This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
You tagged NargleblartasG1, which is only for patent nonsense (i.e. gibberish text), and does not apply to pages that can be understood, as this page was. A better tag would've been A7, as clearly unnotable article subject. Thanks. --Patar knight - chat/contributions19:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. While clearly complete rubbish it was not an article about "a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content" per A7. andy (talk) 00:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Smart Faucet, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. The excessively and abuse of tags is a kind of vandalism. :Majen27 · talk14:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Seems you tagged my article at eCompete-Online for speedy deletion. I've replied on the talk page as to why I think it should be kept. If you could review that and reply back as well that would be great. I'm sure we can have a great back-and-forth going if you would like to. Rafael16:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
That doesn't sound very interesting. The tag and the related WP policies explain it all pretty clearly. andy (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand. You put the tag up, I cooperated with the requests but you don't want to continue with it? If that is the case, can you or I remove the tag? 74.96.149.229 (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
There's nothing to discuss. I can't see anything in the article that satisfies wikipedia's policies on notability. I suggest you read them. andy (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello Andyjsmith. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of James McGow, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: inventor is an assertion of "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity" not sure if would pass AFD but not IMHO a candidate for speedy. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers13:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I do not disagree with the deletion of my article but due to it's original and academic nature,
if deleted, I then do not feel comfortable with my article remaining in the data base of the Wikipedia at all without making clear who created the article, what was the subject and when it was created.
If my article is deleted, but the headline remains registered without pointing out to the intellectual and copy right source, author of the article, I cant help but feel that my author's rights by doing so might not be respected.
I find it one form of taking to much liberty to filter the origins of information that, such in my case, has not yet been shared or found elsewhere on the internet.
That subject and content of an article is nor yet registered elsewhere, does not mean it can be ripped of its content and original source that is not Wikipedia. Original author and copy rights must remain respected even if the article is "doomed" for deletion. Because it contains original conceptual information I have a huge dilemma about if Wikipedia makes mistakes when it comes to the copy right of what is being described as "deleted article".
I'm sure there is a perfect explanation, but I can not find it on my own so please find time to help me understand the copy right issue regarding deleted articles.
I'm sorry but I don't understand your problem. All material added to wikipedia is automatically placed in the public domain and everyone is free to copy it and also to alter it. If you don't want anyone to copy or edit your work do not place it in wikipedia. Incidentally, your article was deleted because it fails a wikipedia policy which you can read at WP:ARTIST. andy (talk) 09:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Andy,
I didnt have a question about general wikipedia policy or reasons for deletion nor do I
disagree with it, ergo, I understand the reasons for it.
My question regarded the author's / copy right policy for the deleted article's contents, but I understand your confusion and disability to answer my question. I do tend to extremely philosophy (many subjects)!
--Lanelanaiilani (talk) 10:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
There are no references in the article that indicate that this person is notable, nor even any reliable sources that prove he actually exists. It might be blindingly obvious to people who already know about him but they'll not be looking him up on wikipedia, will they? Please see WP:BIO and WP:RS. andy (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
It's not necessary to include the AfD debate on the talk page - it exists separately and that's where people will go. andy (talk) 11:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I have declined your G3 speedy on this, because (despite the date, and the absence of Ghits) I don't think it's a blatant hoax - it's at least possible that it's someone with a new idea trying to spread it. Fails WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NEO etc, of course, so I have PRODded it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Mack Scogin Merrill Elam
I have placed a defence of why this new page should not be deleted on the newly minted discussion page. In a nutshell, Wikipedia features both well known individual architects and well known architect teams - and this is a much long overdue article on a well-nown team of American architects. This is a stub, but I hope to add to the article.--TTKK (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Strictly speaking you should not have removed the Speedy Deletion notice from the page, but since you've made some improvements I'll overlook it. andy (talk) 10:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Emily Lazarus
Hey Andy!
thanks for your time.
Why do you want the article to be delted?
It states the facts of the film, nothing more and nothing less.
It has had an impact on over 4000 filmmakers through it's community and the film is original in its story telling technique.
