User talk:RP459

(ctrl-click)">"Nora Wall''

I declined the speedy tag for this -- I have to say that it was VERY difficult to work out what was going on, because the article's creator was as unhelpful as possible, but I realized that the author was asserting copyright over a previous version of the article that had been deleted as copyvio. As you can see I'm sympathetic as to why you tagged it, it was an incomprehensible mess when you found it, but I wanted you to know that it had been declined. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the message, I appreciate it. RP459 (talk) 00:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Wolfe Video

Hello RP459, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Wolfe Video - a page you tagged - because: Not unambiguous advertising. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. SoWhy 11:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article is no longer unambiguous advertising as the article has been improved significantly since I tagged it for speedy deletion. Please have a look at the state of the article immediately prior to me tagging it here [[1]]. I stand by my speedy tag at that time, however as you requested I will review the criteria for CSD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RP459 (talk • contribs)

I'm afraid to say so but it did not meet the criteria at that time as well. An article that goes "We are the best, buy XXX" meets G11. An article that only contains facts mixed with some weasel words ("largest", "popular" etc.) can be fixed through editing and is thus not a candidate for G11. You might want to remember it this way: "If you cut away all the spammy bits and you have a valid stub afterwards, then it's not a G11". If you need any further help, please feel free to ask. Also, remember to sign on talk pages, even your own :-) Regards SoWhy 14:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! That helps a bunch I will keep it in mind going forward. RP459 (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Deprodding

A user is allowed to remove the {{prod}} from their own article. Please do not revert such edits. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I noted further that you instructed the author to use the {{hangon}} template. That template is for {{db}} tags only, not for {{prods}}. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I have been doing way too much new page patrolling lately, my apologies, I know better and I am not sure why I treated this like a CSD :(

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Global Risk Management

Hello RP459, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Global Risk Management has been removed. It was removed by Dkeditor with the following edit summary '(I've removed the proposed deletion notice, having improved the article further and adding a Notes section -- which I believe underlines notability . Please see my talk page for specifics)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Dkeditor before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

RE: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Risk Management

Would you consider userfying the article which you put up for deletion? The will delete the article from main space completely and move it to a sub-page of the creators.

The editor is a new editor, and this will give the new user a chance to rework this article and maybe wikipedia will get a long term dedicated editor

Please let me know as soon as possible, because as soon as someone else comments on the AfD, they must agree also before I can userfy the article. Thanks for your time.Ikip (talk) 00:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

sounds like a good idea to me go for it! RP459 (talk) 03:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Original Editor Reply: To quote wikipedia itself, "neutrality trumps popularity." As mentioned previously, the Google News search fails to reveal a lot of trade media sources that are subscription-based (particularly common in the maritime business). A regular Google web search reveals a number of these in regards to the company in question. Google News search also omits non-English language news items about this company -- which is, after all, based in Denmark.

"Raw "hit" (search result) count is a very crude measure of importance. Some unimportant subjects have many "hits", some notable ones have few or none..." from [the Search Engline Test page]

In order to establish notability, I've continued to add more "Notes" to the page. It now includes verifiable sources such as Denmark's national news agency, several national newspapers, and non-subscription trade media websites in English and Danish. I've chosen a spread of dates, from 2006 to today (Bunker Index is one of several daily online bunker sites that carry Global Risk Management oil price assessments. Unfortunately, the others are subscription based).

A word about the Danish sources: A number of the sources I've included are articles by national newspapers using Global Risk Management for quotes and analysis on shifts in the oil price. I think that adds even more weight to the notability of the company. If in doubt, perhaps it might be useful to call in a Scandinavian editor to verify the notability of the Danish sources.

A word about procedure: Shouldn't there have been some form of discussion about the reasons for my dePROD (I think that's the right term) before referral to a general discussion? The debate seems to be moving rather quickly towards "userfying" the article without anybody discussing the validity of my article sources and notability. Can we discuss notability beyond Google News search results?

I'm a newcomer to this, so could somebody give me feedback to this reply i.e. is it posted in the right place, and in the right manner.

