 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
September 2010
Regarding the entry for Perry D Cox, you wrote... "You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved, instead of writing it yourself, as you did at Perry D Cox. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your band, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest. Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged."
I reply... I am not Perry Cox and have only met him in person one time. Although he and I have worked on a project together, I know him in exactly the manner described in the article: in his capacity as a respected expert in the field of Beatles collecting. None of what you wrote applies to me (namralos at 134.197.226.100). I do not want an article about myself on Wikipedia and consider myself to be not deserving of an article. However, Perry Cox _IS_ most noteworthy, as any national dealer in American Beatles records will attest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Namralos (talk • contribs) 16:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- My mistake, then, because I thought that, from my point of view, the IP you were using was in some way connected to Perry Cox himself. Anyway, if he is noteworthy, and the article is written properly (see our core policies about neutrality, verifiability vs. original research, and reliable sourcing) then the AfD will pass and you will be able to continue writing the article. If the AfD is successful, however, then I think that it would be too premature for him to have an article on its own just yet; if it gets deleted, then he does not warrant an article. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 23:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Neon genesis Evangelion (anime) reply
just because the NGE portal is gone, doesn't mean we have to replace it with the anime and manga portal. Also, the portal messed up the article apperance and the references weren't able to be seen clearly.Bread Ninja (talk) 05:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: User:Crusty007
Hello TeleComNasSprVen. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Crusty007, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not promotional; just describes the editor's interests and thoughts. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: User:Shaleeka Dhameja
Hello TeleComNasSprVen. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Shaleeka Dhameja, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not promotional; just describes the editor. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: User:Matthijn
Hello TeleComNasSprVen. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Matthijn, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not promotional; looks like a draft article to me. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: User:Sonicheroes64
Hello TeleComNasSprVen. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Sonicheroes64, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not promotional, but a short story. I will nominate it for WP:MfD. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Please be more careful. It is clear that you need to review the criteria for speedy deletion. ℳono 05:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of User:IXSIR/Enter your new article name here
Hello. You have a new message at GorillaWarfare's talk page.
Reply
FYI I replied to you at Template_talk:Citation_needed#New_Category. -Selket Talk 18:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Gay Nigger Association of America up for Deletion Review
Hello! Since you participated in The MfD, you might be interested in participating in the Deletion Review, as well.
LiteralKa (talk) 04:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Andrew Suda
You need to review the speedy deletion criteria. This is the sixth declined speedy in two days. That is far too many. G6 should be used only for technical deletions: "Uncontroversial maintenance, such as temporarily deleting a page to merge page histories, deleting dated maintenance categories, deleting unnecessary disambiguation pages, or performing uncontroversial page moves. This also includes pages unambiguously created in error and/or in the incorrect namespace." An article containing an email address does not fit this criteria. If I went to, say, the article on frogs, and added an email address, would it then be eligible for speedy deletion? No. I have PRODDED this article because there might be some notability, so I'm not deleting per A7. However, G6 is not an appropriate speedy tag for this article. Your incorrect speedy tags are bordering on disruptive. I understand that you want to help, but you need to stop being so hasty and take a few minutes to review the criteria. If an article doesn't meet a criterion exactly, PROD it or submit it for an AfD. Do not continue to tag articles carelessly. — GorillaWarfare talk 07:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I only take issue with the sole criteria for deletion being self authorship. Once again, I modeled my entry after Kenneth Kim whose page was also self-authored through third party agents, perhaps my transparency was my undoing, I did not mean to obfuscate the source of the entry and it is every bit as notable and structured similarly. Just looking for clarification and how I can bolster the entry to allow inclusion.
Thanks
Clark —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarkschierle (talk • contribs) 19:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
THANK YOU!!!! It was doing weird things in my browser also, but I couldn't figure out what exactly was doing it. I'm glad you knew. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- No problem. After testing the nowiki tag for a while, searching within that section, I'm glad I could help out.
:| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I have created Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2. Cunard (talk) 06:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Merge discussion at Underworld
I have closed the discussion to merge Underworld to Hell; there was no consensus for that merger. I have started a new discussion. I propose that List of underworlds and List of underworld rulers be merged to Underworld. Your comments are welcome at Talk:Underworld#Merge from lists. Cnilep (talk) 14:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if this is how I am to contact you as the instructions do not say. You marked the page we were working on for Speedy Deletion. You state it is because the page was advertising or promoting our company. The attempt was to provide factual information about the company. We are a subsidiary of Forest River. On that page there is a link to another one of Forest River's subsidiary companies. Forest River is a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway. We are not trying to Soapbox or advertise. We just listed, when we were formed, where we are located and when we were acquired by Forest River > Berkshire Hathaway. Might you please re-consider our page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:William_Board —Preceding unsigned comment added by William Board (talk • contribs) 17:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Clerk elections
Hi, this is just to inform you that elections for Clerkship at WP:UAA have started on the talk page. You have been sent this message because you were recently active in handling submissions or discussions. Discussion is ongoing and you are encouraged to voice your opinion on the candidates.
