User talk:Kuyabribri/Archive 8

Deletion of Easy Comext

Dear, You have just deleted my article on "Easy Comext" because of the copyright. I am professionnal who's working on this project. The aim on my article is to find be more visible, it's not a promotion article. I'm the owner of the text who has been re-copied. Is it a problem if I copy myself ? How can I proove that I'm the legal owner of this text ? If I modify the sentences but keep the idea, can you confirm me that my article won't be deleted ? thanks for your help, Vialepa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vialepa (talk • contribs) 09:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Your first comment indicates that you did not read the notice in the blue box before saving your message. Please read the fifth bullet in that box. I will, however, address the rest of your comments.

Wikipedia is not here to make things "more visible"; it covers what has already been covered in reliable, secondary sources. If you own the copyright to the copied text, you can license it to Wikipedia; however, I have found that the overwhelming majority of the time such text is not written in an encyclopedic manner and is not appropriate for Wikipedia anyways. Although I don't have access to the deleted text, I do remember that the text of this article was not appropriate for Wikipedia.

I will not "confirm" that an article won't be deleted. All articles must meet the criteria of verifiability, notability, and neutral point of view. Also, since you work for the topic of the article, the policy on conflict of interest strongly discourages you from writing or editing an article on this subject. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Your moving of U.S. cathedral articles

Hi,

Sure, I'm open to reverting them. I realized after I moved St. James that I probably shouldn't have. As for St. John Berchman, I realize there aren't any other Berchman, but I was hoping to help differentiate it from the five other St. John cathedrals. Goldnpuppy (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not overly insistent one way or the other on the (city, state) versus (city) disambiguation for those three articles, though I personally prefer the (city) disambiguation. I have found since I left that message for you that there is some disagreement and inconsistency on how to apply the AP Stylebook guideline. The inconsistency seems to arise from the fact that the naming convention specifically applies the AP Stylebook guideline only to the articles on those cities, not using those cities' names in disambiguation. And I'll leave it up to you on the St. John Berchmans cathedral; I only insist that "Shreveport" be spelled correctly. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Zuvvu page

Zuvvu page is not unambiguously promotional, because we have renamed our company from Twtbuck to Zuvvu and working on two new Technologies 1. Social Media page rank and 2. Social Media User Activity score. Moreover, we are getting over 10,000 plus daily searches and wikipedia is great way to let people learn about zuvvu and keep adding to it. Media has covered us especially for our unique offering which can be found in highly reliable reference and sources. Because we have introduced new technologies, we can't simply put redirect on our previous page. If you want us to remove anything from present draft, would remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuvvu (talk • contribs) 16:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Biosolar deletion

Why was it deleted, specifically? Or what could I do to avoid it being deleted? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierredemaere (talk • contribs) 19:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The article was written as if to promote the company. All articles must meet the guidelines of notability, verifiability, and neutral point-of-view. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

About Biosolar

You state that it failed on multiple count: notability, verifiability, and neutral point-of-view.

So, Biosolar is not a notable company? What do I need to do? Provide you with 1,2, 3000 links to websites that can attest that this company exists? So, how many do I need?

I wasn't neutral? Please, substantiate your claim by providing evidence. I am not a journalist major, but I can use passive voice if you like. This is my first article.

I would also appreciate a warning when articles are deleted. WE, contributors, put a lot of hard work to make WIKIPEDIA work. We work for free. It seems that there are rules for not deleting material on wikipedia, why is it that you can just delete it without warning people. Fortunately, because I had a feeling that this wasn't as easy as I thought it should, I copied the work I did. However, if the practice of deleting is going to continue, let me advise that some of your smart people find a way to resolve this conflict.

Thanks. (Notice the polite tone of THIS message!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierredemaere (talk • contribs) 20:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I will address your comments in order:

I only made a blanket statement regarding the policies that all articles must adhere to. The article Biosolar was deleted on the grounds that it was written entirely in promotional, PR language and would have required a complete rewrite in order to be appropriate for an encyclopedia. This is an extension of the neutral point-of-view policy.

I never said this is not a notable company. If you look at my user page, I plainly state in the "Policies" section that I don't like calling something "non-notable", as many Wikipedia editors I come across like to. But all articles must meet the threshold of notability as outlined in the notability guidelines, and their meeting of these criteria must be referenced to reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Bear in mind that there are some subjects that don't meet the criteria, and no amount of editing will make them meet the criteria. This is, again, a generic statement that may or may not apply to this company.

I am not an administrator and don't have access to the text of the deleted article. But I do remember that as I said before, the article was mostly written in PR language. I am not a journalism major either, which is irrelevant because I have encountered people from all sorts of professions who write great articles, and by the same token I have encountered people from all sorts of professions who write terrible articles.

You received two warnings that this article was nominated for deletion - one from me, and one from another user. Those warnings both explicitly stated that it was nominated for speedy deletion. The criteria for speedy deletion are very narrow and may only be used in those circumstances where submitting the article for a full community discussion on deletion would be waste of time because it would be a foregone conclusion that the discussion would result in deletion. Note that since I am not an administrator I only nominated the article for deletion; an administrator had to review the article and agree that it met the speedy deletion criteria before actually deleting the article. Also note that this happened again two hours after I initially saw the article, which means that four editors, two of whom are administrators, agreed that the article meets those narrow criteria for speedy deletion. The full policy for deleting articles is at Wikipedia:Deletion policy.

If you like, you can create a draft to work on in your user space. These are subject to considerably less community scrutiny (but not zero scrutiny) and you can work on it there and ask for comments before posting it to the article space. For instructions on how to do this, see Help:Userspace draft. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 23:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Need help with the two pages created

Hi,

I am sorry if I broke rules. I thought I could list the items published by the authors. If not, Can I just delete their bibliography and leave the biography intact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevorbauer (talk • contribs) 20:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The biography you speak of was written in flowery, promotional tone. I requested deletion of these articles because of the flowery, promotional tone, not because of the bibliographies. I recommend you create a draft in your userspace before publishing these articles to the article space again. Pages in the user space are subject to considerably less scrutiny (but not zero scrutiny) and you can request feedback from other users. For instructions on how to do this, see Help:Userspace draft. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eureka Mall

The original deletion rationale no longer applies, but I still think the place fails WP:GNG. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I have retracted my !vote accordingly. Thanks for the heads up. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 05:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Delcan page

Hi,

you nominated my article on the Delcan for deletion due to G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion guidelines (and it was deleted). Can you please tell me what areas of the article need to be rewritten in order to comply with this guideline? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delcan

Thank you, YaniraKat (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Good thing you caught me before the article was deleted. Most people ask me such questions after the article is deleted.

Wikipedia is not a replacement for the company's website. The entire "Markets and Services" and "Locations" sections would need to go. The "History" and "Projects" sections need to be condensed into paragraphs, not laundry lists. Most importantly, you need to provide references that are independent of the company. All references on the article are to the company's website. Given what I've read on the article and in the links provided, this company may meet the notability criteria for inclusion, but you need to provide reliable, secondary sources to verify the content and to establish that the subject meets the notability requirements. As it stands this article requires a complete rewrite to become encyclopedic. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Sarraino theory

Tagging COI does not really appear necessary, as the article is original research anyway. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 22:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I nominated this article at AfD a few hours ago. The COI tag may be overkill, but it is not unjustified. Note the similarity between the article creator's username (Peelthetruth (talk · contribs)) and the YouTube username of the uploader of this video. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Unintended editing

Hi, the page that was created and deleted was created by my 10 year old daughter. Just discovered this now. My apologies for that. عمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for the heads up. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 23:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Harry Snodgrass page - text from another site that was originally on Wikipedia is now a copyright violation?

The text that was entered in this article has made the article marked for deletion. The original source of the text was a wikipedia listing that was originally written by me and removed by mistake when someone highjacked an old account I had. This text then populated many websites which have kept the text online. Now my article has been marked for deletion stating it is a copyright violation. This is incorrect. How do I remedy this? I edited the page to avoid the text but still include all the facts that are accurate - hopefully that helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedoctorbrain (talk • contribs) 17:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not a copyright violation. Someone else tagged it as such and I removed that tag because a Wikipedia page cannot be a copyright infringement of a Wikipedia mirror site. That user probably didn't do a thorough enough job of checking the copyright status of that page. That being said, there are still issues with this article as the tags on the article explain; copyright infringement just isn't one of them. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Should we just have the original article reposted since this article seems to keep having problems no matter what I do to fix them? Just a thought since I saw you chatting with John CD about the original article. The latest update states notability is in question as well as the sources are primary. I have updated all of the references for this page and made sure the articles point to Harry Snodgrass in each of the articles in some fashion. Yes the articles are for major magazines and listings of awards as well as Mr. Snodgrass being appointed to certain positions, but this information verifies the comments made in the article. Any thoughts? Thedoctorbrain (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

In order to establish that Mr. Snodgrass meets notability criteria for inclusion, the article needs to have sources that are independent of the subject and are about him, not just mention him in passing. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

He had numerous articles about him but that was a number of years ago and they are not on the web. The list includes Mix Magazine, Film and Video, and others. he is also interviewed on many DVD extra sections for the films he worked on. I don't know how to inclue those sources but they exist. Thedoctorbrain (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Pickles147258

I have deleted his comments and edit summary from this page history. Google Translate was very useful  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I was going to ask when I saw the revdel on my WL. I have no idea what was said but I'll take your word for it. Thanks, and cheers! —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Close of two deletion discussions

Kuyabribri, could you please consider undoing your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Griffin and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Griffin? First of all, per the AfD process and template, articles must not be blanked during a deletion discussion, which is essentially what the creating user did. Second, this is the second time this user has done this—see the history of User:Dontforgetthisone/Phil Griffin. Third, and most importantly, there is no reason for a copy of these articles to exist in userspace, as the odds on them ever legitimately being mainspace articles is basically zero. The store in question is now defunct; as such, there is almost no way for it ever to gain notability, as nothing new is going to be written about it. The person (the founder of the store) has never had notability, and was attempting to inherit notability from the store itself. The only way he could have an article is if he does something entirely new which is notable, in which case the article needs to be completely rewritten anyway—it won’t even be able to cover the stuff about “The Griffin”, as its unverifiable. Were I the closing admin rather than the nominator, I would not have allowed userfication even if asked, because userfication should only be done when there is a reasonable chance that the article will become an actual WP article sometime in the vaguely near future. Dontforgetthisone needs to understand that it’s not that these articles aren’t ready for main space, it’s that by the very nature of the subjects, they will never be ready for mainspace. I saw the move this morning, and had been intending to undo it, but ran out of time and by the time I got to work you’d already closed the AfD.

