User talk:Duffbeerforme

Addressed some of your concerns.

Hello mate, I have addressed many of your concerns of nobility on the Jordon Hodges page here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordon Hodges -- I agreed with your initial concerns, but I believe I have found many suitable references and points made. (I have actually found a gold mine of stuff I can add to Wikipedia in the near future relating to various film titles in the filmography) The original creator of the page just frankly, did a poor job. I am new to Wikipedia, so excuse me if not all of my language / code / format is perfect. Thank you Vorspire (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2013 (EST)

"Block-evading sock"

Hello, do you have any idea who this user is a sockpuppet of? Graham87 03:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Modelsplus. My description of them as a block evading sock was fundamentally flawed. Whilst original account is blocked it was just for their name. They have the right to continue. Would be best if they chose a new name but block evasion should not have been said and it does not really qualify as a sock. My poor recollection of circumstances at that time led to my bad edit summary. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I ended up blocking them anyway for general dickery. Perhaps not my finest moment, but I'm not really inclined to unblock without a suitable request from them. Graham87 08:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Another clarification, The edits I reverted where by 101.165.1.89, not by ROXETTE88. They appear unrelated to your block and unrelated to the disruption caused by ROXETTE88. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Argh, I should have checked the diffs more closely. But both editrs seem to have a bizarre fascination with categories, and they've both touched the same rather specialised article, so ... who knows? Graham87 14:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

My main concern, 101. and Modelsplus have an unfortunate tendency to add unsourced (and false (at least some times)) Glamour Model cats to BLPs. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

What about this Wikipedia article?

Hello,

I have noticed that you have shown considerable interest in having the Camille and Kennerly Kitt article deleted from Wikipedia. Since I must assume good faith on your part, I deduce that far from having something personal against the twins, you simply want Wikipedia to be what it is supposed to be. The irony is that the user who proposed the deletion of the Camille and Kennerly Kitt article seems to have created and contributed to an article that outrageously violates Wikipedia guidelines, called DocumentCloud. This article has NO third-party sources and it simply promotes a product. Notice that in that article, "DocumentCloud", "Investigative Reporters & Editors" (IRE), and "Knight Foundation" are completely connected. You will see that the six sources provided in the article quote either the founders of DocumentCloud (Eric Umansky, Scott Klein and Aron Pilhofer), or the Executive Director of IRE (Mark Horvit), or "the DocumentCloud team", without specifying a name. Two other sources come from the official website of the Knight Foundation, so that's not independent, obviously. Plus look at the dates on the sources. This article uses Wikipedia for promotional purposes and made no effort at all to provide independent third-party sources. I should be deleted according to Wikipedia:Third-party_sources. This article definitely does not belong in Wikipedia. You have more experience here, but I think you'll agree. Dontreader (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

That article does have issues but the Observer looks independent. I might look closer later. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. The Observer basically uses statements made by one of the creators of DocumentCloud (Aron Pilhofer) to claim how wonderful DocumentCloud will become in the future. Therefore, even if the independence of that source can be determined, the actual content of that article is not independent. Thanks again. Dontreader (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: RecycleBot

Hello Duffbeerforme. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of RecycleBot, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: not spammy enough for G11. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 12:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

John Christian Hopkins deletion

Hello, I noticed that you proposed my article on author, journalist and poet John Christian Hopkins be deleted. I have to respectfully disagree with you, as he is a very notable Native American writer. This was the second time my page has been attempted to be deleted for notability reasons, although it would be a disservice to Hopkins and his readership for that to be the case. I removed the proposed deletion, as this was a class project for my college American Indian Literature class. We have spent a very long time researching and constructing his page. I hope you understand.Othomas39 (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I've changed it to an afd to get more eyes on it. Go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Christian Hopkins if you want to argue against deletion. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello

You recently proposed the Wiki article on EDUBB for speedy deletion AND you edited the spelling of their name which is copyrighted and trademarked in all caps "EDUBB." Also, the only basis for your speedy deletion request was because a previous version of the page had been deleted. It is my understanding that if reliable secondary references can be provided to substantiate the notability of a person living or band, that will suffice as evidence that the article has a place on wikipedia. It appears you simply glanced at the article and did not conduct any due diligence of your own when recommending the article for deletion. This group has major media coverage, created and trademarked a new term in the English language which is evidenced by more than 1 million items returned via Google search as well as being linked to several wiki pages. I am trying to ensure I do not bring down the wiki brand but feel that you may have misjudged this particular article. Several other editors have viewed and contributed to the article with no recommendations for deletion. I would like to understand your reason if you don't mind...that way I can avoid creating sub-standard pages or violating any rules. I DID undo your change for the spelling of their name because as stated above, their name is Trademarked and Copyrighted and we have no right to change it to something else. RespectfullyTheurbanlink (talk) 08:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources is the key here. That was lacking. The previous public discusion on the merits of the band found the coverage lacking. Nothing of note was different in your new article. Those several editors may not have been aware of the previous history and the afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edubb. They may have also not looked cklosely at the content. Re the "spelling" which I didn't change, Wikipedia generaly should use standard English conventions for article titles for trademarks and not stick to companies prefered format. Standard English conventions are that the first letter is capitalised and the rest are lower. I only changed the article title and left all other instances in the article intact. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

BlackMask

Oh - still, I think AfD would be ideal as there is potential notability here and a debate would be worthwhile. GiantSnowman 09:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Dirty Socks

You might find this interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Vorspire

PeterWesco (talk) 05:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Watch very closely who comes out of the woodwork. It should be very interesting: [1]

"Sock Puppet?"

May I please know why my handle is on this list? I looked up what the term means, and that's not true in my case at all. Please elaborate? Thank you. SlowFatKid (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe you are a sockpuppet for AnotherGenericUser and it is fairly clear which IP editor you are. Between the IP, AnotherGenericUser, SlowFatKid, etc. edits it is fairly clear that you are the same person. Compare these edits: SlowFatKid and AnotherGenericUser PeterWesco (talk) 02:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

RE: Aedas

Hello, Duffbeerforme. You have new messages at Trevj's talk page.
Message added 13:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi, I see you removed all my addiitions to the Aedas page, and I'm curious as to why. They are *the* top architectural firm in the world, as I showed with my links. And their page mirrors this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohn_Pedersen_Fox. I added lists of notable buildings. I could understand if this were a start up company that has achieved nothing, but Aedas has been around for 10 years and, again, is at the top of their profession. Please reconsider and restore the page. The Librarian at Terminus (talk) 14:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You've added a bunch of unsourced minor awards, unsourced offices and unsourcesd "selected" projects. All just make it look like an advert. As do many of your other edits to other subjects. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Plastics extrusion

I noticed you removed a reference from Plastics extrusion, with the comment "rem selfpromotional stuff". The reference was to an article written by university professors and published in a professional journal, and ought to be a reliable source. The reference, along with statements it supports were apparently added by Batboys in this edit: [[2]]

Although you removed the reference, you left in the statements it supported.

I can't quite understand why the reference is self promotional. Is Batboys one of the authors? I did notice that the same reference was left in RepRap Project. Should that be removed also? It looks to me like the RepRap article contains a lot more junk (some of which you removed) that does not belong in Wikipedia.

I appreciate you reviewing and improving these articles. You probably know some things that I am not aware of. I would appreciate you sharing with me your experience and insight into these articles.

Thanks. Wikfr (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)