wikify!
I am sick and fed up with people who leave a message here about an article and fail to provide a wikilink to the article. How do you expect me to read the article if you don't link to it?
I reserve the right to ignore any message which does not provide links where appropriate or has not been signed with ~~~~. Even if the article has been deleted, you should still link to it.
And if that sounds like a grumpy old man, it's because I am ...
 | This page 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. |
[1]This is probably the main historical reference to the name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Charlesemorganiv (talk • contribs) 04:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC).
After posting an article on Beer golf, that is actually a game I am questioning as to why you deleted it, there was no need to, thankfully I copied the whole text just in case some one decided my contribution was not appropriate. It would be nice to actually know what the reason was for deleting it, since it did not have any inappropriate content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach Leffel (talk • contribs)
Dear Roger:
The Polish version of our Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology/PolishCoA is quite simple, as you can see in Szablon:HerbSzlachecki. Nevertheless, it has an advantage. When you edit a Coat of arms, the simple link ((Herb szlachecki (lista herbów)|lista herbów)) does that the new Coat of arms automatically appears in the List of Coats of arms.
We have the List of Polish nobility coats of arms, but we must add it manually. Is there a chance to do the same thing as in the pl:wiki they do?
Unfortunately I am a real ass in software. Best regards, my friend. --Gustavo Szwedowski de Korwin 00:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I will try editing a Polish coat of arms in pl:wiki. Then I will write you again.
By the way, my father died at age 92 also, a year ago. -- Gustavo Szwedowski de Korwin 01:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
You are right. It is not the link I thought. It seems to be the Category Kategoria:Herby szlacheckie itself.
I edited Mądrostki (herb szlachecki) in order to find the system.
--Gustavo Szwedowski de Korwin 02:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Regards
I respectfully request the article for Long Island Exchange be re-written or reverted back to it's original state. The article survived here without incident until someone used it as a comparison for why their article was deleted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Island_Exchange Please revert this page, unprotext it, and allow us to return to wikipedia.
Please see [Ticket#2007021810002395] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Island_Exchange info-en@wikimedia.org
Please consider this with an open mind. It is important to us. We deserve a description of what we are in wiki and are noteable to the residents and people of Long Island. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clasione (talk • contribs)
Please take another look at Long Island Exchange
Deletion_review February 22
Thanks for fixing up the Wernabot problem with my archive. Much appreciated.Maustrauser 09:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks likewise on this... I just saw the same bug over at meta, and you beat me too it! Nice to see you again... Happy new year, however belatedly! Cheers! // FrankB 22:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up Fire_Emblem:_Akatsuki_no_megami, I really was trying to clean it up, but I guess I should have known better. Antsam 12:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip on getting rid of my own mistakes.Mr0ow3n 13:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion reviewofOrmus matter. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. OlavN 09:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you marked Burt Colt for deletion. Although the content of the article might be a hoax, if you know something about the real person, maybe the article can be corrected, and if not maybe redirect to Voyager Comics - unless that article is hoaxy too. Potatoswatter 16:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Why do you suspect it's a hoax? Looks like any bio to me. Potatoswatter 19:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
That's hardly evidence - could be vandalism. Did you check the history? The other article clearly said who he was supposed to be, which would imply evidence of his existence. And linked to backup evidence for the deteriorated books. At the least Burt Colt is the moniker given to the uncredited comic artist. The article did have a history, which is now gone, which would've been saved if you'd just redirected. Which would've been easier. Wish I'd done so... Potatoswatter 20:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Anyway I didn't understand the prod process before so it's basically my mistake. Whatever. Potatoswatter 20:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
You marked a couple of pictures for deletion on Murtala Mohammed International Airport. The copyright owner only stipulated credit be given him if I use the image, however I've requested he give permission under the GFDL. Other than selecting the appropriate license when permission is received and I re-upload the file would I be right to assume the deletion mark will be removed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ssublyme (talk • contribs) 22:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
Thanks I just created its other page that points to it. Could you move WP:ROTFL as well? I am new at this. Ronbo76 04:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I guess I didn't archive the page Comparison of Windows and Linux correctly, it shows that you removed it. I couldn't make heads or tails of the Wikipedia page about archiving, I was hoping you could help me out? Thanks Hendrixski 14:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, that makes sense I guess. I'll update the "archive" page to make that point more clear. Thanks Hendrixski 20:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Augh! Thanks so much! I can't believe I did that! I've created user subpages before, and told others how to do it - then I totally blow it!! I can only plead temporary insanity!! Thanks for fixing it! Dreadlocke ☥ 16:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. On the AfD discussion for Wiki Battle, you suggested speedy delete for it. (Wiki Battle is a WP:NFT#That infamous game clone). I was the nominator, and I would have speedied it, but I don't see a rationale allowing it at WP:SPEEDY under G1-12 or A1-7. To be honest, I'd prefer speedy for it because there's not a chance of it (or any such page) surviving AfD. What are your thoughts? Regards, Flyguy649 03:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Your comment here wasn't very nice. Plenty of people outside of Wikipedia think that it is a venue for free advertising. He hasn't reposted the article since I made him aware of our policies. --BigDT 15:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Thread moved to Talk:Google Watch Watch
Do you have any information about Jack M Oliphant. The feds have been reluctant to release FOI requisted on him. It has been a lot of years and the man is dead. Almost all the operatives he handeled are dead. I think they are concearned about his followers.