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Fridae'sDoom (talk) at 06:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC).
UAA report declined
Thank you for your report at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention (UAA). However, your report was removed as UAA is for name policy infringements that are serious enough to warrant an immediate block. General name policy violations should first be discussed with the user on their talk page. A helpful template to do just that is {{subst:Uw-username}}. Note that a request for comment can be filed if the user disagrees that their name is against the username policy, or has continued to edit after you have expressed your concern. You may find the UAA instructions helpful, and I'd recommend reading them over prior to making future reports to UAA. Thank you. Note: This is in reference to Safetycups Netalarmtalk 23:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
This is out of hand. The user in question added two inappropriate links, one to Beverage can at 17:51 on 14 September and one to Scooby-Doo at 17:54 on 14 September. Both were reverted and I warned the user at 18:03. (uw-spam1)
With no further edits by the user, warning #2 was given at 21:19 14 September by Orange Mike, warning #3 at 21:19 14 September by Orange Mike and a final warning at 8:04 15 September by TeleComNasSprVen.
I am reverting warnings 2, 3 and 4. If either of you are unhappy with my action, feel free. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Strangemed
The version I deleted wasn't an attack page - content is in a hidden comment here if you want to look. Was there a previously deleted version that I'm missing? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- That's funny, because the version I remembered had offensive comments. I've hidden mine as well. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 14:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Very odd...I don't see that in the revision history at all. There is some vandalism by an IP that attacks the subject, but it doesn't match your version, and your version isn't bad enough to have merited oversight. Oh well, guess it's a server glitch or something... Nikkimaria (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I believe the nomination of this page as "abandoned" appears to be very misguided. The page had been last edited by its creator only 9 days before the nomination. I would appreciate it if you would withdraw the nomination. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Speedy declined for User:DetergentAnalyst
It made sense to me. MfD may be a better option. Regards, Airplaneman ✈ 03:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
WP:COPYVIO discusses; I rewrote the intro so the point is moot. Quarl (talk) 05:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I still feel it could be revdeled. The intro is much better now, that I can clearly see. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
just curious
I sometimes see edit like this one [1] and I'm never sure what it is they are meant to accomplish, so I figured I'd go ahead and ask you. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, first of all, like Template:Uw-subst says, it reduces server load, I suppose. But more importantly, and toward my purposes, it helps me and User:KingpinBot in tracking and possibly removing CAT:UAA concerns on user talk pages. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Gotcha, thanks for the reply! Beeblebrox (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Re-transcluding the edit semi-protected template
The template does not need to remain transcluded until the request is ultimately completed or rejected. It is better from the point of view of processing edit requests to leave it untranscluded for the following reason. It is impossible to tell from the list of edit requests whether the request needs attention if you leave the template transcluded. Rather than have everyone who services edit requests check again and again to see if this request needs work, it is customary to untransclude the template. The person who initially serviced the request can check back periodically or the requester can put up a new template. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 20:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't realize this was the policy; I initially assumed that the template was only removed after an accept or a reject so that others still could help out with the request. Thanks for notifying, :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 23:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello. You have a new message at Bigger digger#Public Library of Pichilemu's talk page.
Query about the redirect target Bigger digger (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
MfD nomination of User:TeleComNasSprVen/PMD
User:TeleComNasSprVen/PMD, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TeleComNasSprVen/PMD and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:TeleComNasSprVen/PMD during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. MtD (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
My sig
I already changed it. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 04:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
My RFA
See my userpage why I'm not an adminstrator. Secret account 04:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
G7 of User:Huboi
How was this a G7? I've declined it for now. Airplaneman ✈ 04:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined at File:McIntyre Mine in Schumacher, Ontario.jpg
The article uploader creted the image, as is stated in the template {{PD-self}}. Therefore the source information is provided, as he creted the image himself.--kelapstick (talk) 08:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
RFC on vandalism sandboxes
As someone who previously participated in the discussion to adopt policy verbiage that is being used as a rationale to delete "vandalism sandboxes", your input would be appreciated on the matter: Wikipedia talk:User pages#Userspace Vandalism Sandboxes. Gigs (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Your template on my talk page
- You may not be aware that users are not allowed to blank their talk page if it contains Shared IP templates, as this one did.
- The user was blocked for this blanking.
- It is best not to "template the regulars." I'm aware of the rules, a personal message on my talk page questioning my revert would be preferable to a template and an edit summary accusing me of vandalism.
- I would appreciate it if you would (A) revert your reversion, since you have incorrectly removed the Shared IP template from the blocked user's talk page, and (B) remove the warning template from my talk page. I'll be happy to discuss any of this further if you like. Thanks in advance, 28bytes (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the warning. 28bytes (talk) 23:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)