User talk:WikiDan61/Archive20081024

Archive created 2008.10.24

Back to main talk page

Speedy deletion of ClearCube

With respect to the recent speedy deletion of the ClearCube article, I'm working on a rewrite in my sandbox User:MikeBarron/ClearCube. There are also notes about my changes on the discussion page User_talk:MikeBarron/ClearCube. Would you mind taking a look and letting me know if this suitable now, or if not what I can do to improve it?

Mike Barron (talk) 22:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Mike, thanks for taking the time to get some feedback. The article you've written seems to be less "ad-like" (although I didn't memorize the first one). You would go a long way toward credibility if you could find some independent, third-party citations of your products (industry websites or journals would be good). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for your kind reply and I really do appreciate it! I did not think I would be helped along the way so thank you very much, A Cool Editor —Preceding unsigned comment added by A Cool Editor (talk • contribs) 14:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. Happy to help out a new editor!! You should run through the tutorial for a good idea of how to edit, create new articles, etc. Happy editing!! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocking Request

I really do apologise, but if you check, on my user page (which I have sorted out now) I have placed the Patrols Badge on. I was going through the pages and located a frequent vandaliser - 207.157.117.2 (I am currently reverting the pages back to before his vandalism) what do I do to ensure no future damage from this person??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by A Cool Editor (talk • contribs) 14:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

To deal with a persistent vandal, first make sure that the user has received sufficient warning. If so, you can report the user here. Add the {{IPVandal}} tag to the end of the "User Reported" section, and give a brief explanation of the vandalism. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

PS: Please remember to sign all your Talk page posts by typing '~~~~'. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

speedy delete?

Hi WikiDan61, I'm wondering how my submission does not read neutral. What third party could rewrite this so it does not read like an advertisement? Have a made progress from my previous posts? Thanks, Schncat (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Schncat —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schncat (talk • contribs) 18:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It is difficult to judge the progress you've made as the previous versions are gone. However, I had seen the most recently deleted version, and it still read like an ad for your product line (i.e. it used many peacock terms and had a strong hint of "you should really check this stuff out"). I suspect that you are involved with this corporation and are earnestly trying to inform the public of what you feel is a good product. However, that isn't really the purpose of Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

TWA Flight 840 (1969)

Sorry, but I did not provide the aeromoe reference. That said, Aeromoe does provide valuable registration / msn details for various civil aircraft. The site is obviously run by an aviation enthusiast and I have found that the details there are corroborated by other websites and publications. Mjroots (talk) 08:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

According to this (the very next mod after the one you cited), you DID add the Aeromoe reference. And even if Aeromoe's information is thorough, it isn't peer-reviewed the way a publication or more general website might be. But then, I'm not an expert in the aviation field, and I gather from the feedback you've received on your talk page, that you are, so I'm willing to concede to your greater knowledge of the industry. For all I know, among enthusiasts, Aeromoe may be the best source available. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake - memory failed me. I can probably find a better reference for that info though. I have the book Fire over Heathrow which covers the accident to the aircraft where the replacement nose section came from. Will check and amend if if possible. Mjroots (talk) 11:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, on checking, the aeromoe reference was already there when I made my first edit to the article. That edit you quote merely removed a line break. Mjroots (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

References contained in article on Ronald Brown

A siginificant number of citations and References are contained in my updated article on Ronald Brown. Please consider the updated text accordingly. Any suggestions on links improvements for inline citations--with a full description of how such inline citations should be exactly implemented-- would be much appreciated. Thank you.

Bci1new —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bci1new (talk • contribs) 14:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't provide the comment about the Ronald Brown page. That was PamD (talk). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for the other comments. have left the message for PAM that the inline refes problem is solved. Regards. Bci1new (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Bci1new

Morning show central

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning_show_central

Look I didn't put one link to our site.. It's not spam it's true about what we do at our site and this does not promote spam in ANYWAY.. I also put in a NEWS ARTICLE about the stuff we do. I would like a Wiki about us and you all make it hard to do. How am I going to explain what we do if I don't say the shows and time.. I have lots more to put on the page BUT I'm not until I know it won't be deleted why type it to have it cleared by you...