Thanks for the move, I was trying to figure out how to handle it. Is that a pretty standard procedure to create a ...article/sandbox page to mess with content changes? I couldn't find anything out about that. I liked your "How can a tram route cross a trolley bus route without short circuits" by the way. Seems you were at the same stage of messing around as I was just now on the article you moved. Jwiley80 22:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Hiya are you Rodger Haworth from Croydon replay to me from Lil Chris User:lilchrishardman
I deleted this - it was an old copy of Martian global warming. Hope thats OK. There has been a lot of argument and confusion over this William M. Connolley 22:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi RHaworth : You nominated Akiva Israel for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akiva Israel.) However, it would have been nice if you would have informed the original creator of this article that you were doing so (I have just done so [2]). Kindly note that on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion it advises that: "...'It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. Do not notify bot accounts or people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits. To find the main contributors, look in the page historyortalk page of the article and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter. For your convenience, you may use {{subst:AFDWarningNew|Article title}} (for creators who are totally new users), {{subst:AFDWarning|Article title}} (for creators), or {{subst:Adw|Article title}} (for contributors or established users)." Thank you for noting this for future purposes. IZAK 13:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The names of personal working pages must always begin with (in your case) "user:John David Wright/". Preferably not too many. Start with: user:John David Wright/sandbox. -- RHaworth 07:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. I propose to move the working pages jdw wavenumber and jdw wave vectortouser:John David Wright/wavenumber and user:John David Wright/wave vector respectively. The only trouble is I cannot find the originals. --John David Wright 06:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
They were not copies of wavenumber and wave vector. I had added information to both pages. I noticed that other users edit copies of pages under their user page. Of course the best way is to set up my own local wikisite so that I can edit, periodically save the working article, and not worry about losing work. Periodically saving the original article while editing just clutters the history. In the absence of my own local wikisite I borrowed the working page technique of other users. --John David Wright 11:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
My faith in the process is restored. Cheers --John David Wright 04:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sproughton Tennis Club
I see that the article has been deleted. Although I know you did not do the physical deed, you did instigate the process and I do feel very aggrieved. I accept the reason that it could be said to be non-notable ( despite a former Wimbledon champion) playing there for many years as a junior, however what really bugs me is the fact that there are scores of other tennis clubs listed within Wikipedia that are at best equally obscure and at worst not even a basic article, YET they do not seem to be under the threat of deletion.
It would seem that the guidelines for what is worthy (and what is not) are not followed equally by all editors, even the same editor.
I note in particular Cleckheaton Lawn Tennis Club which had it's article visited and updated by your good-self in October 2006. Can you explain why this article was not flagged for deletion and yet Sproughton Tennis was?