Finally, if nothing else, the mess that was made of Phil Griffin needs to be fixed needs to be fixed. In the process of making this article, Dontforgetthisone moved the previous Phil Griffin page to Phil Griffin (presenter) and created a disambiguation page; that dab should be deleted (someone else added another name, but it’s a redlink) and the presenter article moved back to the main name. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Belated thanks, by the way. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Jeremy Case

You proposed it for deletion? Really? I haven't stopped creating it yet. Chill out. Assume good faith. There are plenty of reliable sources for the article. You just have not given me time to put in them in the article. Seriously. Slow down and assume good faith.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

See my comment on your talk page (which I was in the process of typing up when you left me the above message). —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

I made this lovely cheeseburger just for you. I may have one too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Bravo Plantation (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

mineralpro

I am quite disturbed that before I even completed my post on a company called MineralPRO you proposed it be rapidly deleted. What is that about?? What a slap in the face to the notion of a user-based and inclusive site. Not even any hegemonic corporate site would act so hastily and aggressively. They would at the least allow an individual to explain their case. When I saw the warning message, dug far enough through the thick of wiki pages to figure out what the problem was, and then returned to add my legitimate 'independent sources and references' the page was completely gone. All the work I had put into it over the morning was wiped out. And what is troubling is I still can't determine the slippery line between what is a legitimate basis for a company to merit being listed on wikipedia. Take Culligan, its an international company, lots of dealerships, etc. Its therefore more legitimate for being listed, than MineralPRO, also an international water filtration company. I can find you dozens of legitimate links, news articles, BBB citations, etc. etc. Please explain what that fine line is. I'm not only really put off by my first experience with wikipedia, and have wasted several hours crafting something, I now am lead by fear of trying to determine whether I should try rewriting the article--this time with my references--with no guarantee it won't be deleted. how do I move forward in knowing whether the fuzzy criteria distinguishing what is a legitimate business to publish and one that somehow isn't applies to MineralPRO? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enliten9 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not an administrator and don't have access to the deleted article; therefore I can't address the specific issue with this article. However, given the criterion under which the article was deleted, it was either written solely as if to promote or publicize the company or completely littered with fluff and PR-speak that there was no encyclopedic content. I am pretty sure that in the case of this article it was the former, i.e., the article was written solely as if to publicize or promote the company.

Please see the policies on notability and neutral point of view. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business directory. There are certain criteria that any subject must meet in order to merit an article, which are outlined in the notability criteria for inclusion. Notwithstanding that, an article on a subject that meets those criteria cannot be written in a tone that promotes or publicizes the subject.

Note that I only nominated the article for deletion; an administrator had to review the article and agree with my assessment that the article met the criteria for speedy deletion before actually deleting the article. You may do either of the following: 1) request that the administrator who deleted the article place the article in your user space for you to work on until it is ready to be moved back into the article space, or 2) request deletion review, which is a process by which you can request reinstatement of an article that was speedily deleted, but only under certain circumstances. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 06:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

rod paige beverly hall etc

I'm not enough of a wikipedian, nor interested enough to contest the reverts. Personally, I think your analysis of the Rod Paige is slightly off. I gave a citation to an article in the N Y Times; I think that fairly meets the definition of a reliable source The article (and others from the Times) talks about the scandal in Houston. I think that if the Sec of Education of the United States of America is involved in a scandal, and that scandal is widespread, and the scandal is central to the reason the person was selected to be the Sec Ed, well, isn' that pretty newsworthy ? The n y Times thought it worthy of several articles; I think by def that makes it worth a subheading.

Beyond that, given that there are reliable news accounts of cheating scandals in at least 3 major school districts - Houston, Atlanta, Wash DC - this seems pretty important. but like I said, I ain't that interested (the main reason is this: wiki allows my hard work, mostly in the area of DNA sequencing and related fields, to be resold for a *profit*. I find this abhorrent; and as a result, don't do much on wiki anymore - the idea that our hard work can be, litarraly, ripped off and resold just seems wrong to me. just my 2centsCinnamon colbert (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, Iapologize if I added libelous material; at the time I wrote the material, I thought that I had sources.

The text you added to Rod Paige was written as if to scandalize and it read like an op-ed piece. Of the three sources you added, one is a blog and one is an op-ed piece. Both of those are generally not viewed as reliable sources, but this is especially true if it contains contentious information about a living person. The one source you added that is reliable didn't mention Paige at all.

Don't interpret my comments or actions to mean that this "scandal" doesn't merit a mention at all; on the contrary, if this can be written in an encyclopedic manner and cited to reliable sources, then it definitely merits a mention in Paige's article.

As for your last comment, I can't help you there; I'm a volunteer editor just like you and know nothing of the inner workings of the Wikimedia Foundation. What I can tell you is that when you submit any text to Wikipedia, "you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." In plain English, "if you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." I'm not trying to be antagonistic here; I'm only quoting the text found at the bottom of every Wikipedia editing screen near the "Save page" button. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 02:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tag change

Hey, Kuyabribri, I saw that you changed the tag I put on FinderQuit from A1 to A7. Now, I don't disagree with you; I had been considering doing the db-web tag myself, but I decided against it, since a program could be construed as not really *web* content per se. But that's neither here nor there, because I wanted to ask you about what you saw as context for that article. It's not really a criterion I've ever been too comfortable with using, but I figured, since the article gave essentially no information other than that it is a program, it seemed similar to the example given at WP:CSD#A1. How does one (or you, specifically, if you prefer) define "context" in this...um...context? Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

A1 is not a criterion I tag often, and offhand I can't think of a good example of what would qualify under that criterion. What I can say is that the fact that you could tell me the article was about a program means it doesn't qualify for A1. The fact that you can't tell me anything more than that means that it doesn't make a credible claim to notability. Hope that helps. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I see what you're getting at, I think, but I could use the same logic in the example given for A1, so is that what the criterion is really talking about? that is, If an article was called Joe Smith, with the text "He is a funny man with a red car. He makes people laugh", well, then I know it's about a guy with a sense of humor and a red car, but according to the text of A1, that still qualifies as "no context." Do you see what I mean? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

All the more reason why I don't tag with A1 often. If I were to find that text on an article titled "Joe Smith", my first inclination would be to tag as A7. But if I were to find that text on an article titled "Peanut butter and jelly", maybe then I'd consider A1. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. I don't see myself using much either from here on out. Thanks again! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind that 1) I'm not always right, and 2) articles can fall under multiple speedy deletion criteria, hence why the {{db-multiple}} tag exists. Feel free to ask others, particularly administrators who speedily delete articles, what they think as well. Cheers! —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Bristlecone (Company) deletion

Dear Kuyabribri, As a participant of a post-graduate institute, I have been working on this organisation, Bristlecone that is a subsidiary of M&M. This is a niche supply chain consulting firm. I intend to provide a centralized repository of this organisation as it can serve to provide rich knowledge into the supply chain domain for candidates pursuing a career in the same or seeking information on similar companies. Please note that the entire business model of this organisation is driven by B2B philosophies and hence the wiki page cannot be considered as any form of advertisement. The intent is only to provide information on supply chain consultant providers. I request you to please help me get to un-delete the page in the light of the aforementioned thoughts.--Narendrasagrawal (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

This article was deleted because it consisted only of links elsewhere. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it is not a repository of links, nor is it a vehicle for promotion. Additionally, all articles must meet the criteria of verifiability and notability. You are certainly welcome to contact NawlinWiki (talk · contribs), the administrator who deleted the article, and request its undeletion, but he will probably tell you the same thing I have told you.

You are also welcome to create a new article from scratch that has substantive encyclopedic content, but if it does not meet the aforementioned criteria regarding verifiability, notability, and neutral point-of-view, it is likely to be deleted again. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 23:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• • Being new to this space, I did not start off well. I submitted my draft without realising it would immediately be up for review. I did put in content to the page and have understood citations too. Plus there is a lot more content I intend to add. I would not leave a page undone now. I have realised it. Hence the request to un-delete it so that I can properly complete it.--Narendrasagrawal (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You can create what's called a draft in your user space, where it will be subject to considerably less community scrutiny, and you can request feedback from others. I should caution you that userspace drafts are still subject to some scrutiny; spam, copyright infringements, and personal attacks/libel are some things that are not allowed. For instructions on how to do this, see Help:Userspace draft. You can ask the administrator who deleted the article to "userfy" it (restore it into your userspace) for you to use as a starting point. I should note here as well that he is not required to do so, but will only deny your request if it's not in accordance with policy.

