User talk:MIDI/2017

Unless I state otherwise, I will reply to all messages on this page. If we engage in a long conversation, I suggest you add this page to your watchlist by clicking here. I'd appreciate it if you continued the conversation here. Likewise; if I begin one on your page I'll endeavour to do the same. As this is a user talk page, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) in order to substitute your signature.

Ridemakerz

Article | Discussion | Deletion Log
How can I prove to you a real company that shares a relationship with build a bear is notable? If ridemakerz isn't notable, build a bear shouldn't be notable either. Bes2224 (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability is shown in a number of ways. The most common is through articles written on the subject - particularly in newspapers or (perhaps) trade magazines. As notability is not inherited, a company does not automatically qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia just because of its links with notable businesses. If you take a look at the Build-A-Bear article, you will see that there are a number of third-party references, and the "other" section describes how the business has worked its way into popular culture. Unfortunately, as your article has been deleted (twice), I cannot review the content. If you have any more questions, don't hesitate to ask me. Booglamay (talk) - 17:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

If I redo the content who can I show it to for notability? Bes2224 (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you make the page somewhere in your user namespace (try building it at User:Bes2224/RIDEMAKERZ) and then let me know. I'll take a look at it and - if needs be - I'll get another editor to give a neutral third opinion. That way you can build the page without risk of deletion, and improve it continually until it is encyclopaedia-standard. Booglamay (talk) - 13:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok I uploaded to the page you wanted me to. Bes2224 (talk) 06:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I've copyedited the article. The main thing I've done regards the business's name - the Wikipedia Manual of Style outlines how captilisation should be used sparingly (in line with English rules), even with trademarks. For this reason, I propose that the article be published at Ridemakerz. I've also substituted numerous instances of "RIDEMAKERZ" throughout the article with phrases such as "the business" and "the company". This makes the article sound less of a promotion and more neutral. There's a few other bits-and-pieces I've done (adding footnotes, changing links etc) but they're more of an on-going, minor edit that happens with all articles. If you're happy with the article in the state I've left it, let me know and we can look at putting it in the encyclopaedia domain. Booglamay (talk) - 12:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Its good, the only thing I changed was that where you put 2006(?) I changed it to 2007, which is when they opned, but other than that its fine. Bes2224 (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool - the only reason I did that is that I assumed that the business was founded before the store opened - I guessed at 2006 - but what you've done is fine. Booglamay (talk) - 13:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Berkshire places

List | Discussion
Hi Booglamay (how do you pronounce this, by the way?). When you create new articles on Berkshire, England locations such as Elcot and Downend, please be sure to add the ", England" part so as not to confuse people who don't know what Berkshire is. You can read more here. Keep up the good work, « D. Trebbien (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up - it hadn't crossed my mind (there's systematic bias for you) but I'll bear it in mind with my future contributions (there's a big list of redlinked stubs to work through). Cheers! Booglamay (talk) - 21:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hangon!

Article | Discussion | Deletion Log

“ Unfortunately, a band has to pass the Wikipedia guidelines for music notability to qualify for inclusion. In this case, abundance of original material does not mean notability, nor does being "weird". I could turn my cat inside-out and let it walk up and down my piano and record it for thirty hours, but that won't pass the criteria (though it would be really weird). Not least because I don't have a cat. Or a piano. And I wouldn't turn my cat inside-out even if I did have one. ” — Booglamay, 18:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I just want to say I really loved that comment, and it certainly brightened up my day. How could I fail to delete the article after reading that? Ian¹³/t 19:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I tried to present the idea of speedy deletion in quite a light-hearted manner, as I know (new) users can get hurt if they have an article deleted straight away - especially if it's of their own band (I don't think it was in this case, but I've seen it before). I'd rather make it light-hearted than patronise somebody's band, especially if they're going to go on to vandalise rather than contribute constructively. Thanks for keeping the comment, too! Booglamay (talk) - 19:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That's rather a good idea really. You may want to also put it on their talk page though as the article talk page is usually deleted as well with speedies. Ian¹³/t 19:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, it was Portlandnoise (talk · contribs). Ian¹³/t 19:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Collin Schug

Article | Discussion | Deletion Log
why isnt collin schug notable? Ryansk8erboy (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Because the article didn't pass WP:N, and didn't assert notability (as per CSD A7). Booglamay (talk) - 19:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thats a personal opinion. Ryansk8erboy (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTABILITY and the speedy deletion criteria. ALL articles are subject to these, not just yours. That is why it was deleted - there's no point arguing it, it wasn't suitable for an encyclopaedia. Booglamay (talk) - 20:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE POWER DOESNT MAKE YOU GOD, COLLIN SCHUG IS A PERSON TOO. Ryansk8erboy (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2008

But not a notable one. Booglamay (talk) - 20:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Volano Software Inc. spam and trolling

FYI, see this blacklisting entry:

• MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Spam and article-tampering by Volano Software Inc. (permanent link)

I'm not sure that this will stop our Volano Software spammer/troll, but it may slow him down some. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't realise how deep this went! Seems like someone's rather intent on advertising on Wikipedia - hopefully this plays in our favour and will be easy to spot. The last few edits by the accounts I reported (which, by the way, was the first time of me using the Twinkle/Sockpuppet function so was a bit of a messy job) were mostly vandalism rather than just spam - so perhaps all the user wants to do now is disrupt the site... Booglamay (talk) - 21:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Image Licensing