I would be interested in your views. -- Sproughtontennis 14:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you deleted this page (and I believe this happened several times). I'm just wondering why the spam was reposted and now protected. Seems a bit odd to me. Someguy1221 19:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing my mistake and fixing it for me, appreciated! Whew! freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ 03:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Me too. Thanks. Dekimasuよ! 09:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Any chance you could speedy RHaworth for me?! Cheers RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've createdorlet's have banter 02:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Why did you remove my addendum to the Oozlum bird article? 'Ouzelum' is a recognized variation of the Oozlum in many places, and even here on Wiki the phrase 'ouzelum bird' redirects to the Oozlum page as well. I see nothing wrong with noting the alternate version, especially considering some of the random information that makes up a chunk of the entry to begin with.
Teamdudette 03:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The article is clearly not about how to build a Staircase jig. The article is not about how to build stairs. It is not a textbook. This seems to meet the criteria for an article in Wikipedia. My intent is to descripe a jig and some history on jigs. "The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach a subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles which read as textbooks, with leading questions and step-by-step problem solutions as examples. These belong on our sister project, Wikibooks."
"Wikipedia is not a moot court, and although rules can make things easier, they are not the purpose of the community. Instruction creep should be avoided. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines if you feel they conflict. Disagreements should be resolved through consensual discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures."
This part interests me the most. "Follow the spirit, not the letter of the law...." Where exactly is the article teaching a subject? Where is the how to do tone in the article? Leading questions? So, I respectfully disagee with the tag that was placed on the article. If you can enlighten me as to where this is not so then maybe the article can be rewritten or sent to Wikibooks. I prefer consensual discussion. --Johnaldentalk 22:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the speedy deletion tag from the above article. While the subject might not be notable, the article does assert notability in a reasonable way. You may wish to list it at WP:AFD instead, to get a broader consensus on the article. Thanks for your time and your hard work reporting these articles - even though I'm not deleting this particular one, your efforts are very much appreciated. Kafziel Talk 13:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Previously, you seemed to have lot of Energy to revert me within 5 minutes.
So, I notice you that the Wikipedia:Graphic Lab is now started, and that it look for "people with lot of Energy" to improve it.
If you have abilities to improves things or create solutions, then you are welcome to use your edit ability there. --Yug (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I perfectly understand what you mean.At that time it was the name of French top football division like Ligue 1 now.And articles about ligue 1 were named, for instance, Ligue 1 season 200X/200X.So, I found logical to name articles about Division 1 Division 1 season 199X/199X.Yes, It's a bit late and I have the project to create all season of French football top division.What do you suggegt to improve it?How could I named future articles?Personnally, I prefer something like "French football Division 1 season 199X/199X" Here is the article you have marked User talk:Latouffedisco
Please consider using {{COI}} instead of this template, as it has been nominated and passed for deletion. Many thanks. – Tivedshambo (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
[[3]] What do you mean reposted spam? This was a very uncontroversial information on Canadian Artist Glen Scrimshaw it was linked to List of Canadian artists.
I ran out of time before going to work to establish all of the links to verify everything mentioned, and it was not a lot, would be attributable to a reliable source. By the time I had arrived at work to finish the article it had been deleted. The reason given was reposted Spam?? Please explain yourself.
Uvak38 02:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The Link from Canadian Artists was not meant to signify anything. I thought I was taking the advice of other much more experienced wiki contributors and starting smaller. Glen Scrimshaw is a Canadian Artist and a notable one at that. I took the advice of others and only mentioned information on Glen that could be attributable to a reliable source. I agree the tone of my first article Glen Scrimshaw Artist was very commercial and I used several terms that I now understand would be impossible to attribute to a reliable source. That was my first ever article and I honestly did not understand how Wikipedia worked. It was because of my lack of understanding that I expressed the views that I did. I suppose I took it a little personally like I was being called a lier. I now have a much better understanding of how this works and understand completely why my first few articles have been deleted. I do object to the removal of my last article on Glen Scrimshaw, if I can provide links to back up every notable achievement by Glen. Will you take the time to do some research on Glen Scrimshaw. One point alone which I believe has earned Glen a spot in the pages of Wikipedia is this. Glen Scrimshaw was awarded with the ABEX Award (Achievements in Business Excellence) for his community involvement. The reason Glen was awarded this prestigious award, was because for the past ten years of Glen's 20 yr. career, Glen through donations of his artwork has helped raise over 1.5 million dollars annually for the charities he supports. Before Glen was honored with this award these figures were verified by an extensive audit. The audit verified his philanthropy and Glen was awarded the honor. Other Companies that have received this award are, Weyerhauser, Cameco Corp. & PCS all major corporations. Glen Scrimshaw deserves to be on the Canadian artist page with a link to an article on him, highlighting his accomplishments, of course in a non commercial way.