First of all, I didn't delete your page, I merely nominated it for deletion. Secondly, the page you are trying to add has NO ENCYLOPEDIC VALUE. You have a radio show -- so do MANY others. Not every show is notable. Thirdly, the only reason you are posting your page is to make people aware of your show so that they will listen to it. That's the definition of spam!! Your page has been deleted MANY times now. If you really think your show is worth a Wikipedia article, place a request on the request for articles page and let a neutral third party write it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

In the future, if you want to show me the content of your proposed page, simply place a link to your sandbox. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Revert vs Deletion

Thank you for bringing that to my attention. It makes sense to me that it should be viewed as a call for deletion, just didn't know. Thanks for watching out for me!

Bassbonerocks (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: proposed deletion of Jonas Norberg

Hello, I created the 'Jonas Norberg' page today as I edited information about 'The Pacemaker'. You have placed a proposed deletion to the page 'Jonas Norberg' because Notability not asserted. I question that since there are several very well established titles that have written about it. I included a reference to New York Times but I could also include references to International Herald Tribune, Wired etc. A search on "jonas norberg" + pacemaker on Google gives almost 2000 hits. Is this not enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikssonbengt (talk • contribs) 14:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sibley East Speech Team

Sibley East Speech Team is not fit to be deleted under CSD#A7 as it is a group, please consider taging it under a diffrent critria, such as: {{db-inc}}, thankyou Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they are not a school. They are a club AT a school, which is a different beast altogether. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

yes I since changed my Comment, I see you did tag it as a group, just me being sill, sorry and thanks Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion of Brooklyn Weaver

Hi - I'm trying to figure out why the Brooklyn Weaver page I'm making keeps getting flagged for deletion. I looked at other pages in the same genre and they are basically set up the same exact way. What do you suggest?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Interstellardesign (talk • contribs) 21:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you get some unbiased 3rd party citations to bolster the concept that Mr. Weaver is notable. As it stands now, the article reads like a press release from Mr. Weaver's PR firm (which, given your user name, I am prone to believe it is). I haven't seen the other articles your refer to -- perhaps if you can point some out, I can try to point out the differences. If you disagree, you can just delete the proposed deletion template. At that point if I or anyone else still disagree, the article goes to the Articles for Deletion process, with a community consensus. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Proposed Deletion of Brooklyn Weaver

Hi - Thanks for the response. I updated and changed everything. Is it ok now? If you go to any of the people in the American film producers category, you will see that they are set up the same way - if this is unacceptable, what else needs to be done?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Interstellardesign (talk • contribs) 22:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC) — Interstellardesign (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

COI on Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham

This is about the conflict of interest that you added to the Amrita University page. Simply because you deduced that the person is from the University is not grounds for that warning. Is the article false? Are there glaring omissions? Unfair biases? Would you like to see something (specific) that is missing in the article, and that indicates a conflict of interest? Would you like to see something removed? If you cannot point to anything wrong, please remove the COI indication. Steamengine18 (talk) 01:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Steamengine18

I'll reiterate here what I said on the page's talk page: Reviewing the changes made by Ammasuniv (talk · contribs), they all appear to be an attempt to transform this Wikipedia article into brochure for the University. Statments such as "Yet, in its short history, the University has blazed forth new trails" are highly slanted and violate neutrality. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, this statement, "Yet, in its short history, the University has blazed forth new trails," did sound slanted. We have made the necessary changes, and reviewed the remaining article as well for any other such statements. Please let us know if the article still has content that indicates a conflict of interest. As already mentioned by another user, such articles on Universities are primarily written by university staff who are the most knowledgeable and best suited to make all relevant content available in one location for interested readers. Asairam (talk) 04:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Price by Price

Hi. About the speedy deletion of the article, I realise I put a link at the very beginning, htis was a mistake, a regretable mistake. I have changed this, still ijncluded a link but at the end of the first part of the entry explaining that the site can ber visited at........

The article is relevant because it is the first UK price comparison web site to use technology relevant to those with a variety of diabilities inlcuding motor as well as visual, as the article states it relates to the use of a key pad as well as a keyboard also the site has magnification, colour change, negative change plus no pop ups or flash. They also allow companies to decide if they want ot go on the site and do not 'induce' them to have a presence. It is also the first site to allow contributions to a charity of your choosing rather than a predecided charity.