Another route you might consider going is the Articles for creation process. To be honest I'm not too familiar with it, so you'll have to go there to get further information. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Zheng

I've declined G4 but left A7. It's only a tiny fraction of the original. The original AfD is interesting reading.... Peridon (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Veronica Ros-Murillo

In case you were wondering, I consider your A7 tag was correct at the moment when you tagged it. I deleted it G10 because of a subsequent edit by the article creator. Cheers ϢereSpielChequers 22:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Understood; thanks for the heads up. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Ichthus: January 2012

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

• From the Editor
• What are You doing For Lent?
• Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
• Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

---

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here

Trophy Wife (US band) page

Hi there, I built the Trophy Wife US band page, citing international touring and a slew of articles about the band. I feel that as an active touring outfit since 2008, with a release that has sold several thousands and national press recognition, it is worthy of a page. I tried to cite correctly, and worked hard on it. I would ask that you not delete it. Thanks, I know you do a lot to edit these pages which I appreciate but I did work hard to make sure the piece was correctly cited.

Katyotto (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Response to what you put

Just playing.NCISfan2 (talk)18:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Please use the sandbox for testing of "playing", not the article space. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

remedy of speedy deletion nomination of Prelude Software article

Hi,

Could you please tell me how to post this information to conform appropriately. I noticed there are other articles, like Sungard, that have been allowed to be posted. In what way can our article for Prelude Software also be approved for posting?

Please advise.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.223.106 (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't write it as if to promote the company. Avoid using terminology I identify here. Also please see the policy on conflict of interest. All articles must meet the criteria on notability and verifiability. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Kuyabribri: a reply in the admin noticeboard

Hi Kuyabribri, I have just recently read about the noticeboard since I came by. I heard this incident happened almost a while now and I made a reply. Regarding to this issue (which also looked in the issue which is TAR 15), I will say that Singaporeandy was privy in editing. I used the theory which I know was Sasuke (TV series) (I'm a fan too). I used the theory which I need to keep in view for you. I hope you accede my reply there. (TranceX (talk) 13:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC))

I have no idea what you are trying to say. What I do know is that you edited a discussion archive, which should not be edited; therefore, I have reverted that edit. My post on that noticeboard has nothing to do with the information that another user provided; it had to do with actions taken and comments made by that user that may be grounds for a block. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 02:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I need you to understand that I have read about the article and why it happens. Since I took notice on this article, I posted about the theory that it will help you. But I still could not take any action because I still need to keep in view for the theory. What I am trying to say is I need you to look more in the matters for the theory, not the part I need to decide the actions for. Kuyabribri, I apologised I did not understand about the postings for the noticeboard, but I understand about the theory to make sure that the way to make solutions for it. (TranceX (talk) 07:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC))

I'm still not sure what exactly you're talking about. If you have a specific issue, please identify it; don't assume that I can tell what you're talking about by using vague terms like "the theory". I have edited thousands of articles in the last 5+1⁄2 years and cannot be expected to vividly remember an edit that I made nearly a year ago. If you are expecting some sort of response from me, I will not respond unless I can identify what exactly the issue is. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

What I am talking about is I pasted my theory on the noticeboard, but did not know what regulations the noticeboard is because I did not notice that it was an archrive. This issue is actually my own reply. (TranceX (talk) 06:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC))

Okay, I think I understand now. The article text should not point a user to the talk page, and here is why: the talk page is for discussing improvements to the article itself. It is not a forum discussion about the article subject. One of Wikipedia's core content policies is verifiability, not truth. Additionally, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it is not a fansite for any television show or other work of fiction that might have an article. If you need to use the article text to point a reader to some detail that is covered on the talk page, then 1) that detail probably is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, or 2) it is pointing someone to original research, which is a violation of the verifiability policy.

Also, as I said in my first response above, the reason I reported Singaporeandy at the administrators' noticeboard was not because he added text referring to a talk page; it was because he made comments that I interpreted to be ownership of edits or legal threats. My complaint was rejected by the administrators who watch that board, and no action was taken against Singaporeandy. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I See, well thank you so much for the help here. I also learn a lesson here. In fact I want to know what happened here and I get that a lot. (TranceX (talk) 13:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC))

Proposed deletion of The Landmark (Toronto)

OK, thanks. I'm not conversant with all the policy requirements. I have my home page set to random Wiki article and when one comes up that I think needs deletion I propose it. Cheers! Tom Reedy (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I tagged the article but the discussion link goes to the old AfD. What is done when that happens? Tom Reedy (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Place a {{subst:afdx|2nd}} tag on top of the page. If you need further help let me know and I can complete a nomination on your behalf. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I think I got it now. I appreciate the help. I've always found the instructions for these procedures to be unnecessarily confusing, IMO. Seems like there should be just one page where you just put the name of the page, tick off what kind of deletion, the reason, sign it, and click, but then I'm not a programmer. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

You could enable Twinkle, which automates a lot of things such as deletion nominations, reverting vandalism, and maintenance tagging. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

speedy criteria

Please always keep in mind that not meeting the notability guidelines is not required to prevent speedy deletion. For speedy A7, the criterion is any indication in good faith of importance or significance, which is deliberately a very weak standard to avooid deleting things that might show notability if the article is improved further. My own experience is that it is very easy to drift from that into speedying things that one thinks clearly should not belong in Wikipedia regardless of the actual criteria. DGG ( talk ) 21:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

If your comment concerns a specific article or articles, please let me know which one(s). Thanks. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Like Moths To Flames

Hello Kuyabribri. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Like Moths To Flames, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: got albums released on a label (not self-released), which means this goes beyond the garage bands / youtube bands A7 is meant for. Thank you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monkey tennis. No need to expect a note about a DR listing--all the participants are probably dead and buried. Thanks for cleaning house! Drmies (talk) 04:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. This is the first barnstar I've received that wasn't a prank or other abuse of the recently-added WikiLove icon, so I shall display it with pride. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Congrats on your barn star!

Just had to write to say that you are my "wiki-hero" this week! Random research lead me to your page and I got a real kick reading your oh-so-patient responses to fledgling wikipedians who make the same mistakes over and over. I was thinking I must be such an annoying Wikipedia newby - until I read your posts and realized that: a) My errors are par for the course for a beginner; b) I'm not the only one to ever get an alarming seeming label added to my work attempts (even the dreaded speedy deletion tag!); and, c) none of my errors were all that serious (relatively speaking at least - though give me time, LOL!). In all, I found your posts oddly encouraging. Just wanted to thank you for that. Cat B

Cynthisa (talk) 03:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Modest Barnstar
		In recognition of all the work you’ve done lately! 66.87.7.209 (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Blanking pages

Hey, Kuya, I saw that you reverted my blanking of the content of an A7. Not that it's a big deal, since it's been deleted, but I just wanted to let you know my reasoning: I blanked it (and a few others today) because they were written by young kids who were posting details about themselves; I blanked so as to discourage them from posting any more personal info. A bit out of policy perhaps, but since it was just a stopgap until they were deleted, I figured it would be okay. I won't do it again; thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to do so in the case of an attack page (if you use Twinkle it blanks automatically). I'd even consider a blanking in the cases of posting of a private individual's non-public contact information, using Wikipedia to further illegal activity, and other posts like that. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

New discussion

I started a new discussion here. Boxofficegeek (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not actually interested in the subject matter at hand; I am mainly interested in stopping an edit war. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Betty Logan (talk) 15:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I have responded to this on your talk page. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Diff for the record. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

last change

I onlye wrote the truth and nothing more, so why cant i do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyvesz (talk • contribs) 19:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

See the policy on notability. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

An award for you

Golden Wiki Award Thanks for your recent contributions! 66.87.2.96 (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Took the CSD off Nintoaster

Hey, Kuya, I just wanted to let you know that I took off the CSD-G3 tag you placed on Nintoaster. Apparently, according to things like Kotaku, it's a real thing, so I don't think we can really say that it's a hoax... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for the heads up. Will keep an eye on how the prod goes. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Venus, WV is a seperate place

Hello and thanks for the message, YES, Venus was a seperate place than Gary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coal town guy (talk • contribs) 15:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to add my signature, very much appreciate your attention on this. I very much enjoy WV places and many of the redirects I have encountered are not quite accurate or in some cases, wrong. I will strive to be as clear as possible on this point in the future.Coal town guy (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Auto Patrol

Hello- Yes, if you could request that for me, it would be great. I agree that if you were to ask, it might carry more weight if you will. I calculate that I have another 4 or 5 thousand articles to create. WV appears to be the place for unincorporated communities. Many thanks for your help. I hope the right is granted as I will very much be creating many more new pagesCoal town guy (talk) 17:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Timmy96

I don't think you can delete a user talk page, can you? User page is fair game but I've only ever seen talk page blanking. GiantSnowman 19:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an admin but I would think that while you guys have the technical ability to delete a user talk page, as a matter of policy they are only deleted in extreme cases of harassment, libel, etc. It looks like this user moved his talk page to mainspace and then had it deleted from there; when I asked Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) he said he shouldn't have deleted it ([1]). —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I did mean 'policy-wise' as opposed to 'literally' - I've never seen one deleted in my 6+ years here. GiantSnowman 20:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Patient J

Hello Kuyabribri. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Patient J, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article is not substantially the same as the deleted version. A new deletion discussion is required. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Oops!