In response to your comment on Veronica Yurach, her article will remain where it is, until such time that I can have the minutes of band council meetings made accessible over the internet. I would assume minutes taken at legally convened band council meetings would be considered a reliable source. I realize in our technically advanced age how someone might assume if you do not receive the required amount of google hits you are not notable or worthy of having your achievements recorded in history. Have you ever been to the vast Canadian north. Canada is a wonderful country. Part of what makes it so wonderful is, there are still spots where humans have not yet left their mark. I am sure you already know this, but I have to ask, you do realize that even though it seems like it, the whole world does not have high speed internet.
By the age of 12 Veronica Yurach had saved her fathers life by hiking across country, for over 30 miles, in minus 40 below weather, to get help when her father faced certain death from complications resulting from undiagnosed sugar diabetes, that same winter she single handedly delivered her youngest sibling into the world 250 miles from the nearest nurses station. I have no doubt that had Veronica lived further south in a more populated area than 1 person for every 500 miles you would be reading all about her in results from your google search.
Uvak38 04:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Roger,
Thank you for taking the time to look at the Atheangelism and Atheistic Evangelism articles.
You had originally called for the deletion of atheangelism, but now appear to be comfortable with the idea of redirecting atheangelism to atheistic evangelism, and not requesting the deletion of the latter.
Am I correct in that interpretation ?
If I am incorrect, here is my argument to keeping "atheistic evangelism".
You raised 2 reasons for suggesting the deletion of atheangelism:
1. Neutral Point of View
2. Neoligism
1. Neutral point of view is not violated with this article. The terms "atheangelism", "atheistic evangelism", and "evangelical atheism" are interchangeble, in use by Christian apologists and atheists alike.
Please look at the references at the bottom of the page.
Generally speaking, "atheangelism" and "atheistic evangelism" are terms used by Christian apologists to describe the phenomenon described in the article.
"Evangelical atheism" has been used in the same way "atheangelism" and "atheistic evangelism" have been used by Christian apologists, but has also been used by atheists as well. If you look at the article, I now describe the different ways atheists and Christian apologists use this last term.
The point is, describing a term as used by Christian apologists is not a violation of NPV. Although, I think NPV does require the inclusion of atheist definitions of the term, or atheist responses to those elements of the term which they do not agree with.
2. With regards to the neoligism, you would be correct to point out that "atheangelism" per se is a relatively new term. However, "atheistic evangelism" is definitely not a neoligism. It is a widely used term that has been around for well over a decade and a half. Similarly, "Evangelical atheism" has been used for a decade and a half.
Please let me know if the changes that have been made in the article address your concerns satisfactorily. mpleahy 17:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
redirect now listed for deletion, sorry. (Thought you'd like to know) — Lenoxus 15:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
With respect to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sociology of human consciousness, I have two concerns: one is that it may be copyvio, two that User:Tomburns may actually be Tom Burns the sociologist [4], and if not that he is pretending to be (which would, of course, be "bad"). Anyway, I emailed the real guy, so we'll see if we get confirmation. I just wanted to let you know why I'm editing the articles before voting. In any case, I'm going to make some edits to the articles you afd'd, and we'll see how it goes. Best, Smmurphy(Talk) 02:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I only mention copyvio because it will be embarrassing if the real Tom Burns looks at the article and sees a working paper of his. Does COI cover deletion?
BTW, I don't know much about sociology, and that article is intimidating, but I made some fixes to Meta-power. Smmurphy(Talk) 06:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I just cleaned up the other one, so they're both a bit better wikified now. I'm pretty sure that they'll pass afd, hopefully the discussion is interesting, though, as I don't know much about how WP looks at academic style encyclopedia articles. Also, I got an email from Professor Burns, and he is the editor who created these articles. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
You tagged Chris Nudds for speedy deletion as a "nonsense bio". In fact, while the tone of the article was inappropriate, the information in it was verifiable through two different British newspapers. I therefore added some references, removed the photo (since I couldn't verify its authenticity), and removed the speedy tag. --Eastmain 19:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I fail to understand why Garbage Plate redirects to Nick Tahou Hots instead of containing its own article. Although Nick Tahou was the creator of the Garbage Plate, it is in no way an exclusive dish to Nick Tahou Hots. Perhaps this is something that is more of a Wiki thing, but it doesn't make sense to me why an article on a food is redirected to an article about one restaurant of over a dozen that serves it.
