User talk:Nancy

Welcome to my talk page

• DID I DELETE YOUR PAGE? If so please check User:Nancy/Why? for an explanation first. If you are still none the wiser then please click here to leave me a message
• I will reply on this page as I prefer to keep conversations all in one place but may alert you on your talk page too so you get the nice orange bar.
• If I have written something on your talk page, I will be watching it so feel free to reply there if you wish. If you prefer to reply here that's fine too.
• Threads older than 7 days are archived automatically by MiszaBot

Nancy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Contents Jessica Puente-Bradshaw page deleted, why? Hi! I'm new to Wikipedia and have never posted anything. That said, I recently posted a page about Jessica Puente-Bradshaw, who is currently running for the US House of Representatives (Texas District 27). The incumbent, Solomon Ortiz, has a page on Wikipedia, so it seems only reasonable that a competitor candidate can also have a page. The page I posted was very clear in highlighting her candidacy and did so in the first sentence. The reason given for deletion was relevancy. I guess Wikipedia feels competitor candidates are irrelevant? I don't agree with this perspective. I hope it was an error on Wikipedia's part. If so, please re-add Jessica Puente-Bradshaw's page. Please note, if there are other 'errors' regarding the page, I can't tell what they are based on other pages I've seen and the posting guidance provided. Feel free to notify me of required changes and I'll make them. JB 04:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)04:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradsha (talk • contribs) Hi Jessica. Writing a page about yourself is seldom a good idea, and is strongly discouraged. The full content guideline on this situation can be found at WP:AUTO. With regard to the deletion, this was done because there was no indication within the article that you meet either the general notability guidelines or the specific notability guidelines for politicians, Ortiz has a page because he hold elected national office, you however are only a candidate. Obviously the situation will be reassessed if/when you are elected but even should that happen please leave it to a neutral third-party editors to create & maintain the article. Kind regards, Nancy talk 06:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC) I've reviewed the text again this morning and noticed that it is in large parts a copyright violation of various sources including Facebook. I'm afraid that this would have caused the text to be removed regardless of any notability issues. Nancy talk 06:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Hi! I have a couple comments, please review them and let me know your thoughts. Ultimate, I would like to see the page (or similar) that I posted allowed to stay up. 1: My name is not Jessica and Ms. Puente-Bradshaw is not posting her own information to Wikipedia. As you might expect for someone running for the US House of Representative, Ms. Puente-Bradshaw is extremely busy and I'm sure posting an article to Wikipedia is not high on her personal priority list. That said, Ms. Puente-Bradshaw was personally involved in the original content but I am definitely not her. 2: It is just my opinion but I think Wikipedia is doing the community a disservice if they only allow incumbent candidates to have pages. Many people come to Wikipedia to find information about various topics and it seems to lack a level of fairness to only allow one side of the debate be heard. This is especially true when Wikipedia allows pages like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2010_%E2%80%93_complete_list to exist. Allowing these types of pages implies that Wikipedia is a fair/equal source of information when in fact it is not. I think the incumbents must be required to take their pages down or the competitor candidates should have the ability to post. 3: The original content about Ms. Puente-Bradshaw was added to Wikipedia before ever being added to Facebook. As such, at the time, there were no issues with Facebook. Given that Facebook allowed Ms. Puente-Bradshaw's team to create a page and post information, we may have to modify the Wikipedia content to avoid any issues. (Assuming we even get a green light to post Ms. Puente-Bradshaw's information.) Based on the points above, I think you should reconsider allowing Ms. Puente-Bradshaw's post. If it needs to be changed to allow for posting, please let me know what must be done to make the post 'stick.' Thanks! JB 05:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Comment - Bradsha, you really should look further into WP:AUTO, WP:COI, and WP:WAX. This admin has clearly not acted in error at all regarding any WP policy, and the burden is on you... Doc9871 (talk) 05:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the comment Doc. Not sure if you saw the original post but it isn't an autobiography. It is a high-level background of the candidate, similar to what many of the incumbents have. There is also no conflict of interest (i.e., this is no different from when someone posts about an incumbent). That said, I understand why Wikipedia is sensitive to this issue but the 'policy' of allowing an incumbent to have a page but not competitor candidates is questionable. My point here is more about the underlying obligation Wikipedia has to society and has very little, if anything, to do with Ms. Puente-Bradshaw's page. I'll wait for a response just to see what they have to say. I recognize I am only voicing my opinion as to what I see as Wikipedia's social responsibility. If they don't share my opinion, that is their decision. JB 06:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradsha (talk • contribs) I'm aware of no "'policy' of allowing an incumbent to have a