Thanks. Dkeditor (talk) 11:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

RP459, thank you for your time, my proposal only works if there has been no other editors who commented in the discussion. Since Dkeditor, did, the AFD will run its course. In the future, you can also consider merging and redirecting with no needed conversation beforehand (although this is encouraged). Ikip (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Dkeditor I do appreciate the effort that you are making to show notability in this article and you make have succeeded, the results of the AFD will determine that. In response to your observation about procedure you removed the prod (which is totally ok) and gave your reasons for it. I disagreed with your reason as I still do so I moved the discussion to AFD. Could there have been more discussion prior to moving to AFD? Possibly, but seeing as how I still disagreed with your viewpoint I decided to send it to a place where more viewpoints could be heard on the matter, as I am most certainly not always correct as to if something passes WP:NOTABILITY and can only express my opinion. Please do not take my proposing your article for deletion as a personal attack, it is not one, it merely reflects my view that it does not warrant inclusion in the Wiki RP459 (talk) 13:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello RP459: Thanks for your appreciation of my effort and kind words. Don't worry, I certainly haven't taken your deletion proposal as a personal attack. I assume good faith, so why should I? I think this is a good process we're putting the page through. Re procedure, it's a little late to argue the pros and cons of discussion that should or should not have taken place. Let's move on and argue the pros and cons of whether the article satisfies the 5 points listed at WP:GNG. I've rewritten the article to include more inline citations. I think it helps, but what do you think? Thanks. Dkeditor (talk) 11:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: WP:UAA

Needed a bit more privacy; my username made it too easy to figure out who I was. I figured people that wanted to find me would though, like you. I just don't want random passersby to get suspicious and be like... "is that... so-&-so?", then look at my contribs, and figure out who I am. upstateNYer 02:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me, I completely understand. It was neat tracking you down I had not realized that pretty much everything outside of the archives would be changed over to your new name. RP459 (talk) 02:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, thankfully. :) upstateNYer 02:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Value Drug Mart

Hello!

Just a friendly heads-up that I removed the PROD notice from the above article. I think the subject easily passes WP:CORP even though it may need additional sources. I've added a couple but please feel free to let me know if you disagree with its notability so we can take it to AfD.

Peace! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for working to fix this article, I think it still needs more refs, but will wait a couple of days before deciding on sending it to AFD as people are working on establishing notability, good luck and thanks trying to save this article. RP459 (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the courteous response! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Account creation system

RP459, thank you for your interest in helping users creating accounts. Your request has been approved. I advise you to read WP:ACCG before you use the system.

At this time, you are allowed to create up to six accounts per day. You won't be able to create an account with a similar name to that of another user. However, if you have reached the limit frequently, you can request the account creator permission at WP:RPE.

Again, thanks for your interest in the account creation system. Join us on IRC at wikipedia-en-accounts and subscribe to the mailing list by going here. Willking1979 (talk) 01:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Maconomy proposed deletion

Hi RP459

I can see that you've proposed the Maconomy article I've put up for deletion.

I'm so sorry to read this and I'm not sure I understand why - I had a go-ahead from your administrator Jimfbleak who guided me through the notability guidelines, which should make the article good enough for Wikipedia.

It would be great, if you could help me make the article better or more notable. I know that it should be possible.

BR --Jacobdanstrup (talk) 13:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do not take proposed deletion personally, it is not meant as an insult or a slight, but merely that I feel that the article (as it stood) at the time of PRODing, was "deletable" for the reasons that I mentioned. It does not mean that it will be deleted, you contesting it as you have already has ensured that it will not be deleted through PROD but would need to be discussed on Articles for deletion. As you seem willing and eager to improve the article I will not be posting the artcile on AFD any time soon. RP459 (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for getting back to me. I've just really worked to meet the notability guidelines:-) And will continue to do so. Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to improve the content. I will work to incorporate more references, which I know is possible.

BR- --Jacobdanstrup (talk) 12:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Link at Google News

I found three hits on Maconomy at Google News: http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=maconomy

BR --Jacobdanstrup (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! add them as references (if they work) to the article to back up the independent 3rd party coverage that shows WP:NOTABILITY RP459 (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up om this, I'll have another look too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys - I've also found 43 online hits for Maconomy in September - so I guess that if I find a way to implement some of these as references the article will be in the clear (enhanced notability)? --Jacobdanstrup (talk) 12:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Dresden

		WikiMedal for Janitorial Services
		The WikiMedal for Janitorial Services shall be awarded to User:RP459 for doing good janitorial work. Mootros (talk) 19:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)