☒ TinDragon (User Page • Talk Page • Contribs) 21:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I just noticed the Discussion page. o.O It seems that people want it redirected mainly because they think the food looks disgusting? I still fail to see the reasoning, but at least I see why you redirected. Is there something you or I could do to make it it's own article? It hardly seems fair that it doesn't have its own article simply because people don't like it. It's like saying Hitler shouldn't have an article. >.>
☒ TinDragon (User Page • Talk Page • Contribs)
hi there! this is my first page on wikipedia. i made up the username aamcleod. i now understand that it looks like i wrote an article about myself and i understand it violates neutral point of view. the username was arbitrary but i believe the topic is notable. i will use the name illliterature for future additions/deletions and changes. I assure you I am not Alex McLeod i just made up the username to write the article. please consider removing the tag for deletion. thank you.
```` —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Illliterature (talk • contribs) 19:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
iviewit You have marked this item for speedy deletion and I wondered what the suggested clean-up to the article would be. The item Iviewit was posted before and with another editor we crafted instead an article on the inventor Eliot Bernstein , which you also marked for deletion. If you could suggest your changes to both articles more indepth, I would be happy to consider appropriate changes and make them after reviewing them with the editors. Thank you. -- Iviewit 02:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Per the Wikipedia guidlines
"This does not mean, however, that it is impossible to write a neutral, verifiable autobiography, or that they are strictly forbidden. It is just that people tend to promote themselves, either clearly (like saying "I'm great") or more subtly (like not including important, verifiable negative incidents in their lives, or adding lots of unsourced positive incidents, or giving the negative incidents too little weight). Many people do not have the humility required to write a neutral article that sticks only to published information. Because of this, writing autobiographies is highly discouraged. If one wants to write an autobiography it is advisable to discuss it with the community and seek consensus first."
I had submitted for editing an entry on Iviewit initially and it was edited to become the biography Eliot Bernstein while we worked on the form of the initial Iviewit entry. This was worked on and submitted to the prior editor who made several key points we worked until it appeared neutral and to tell both about the inventions, the inventors and those who surrounded these most pivotal inventions to the digital imaging and video worlds. It is very difficult in this instance to have others get involved on a public basis to aid Iviewit in any way that could put themselves and their families in harms way, this must be considered in how the article is written and by whom. Further, it would appear that if you could core into your issues we could get to a mutual resolution as to how make it work under the allowable guidlines, under special circumstances.
I was unclear if your comments were to Eliot Bernstein and Iviewit or just Eliot Bernstein, if we could put the comments on each article that would be preferable to make the changes that way if no trouble to you.
Regarding the conflict of interest, as this is a sensitive subject under hosts of investigations, I politely ask if you have any conflicts with any of the people found on the homepage, ie law firms, lawyers, accountants, shareholders, etc. Or do you have any other interest in these matters other than from an unbiased editorial point of view? Sorry to ask but you can see by the proposed bill submitted to Senator Dianne Feinstein referenced in Iviewit and Eliot Bernstein, we have even asked the President or signatory on the bill to sign similar conflict waiver before undertaking the matters.