page but not competitor candidates." There's no such policy. WP's "underlying obligation" to society is certainly debatable, but not on this editor's talk page. This belongs on the appropriate talk page... Doc9871 (talk) 06:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Doc9871 is right. The fundamental problem here is that this is an encyclopaedia not MySpace; we have content policies and guidelines within which we work and unfortunately, as should be clear to you if you read it, Jessica does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements for politicians. If you disagree with the criteria of that requirement then the place to attempt to reach a consensus for change is at the talk page of the notability guideline, not here. Nancy talk 08:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Thank you Thank you for reverting the vandalism in my talk. Apologies for not getting here sooner...I have no excuse. Just lazy. --Defender of torch (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC) thanks Thanks for defending my user page from some disgruntled vandals. Keep fighting the good fight! Cheers, Kaisershatner (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Declining redirects Hi You seem to be removing speedy tags from articles which have been accidentally created with a trailing comma. I see no point to these articles - is there a reason why you are declining them? DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Any that I have declined have been 2+ years old & thus by anyone's definition not "recently created". Their usefulness is doubtful but it is a matter for WP:RFD not speedy deletion. Best, Nancy talk 18:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC) That's applying the criteria way too strictly. Unless you can see an actual purpose to these articles, which I can't, I would delete them anyway. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC) OK, here's a deal. I won't decline any more & you then can delete them if you want :) Best, Nancy talk 18:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC) You've got a deal. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Thank you. Speedy delete takes less time then RFD. I double checked every redirect for exceptions and I will take care within few days of any wikilink via bot. (FrescoBot 2) -- Basilicofresco (msg) 18:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC) I'm not sure why you are thanking me Basilicofresco. Please do not assume that I condone either the tagging or the deletions as I absolutely do not. I think both are wrong. I disagree that CSD R3 applies to these redirects & I was merely indicating that I was backing off from the declines - plenty of other work to keep me busy. Nancy talk 15:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC) And I am not backing off, see User talk:DJ Clayworth#Old comma redirects. DES (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC) I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Redirects with trailing commas. Please feel free to contribute. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Copyright material Good Evening, Lady I would like to inform you that the material I used to creat the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Association_of_Languages_and_Translation_(SAOLT) were totally authorized. I am a member of the association, and the information provided in the links: http://www.atida.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1165 http://www.saolt.net/en/index.php?pagess=services and http://www.imamu.edu.sa/sites/en/news/Pages/news_8-7-1430_3.aspx were actually provided by us to those website; they are second-hand sources of the information I already provided on the article. I truly admire your alertness and it is really praiseworthy, but I would like to know how to introduce this Association to the world if I cannot use the terms and phrases it uses to advertise itself. Our Association is completely non-profitable and is a member of ATA (ATA - American Translators Association), and we would love to be on Wikipedia. Please inform me with whatever I need to do so as to publish this article. Will it be ebough, for instance, if I sent you an email from info@saolt.net , the official website of the association to give the article credibility? Please reply ASAP. Yours, Eman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eman.A.H (talk • contribs) 18:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC) One simple way to grant permission to copy material already on line is to put that permission explicitly on the site where that material is posted. This is commonly known as a "copyleft" notice. This notice must state that your site (or portions of your site) are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts) or that it is in the public domain. For text, a good statement of release might read, "The text of this website (or page, if you are specifically releasing one section) is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)." If you would like to allow Wikipedia to use your content, but don't want to put a license statement on the site (note that you still must release it under those free licenses), you can contact permissions-en@wikimedia.org. See here for an example permissions granting email. For text, after sending the email, place {{OTRS pending}} on the article's discussion page. Someone will reply to your email, indicating whether the content and your license is acceptable and update the page to indicate that the confirmation of the license has been received. However, there are three things that you should consider first: Are you happy to release your copyright in such a manner? Is the released material actually suitable for use on Wikipedia? Does your organisation meet the general notability requirements for companies? With regard to the second I would suggest that the tone of