Thanks for fixing that-- right after changing it I checked the DAB policy and discovered that I was mistaken! I'm not sure where I heard that the links should be piped, but I now see that that's been unacceptable for a very long time! I must have read the policy a very, very long time ago! Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Deleting view history page

Kuyabribri, is it possible to delete some parts from the view history page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PAL1234 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Only in extreme cases. If you can point me to a specific page I might be better able to assist you. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it is David Price (soccer). I mistakenly used my IP address and former user David Price (Liverpool). Need all edits from both deleted. Thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PAL1234 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you'll have to give me some more information than that, because on the surface I see no justification for revision deletion. Why do you want these edits deleted? If it's only because you mistakenly forgot to log in or used another username that is not an acceptable reason. Generally edits are deleted from history only in cases of copyright violation, pure libel, or where edits reveal someone's non-public personal information or contact information. Revision deletion will not be used just for the sake of convenience, which is what this sounds like. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. It is non-public personal information user that has been mistakenly used--173.68.109.201 (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, you need to be specific. I cannot help you if you only provide vague descriptions. Please provide me a diff showing me exactly what you are referring to. If you do not know how to do this, see Help:Diff. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I'm being vague but wiki is not my strong point. But my IP address is online by mistake as is an old username that hopefully all trace can be deleted from the view history. Cap in hand I suppose. Again thanks for your time it is appreciated--PAL1234 (talk) 18:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

When I said "non-public personal information" I meant private email addresses, street addresses, phone numbers, government identification numbers (such as driver's license or passport number), etc. IP addresses and usernames typically do not fall into this category. If I understand you correctly, you want revision history removed just because you have posted with your IP address and an older username. If that's the only reason, then the revisions cannot be deleted.

I should note that if you are the David that is the subject of the article David Price (soccer), you are strongly discouraged from editing the article per the policy on conflict of interest. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

OK. Disappointed but thanks again. Final request, can the page be deleted?--PAL1234 (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Any page deletion must go through the normal channels, i.e., proposed deletion or Articles for deletion. An article will not be deleted solely because its subject wishes for it to be deleted; deletion must be in accordance with the deletion policy. Since it appears the subject never played or managed at the fully professional level, it is possible that this article may be deleted as failing the notability criteria; however, I cannot say how likely that is to happen. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

If you want, I can nominate the article for deletion on your behalf, but again, I cannot guarantee any outcome. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

WikiThanks

WikiThanks

You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month! 66.87.0.212 (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	MUCH appreciate your help in helping me get auto correct and also in your help with my WV pages!!! Coal town guy (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Dance with Somebody (Glee)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Declined speedy

Hi. I've declined your speedy deletion request at Mark Wade (rugby league), as only the original author can actually add a G7 (or can blank it to effectively request the same thing). I know you were putting back a G7 they had added before, but I'm not sure that's covered by CSD rules. I think it's best taken to AfD. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

reprod on Rob Gonda

All I have to say for myself is "oops." Missed that while restoring the speedy template..... thanks for correcting my mistake. Sailsbystars (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Hoax?

I'm not sure why you changed the speedy deletion criterion to "blatant hoax". The author (Earl D Claus (talk · contribs)) is apparently an avid amateur radio enthusiast, and was probably the founder (and perhaps sole member) of the subject organization. I have no doubts that the claims in the article are true -- that he tried to set up an organization to develop and promote a standard for internet remote base techology, and that his attempt failed utterly. I.e., it's not a hoax, just utterly non-notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

A few things in that article sounded wildly implausible; perhaps I just read it wrong. Guess it's a moot point now... —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Urban Mimics for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Urban Mimics is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urban Mimics (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Post on Employee Assistance Program page.

It is an absolute fact that my Blog is the #1 Blog in the EAP Field. It is not SPAM. So, why are you removing facts and useful knowledge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.91.17.233 (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Please see the policy on external links. With few exceptions, blogs are generally not allowed as external links. Wikipedia is not here to promote your site or drive traffic to it. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks -

- for fixing the header in Drill & Tap chart, my first AFD... If there had been just a few errors, I'd have fixed them, but all metric sizes are off... --Janke | Talk 05:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

TruPepitoM

Hey, thanks for posting that message on TruPepitoM's talk page. I was just writing something similar myself... :) But you couldn't have said it better. I'm instructing him in the WP:CVUA, and this will definitely be a point of interest. Thanks again! Theopolisme _TALK 16:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Internal Revenue Bulletin

The information is from the paper copy of the Internal Revenue Bulletin. It has a cite and useful upcoming information about the creation of future Cumulative Bulletins. Who has time to find a pager copy when a person could just go to Wikipedia? Geraldshields11 (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

What exactly are you trying to tell me? —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The text you tagged is from an original source document as cited. Geraldshields11 (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)Geraldshields11

Please add changes or suggestions to the Internal Revenue Bulletin talk page so I can improve. Thanks. Geraldshields11 (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)Geraldshields11

I totally agree on your first point. The reason I added the tag is that for the most part, text copied and pasted from elsewhere is a copyright violation and subject to deletion. The purpose of the tag is to inform readers that someone went over the text and determined that even though it is copied and pasted from elsewhere, it is not copyrighted and therefore should not be deleted on those grounds. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The U.S. Federal Government does not place a copyright on the Internal Revenue Bulletin. The IRB states, "The contents of this publication are not copyrighted and may be reprinted freely. A citation of the Internal Revenue Bulletin as the source would be appropriate." Thank you KuyaBriBri for the clarification. Geraldshields11 (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)Geraldshields11

I do not understand why an article focusing on a publication, published since 1919, listing authoritative tax documents, is stubbed by you to a size smaller than the article about Pikachu, even if the tax article needs work. But, I have a unique sense of humor. Geraldshields11 (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear KuyaBriBri: Since the main discussion is on the IRB talk page, please delete the discussion on your talk page. That way the discussion is in one place. Thanks. Geraldshields11 (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I will remove the discussion when I archive my talk page, whenever that may be. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear Kuyabribri, I agree with your assessment and will work on it when I have time and an interest. My joke about stubbing to a size smaller than the Pikachu article was intended to be funny and not snarky. But, I have a unique sense of humor. Geraldshields11 (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Relais Bonne Eau Page

You nominated Relais Bonne Eau Page for speedy deletion. The page was written to explain a topic and was written objectively. Please help me understand your reasoning or how to make the page better so I can get it reposted. Thank you for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjuehne (talk • contribs) 17:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not an administrator and do not have access to the deleted page, so I cannot make comments as to this specific article; rather, my comments will be generic pertaining to the reason why the article was deleted. All articles on Wikipedia must meet the notability criteria, which in short state that the subject must be the topic of significant coverage in reliable sources. Additionally, the burden is on you, the editor adding the information, to provide those sources. Click on the blue links for a further explanation of those terms. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

re: MV Seaplane base

thank you. EraserGirl (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

IMAWESA

Dear Kuyabribri, I see you have marked IMAWESA for speedy deliver and just don't understand why? It is part of CGIAR and falls under IWMI, is a research organisation doing very important work and is funded purely by IFAD. It will be providing valuable research info and guidance on water management for agriculture.

Why this "quick deletion" request? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindmapsza (talk • contribs) 16:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Rationale for deletion is both on the article (if it hasn't been deleted yet) and on your talk page. If you still have any questions please let me know. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I have been working on revisions with the help of JohnCD and will appreciate it if you can also review the revised version - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindmapsza/IMAWESA

Mindmapsza (talk) 10:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Posted by User:DiasMi012

Well if you may have known that inferior Random5555 keeps being defiant by being disrespectful to me of me editing the 'Los Angeles Metro bus fleet,' of obvious that L.A. Metro won't probably be purchasing anymore fleets from North American Bus Industries, after it gets it last batch of Nabi 45C units for later this year and 50 more units next year. Also Metro's divisions 6, 8 and 15 will not be getting anymore of them, as they already got plenty of them in their divisions, which leave other division to get the bulk of the new 45c units. As for that disgruntled Random5555 he needs to be watched as he's escalating the conflict further with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiasMi012 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I really don't care who started it, or what you two are squabbling about. Stop the personal attacks. Frankly, I can request a block on you right now for your insistence on referring to Random5555 as an "inferior" in the above post, but I won't. Cool it, take a wikibreak if you need to. One more personal attack from either of you and you get blocked. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Analyte Health, Inc.

Hello Kuyabribri. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Analyte Health, Inc., a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article is now at AFD. Needs consensus. Speedy is not advisable at this stage. Thank you. Alexf^(talk) 15:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Analyte Health, Inc.

Can you please tell me what part of the article titled, Analyte Health, Inc. appears to be biased so I can get rid of it in the article. --DIM302 (talk) 14:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The entire article is written like a press release and/or content for the company's own website. It needs to be written like an encyclopedia article. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

How much time do I get to correct this problem before it gets deleted? --DIM302 (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Since my nomination for speedy deletion was declined you should have 6 more days to bring the article to standards (a deletion discussion typically lasts 7 days, and the current discussion has been open for one day). Note, however, that if another administrator comes by and believes that speedy deletion is warranted, it may be deleted on the spot before that time period elapses.

Also note that even if the article is rewritten so as not to read like a press release or PR piece, you still need to demonstrate that the company meets the notability criteria. This means that reliable sources need to have published articles about the company. Reliable sources that only mention the company in passing, directory listings, and anything published by the company that is the subject of the article do not establish that it meets notability criteria. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Your edit: Gymnastics at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Women's balance beam

You did a beautiful job rewriting and formatting this content. You made my version look amateur. Haha. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: RTVGames

Hello Kuyabribri, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on RTVGames to a proposed deletion tag. The speedy deletion criteria are extremely narrow to protect the encyclopedia, and do not fit the page in question. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 18:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: MamaMikes

Hello Kuyabribri. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of MamaMikes, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 18:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about these declines - I'm not meaning to tread on your toes at all here. The MamaMikes article is definitely promotional, but I thought there was enough salvageable content there that an article might be possible. If you still think it should be deleted you are welcome to take it to AFD, though. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 18:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Post by me (Random5555)

I have something to say personally, but me and him have stopped arguing a few weeks ago, sure we had issues at first with editing and false info, but now I have stopped and so did DiasMi012. I'm not braking any rules personally right now, and to say your post is very disrepectful that is starting it all of it. I know you don't care just because your a staff. No offense.