Thank you for your time and consideration. Iviewit 04:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Jim! That was the kind of suggestion I was looking for. As you can see by the articles I did not herald it as the grail but rather others did. Either way I see that it could be considered not neutral and I can make those changes. By the way, where did the article go to make the changes. Thanks again. Iviewit 14:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
RH I cannot find the article Iviewit you deleted to remove the tag and put it up for review. Can you add a link here or put it back for review.--Iviewit 19:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Roger, just coming to say a big thankyou for supporting my Rfa which passed on saturday. Its quite humbling to get support off you, as you were one of the first people I interacted with on wikipedia (to get my article on my mates band deleted!). I've got you pegged on my watchlist and any change to you talk page is always interesting to say the least, and no doubt I'll be butting in to plenty more conversations there! Anyway, thanks a lot again, I won't let you down Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
You hosed multiple pages that have real value under the context of "static analysis". If you look at that category you might better understand why they were added. BTW, your delete hosed a bunch of other work in the process. Please advise what you need to better understand. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rdbuckley (talk • contribs) 11:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC). Rdbuckley 11:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Template:GBdot and Template:GBmap have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the templates' entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. -Pit-yacker 19:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
R Haworth you have deleted two articles Iviewit & Eliot Bernstein. I cannot find where you posted the Iviewit entry for discussion, post a link here perhaps. Also, again under Wikipedia it appears a valid request to ask an editor about any conflicts prior to their undertaking action or comment, so if you are going to post Iviewit for discussion with editors, please note your lack of conflict with the matters. Thanks -- Iviewit 15:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
merci--68.127.50.23 21:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion reviewofIviewit. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Please identify if there is conflict with these issues in advance of further edits. Jim had made comments to satisfy us on Iviewit but we were sourcing a bit more info and also followed suggestions to do it in an autobiographical format, of course, as unbiased as could be until that appeared removed. Do you have specific complaints?--Iviewit 22:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Before you create any more articles about unix commands, please review existing articles of the same type. A block of <pre> text copied from the manual does not constitute an article. -- RHaworth 15:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
After thinking about it, have you decided that Real Samba FC have its own dedicated page? Kizybit 17:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
ToRonbo76, Bsroiaadn and RHaworth:
Regarding: Michael Shelfer
Thank you for your comments. As a neophyte to Wikipedia, I appreciate your willingness to educate me regarding Wikipedia's article posting policies. Had I had prior knowledge of those policies, I would not have posted the article to begin with (even though there was no intention on my part to promote Michael Shelfer). Now, I understand. Historically, I've experienced hostile attacks against a website on the Internet and also virus attacks against my own personal computer. Anti-virus software has cost me plenty over the years. When RHaworth redirected the link, applied the COI tag and made his comments, I reacted defensively because I perceived it to be a personal and hostile attack against the posting, vandalism, if you will. If I own Mr. RHaworth an apology, then of course, I apologize. I would have preferred Mr. RHaworth to have had the courtesy to have sent me a brief note explaining the reason for his actions *1*. I feel that would have been the more professional way to have conducted his edit. In the future if the article remains on Wikipedia, I'll take no further action with respect to editing or changing the article in any way. If the managing editors *2* of Wikipedia feel the article is in violation of Wikipedia convention and its continued existence on Wikipedia has no merit, then they should remove it; the sooner, the better. I would prefer its removal to having it continue to exist with the COI moniker on it. Once again, thank you for your willingness to educate me and the time it took you to do it. (FAShelfer 19:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC))
Don't do that again. {{db-g1}} doesn't apply to this article. Feel free to pro'd or afd if you believe it is a hoax. John Reaves (talk) 10:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Having given way to the temptation to tidy up Denvilles halt I found during the work, from my copy of Butt's The Directory of Railway Stations (P.78), that the LB&SCR opened Warblington Station as Denville in 1907. I thought you might find this ironic given events during the dispute. Someone at the time thought so; they renamed the station within the year (Ha! now I look at book more closely, within the month!) This may explain why you found Warblington and the only Denville you could find suspiciously close, as per your comment on the article's talk page. Butt has no reference to this Denvilles halt. Your comments are welcome on the quality of my changes to the article. Britmax 10:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Michael Armstrong FCIPD Hi Roger, I see you stuck a notability box on this one. The reason I why would like this one to stay is:
The list of published works is not exhaustive.
What I propose is that I refer the article to someone esle with the Business and Econmics community.
Incidentally whilst I'm at it I have had trouble with a retired US uni professor who insists on quoting himself in the SWOT analysis page and deleting anything which isn't his POV.