All things considered i felt this relevant as a first, I am sorry if you saw it as a contrvention of Wikipedia, please reconsider and tell me what top do.

John (jd1949) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jd1949 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

First I should point out that I was NOT the user who nominated your page. I just placed a postscript to the notice indicating that I agreed with the decision. Your website is relevant in that it does offer accessibility solutions. However, unless your website becomes a major portal for the disabled communit to access these services, your website is not notable. If you look at the Wikpedia guidelines for corporate or website notability, you'll see that significant attention from the world at large, including reliable third-party sources (publications, either print or electronic, with reviews of your site) will be required. The second issue is that, since you seem to be associated with the website (its developer, perhaps), you are NOT the correct person to write the article on it. This constitutes a conflict of interest. LOTS of people can set up a website, and even one that addresses accessibility issues. But unless any particular website succeeds and makes an impact, it doesn't really deserve a Wikipedia article. As I said in my original postscript -- keep up your good work and when your site starts to show some real success, someone will notice and post an article about it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I note your comments and will work on it. I am not however the developer but the site is new, I just thought it significant. I don't sem to be abl to find the guy who tagged it tho.

John —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jd1949 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Mrs. foerster, a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a {{hangon}} tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Sorry, misdirected warning.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I RESTORED the {{db-bio}} tag to the Mrs. foerster page that the original author (Datsun280z (talk · contribs)) removed. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Colony of Gamers

WikiDan, I removed the {{db-inc}} tag, per the instructions found in the tag:

"If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself."

I didn't believe it met the criteria and I wasn't the author, so I removed it (I believed you were in error). My apologizes if this wasn't procedure. You can see my comments with regards to that article in the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Colony_of_Gamers. Thanks. TrackZero (talk) 04:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete of Queenie van de zandt

I agree, my mistake... but the article is a patent mess and needs to be rewritten. V. Joe (talk) 15:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and I have taken the first shot at that. As to the {{advert}} tag, I don't know that I agree with that either. The woman is an actress, and the bio lists her accomplishments. I think the bio of any actor/actress will look similar. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm new page patrolling this afternoon... so... I'll leave the details to be your problem :) V. Joe (talk) 16:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Deprod of New Mexico Farm and Ranch Heritage Museum

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from New Mexico Farm and Ranch Heritage Museum, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! --Uncia (talk) 13:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

New Page Patrolling

Hi. Thank you for your help with the vital work of patrolling new pages. I noticed that you are not marking some of the pages you've reviewed as patrolled. Please do remember to click the 'mark this page as patrolled' link at the bottom of the new page if you have performed the standard patrolling tasks. Where appropriate, doing so saves time and work by informing fellow patrollers of your review of the page, so that they do not duplicate efforts. Thanks again for volunteering your time at the new pages patrol project. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 16:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you can tell me (as I haven't found any info) -- is there a way to mark the page as patrolled without having entered the page from the New Pages list? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If an article has never been edited before besides by its author, there should be a little button on the bottom right of the page. Is that what you were looking for? NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 16:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That button apparently only appears if you enter the page from the Special:New Pages page.WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That's very interesting. Thanks for informing me of that fact. Just out of curiosity, how did you run into that page? NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 16:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I generally patrol by looking at contributions from new users. They are the most likely to introduce spam and other questionable pages. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I'm not so sure of the efficiency of that, but I understand why you would do it that way. In any case, take care. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 17:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

résumé

Hi, WikiDan61.

You've linked to WP:RESUME on a user talk page. There's a discussion about that essay going on at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not the place to post your résumé#Tone - you might want to join in. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 19:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Refences contained in article on Boris Mordukhovich

This page now has two references to a very reputable third party publication. Idomath (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing the situation. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete of Fastmetrics

Hi Dan,

I edited and re-edited this article to try and make it conform to the non-advertisement guidelines for Wikipedia. Any suggestions on how we can still mention what the company does, without bias?

In particular, MetricFiber, which is at the forefront of Ethernet technology.