It's true, we have been disrepectful to each other in the past, but not anymore because we haven't done anything to have any conflict.

I already know we have been through conlict.

I did NOT curse at him today at all nor last night at all, I'm getting sick and tired of this already and needs to stop. I have not done anything lately to start any arguements and the one that is starting is you apparently when we haven't said anything bad about each other lately. If I had a issue with another editor, the next time I would report it rather then argue, but right now I haven't been doing anything to him.

I made the agreement that I will keep my comments civil the other day and yet you countinue to harras us both. If were to had a poblem with another editor then I will the next time report the problem rather then start an agruement with another user. I should have said then when you gave me the first warning.

Fine I will stop interacting, but please leave me alone and let me edit without trouble! I was just putting an edit summeries but not trying to be directed to user, If I can't be left alone, then I'm sorry to say that I will the next time quit wikipedia. I am starting to get fustrated. I just want this case to be closed already and be left alone.

If I have any issues, I will report it the next time, okay, I already read your posts and don't need it to repeat. I haven't done anything wrong lately.

By the way I read the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and I'm not trying to start anything with the user now. I was just editing fine on there, and I only use this account. I don't even know Dias in real life, me and him are not the same person. I'm completly a different editor.

He hasn't been saying anything wrong, so apparently, nothing bad is happening right now.

I never would attempt to start a battle or anything like that, if I have an issue, then Like I said before, I'll report it.

Is there anymore I should do in order to close this discussion case on that noticeboard/incidents?

- Random5555 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Random5555 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Whatever you might have done yesterday or today is not the reason I reported your actions. The fact is that both of you continued to make uncivil, personal attacks against each other after I warned you both. I was simply too busy in my real life to see it as it was happening, and the issue became stale by the time I got around to reporting it. The administrators and other users who read my report responded to that effect. I see no indication in either of your contribution histories of the "agreement" you mention above (perhaps you made it off-wiki), but if you are willing to be civil from here on out then I wish you both the best.

I take your accusation of harassment very seriously. I can see how my actions might be construed as harassment if I was constantly criticizing everything you do, or if I had made frivolous reports of your actions to administrators. However, I have only made one good-faith report regarding a very specific set of actions you took. The notice I left on your talk page yesterday was a mandatory notice that all users are required to give to users they are reporting to administrators in the way that I did, while the message I left today was made at the suggestion of another user.

Contrary to what you might think, I am not an administrator or "staff" member; I'm just another volunteer editor like you. I always welcome feedback on my actions, including when others think I'm in the wrong. Cheers, —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have closed the ANI discussion as I believe there is no administrator action required. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

A user undeleting and semi-protecting their own page which should be deleted

I correctly proposed that the page Inkey Jones be deleted because it uses a self-published source and does not meet notability criteria. Inkey Jones created the article and is protecting it with semi-protection and removing requests to delete the page. What can I do to get the page reviewed by administrators?Petergionis (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing to substantiate your allegations that Jones has edited this article, and only administrators may protect articles with just cause. I'm not sure if you just don't know how Wikipedia works, or if you are a person with a personal vendetta against Mr. Jones that just wants to find some excuse to get this article deleted. You have already done what needs to be done to nominate the article for deletion (I actually had to fix it), so I don't see what else you need from me. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 05:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I am new to wikipedia. If I have broken any conventions, it is inadvertant. Thanks for your advice.Petergionis (talk) 12:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Setting up disambiguation page for Kevin Harvey

Hi, I noticed you've cleaned up a little bit of my work related to the fact there are now two Kevin Harvey articles on Wikipedia, one for the hockey player and another for the venture capitalist, which I just added. Thanks for your help!

I'm trying to set it up so that a Wiki user, when searching for Kevin Harvey, automatically goes to a Kevin Harvey (disambiguation) page I set up, with links to both Kevin Harvey (ice hockey) and Kevin Harvey (venture capitalist). This will require a redirect to the current Kevin Harvey page, which is already being redirected to the hockey player. Can you either advise or help me sort this out? This is an area of Wikipedia I don't have much experience with, the Wikipedia instructions are not clear to me, and I don't want to mess anything up. Thank you in advance for any help you can offer. JNorman704 (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks like this has already been done as per proper naming conventions; if you require further assistance please let me know. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Really appreciate it. I would love to know the proper steps, for the future, of how to set this up. When there's already a bio article on, say, John Smith, and I want to create a new one, what are the steps? I've tried to figure this out from various Wiki help pages and they're dense and confusing, so if you could boil it down for me, that would be fantastic! JNorman704 (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no one easy answer to your question but I'll try to boil it down for biographical articles only. When creating an article on a person with the same name as someone who already has a Wikipedia article, you would first need to determine which person, if any, is the primary topic of that name. For example, if you were trying to start an article on a little-known Silicon Valley businessman named David Beckham, the article on the football (soccer) player by that name would be the primary topic and remain at that title, and you would call the new article David Beckham (businessman). Determining a primary topic is not always cut and dry, and sometimes there is no primary topic, like what happened with Kevin Harvey. In that case what you did was the right thing - have the ambiguous name function as a disambiguation page. I hope that helps. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Very helpful. I really appreciate you taking the time to help! JNorman704 (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

MfD

Kuyabibri, would you mind creating Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Zodjackmyth? As an IP, I can't, obviously. The reason? "WP:FAKEARTICLE in userspace, a page not in English for a non-notable band." There's more to do, according to Wikipedia:Mfd, none of which I can do. Your help is appreciated; thank you so much. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 00:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done; see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Zodjackmyth. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I AfD-d an article talk-page? Oh my goodness gracious...

Hi Kuyabribri!
Thank you so much for (a) identifying my mistake (b) fixing my mistake and (c) not slapping me with a Whale shark.
Thanks again. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kuyabribri. You have new messages at H tan H epi tas's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: Notice of ANI discussion

I have since corrected the problem with user Asloge when using the talk page when he post first, and i provide a source to the user. However I don't have much issues with the user, but he was looking for a source on page. I don't know about the other users or guests though, but between me and him, I corrected the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Random5555 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of that user Asloge, he's been raising hell on users over that "Los Angeles Metro bus fleet" article that he's been prowling on. Whoever he is needs to be put on a leash, before he gets himself hindered from Wikipedia for his undesirable actions he has commit. What's wrong with keeping important notes about the fleets? Surely, bus fans, drivers, and regular people want to learn more information on specific fleets, like if it got into a incident or why hasn't that bus been in service for a while? It's strongly recommended to keep value details about Metro's fleets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiasMi012 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for the lateness of my response; I was off wiki for the last several days. I did not wish to get involved in this dispute beyond ensuring that the participants abided by the rules. However, I will say the following:

• Not one user involved in the current dispute has to date posted anything on the article talk page. This is the proper venue for discussing issues related to the article. User talk pages are not entirely inappropriate for this purpose, but the article talk page is best, as it keeps discussions in one place. I would have at least expected some talk page activity after the article was fully protected 8 days ago, but that hasn't happened either.
• Wikipedia is not a fan site and believe it or not, it is not a compendium of all knowledge that might exist in the world. The "Notes" column does border on excessive trivia and most of it is unsourced. Arguments such as "I saw it myself" or "I asked Joe and Joe told me..." are original research and are not valid sources, and it certainly seems that most of the "Notes" column falls into this category.

Like I said, I didn't want to get involved, but since none of the parties involved in the dispute wants to leave well enough alone, I think I'm going to get involved in cleaning up now. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You Rock!

Just a random thanks. I enjoyed reading your comments to people -- quite informative. Plus, you're rather blunt, which comes off kinda cranky -- love it! That combined with the inevitable blow-back that comes from being a prolific AfD nominator made for really entertaining reading! (Nerd, me? Well, I guess admitting to reading Wikipedia User Talk pages for fun does kinda call me out.) Anyhow, just wanted to post you with a NON griping comment for your refreshment - lol! Keep on fighting the good fight!  :-) Cynthisa (talk) 07:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter

Hey Kuyabribri. I'm dropping you a note because you used to (or still do!) patrol new pages. This is just to let you know that we've deployed and developed Page Curation, which augments and supersedes Special:NewPages - there are a lot of interesting new features :). There's some help documentation here if you want to familiarise yourself with the system and start using it. If you find any bugs or have requests for new features, let us know here. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus

Good observation: Article was full of unnecessary external links. Trimmed several. Like it? Best. E4024 (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that's definitely an improvement. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Little Mix album info

Hi, I'm totally new to Wikipedia but I noticed a song wasn't credited correctly on Little Mix's new album DNA. The song, "Always Be Together" was written by Dapo Torimiro and Ester Dean and produced by Dapo & Ester. I believe the song is registered via ASCAP (but the one listed is listed from BMI) and I believe one of the other titles the song is known as is "We'll Always Be Together" so that might be were the mixup occurred.