Cheers --Pandaplodder 17:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion reviewofEliot Bernstein. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Iviewit 02:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the prompt reverting of the vandalism of my user page. You were very quick! Gillyweed 11:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I know that you are aware that Template:Oscoor converts grid references to OSGB36 lat/longs, but the Map sources/GeoHack page expects WGS84 lat/longs. It means that Template:Oscoor, and all the templates that use it, e.g. Template:gbmapping, are of little use if you want to pinpoint the exact location of a building or street. (Similarly, the grid references generated via {{coor}} are also inaccurate by 100m or so.) However, User:The Anomebot2 (a bot) is correctly converting grid references found within articles into WGS-84 latitude/longitude in {{coor title d}}. Such articles then contain two geo refs which are displayed as about 100 metres apart.
Would you be able to modify your software to perform the datum change? See http://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/LatLongConvertCoords.html, for details how to do this. http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/gps/information/coordinatesystemsinfo/guidecontents/ gives even more detail.--Dr Greg 18:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the speedy deletion tag from this article because it has some assertion of notability. You can take it to AfD if you like. --Wafulz 03:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, I'll keep it in mind next time I run across a similar problem.Inter16 17:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi - I must have missed the speedy delete tag placed on this one, or else I would have put a hangon notice - it was deleted while I was working on integrating some of the numerous sources available (after I'd moved the original article due to a misspelling). Mind if I recreate it? JavaTenor 18:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
For reference, I didn't create the original Barrington Irvin article - I found it, was considering placing a speedy delete tag on it, but then did a search and determined that the name was misspelled and that there were plenty of sources available to assert notability. I then moved it to the correct spelling, and was editing it when I noticed it had already been deleted. JavaTenor 18:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I've fleshed it out a bit, and added references and stub tags. It's actually an interesting story - it's rather refreshing to find a "diamond in the rough" from such an unpromising start. JavaTenor 19:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
why did u delete?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necrosnake
I disagree with the speedy deletion of Consumerist (blog), see Talk:Consumerist (blog). If you still find it worthy of deletion, try PROD or AFD instead. Thanks. JIP | Talk 19:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Hope you have changed your mind about the Real Samba article, please can you at least specify the difference between Banbury United and Real Samba FC when both need a dedicated page. I admit to jazzing it up but if I clean the article up and state facts from the league they featured, would it be permitted to be put back on?? Pleeeeeeeeease dude? Kizybit 20:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Your prod mentions a photo but I can't see one. And do you have an opinion on De Swanlands of Yorkshire and De Swanland?CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Yea, I'm sorry, I thought I completed all three steps. Could you let me know what I'm doing wrong please, I am posting the template, starting the discussion page...Oh, so sorry It's the last step that I forgot to do. Sorry about that.
Thanks for the reminder, Vaniac 10:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your redirect here. I didn't know how to do it. Just what I wanted! :D In 25 words or less, if you have time, pls, how do we make instant redirects? Is it possible? Just gimme the policy page. I'm a noobie soz. Alastair Haines 12:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your help me with the article that i create Ki power in dragon Ball, i send it many times because i though the article was lost and i dont understand well how this work, i need the help of an expert and that is what you did, i won´t do the same mistakes again. :) Ykkifenix 18:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
>>Why did you take away my articles on Babaloo and Babalooo? These words were around before the album Babalu, and that spelling of the word shouldn't go to one album anyways. Babalooo 07:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
>>>But Babaloo, Babalooo, and Babalu are proper names. I just found out there is an article on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babalu_Aye. Shoudn't Babalu go there and not to the album? Babalooo 07:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
You deleted the image "Image:KennetBenHowe.jpg" without notifying me or leaving a note on the Kennet Comprehensive School page. Please could you explain why the image was deleted, as I may have mistagged it but didn't have a chance to correct it. Thanks, CR7 22:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC).
My sincere apologies. I'm afraid I'm not very good at tagging images. Could you please advise which tag would suit for a 1958 school photograph? Thanks CR7 10:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Good day, re: Bill still article, my persistence is based on not understanding wiki's policies. The Piotr Blass article is a good example. I know the man. His entry is a bio. So why the A7 delete code for Bill Still, who I am supporting (and his monetary policies) and not for Piotr Blass?
I am not trying to waste anyone's time here. But my time is valuable to me, too, and so I don't want to keep trying to get the article in if Wiki is determined to not allow it.
That's pretty much all. I have read all recommended literature (WIKI:NOT, WIKI:BIO, recommended to me by IrishGuy), and tried to comply.