the material is unencyclopaedic and would probably be removed as advertising. Further, a general rule of thumb is that you should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability - all edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. If the achievements, etc. of your company, are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about it sooner or later. Kind regards, Nancy talk 18:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Happy adminship anniversary! Happy Adminship from the Birthday Committee Wishing Nancy a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! -- Swarm(Talk) 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Threats and Swearing On My Talk Page Hi Nancy, would you mind looking into these threats and swearing here on my talk page. It maybe Ldnpunjab, but I could be wrong. Thanks --Sikh-History 15:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC) It is a BT IP address so it could well be our friend back again - the standard of written English is similar. Anyway, I have given him a last warning for personal attacks. If he does it again I will block him. Nancy talk 15:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks --Sikh-History 19:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Hmm I guess he does not like me as per his comment here. --Sikh-History 19:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Birkerød Sports College‎‎ Before you removed my speedy deletion tag on Birkerød Sports College‎‎ did you read my note on the Talk page pointing out that it isn't a "school" in the sense contemplated by the guidelines? I think it's reasonable to assume that that principle about schools isn't meant to apply to every sports camp, karate class, driver training school, and dog obedience school. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Yes I did read it & I also put the article text through google translate but I thought it was a bit borderline and best to err on the side of caution. I'm not particularly trigger happy with the block button and with speedies my general rule is "if in doubt, decline". No harm done I hope. All best, Nancy talk 17:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC) No problem, thanks for the explanation. By the way, I like the appearance of your talk page. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC) :) Nancy talk 19:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Beavis You gave me a warning for putting the word "fartknocker" into the page Beavis and reverted my edit. You should probably be more attentive next time because "fartknocker," along with "buttknocker" is one of Butt-heads nicknames for him and actually appears elsewhere in the article. 200.166.248.132 (talk) 12:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC) The word "fartknocker" does not appear anywhere in the article. It used to but was removed as the cite does not support its inclusion. Nancy talk 12:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Machiavelli and The Mayflower Nancy: I placed a box to say that I contested the position on my article and it is others who have come to take it off; I only acted to reinstate it. What others have doen to my article is far worse. The notability guideline may be clear, unfortunately I believe all of you are misrepresenting it, and I am shocked by the way I have been ganged up on.--Bgillesp (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC) bgillesp I forgot to add that the book does indeed meet guidelines 3 and 4.--Bgillesp (talk) 14:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC) bgillesp The {{hangon}} tag keeps being removed because that only applies if the article is up for speedy deletion as has been made clear in edit summaries and in notes to you from other editors. It is not up for speedy although ironically your placing of that tag on it actually causes to appear in the speedy deletion list which is not something that I think you want. The article is however the subject of a deletion discussion (as you know, you have contributed to it). The deletion discussion is the sole place where objections to or endorsements of the deletion should be placed, not on the article talk page, not on your talk page and certainly not on my talk page. Nancy talk 14:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Nancy: I was wondering this evening why this whole process makes me so cross, and I think it is the fault of the process: I am going to try to explain without going public, because what I have to say is hard, it's about the guidelines, and definitely not personal; if I address it to you it is because I think I detect a sense of fair play in what you have done. Here goes: from my perspective, I have opened a page in good faith on a public site I respect and that I used for years to build my work; it was not very Wikified, but it can be improved. In the Wiki community I am new to, I find a window, in itself disparaging, on my page that I have not put there; the page calls into my question my work, and people, who don't know it, state it has no value for Wiki; up to now a difference of opinion. The problem comes in when all of a sudden, not one, but five descend on my site within a day or two to say the same things; this looks like ganging up, and >I assume that none of these know aqnything about this work; so this becomes gang warfare: what is worse, however, is to force me to leave disparaging comment on my site under a written threat to exclude me from Wiki if I don't, and then to attempt to enforce the threat when I try to remove this mark of dishonour. This is where it's going to hurt: the only parallel I can see in a so called democratic society to forcing someone to accept such dishonour and to force him or her to wea&r it is when the Nazis forced the Jews to wear a yellow star.--Bgillesp (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)bgillesp