Image | Discussion
Hello Booglamay. Would you please be kind enough to offer me some advise with regard to the image: Image:Shelley M. Shier by Tom Caravaglia 2004.jpg. I reassigned its License to GNU Free Documentation License in an effort to remedy the situation you have cited. The photo in question is the property of Shelley M. Shier and I have been given permission to use it. What must be done to keep the photograph from being removed at this point? Thanks in advance for your help! Ianpclifford (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not too sharp on the process of image licensing on Wikipedia. WP:COPYRIGHT may give you an overview of the Wikipedia policies. I don't dispute that you have permission (and the fact that you've written to me for help almost proves that you have), but the consent must be proven. Generally, non-free content can be used in the encyclopaedia - provided that it is "fair use". In this case, there may well be a free photograph of this subject available (which in all cases is preferable to what is obviously a promotional photograph). However, you will probably need evidence to back up your claim of consent. I will look into this - don't be discouraged if the image is deleted before we resolve this. You may like to look ' and look at the other examples of disputed images. If you look at the images' revision histories, you may find another editor (or, if you're lucky, an admin) who's more clued up than I am! Booglamay (talk ·' contributions) - 11:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This link will probably solve everything - I should have looked for it before posting that last message! Booglamay (talk · contributions) - 11:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Greetings Booglamay. Thanks for your help with the image that you cited for speedy deletion: Shelley M. Shier by Tom Caravaglia 2004.jpg Please be advised that an email verification of Mr. Tom Caravaglia's permission to use said photo has been forwarded to :permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. As this photographs permission for use has been varified and it licensing has been reassigned to to GNU free documentation I would appreciate it if you would remove the speedy deletion request and tags from Shelley M. Shier's page. Once again thanks for doing your part to keep this free encyclopedia free of unverifiable documents. Ianpclifford (talk) 01:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ian - I've cleaned up the tags on the page. However, as will all content that has to be permitted for use - it is preferable to have an image that is not of a promotional nature. Whilst it is good that the copyright details have been almost cleared up (just waiting for confirmation by permissions-commons), photographs from promotional material are not encouraged as they are rarely neutral - check out other biographical pages, and any that have photos of the subject will rarely be (or shouldn't be) a composed, studio shot. I think the Robert Webb (actor) page demonstrates this well - the photographer has taken a snapshot to capture the person, rather than compose an image to promote. The idea of a photograph is to show what somebody looks like, not to flatter them. Booglamay (talk · contributions) - 11:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Benjamin Covington

Article | Discussion | Deletion Log
Sorry about that. Couldn't find the sandbox before. Covinben (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries, just make sure you use the sandbox (or make your own) before testing edits - you may find yourself inadvertently blocked if you keep doing so. However, you seem to be on the right track now so keep at it! Booglamay (talk · contributions) - 16:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Glen "Archie" Gamble declined speedy

Article | Discussion
I removed the endorsements. It badly needs sourcing and a rewrite. asserts notability, though, with a major label. a bit crufty. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 00:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That's fair enough, but I nominated it as promotion, not notability. I guess I was a bit trigger-happy with the old speedy deletion yesterday - but as the subject obviously is notable, there's definately room for it in Wikipedia! Booglamay (talk · contributions) - 11:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

GALILEO yacht

Article | Discussion | Deletion Log
Galileo is one of 100 biggest yachts in the world. All other superyachts have their own pages at wikipedia, so why Galileo cannot? Let me edit the page by adding pictures and external links to prove! This article was writtem by myself, so what is the point of Blatant copyright infringement? What about to delete Eos, Malteese Falcon etc.???? --Natalia Spatar (talk) 11:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not that the yacht can't have an article, it's that the content you added was a violation of copyright. Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted materials in this manner, and even if you wrote the article (that is present on many other pages across the web) there may be a number of issues. These may include a conflict of interest (especially if you are in some way linked to the subject), or a biased point of view (even if unintentional). If you did write the text and grant Wikipedia permission to use it, you must prove that you own copyright. This is often done by adding a statement to the original site, however this is explained on your talk page. Please do not recreate the page without first addressing the issues. Booglamay (talk · contributions) - 12:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Your rollback request

Request
Hello Booglamay, I have granted your account rollback in accordance with your request. Please remember that rollback should only be used to revert vandalism/spam, and that misuse of the tool, either by reverting good-faith edits or using it to revert-war, can lead to its removal. For practice, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 16:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Signature

Your signature is too long. You should not be using subst: to subvert the mediawiki limit on signatures. Please ensure that your signature is 255 characters or less and paste it directly into preferences, ensuring to check "raw signature". –xeno (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Replied on Xeno's talk page. Booglamay (talk · contributions) - 20:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you kindly! Much better =) –xeno (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

But not as many colours :( Oh well - all for the greater good! Booglamay (talk) - 20:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

heh... well, you can still use that pretty one in your user page somewhere =). p.s. I just read my initial message and it was a little curt - I didn't mean to come off that way. anyhow, thanks for understanding! –xeno (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I read the second sentence of your last message wrong, so forgive me for that - I don't think I've ever seen the word curt written down! Cheers anyway - I don't mean to overload the servers just with my signature. Booglamay (talk) - 20:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)