There is nothing in the article to show that it is notable, and the purpose of the article is clearly promotional. andy (talk) 11:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Spa
Why is this unconstructive? It is a fact as I showed through the reference that MeridianSpa was a major part of the Wellness and Spa movement. I think this addition brings some color into the article because it shows yet another facett of the development of the term "Spa". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory Richters (talk • contribs) 13:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
It's unconstructive because it is obviously complete drivel. Just try googling spa wellness 1950 for example to get a list of wellness spas that have been around for over half a century. Also your previous edit on the same point was recently reverted by another editor who left a note about it on your talk page, which you obviously haven't paid any attention to. andy (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Those Spas were more related to the Belgium Spa and had more to do with the healing power of water. Also a lot of resorts changed their names to Spas later in the 80s or 90s. And I did what the other editor said. I added a very reliable source and I added that MeridianSpa didn't coin the term but contributed to it's perception and development all over the world. The word Spa had a different meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory Richters (talk • contribs) 14:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
It sounds to me like you're actually trying to place an advertisement. Wikipedia has rules against that. Alternatively you have no idea what you're talking about. Either way, please stop wasting everyone's time. andy (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello Andyjsmith. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Faye Fang Keaw, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. The article's claim of four albums and "songs that have topped the Thai charts" is enough - to pass A7 claims don't have to be sourced. I have added a "primarysources" tag. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello Andyjsmith, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have changed a page you tagged (Quasi critical number) from being tagged for speedy deletion to being tagged for proposed deletion. The speedy deletion criteria are very narrow to protect the encyclopedia, and do not fit the page in question. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks again! decltype (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Normally I would agree with you but in fact I don't think it's made up at all in the true sense of the phrase. It's really a re-statement of the definition of an inflection point, plus a bit of spin, hence my speedy. andy (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
The author does state that "a quasi critical number idicates a possible point of inflection". Assuming there's already a term for this, I guess it would fall into the neologism category. Either way, there is consensus not to speedy OR / essays / neologisms / things made up one day, so it's best to use PROD for those cases. Regards, decltype (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Could I asked why the article that I created was proposed for deletion? It was under construction and I was yet to add reliable sources. Fair enough, it would look to be original research but I have now added some references and will remove the PROD tag. Andrewmc12320:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for levelling the playing field in West Worcestershire
I'm glad you redirected the other candidate. I was reluctant to begin with this action, as it might be viewed on the same moral level as burning books, so chose initially to add information on her rival. NigelHarris (talk) 09:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Not my policies, Wikipedia's. Read the rules before creating articles please. If you don't like the rules you can argue against them. And don't say "book burning" about changes to a small and unimportant article - it's rude. andy (talk) 07:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I've undone your redirects. Also removed non-facts from the Lib Dem article and edited for style. This is about non-partisan referenced information on candidates for a national election in the two weeks prior to an election. If you feel the impulse to revert please contact me first. Leonig Mig (talk) 07:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I see that another editor feels the same way as I do and has saved me the trouble. If you want to revert again please make sure you're aware of wikipedia's small-minded policy at WP:WAR. andy (talk) 08:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Fully aware of policies, I have no intention of being petty, just to see the right thing done. That being a revaluation on the part of two individuals of the moral utility of enforcing rules vs. political value of information in a representative democracy- two weeks prior to an election. After the election both articles should go, unless one wins. Leonig Mig (talk) 11:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
It's not a good sign when an article creator says they're looking for "justice" for the subject. Cheers. Good response on that talk page. Dlohcierekim 14:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Your PRODded this, and it was deleted, but has been brought back after this request at WP:REFUND. I'm letting you know in case you want to consider taking it to AfD, though perhaps Megvon should be given some time to see if s/he can produce sources for the "lot of acclaim". Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello Andyjsmith. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Viona Ielegems, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: "Her photographs are very popular in magazines, calendars and publications" is an assertion of importance. I have no strong views as to whether she would survive AFD. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers14:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello Andyjsmith. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of 3D library, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: i've removed the link, so now it's a piece about software generally. PROD or take to AfD if required. Thank you. GedUK20:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion, come on Andy, this is about dolphins and we haven't had time to come up with highly original text. Give us a break down here.
It's an exact copy of text that's on a web page clearly marked as copyright. Not allowed. End of discussion. andy (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
No it's not, its an exact copy of text taken from the DAPG site which has been fluffed up a bit and used on Enviropedia. Fair use mate. In any event it has now been re-edited. Please see the topic talk page and Fair dealingEthnopunk (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
It's no longer tagged a a copyvio. You removed that tag but I didn't restore it. I restored the spam tag which seems justified. andy (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey. Sorry for my blunt revert - my tone of text wasn't needed. It's just you caught me as I was making a big edit. :P
Anyway, I understand your redirect. I think, though, that since he is certain to be an MP in 2 days - he's running in deep-Tory land - I think a redirect isn't needed. HonouraryMix (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Hang on! Look, yes I reverted first, but when there's a dispute at hand the standard way of doing things is to revert to the original form and proceed to discuss. I did that, and invited you to hold a discussion, not to do yet another revert.