Cody27 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cody27 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Since the article makes extensive use of first person adjectives ("we" and "our"), it is quite obvious that the article is written by a company insider, which in itself is a conflict of interest. Secondly, I specifically nominated your article for deletion on the basis that it is not notable. Your article isn't BLATANT spam, but your company does not seem to meet the criteria for notability needed to be included in Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed the speedy tag because I thought there was a chance that good references could be found, and I didn't want the article to be deleted while I was in the middle of improving it. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'll leave it in your hands then. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Fastmetrics

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Fastmetrics, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Eastmain (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

From Cody27

Thanks for the advice & assistance.

-Cody27 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cody27 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

COI on Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham

I've added a comment on the article's talk page, as well as posted that comment on the topic on your page. Please review and advise. I'm new to wiki, and haven't figured out yet how to leave the talkback for your comment on the article's talk page. Asairam (talk) 04:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

primary sources

I do not agree with you that such exemption applies here, but even if it did, the sub-section is still a violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:Undue weight. If this was actually a notable controversy worthy of mention in Wikipedia, the issue would have already been covered by neutral mainstream media outlets which then could have been used as reliable sources to highlight the issue as a controversy. --Sina111 (talk) 08:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see your point. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for calling my attention to my screw-up about OurStage. You were entirely correct that I should not have speedily deleted it. Aleta Sing 18:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kudos. I had actually put a watch on that page for fear that it might be deleted because of its relative newness, but given the third-party press it was receiving, I knew it was a site worth knowing about. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Tiffany Yanke

And how was anyone supposed to know that? I saw nothing that could have even clued me in. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with this, there was nothing on the article to suggest notability--Jac16888 (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe the instructions to admins included in the {{db}} template DO suggest a Google search to ascertain notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I did my searches, thank you. I don't even see her name as a winner here. Runners-up generally aren't notable... And the pageant website doesn't go back to 2004, which is when she is to have won... - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I did perform a brief search, it would appear that i missed this, [1] for which i apologise, but consider that the article did not even mention her being miss Nevada. If you want, i can give you the articles contents, but i doubt you'll be able to use much--Jac16888 (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That link only says she was in the Top 10. Not a winner in 2006. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

George Campbell (golf professional)

Just a friendly note on George Campbell (golf professional). There are definitely claims of notability in the article (pro tour golfer, played in British open), so A7 doesn't apply. If these claims aren't verifiable, you might want to take it to AfD. Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

New articles from the Jewish Encyclopedia and CSD#G12

Hey there. While new page patrolling is useful, please be more careful with what you tag for speedy deletion. I declined three requests already, all tagged as G12 from the Jewish Encyclopedia. This source is, as the tag in the article itself says, public domain. Especially do not re-add it after being removed without a reason (as you did here). While the creator should not remove the tag themselves, you should not undo edits without specifying why you do so, lest you sound BITEy. Regards SoWhy 18:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If you check the JewishEncyclopedia.com website, they still claim copyright to ALL content on that site. Just because an author CLAIMS a source is public domain don't make it so. I realize that their content is essentially a transcription of a 100 yr old book, I think their claim may not be valid, but that is a matter for the WikiMedia Foundation lawyers. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Please read its mainpage: This website contains the complete contents of the 12-volume Jewish Encyclopedia, which was originally published between 1901-1906. The Jewish Encyclopedia, which recently became part of the public domain, contains over 15,000 articles and illustrations. This online version contains the unedited contents of the original encyclopedia.

Nobody can claim copyright to those contents, so all claims on JewishEncyclopedia.com about copyright can only be valid for those texts they themselves published.

My point was more a reminder to not tag those articles as G12 in future and to not use undo without an explaining edit summary in non-vandalism cases (like the one I linked). Regards SoWhy 19:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the unexplained undo. I assumed that was the proper treatment when the page author removed a {{db}} tag themself rather than placing a {{hangon}} tag. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 04:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Undo, as it says in the header when previewing, should not be used without explanation (except in cases of vandalism). While an experienced editor will easily see the change using diffs, a newbie editor will most likely not understand why you reverted their changes (especially when they cite a "good" (that is good from their POV) reason to do so). If you encounter such cases and have no reason to assume bad faith with the creator, you should revert their change but add the {{hangon}}-tag for them (because that is in essence what they wanted) and note what you are doing in the edit summary (e.g. "Restored speedy deletion tag, added {{hangon}} as creator contested deletion by removing tag"). Regards SoWhy 06:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Flagged Nirdosh Herbal Cigarettes