If you know the reason this is still qualified as A7, please simply tell me! Thanks, JJ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Senatorj777 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC).
Dear friend:
Felices Pascuas/ Happy Easter/ Wesołego Alleluja! This is just a wish of happiness in this Easter from myself. (The Easter Egg is a kindly gift from Tomek). Regards -- Gustavo 13:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I got in an edit conflict with you there; I overwrote your PROD notice with a redirect of the page to Astronomy. Hope that's all right. --Guinnog 16:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. --Guinnog 16:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I respect your position. I just felt what you put was funny, yet unprofessional. When the article was tagged for speedy deletion, I immediate added to the talk page asking what the article needed to be of encyclopedic content. There are obviously several references to this phrase. Notably a number one hit by Dave Mathews Band and in a movie starring Al Pachino. There are more songs and other famous people quoting but did not have time that day to expand. Which is why I also posted the Articles need for expansions request tag. Then, when you deleted it, the only reason you gave was Don't waste our time. Wondering why you couldn't let me expand the article or assist in expanding instead of deleting it and giving an unprofessional reason. My opinion was you should have offered more assistance. Your opinion, I wasted everyone's time on Wikipedia. I respect your position but am confused with your decision making and professionalism. I'm not attacking you. Just looking for your take on what happened in this situation. --gchsbus 13:55 , 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I have been here on Wikipedia for three years and in all respect have some advice for you. Before speedying an article, please check the user for the quality of his edits before acting brashly. If he is a quality editor, and is online, it would be best to message him questioning his entry before speedying it. The said article is def not a speedy, maybe an AFD, i am removing your tag with no further ado and you are free to post an AFD. Thanks. frummer 18:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you PROD'd this, but I speedied it as G11. This was part of a walled garden of articles that appeared to be designed to display some external links out to a site selling "multifaith" calendars.--Isotope23 16:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok sir so I had a go at a real article Chalfonte-Haddon Hall Hotel, I was at it all day from 9am until late in the evening. Researching my facts and checking them twice. I've been obsessed with this building, I work there on occasion in marketing. The building has had a strange lure. I stumbled across it's history by intrigue and have been amazed by it's intricacy. I've been exploring it's old corridors when I have time. Its one of 3 original old buildings left in town. They razed the rest. Hope this meets your approval. -- Charlesemorganiv 05:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Before I revert your unexplained change of name of the above, I'd be interested to know why you did it. The name of the place is JORVIK Viking Centre, not Jorvik Viking Centre - see their website. I don't believe that there's any rule that says that an article can't use capitals when appropriate, but if there is, perhaps you could point me towards it. Best. --GuillaumeTell 11:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
The MoS, unless I've missed something, doesn't seem to deal with the case of an organisation which uses capitals for the first word of its name and lower-case for the rest (and the capitals aren't an acronym or an initialism), and the trademarks page doesn't really help. As for the results from Google, it doesn't seem to me to matter what other sites call the Centre - what matters is what it calls itself. It isn't totally consistent on its own site - or in its window-display, which I walked past today -, occasionally using all caps or "Jorvik", but at least 90% of references are caps-then-lowercase. Note also (see this page) that their sister operation also has a capitalised first word: it's called "DIG" and not "Dig". I had to use their subtitle for the DIG WP article in order to distinguish it from the DIG dab page.
One other point: the article on the actual Viking city from which I disentangled the above page is entitled Jórvík with accents. The Centre seems never to use the accents, but Jorvik redirects to the city rather than the Centre, which I suspect is what most people will be looking for.
Should we (can we?) move this discussion to the article's website? --GuillaumeTell 17:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Notwithstanding my surprise at your selection of photograph :-)...
I do accept your decision to move my introduction of the subject of chip-scale atomic clocks to my sandbox. Indeed I have only written the introduction which treats atomic clocks in general and reads as if it belongs on the atomic clock Wikipedia page.
When (and if) I get an opportunity to complete the contribution I will re-post it as seems to make sense at the time if nobody else has made a "csac" Wikipedia page.
Regards, Jabeles 00:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I did not realize that this was not an option. I must learn how to link pages by a more orthodox method it would seem. Eog1916 11:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