I admit, since this is my work I am biased and a little territorial. ;) However, I do understand your reasoning. I would also note that the James Monaghan AFD you highlighed was started by me, so I do understand. However, the rules you refer to are not rules, but guidelines, and considering that this man is certain to be an MP in 2 days time I think a redirect isn't necessary.
I invite you to start a redirect request, so as to gain wider input. I think we may not come to an agreement otherwise, and it's the best thing to do when there's a dispute over a redirect. HonouraryMix (talk) 13:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
By the time a redirect discussion is finished the election will be over. The guy is not notable (yet) even though he almost certainly will be on Friday morning, unless a lot of tactical voting takes place.. The redirect remains. andy (talk) 13:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Andy, again I understand, but I don't appreciate your own tone in that you're trying to lay down the law. I believe my view has as much right to be heard as yours. Now, I will continue to dispute this, so I ask you to endorse a redirect request, or even an AFD to get quicker to the point. I know an AFD isn't exactly for this purpose, but at least community opinion is weighed up more quickly. HonouraryMix (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand what you're getting so worked up about. You obviously understand the guidelines, you just don't want them to apply to this article. If it won't make a difference to his chances of getting elected then a redirect is harmless and if it will make a difference then it definitely must be redirected. The best way to get an alternative perspective on this quickly is WP:3O and if you still want to pursue it, WP:ANI. andy (talk) 13:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
deep breath* Phew.
Look, I suppose you're right. I'm frankly annoyed you weren't willing to engage in a discussion before you reverted again, which is three-quarters of the reason why I'm a little pissed off. However, taking a step back from all this, I agree now with your perspective. I'll agree with the redirect, but I swear to God if someone adds in the article on Lee before I do I'll be back. :P Again, I do want to highlight that I wished you'd discussed first, and I imagine this would have been more cooperative. But - putting that behind us - I wish you happy editing. HonouraryMix (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh a related note, since you do seem to know a bit on political articles, may I ask if you can please look at the article (now at my sandbox), and see if there's anything else format-wise that you think I should aim to add? User:HonouraryMix/SandboxHonouraryMix (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to add a couple of lines about what happened to Andrew MacKay. I'm also not sure that being a candidate counts as holding a "Party political office". How about another non-partisan reference for biographical information? Otherwise, looks good to me. andy (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice. I agree some info on MacKay would be helpful, and adding non-partisan bio info was something I planned to do. Unfortunately, I won't have time to do this before the election. :( I am sorry to impose, but I was hoping to ask another favour. If/when he is elected, there's probably going to be a flurry of edits to get an article on him up. Since my one is already made, I was hoping to ask if you could repost the article from my sandbox when/if he is elected if you happen to be near a computer at the time - the problem is I'm away from one come election time. Thank you if you can do this. HonouraryMix (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Well for a start the title of the article is "Conference management system" not "Comparison of conference management systems". Secondly, what you added was simply a list, not a comparison. Thirdly the products in the revision control software article seem to be notable in their own right and most of them have wikipedia articles, whereas the list you added contained some pretty obscure software and missed almost all of the notable products in this field. andy (talk) 07:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Looks like this article doesnt exist. Can you create one? Malaysia did have WMD and all civilians have rights to know. My sources says Malaysia have three types of WMD,nuclear, chemical and biological. If you need details and references, search in Google and check Japan and weapons of mass destruction. It has similarities. I used to create this article but being deleted for unknown reasons. Iznor19 (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I have no interest in doing this - I don't believe that Malaysia has nukes (please don't bother to send me any "evidence") and I don't see why you can't do it yourself. Why not create the article as a sub-page in your user space ( see Wikipedia:Subpages for how to do this), then ask an administrator to look at it before moving it to the main encyclopaedia? BTW I'm not an admin. andy (talk) 12:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Spaceduck, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spaceduck. Thank you.
