there to say that Imageler meets the notability requirements, please let me know (with references).
However, you should be aware that I am not on as much as I would like, so you may get a quicker response by laking your evidence to deletion review. If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask. Stephen! Coming... 20:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

Political Sex scandals of the United States

Do what you like, but please do review the CSD criteria for G10: "These "attack pages" may include slander, legal threats, or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced." And as I mentioned on the talk page right after tagging it, the page is full of that very thing. Scores of politicians still alive with negative info (I think that part is pretty obvious by the name of the article), and largely unsourced. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll be popping to bed in a few mins, so I'll have to look through that article in detail in the morning. However, a quick fix is to remove the unreferenced sections, explaining why. Stephen! Coming... 23:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Do you know how much work that would be? Without checking each individual entry I would only know if a handful of those people are alive. This situation is exactly why we have that CSD criteria, because there is no easy "revert to last clean version" option. Here, we instead force the author(s) who want to present this information to go back to the drawing board and present a version that is compliant with our policy concerning BLPs, something we are trying to get more strict with if you noticed all the RFCs lately. I have no objection to the content in general, but this page flies in the face of our BLP policies due to the lack of sourcing this negative material. But one of my bigger concerns was that going by your initial response you did not know the CSD criteria as well as you should as an admin, and then to add on to it you said "I would suggest you discuss it on the article's talk page" which indicates you didn't bother to read the talk page. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
About 5 minutes of work to go through and delete all the entries that did not have references.
The problem I have with labelling it as an attack page is that the CSD category implies that the article was designed to attack (i.e. be malicious). I know that isn't what you meant - you are thinking of it more as a problem with being negative BLP (or even negative BP). I agree that negative BLP is an issue, but I would not label that page as an attack page. Perhaps there needs to be some other CSD category that could be used? I've got to nip out now; I'll raise the situation when I have a few more minutes to spare. Stephen! Coming... 10:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Done - discussion can be found here. Stephen! Coming... 13:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I'll check in later at the discussion. And yes, it would not take long to delete all the unsourced items (5 minutes), but not all the unsourced items are problems. Sex scandals from the 1700s and 1800s do not usually still involve living people, thus there is no BLP issue, thus no need to delete. Even scandals from the 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s are likely all about dead people, but one would need to check those, and obviously more recent ones, to make sure and only delete the ones concerning living people. And that's where a lot more time is needed, time better spent by me elsewhere, and I would think you too. That's why we should leave that work to the article creator. Aboutmovies (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I have no problem with hard work being generated for me, if it is going to improve Wikipedia as a whole. Speedy deleting an entire article because it is only partially sourced is not the way to go. As it happens, trimming that article to just those which were referenced was the right thing to do, as it has meant that the editor has now aded references. Yes, it is up to the editor to source references, I don't disagree with you there. But had I deleted the entire article, the original author might have given up with that article entirely. Stephen! Coming... 18:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Scooby-Doo

Can u answer this at this question? I don't if I did watch --Hello, I'm a Wikipedian! (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, can't help you on that one. Stephen! Coming... 10:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

Deleted My Companies Page Even though many of our Competitors are here.

Stephen Deleted deleted My Companies page even though many of our competitors are here. He claimed that it was not a well written article, when it looks more likely he just has a bias about commercial interests. He is not Wikipedia, it is not his role to decide if a corporation like Nike, or Sketchers, or Gravity Defyer Inc. should be present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertsloca (talk • contribs) 21:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

First off, your article consisted of just this line: "GDefy is the leading sports shoe from spring loaded trampoline shoe line Gravity_Defyer headquartered in Los Angles, CA.". There was nothing in there to assert notability. Please have a read of this policy about notability of companies.
Secondly, if this is your company, I would urge you not to write an article about it, as this will be seen as a conflict of interest. Have a read of the policy on conflict of interest. If your company is notable enough, someone else will write an article about it sooner or later.
Thirdly, at Wikipedia, we have a very important policy called Assume Good Faith. You have come onto my talk page, and accused me of having a bias about commercial interests, and that I am "not Wikipedia" (whatever that is supposed to mean). I can assure you that I am indeed not Wikipedia, in that I am a human being, not an electronic online encyclopaedia. However, I am an administrator for Wikipedia, which means (amongst other things) that I have the trust of the Wikipedia community, along with all the administrators. It doesn't mean that I am better than non-administrators, but it does mean that they trust me with a few extra buttons, and to use them without bias and with self-control.
I am guessing that you are posting this here to get the article put back. I am reluctant to do so, because I have not seen any assertion of notability, plus there is the conflict of interest issue. If you still feel strongly that the article should be undeleted, I would suggest you take it to deletion review. However, you will need to demonstrate why it should be allowed. Stating that your competitors have articles probably won't be enough. Stephen! Coming... 22:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

City of Perdition

Can you edit the article so it looks less like an ad and place it back on, i was asked to put it on wikipedia and it was deleted before i had chance to add the hang on tags to it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thechaos1986 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I have restored it, and moved it here: User:Thechaos1986/City of Perdition. When you have finished editing it, let me know, and I'll see about moving it back into mainspace. Have a read of WP:NOTABILITY as that will let you know what the notability requirements are that you need to meet. Stephen! Coming... 16:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

ok thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thechaos1986 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

Since August Page

Hi Stephen,

I know that you are probably quite busy, but I just wanted to send you a quick note. I have read the guidelines and understand why you deleted the page. I actually was not finished editing the page and had not linked in the press articles for this recording artist. Would this extra information have made a difference in the decision to delete the page?