Sorry if this is the absolutely wrong way to go about notifying but I noticed you had updated something else on that page and thought this might be worth a try.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TracyTurnbad (talk • contribs) 18:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The information you provided contradicts information contained in the reliable source on the article. Therefore, the burden is on you to provide specific sources that state the contrary. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you so much for your work on improving The Double (Seattle Mariners). I didn't know the article existed until I saw a link at your page. It brought tears to my eyes to read it and hear that recording of Dave Neihaus. Tom Hulse (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much sir. I shall display it with pride. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Sting Ray injury

Thank you for your response to my suggestion to add "fungal infection " to the possible consequences of a ray sting. It appears my response was truncated, so I will try again here. I apologise for cluttering the site. At your request, i found a link associating fungal infection with a sting ray injury.

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/229163466_Preliminary_investigation_on_antimicrobial_and_proteolytic_property_of_the_epidermal_mucus_secretion_of_marine_stingrays.

I received a classic sting ray injury on 06JUL12 in Kenya and after initial testing from swabs was advised that the site had a fungal infection by my local medical practice in early AUG12 after returning to Queensland. On 03OCT12, the Infectious Diseases (ID) unit of Nambour General Hospital advised that the fungus was a plant pathogen called Lasiodiphlodia theobromae. Treatment using Vfend(r) had commenced on 29AUG12 and clinical progress has been noted. Next check up is on 22OCT12. The Mycology reference lab of South Australia has not published a paper nor has anyone from the ID dept as far as I'm aware. The only good thing that has come out of the experience was that it's an unusual and interesting case. The reason for publishing this info for awareness. I was lucky to have been in a first world country, my ulcer had developed to grade 111 and the outcome could have been devastating if untreated as antibiotics had not worked. If of interest, see my comments under my short Youtube clip titled "Kenya:Stingray attack".

Here's a link involving the transfer of another pathogen by ray to a wound site: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm200003163421118. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukunda (talk • contribs) 06:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

And another link that provides date on a fungal infection from a stingray. See notes 'Heimenz Jahr, Kennedy B, Kwong-Chung JC about 2/3rd of the way down: http://www.toxinology.com/fusebox.cfm?staticaction=marine_vertebrates/ns-stingray_injuries.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukunda (talk • contribs) 13:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Responded at Talk:Stingray. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the update. At Specialist Registrar involved with my treatment for the fungal infection will apparently write up a case report. Will provide a reference in due course, if it is published.(Ukunda (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC))

Earnest Killum Jr.

Earnest Killum Jr. was a rising basketball star before his life was cut short by heath issues, I need help creating a page for him because his story is so relivant to our community. Earnest Killum Jr.: Still shining[of sportspeople who died during their careers] — Preceding unsigned comment added by S118164 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look when I have some more time, but this individual must meet the notability criteria for inclusion in order to have a stand-alone article about him. Collegiate athletes generally do not meet the notability criteria solely for playing at the collegiate level, so we need to consider how much non-trivial coverage he has gotten in reliable sources, both during his lifetime and since. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you re: Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange

Thank you for your recent edit on the article Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange. It complies with Wikipedia policies such as WP:CRYSTAL. I can tell you that there is an endemic problem in articles under the care of WP:Catholicism that WP:CRYSTAL is violated quite often by other editors. If you want the extra work (and feel free to say no) please take a look at WT:CATHOLIC for discussion about episcopal appointments and how they really work according to canon law and Church regulations. There are many, many bishop's and diocese's articles which are afflicted with the misconception that a bishop's reign begins with his appointment, and it unfortunately does not. I am slowly working through a backlog of old articles and trying to watch all the new ones, but it is rather larger than one person to stop. I have considered bringing it to WP:ANI or perhaps WP:BLPN first, and soon, because every week brings more appointments from Rome and more cleanup that I have to do to conform with Wikipedia policy. Thanks again for your edit, and have a nice day! Elizium23 (talk) 05:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I took a look at the relevant discussion at WT:CATHOLIC and while I support your position I don't want to commit to additional work at this time. If you do report this at ANI or BLPN drop me a line and I'll see if I can contribute anything to the discussion. If I come across articles on bishops and/or dioceses with incorrect info in the course of my normal browsing/editing I'll go ahead and correct them. Thanks for helping to improve Wikipedia! —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Amccreath

RE [2]:

From the MfD nomination instructions: "Users must be logged in to complete steps II and III. An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I and post their reasoning on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion with a notification to a registered user to complete the process."

WT:MFD hasn't had a single edit in two weeks. The suggestion to post a notification there is a stupid one imho. Why not just do it via an editsemiprotected request on the talk page? I'm always doing it that way btw. I don't mindlessly adhere to instructions which make less sense and are less viable than available alternate solutions.

At any rate, I've completed step I and since you agree and we already have a valid and clearcut deletion rationale (WP:UP#NOT: "Writings, information, discussions, and activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals"), I'd very much appreciate it if you would unbureaucratically complete steps II and III. Otherwise, I'll simply instate another edit request at the article talk page for someone else, someone who understands the folly of taking the time to post a comment pointing to "correct" process rather than taking the same or probably much less time to just quickly twinkle the userpage up for deletion. No offense, but policy wonkery makes limited sense. --87.79.231.4 (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I've nominated it for speedy as blatant advertising. If that gets declined I'll nominate at MFD. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Posted by 78.46.149.13

You'll find Illangelo credited as producer on Crew Love if you look on the liner notes of the Take Care album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.46.149.13 (talk) 08:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

In nanban film article the telugu dubbed version snehitudu is not a flop as mentioned in the indian boxoffice section please help

someone has mentioned snehitudu has a failed at the boxoffice and also overall break even in the boxoffice section by adding unreliable sources please remove it spoils the look of the article becoz here are the reliable sources which indicates snehitudu is a hit. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-02-17/news-interviews/31070519_1_telugu-films-release http://www.thehindu.com/arts/cinema/article2840296.ece — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.208.48 (talk) 07:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

HKUST

Hello! Sorry to disturb you.

I edited some pieces of information regarding the results of several rankings on the page of HKUST and posted my reasons on the talk page. As such pieces of information had been originally posted on that page before but were removed and changed by someone else few days ago, I am afraid that my edit may elicit a disagreement or edit warring. I spotted that you may be interested in such issue so I would like to have your opinion there. Please have a look on it if you like.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.136.64.76 (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Fur

The last edit I made on Furby is not wrong or uncyclopediac. If I could revert your edit and add ' would you revert it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evoogd20 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Nilakanta Krishnan

You had kindly saved the article on the Indian Naval war hero Nilakanta Krishnan from deletion in April 2012. My humble gratitude. There is a request for an image at his talk page. The only one I can find so far, is on the cover of his biography. Please see http://www.amazon.com/Sailors-Story-Admiral-Nilakanta-Krishnan/dp/8189534149 Can this image be uploaded in wikipedia commons and inserted into the article?

Anant (talk) 11:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Just want to point out that I didn't "save" the article from deletion; I merely pointed out that another user nominated it for deletion outside of policy/process. That same editor has since made several edits to improve the article.

Since the biography you cited is a copyrighted work, the short answer to your question is no, images from that book cannot be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. However, since Mr. Krishnan is deceased, you can probably make a case to upload an image from that book to English Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Kindly note I have uploaded the image: which is the cover of the biography of Nilakanta Krishnan. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nilakanta_Krishnan.jpg

Anant (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Gbern3 (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Creme Puff

Hi there - I'm one revert away from a 3RR edit war with Johnny Squeaky about the subject article being a "hoax". According to Squeaky, now it's a "well-known hoax." As you know, this has been going on with Squeaky for more than a year. I believe Squeaky thinks this is a huge joke. Perhaps you could offer a suggestion. P.S. - That Monkey Tennis AfD thing on your user page was truly hilarious. Cheers. --Seduisant (talk) 03:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I've dropped him a line on his talk page requesting that he engage me/us on the article talk page. I believe that until he engages in discussion his addition of the {{hoax}} tag is clearly against consensus and is therefore vandalism. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 03:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Puffy Cat

I'm sorry to disappoint you on two fronts. First, I am not "involved in an edit war", rather I added a Hoax tag because there are very real questions about the veracity of the claim related to this article, and while I understand there is dispute here, the simple fact that there is serious question is enough to validate the "Hoax" tag.

Secondly and more importantly, I do not respond well to threats, and almost certainly will not respond to you again if you continue to post threatening and nonconstructive messages on my Talk Page.

While I realize that there are a great many "editors" as well as Admin here with serious WP:OWN issues, this is no reason to jump to conclusions that end in making threatening comments on people's Talk Pages where actual discussion would be a better approach.

Further I would like to know exactly what your position is in this matter? Have you edited this article? Do you have a personal opinion that would call into question your ability to pass unbiased judgments? =//= Johnny Squeaky 03:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You have made quite a few vague claims that there is a dispute as to the truth of the article, but have not provided any reliable sources to back those claims. If you would just provide such a source or sources I would be more than willing to help rectify the matter. "I know it to be true" or "I heard it somewhere" is not good enough; that's original research. This has been my position all along, but you have not responded to repeated requests for sources.

As for my "opinion" on the subject matter, I have no bias one way or the other. I hadn't even heard about this cat until I stumbled across it on a routine patrol of recent changes several months ago. As I said before, I will help you if you would just provide a reliable source to back your claims.

I stand by my comments on your talk page; if you interpret them as "threats" that's your problem. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 04:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

About providing links

Hi. I want to apologize in advance if this is a hassle. I know you state plainly on your profile page that you're not a mod or admin, but you are a veteran member who knows his way around, so I thought you might be able to help me.

I added some new info to an article along with the relevant references/sources, but I'm worried that the links may be deemed inadequate? The article that I'm using as a reference is not available on the actual newspaper's website (although if you do a news archive search on google, you can find evidence that the article did exist here [it's the first result], only when you click on the link it leads you to a page that claims that the newspaper's archives are still being "built out").