Why should it be deleted? I am not advertising any product, and there are no "opinions" on there it is all information gathered from other sources. have any suggestions.

````Mrgrimmten —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrgrimm10 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The first section of the article reads like ad copy for the product while the second half of the article reads like an invective AGAINST the product. The article is confusing, but my best assessment of it is that you are trying to show how the product as advertised and contrast this with why the product is dangerous. WikiDan61<sup>ChatMe!</sup><sub>ReadMe!!</sub> 02:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Nero

I'm not sure - where did the encyclopaedia source get its info from? It looks as if it's copied from a website, and if that's the case may not be GFDL. In any case, there appear to be no independent evidence of notability (encyclopaedias don't count) jimfbleak (talk) 06:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've restored on the understanding that you'll clean it up, thanks jimfbleak (talk) 12:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello WikiDan61,

Regarding my new article about "Eliana Benador" , please take a look at the fuller list that will show her "notability" as per your standards.

Hope this will now be acceptable.

Thank you Patmar04 (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Angus

Hello WikiDan61

I've got a message that an article of mine about á sketch show called Angus should be deleted. I can't see any reasons for this.

Hope you will explain. Alaunus —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC).

Your article is about a web show, but it does not clarify why your particular web-show is notable. Unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot (or chooses not to) include articles on every conceivable topic. In order for a topic to be covered, it must meet certain notability guidelines. The guidelines for web content are given here. As I have already nominated the article for deletion, all further commentary on the matter should be directed to the article's AfD page. Thanks. WikiDan61<sup>ChatMe!</sup><sub>ReadMe!!</sub> 21:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

closingcostfax.com

The company carfax.com has an entry in wikipedia.

Similarily, I am creating an entry for closingcostfax.com.

I have simply stated the facts of what the company is, and what it's product is.

I can't see this as being any more blatant advertising than the carfax.com page?

The company is notable because it's patent pending, I suppose. Also, it's notable that this company is trying to cut down on swindling going on in the lending industry (what an idea??)

Also, I noticed that software is not eligible under the "notable" clause, and closingcostfax.com is basically a company and software. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Softreq (talk • contribs) 02:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

A site is not notable simply because some facet of it has received a patent. Please see WP:web for notability criteria for websites. I can no longer access your page to ascertain what differentiates it from the Carfax page, but I can see that the Carfax page is NOT an advertising page. It is a page that has been developed over 3 years by many editors to contain a broad, neutral coverage of the company, including some negative information that I'm sure CarFax would prefer weren't there. WikiDan61<sup>ChatMe!</sup><sub>ReadMe!!</sub> 03:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

PS Closingcostfax.com is NOT software. It is a website that uses software (as does every other website). And your argument would only be germane if I had tagged your article as non-notable. I tagged your article as spam, which has different criteria.

another book source that mentions Eliana Benador

Just found another book that mentions her and her work: By Daniel Schechter: ""Embedded: Weapons of Mass Deception: How the Media Failed to Cover the Iraq War" (Prometheus Books, October 2003)

74.64.115.79 (talk) 17:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Patmar04 (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Paul Petrucci

Hi, article Paul Petrucci, I put a CSD tag as vandalism (blatant misinformation) since it says the guy lives on Pluto. Just clearing that up. Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that could be attributed to poor wiki-tagging, as I believe he meant to imply that he worked at an organization named Pluto.WikiDan61<sup>ChatMe!</sup><sub>ReadMe!!</sub> 20:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

ahh, thanks to the fact the LinkedIn page was copied and pasted, I see that he didn't mean the planet Pluto. Sorry about that. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

HELLO!!

thank you for deleting my item it was really worth it. it was all in good fun and our classmates and i got bored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colored Toys (talk • contribs) 13:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from "playing" in the public article space. If you want to experiment, you may do so in the sandbox or in your own user space. Continued "playing" in the public article space will get you banned. WikiDan61<sup>ChatMe!</sup><sub>ReadMe!!</sub> 13:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)