Hello, Andyjsmith. You have new messages at [[User talk:GregJackP#Spaceduck|GregJackP's talk page]]. Message added 23:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thought I'd let you know that Wickysicky has been posting messages about you on my talk page. No matter what I say to him he is convinced that you have been vandalising spaceduck! --5 albert square (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Lol they are a little! He moaned at me because I didn't view the Youtube video or look on itunes, er the pc I'm at for the next couple of weeks doesn't have itunes downloaded as far as I can see and I am not about to download it just for that, and the Youtube video is just some spoof. The BBC video didn't even mention anything called Spaceduck and Google can't find anything under Spaceduck composer! I'm actually surprised that XLinkBot hasn't been along yet to remove the Youtube link, normally he removes them quite quickly! --5 albert square (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to sit back now and let things take their course. I've raised a sockpuppet investigation which should hopefully be enough to get the guy blocked, and the AfD is certain to result in deletion. Don't feed the trolls!andy (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
My hologram article, including the talk page, has been hastily deleted by another hard-working admin. I had written about a new scam in alternative medicine, and it was mistaken for an advertisement. I have continued the discussion on his talk page. Heyzeuss (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
The torrent link
I was asked by Chazella to review the block on his account, and as part of this, your linking to a file through torrentz.
I think it was a bad idea on your part to provide this link, both for the possibility leading to virus infected files, and the copyright violation. The link to the track listing on the BBC programme page was both far more appropriate, and all that was needed. I hope you are clear on this point, which is purely about your posting of that link, and not about the correctness of Chazella's response, or the wider AfD debate etc. Peter 14:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I understand. But the point of providing the link - which was to a virus-free site - was to counter his spurious arguments about the availability of the movie to download and what it actually contained. Technically any download might be a breach of copyright but in the UK (as I think in the US) there's a concept of fair use e.g. for purposes of reviewing or quoting, which I'd argue covers this situation. Point taken, anyway. andy (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Deletion of the One-Day-In article
Hi Andy,
The article about the internet portal and mashup One-Day-In is a serious article about a serious and ambitious project. The article matches the WP guidelines and is quite similar to articles like Placeopedia, PlaceSpottingorWikipediavision. These are similar portals and there is no reason for deletion.
A correction of the deletion will be appreciated!
Best,
PG
Just let me know what is wrong about it. I can not see where the article does not meet the guidelines and I can not see a difference to the three articles I mentioned above. If they get permission, why not my article? Please feel free to make changes.
Very simple: you did not provide any evidence that this is a notable website according to WP:N or more specifically WP:WEB. Indeed, I don't see how you could - it has very few hits on Google, strongly indicative of lack of notability. It has not "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself", nor has it "won a well-known and independent award", nor is it "distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster". You're on a loser here. andy (talk) 21:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Andy,
I am writing to complain about the speedy delete of Sundown Adventure Land. I see no reason and would like you to get in contact as soon as possible.
Ackworth97 (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
It would be appreciated if you could read Wikipedia guidelines before implementing them badly, and wildly deleting other people's work.
You placed the Sponge Software page under Speedy Deleting under A7 which specifically precludes content relating to software and other creative works itself. After spending several hours trying to improve this and several other articles on Wikipedia, it is not appreciated that admins do not follow guidelines which are there for all to follow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolvidnetwork (talk • contribs) 20:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not an admin. I didn't delete the article, wildly or otherwise. It was rubbish and deserved deleting anyway. Chill... and read the rules yourself. andy (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Apologies, I didn't realise that you weren't an admin. I can see that you're trying to improve Wikipedia, although I do have some concerns that you may be a little gun-ho. I accept that the article was incomplete, and was working to improve it, albeit slowly. It would be better to try and add to articles rather than delete them. If you think that that particular page was bad, perhaps you could explain your opinion of this one? Iris_Software—Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolvidnetwork (talk • contribs) 15:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
It's a perfectly OK article. It claims that the company is notable ("largest private software provider") and backs up the claim with independent evidence, per WP:COMPANY. The awards aren't particularly brilliant, IMHO, but that doesn't matter in this case. andy (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
You seem to have a vendetta against me, having marked some of my other contributions for deletion. This doesn't appear to be particularly helpful towards encouraging community engagement. You don't seem to understand that people need time to fulfil your requests, and behave somewhat impatiently. One day, I hope you will learn of your ill ways, and come to understand that not everybody can be as perfect as yourself the first time. Coolvidnetwork (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, just an editor who helps to keep wikipedia up to the mark. If an article can be fixed I fix it or flag it for fixing, but if it can't be fixed I flag it for deletion. That's how wikipedia patrolling works. And anyway I don't delete articles, I simply draw them to the attention of admins who make a final decision. If the article is clearly unfixable they delete it. In the case of an AfD lots of people check the articles and have their say before any final decision is made. andy (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Smart Faucet, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. The excessively and abuse of tags is a kind of vandalism. :Majen27 · talk 14:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