However, I was able to find a complete reprinting of that article on another site (and at the bottom of the article it clearly states the original source of the article), so I ended up just linking to that site: http://www.redorbit.com/news/entertainment/1544288/a_long_strange_trip_with_celine/

I am worried that I might not be following wikipedia protocol by labelling a reference as coming from the "Buffalo News" when the actual link leads instead to the "Red Orbit" site (which I'm not even sure is considered reputable). Is this all right?

My second question concerns links to news articles that only show a preview of the article (as the full article is only available to subscribers). In this case, will a link to the article preview be enough? (the quote I'm using can be seen in the article preview btw) Thank you very much!Darkesirranch (talk) 04:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello. My opinion on your first question is by no means authoritative. If the article from Buffalo News is copied verbatim to the Red Orbit site and properly attributed, then it is acceptable to use as a reference on a Wikipedia article. I've never seen Red Orbit, but there are quite a few sites out there that reprint articles published by others with proper attribution. A big example of this that I can think of offhand is Associated Press news articles. Usually when I do this I list the original publisher as the "Work" (in this case, Buffalo News) and the republisher as the "Publisher" (in this case, Red Orbit)

As for your second question, articles behind paywalls are acceptable to use as references. In this case it is preferred that you provide as much information as possible including author, title, original publication date, and work. I can tell you that linking to paywalled articles does frustrate some users, myself included, but it is acceptable. Many Wikipedia users in good standing either pay for subscriptions themselves or have access to institutional subscriptions, such as through their college or workplace.

I hope all that helps. Best of luck, —KuyaBriBri^Talk 05:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, contributor!

Our combined work with the MLB tiebreaker games has resulted in a FL on the main topic and GAs for all individual articles. This should make the MLB tiebreakers a Good Topic, so I've nominated it here. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Emmanuel Delcour

hi this information was directly from his website www.EmmanuelDelcour.com I dont know how to add this source, I would love some help Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by CapitalHaute (talk • contribs) 22:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

You can certainly add links to the article (bare links are not preferred but are better than nothing); however, information from the subject's own website is not considered a reliable source. Reliable sources are generally news sources, books, magazines, or any publication that has an established reputation for fact checking. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for more information as to what constitutes a reliable source. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Enterprise Holdings

If you can get started on the Enterprise Holdings article I will go down to their headquarters in Clayton, MO for a photo of their building. Do you need anything else? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I picked a crappy weekend. I'll try again ext time I'm in town. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, forgive the late reply; I was on vacation all last week. I have a userspace draft at User:Kuyabribri/Enterprise Holdings. I have been meaning to ask an admin to move it to Enterprise Holdings but have not had a chance to do so. I'll see if I can get around to that today. Thanks. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	For your recent work over at Disney California Adventure Tiggerjay (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks! —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Roger Mahony

Hi there,

You collapsed the sourced lede paragraph about Mahony's "relief from duties" that I had added last night, into the preceding paragraph and moved the citations to the body of the article in the Retirement section. Because of the unprecedented nature of the relief, I restored the separate paragraph, with an explanation in the comment box, i.e. I used the Joe Paterno article as a reference. I kept your revised text, however, and deferred to your implicit judgment that sources in the body of the article suffice for statements in the lede. Now, after another editor modified the lede paragraph, you moved the "relief" sentence back into the preceding paragraph and complained about the lack of sourcing, which you had earlier removed.

I'm going to move "relief" back to its own lede paragraph, using your language and without the citations that you removed, adding only the modifier "unprecedented" per the LA Times source. I'll also look into the additional material from the other editor to see if I can find adequate sources for it and will restore it, either to the lede or to the Retirement section as appropriate. I will welcome your thoughts about those decisions, but please leave "relief" to its separate paragraph in the lede.

Cheers,

Lahaun (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, now I'm going wait until you deal with the other editor's work. I agree the sources need work, but the substance seems legitimate.

Lahaun (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

See my comment on Talk:Roger Mahony. Cheers, —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

To address your comment on the censure having its own paragraph in the lead, the only reason I combined it with the previous paragraph is because paragraphs should consist of more than one sentence, and when I was done removing unsourced contentious information the paragraph only had one sentence. I figured it went well enough with the previous paragraph that appending that one sentence to the end of it was okay. If you can come up with additional sourced material to add to that information I might be amenable to a stand-alone paragraph in the lead. Cheers, —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Now, that's interesting. I've always written one sentence paragraphs in all kinds of documents and media. Alas, I don't have a copy of Strunk and White handy, and I suppose it's possible I've been wrong for decades. It seems a little silly to add an unnecessary sentence just to stretch the paragraph out, though. Gotta run now, maybe we'll talk later. Lahaun (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Roger Mahony

The sentence is added, and it is easily verifyable by a great many sources. By virtue of the fact that Mahony is a cardinal and less than eighty years old, he will attend the papal conclave. By virtue of the fact that Archbishop Gomez is not a cardinal, he will not. I don't think this warrants a citation; it seems far to basic a fact. Else, we would have to offer citations when we point out that the sky is blue. I think that's rather overkill, and I can see a similar problem with such scrupulosity in some of the other messages on this page. InFairness (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The only parts of the sentence you added that are easily verifiable, as you say, are that Mahony will be traveling to Rome for the conclave and that at least to date Gomez has never been created a cardinal. Here are the problems with the sentence you added:

• Saying that "the pope has had several opportunities to make Gomez a cardinal" without attribution is OR, and the way it you worded it makes it sound like he deserves to be one but isn't, which is editorializing and therefore a violation of the neutral point-of-view policy.
• "Gomez...gets to stay home" is also OR without attribution as it is entirely possible for him to travel elsewhere, or even to Rome for some other purpose.
• "Gomez...will finance Cardinal Mahony's trip" is also OR without attribution. How do we know that Gomez or even the Archdiocese of Los Angeles is financing his trip? It's entirely possible that the Vatican or Mahony himself will finance the trip.

Per the policy on biographies of living persons, any unsourced, contentious information on living persons is to be removed immediately without discussion, and that is exactly what I have done. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kuyabribri. You have new messages at CorporateM's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi Kuyabribri. I wonder if I could ask you to provide a second pair of eyes on my work at:

• Talk:YouSendIt#Draft_for_consideration

I have some notes there regarding needing a second opinion on some BLP issues and a second pair of eyes RE promotion. It is always difficult to avoid promotion on product articles.

I have a COI in that I'm acting in a PR role, so I've posted a proposed draft on Talk with a COI disclosure. CorporateM (Talk) 14:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again! Always helpful to have a fresh pair of eyes, especially where one has a COI. I implemented all your feedback but the funding rounds bit. I feel we did a pretty good job on the Reception section, even sharing an analyst report that reflects somewhat poorly on them, which I think is an impressive degree of honesty. But I'm still scratching my head a bit at the Version history. We would have a version history for any software article, but it seems redundant. Anyways, thanks for helping! CorporateM (Talk) 18:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

William D. Barber

Hi, thanks for tagging this for notability back in 2009. The tag's still there. You might want to take it to Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard or AfD if you are still concerned. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Karl Marx".