If not, I was just wondering if you could tell me what criteria would make this page eligible to be posted on Wikipedia? After all there are a lot of signed recording artists on Wikipedia and I guess I don't see what makes the rest of them any different than this signed recording artist.

Thank you for your time.

(Tapesamedia (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC))

I'm a bit pushed for time, so apologies for a brief reply. Have a read of WP:BAND. When I get a minute or two (won't be for a few hours, I'm afraid), I'll see about restoring the page and putting it in your user area to work on. Stephen! Coming... 07:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Done it: the article can be found here: User:Tapesamedia/Since August. I've also added the link to your user page (User:Tapesamedia) to make it easier to add - hope you don't mind! What I suggest you do is have a good critical look at the notability requirements of WP:BAND to see if Since August meets the criteria. If in doubt, get some thoughts from the editors at WikiProject Music; they will give you an idea as to whether or not the band is notable enough for Wikipedia.
Don't be disheartened if the band isn't notable enough though; there are plenty of articles at Wikiproject Music that could do with your assistance!
Finally, I would like to add a huge thanks for how you approached me about the deleting of your article... it makes a very pleasant change to the "WHY YOU DELETE MY BAND? WE R GOOD AND DESERVE TO BE KNOWN!" that all too frequently adorn my talk page. The fact that you have taken the time to read up before requesting leads me to believe that even if your article doesn't make (although I hope it does!), you will be a valuable addition to Wikipedia.
If you have any questions, comments or concerns, please feel free to drop me a note on my talk page. Stephen! Coming... 09:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

the archivest article my feedback to you on it

Hello Stephen I hereby and respectively understand your need to delete the page I made, how ever im very new, and I created the article from my past write ups it would be a great interest to have an article about my work on Wikipedia with my bio so my establishment builds from it to gain the interviews I need.

I wanted to be in touch with you and let you know I red all your info it was nice to see how concise you are and I'm interested in rebuilding an article with you so all guidelines are met so it shows my professionalism in the music business. I look forward to hearing from you on regards to this. Thank you kindly.


The Archivest —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvenos (talk • contribs) 00:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't like discouraging new editors, but I would strongly urge you to reconsider writing an autobigraphical article (see WP:AUTO for a list of reasons). By all means write a bit about yourself on your user page (see WP:UP).
I would suggest that you help out in WikiProject Music, as there is probably a lot of articles that you have experience and knowledge in that would be of benefit to you and to the project. Stephen! Coming... 06:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

Destiny Christian School

Thanks for the heads up, the Schools exception must be new :( I don't remember it. Will afd as suggested. Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 21:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries, we all live and learn! Stephen! Coming... 09:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Kathryn Brown Page

Reasons were given for notability. Your reasons, please, for deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 505txpa (talk • contribs) 09:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I saw that you added comments on the talk page of Kathryn Brown, stating that I did not give reasons. The log does show a templated reason:
10:20, 10 June 2010 StephenBuxton (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Kathryn Jane Brown" ‎ (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) (view/restore)
The fact that someone has a number of qualifications is not an indication of notability. Nor that she is mentioned on another web page as a member of staff. As there was no notability asserted, the article was deleted. Have a read of WP:BIO; if there is anything in there that you can see makes her notable, please let me know and I will gladly restore the page for you.
You should be aware also that I have deleted the talk page for the deleted article, as the talk page is dependant on a deleted page. Stephen! Coming... 12:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

From the WP:BIO

“The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.”

Subject is a Rhodes Scholar and listed as a distinguished alumnus of Seymour College (on Wikipedia). [See entry for Seymour College]

Subject has also been a partner of a law firm and is currently an Assistant Professor at a notable Dutch university.

For “Academics”

“Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.”

Correct: the citation of the academia.edu page was evidence of public interest in the subject’s work by giving evidence of google searches/web traffic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 505txpa (talk • contribs) 14:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for that. I'm not convinced that being a Rhodes Scholar and a distinguished alumnus will be considered by others to be sufficient notability though. However, I have restored the page, and moved it to a user page for you: User:505txpa/Kathryn Jane Brown. As it stands, there is not enough notability asserted within the article, so someone else might delete it if it were to remain in mainspace. But in a user page, you are free to work on it and expand it so that when it moves back into the main encyclopedia, it is less likely to be deleted. I have also added a link to the article on your user page: User:505txpa Stephen! Coming... 16:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

dont delete it

dont delete my thing god!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.171.9.50 (talk) 09:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea which deleted article you are referring to. I would suggest that you also read through this for common reasons why articles are deleted. Stephen! Coming... 09:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

article about andrea mae rodriguez

she was chosen for sony music entertainment and yes i have read that article thing. She might be the nest big singer of this generation, just let us do it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.171.9.50 (talk) 09:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to draw your attention to this section of policy. By the looks of things, she is possibly on the cusp of notability, but not yet. Another thing I noticed was the article was written by User:Arodriguez1997, giving the impression that it was written by the person. In which case, are you Andrea? If so, I would strungly urge you not to write an autobiography - see WP:AUTO and An article about yourself is nothing to be proud of. Stephen! Coming... 11:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sjb72/Archive_4&oldid=1139085110"