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Posted by Irenna (talk · contribs) Thanks Kuyabribri! (regarding the Visa_policy_of_Vietnam article) These links were clearly a spam, as you could see that someone has been updating them quite often (one with another, with a third one :) And yes, I agree on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTTRAVEL#NOTTRAVEL guidelines, it totally makes sense! cheers, Irena — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irenna (talk • contribs) 16:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Deborah Potts I just want somebody to bust her lie about the Undertaker being her father. I understand you can't rely on social media but she is very mental case...if you join tout, you can see her lies and/or trolling game. Besides tout, she has ran this little lie/game on twitter. She could be a stalker of the Undertaker, an obsessed fan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.137.191 (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia is not the tabloid press. We only report on what is covered in reliable sources and even then only if it is encyclopedic. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Four assassination attempts on Nehru Why is this never talked about? There was one assassination attempt on him in 1947 while he was visiting NWFP in Pakistan in a car (source: Mathai, 1978. Reminiscences of the Nehru Age). The second one was by a knife-wielding rickshaw-puller in Maharashtra in 1955 (Source Gettysberg Times [3], Sarasota Herald Tribune [4], The Victoria Advocate [5]. The Telegraph 12 March 1955 [6], list of sources:[7]). The third one happened in Bombay (now in Maharashtra) in 1956 (Source: The Miami News [8], Altus Times-Democrat[9], Oxnard Press-Courier[10]. 4 June 1956). The fourth one was a failed bombing attempt on train tracks in Maharashtra in 1961 (Source Toledo Blade [11]).--174.2.8.221 (talk) 10:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC) Hi, with all due respect I have no idea what you are asking of me. I'm assuming you are reaching out to me because I have previously declined an edit request on Talk:Jawaharlal Nehru. If you have a specific need for help from me, please plainly state what you would like me to help you with. Thanks. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC) Hi. Sorry, I should not have copy-pasted the message I posted on Talk:Nehru. And no, your assumption is wrong. I am just pointing out that there have been 4 assassination attempts on the first Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru but this fact is never ever mentioned in most places. All of these are on record and it is in the best interest of all of us that this be mentioned in the Wikipedia article on such an important historical leader. --174.2.8.221 (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC) I'm not an expert on the subject matter, but from my knothole I don't see a good reason not to include this information on the Wikipedia article on Mr. Nehru. However, I would prefer that someone with more background/knowledge of the subject matter add this content to the article so that such information is included in a balanced manner. Your comment on the article talk page is appropriate. If necessary, you can ask for help at WikiProject India. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC) Please review editprotect request again The request made in Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template is pointing to 2 different templates related to the project. It was my fault that I didn't specify the templates which require editprotect in the editprotect request template, hence misled the list in Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests to show the wrong request. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 23:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC) Responded at Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC) I'm lost... Hi Kuyabribri, I'm writing on your talk page because I see that you "added tlx so this talk page doesn't show up as a problematic prod" on my question to UtherSRG: Kuyabribri (talk | contribs)‎ (→‎please forgive my newbie-ness: added tlx so this talk page doesn't show up as a problematic prod) I don't know what tlx means, or if I should be adding it to this post, so this is also not a problematic prod... I also don't know what the (+4) refers to, and if UtherSRG has tried to answer my questions and I'm just not seeing where to look. So, I'm really sorry if you're not the right person to bug, but I just don't know who to ask. Mostly, I'm just having trouble understanding the "best practices" way to move forward in suggesting changes to an article, while also not having "conflict of interest." Much appreciation for any help you're able to give me. Alexis Tabasco cat (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC) Hello Alexis, my edit was purely technical in nature and was in no way a comment or response to your question. By copying and pasting the text from the deletion log, you inadvertently made UtherSRG's talk page show up on a page I routinely check for technical problems with pages that are proposed for deletion. If it's all right with you I'd prefer not to get into too many details that you probably don't care about. As for your actual question for UtherSRG, please take a look at Donor Sibling Registry and Talk:Donor Sibling Registry. Is that what you are looking for? Wikipedia page titles are case sensitive, so Donor sibling registry is a completely different page (which happens to exist as a redirect to Donor Sibling Registry). Let me know if you have any further need for help. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC) Hi, KuyaBriBri, I guess my question is really: When my boss (the Exec. Director of Donor Sibling Registry) wants to suggest/request edits to the DSR article (because numbers have changed, there's new research to post, etc.), how should she do that? Someone in the help forum told me she should use the Talk page, rather than contributing the info herself, to avoid conflict of interest. I can give her the link to the Talk page that you posted above, but she's going to be more confused than I am about what to do with it. (Is editing this post to ask additional questions the best way to do this?) Thanks so much! AlexisTabasco cat (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC) There are a couple of things that your boss can do: 1) She can go to Talk:Donor Sibling Registry and click the "+" or "New section" link at the top of the page (whether it appears as "+" or "New section" depends on browser and/or skin settings), then type her request there; 2) She can visit the Help desk and ask for help there; 3) She can create an account and place a {{helpme}} tag on her user talk page accompanied with a request for help. #2 and #3 are likely to get you faster responses. I hope that helps. By the way editing this section of my talk page is the correct way to continue a discussion. If another user comes by and starts a new discussion below this one and you still have something to contribute to this discussion, then edit this section and add your comment at the bottom of it. Note that you are not allowed to edit anyone else's comments. Again I hope that helps. Cheers, —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Fantastic. You have been very helpful! I also just found the page that gives tips for how to avoid conflict of interest, and sent that link to my boss. Much appreciation. Alexis Tabasco cat (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC) K - Thanks for handling things. I'm obviously not very active in the project any more. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Edit request on Troy High page I just wanted to thank you for removing not only my name, but my coworkers names as well. The last two interviews I have been in, regarding teaching positions, the wikipedia page comments have been brought into question. Truth is, there were never any "taped conversations" or racial slurs used, it was a feble attempt by a scorned coworker to receive a "payday" from the district. This man is Jamaican born, 54 year old with tattoos on his face, and calls himself "money" because he has dollar signs in his gold teeth, go figure... This was not the first time this man they call "money", had sued a major entity claiming racism. In fact, he did it to another district in the late 90's as well as filed against Disneyland because according to "money", "Disneyland is full of racists because I went to return a shirt I bought in the park and they wouldn't allow me to." I replied, "Newton (his legal name) don't you see on the receipt that it says ALL SALES ARE FINAL"?? Money then replied, "If I was white, they would've let me return it"....that is just a small glimpse into what type of man this guy who made these outrageous claims at Troy really is. He is now working at Sunny Hills High School, in the same district. I filed a lawsuit in 2010 and FJUHSD settled out of court. Besides getting a settlement check, they also agreed to clear my name of any wrong doing. My family and I are relieved this incident is behind us, and super excited to know that it has been removed from Wikipedia. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genorose (talk • contribs) 01:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Hello again. Please note that I did not take the action I took to protect or vindicate you or anyone else. I only did it to comply with Wikipedia policy, specifically that pertaining to information on living persons. I cannot prevent any editor from re-adding the information, and as I said on the article's talk page I will not object to a mention of the case under the conditions I set forth there. But if I do see any names of specific individuals involved in this case I will do my best to remove them as soon as I see them. Best regards, —KuyaBriBriTalk 04:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC) not Josephus, but Herod the Great Hello again, KuyaBriBri. I feel like a total moron, but I asked you to put the wrong article in the queue for me at MadmanBot/manual. It should have been Herod the Great instead of Josephus. Could you do me a second favor? I promise I won't bother you again. Thanks, in advance, for your help. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 00:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC) ِAbout my page (No To Compulsory Military Service movement) Hello, I would like to know why you want to delete No To Compulsory Military Service movement it's my page and I tired to write all the information in this page so I want to know why you nominated it to delete. If you see anything wrong in this page just edit it and delete everything you see it wrong because I can't understand your reasons about delete my page. Thank you Naderwagdy1 (talk) 5:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC) The reasons the article is nominated for deletion are outlined in both the red banner at the top of the article as well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No to Compulsory Military Service movement. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC) Posted by anonymous user 188.115.241.78 Why you cancel my edits? What's the problem?--188.115.241.78 (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC) I have responded on your talk page only because I was in the process of typing up that message when you left the one above. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC) OK, i want to nominate that article. How to do it right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.115.241.78 (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC) Go over the deletion policy and provide an argument that has some more substance. Simply saying "she fails WP:NMUSIC" is likely to fail given how recently the article was kept after being nominated for deletion under that rationale. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC) Posted by anonymous user 58.165.216.82 My main source for the Banjo Paterson article is Trove, the National Library of Australia's electronic newspapers. 58.165.216.82 (talk) 08:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC) Nomination of Amy's Baking Company (Kitchen Nightmares) for deletion A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Amy's Baking Company (Kitchen Nightmares) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy's Baking Company (Kitchen Nightmares) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. =TIMMYC= (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Deletion of Muhammad Jailani Abu Talib Hi! Thanks for responding to my attempt to delete the above-mentioned article for deletion. I would like to apply for deletion but find it seemingly impossible to do so. I created the article and would like to delete it under the advice of the living person portrayed for the inaccuracy of the facts portrayed. I believe, the article is also poorly sourced. I have tried to apply for speedy deletion which was rejected. Your advice and assistance would be much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.56.115.43 (talk) 09:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia does allow for the creator of an article to request its deletion if and only if no other editor has made substantive edits to the article. In the case of this article, it appears that at least one other editor has made a substantive edit, so the article cannot be deleted under that policy. If a person wishes for an article on him/herself to be deleted, s/he should contact the Wikimedia Foundation from a verifiable email address. Contact information is available at this page. Please note that articles will only be deleted after community discussion in accordance with the deletion policy, though in some cases the community may be inclined to take the subject's wishes into consideration. Also note that inaccuracies in an article are grounds for improving it, not deleting it. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Help with AFD Kindly close down the AFD on following pages as well both are started by me. Jejeebhoy baronets Calcutta time Benedictdilton (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I believe I have already done both but if you need further help please let me know. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Sure. Thank you very much.Benedictdilton (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Mahony Excellent edit on the Stockton info / film, needed to be from the perspective of encyclopedia and not the film timeline. tyvm74.7.248.26 (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Thanks! —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Nandini_sahu I found the article written tangent to advertisement. The references go back to pages that the subject in concern has created, without solid evidence. For example "ref" ignou "ref" is given many times. Highly suspect this is self advertisement. Also, she doesn't figure as an eminent poet. It is creating ambiguities in "poet categories" the page is listed. I checked some information from local IGNOU database. The information - e.g. Date of Birth is not verifiable. Flagged for deletion as so many discrepancy exist. User:souravmishra26 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.56.181.142 (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC) I really have no argument against deleting this article. However, policy dictates that an article that has ever been discussed at Articles for deletion cannot be deleted under the proposed deletion process. You are more than welcome to nominate the article at Articles for deletion again by following the three-step process at WP:AFDHOWTO. Since this is a third nomination the process might be a bit tricky, so if you would like my help in doing that please let me know. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC) I saw many "advertised" lines removed. Good job. But there is no reference to the awards except her own page. I could make a page which says I won the Nobel. Improper citation style and too much emphasis on a single HTTP link, don't you think? Thanks - SM26 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Souravmishra26 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC) ESp messages Hi there - I was poking around a few days back and found the ESp templates in your userspace. I found the first one perfect for a request I just answered so I used it. I hope you don't mind! Would it be all right if I continued to do so? I think both of them are quite useful... (personally I think they would probably be useful as additions to the ESp template itself, but I have no idea how to go about that...) --ElHef (Meep?) 14:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC) I'm glad someone else found a use for those templates. I have no problem with you or anyone else using my templates; all I ask is that you subst them when using them. I'm not sure either where proposing new ESp/EP templates should go. I would think the category talk page would be best but the talk page of CAT:ESP doesn't appear to be highly visible. Maybe WT:RFPP or the village pump? —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Deletion review for Mobile Phones SAR List An editor has asked for a deletion review of Mobile Phones SAR List. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)