User talk:Peterl: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:57, 1 February 2008

Welcome!

Hello, Peterl, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Deletion review of 'Outlook Redemption'

Hi Peter. I've moved it into your userspace at User:Peterl/Outlook Redemption so that you can work on it. Let me know when once you've established notability, and we'll see about moving it back to mainspace. Thanks,--cj | talk 01:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CJ. How do I show the usefulness of it to those that aren't familiar with the product? Google provides a million hits (not all relevant!) - do I use that as a starting point? peterl 01:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Peter. It's not really about showing the product's usefulness; rather, you need to assert why it is significant or notable. The article still fails to do this, and still reads primarily as a promotion. To establish notability, you need to find a reliable published source which comments on its significance - it might state, by way of example, that Redemption is the most used software of its kind, or maybe that it has received multiple awards, or anything else along these lines. Thanks, --cj | talk 09:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article at least now contains a slight assertion of notability, which would save it from speedy deletion. However, it would still be deleted via normal means because you have not provided reliable sources; indeed, the source for the assertion of notability does not even work. You may wish to look at WP:CITE as well.

I can restore the article if you wish, but I would also have to list it as an article for deletion.--cj | talk 16:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vista software compat

Hi. Saw that you added the software compat info to the Windows Vista article. However, I have some serious reservations regarding that info in the article. Could you please take a look at them here. --soum (0_o) 09:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will check it out and reply peterl 10:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did. --soum (0_o) 11:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bible

In that article, is the expression "good faith" edit a redundancy? :) Wahkeenah 20:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aussies

Heh well its not really NPOV you know, well I assume your joking ;-) Ashkani 05:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay!!!! Ashkani 05:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to Windows Vista (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 22:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced tag

Hi, I just noticed you dropped an unsourced tag on Paddlewheel Park. I was adding the sources and mistakenly saved the page before doing so. Glad someone out there's paying close attention though. So, if it's okay with you, I'll just remove that tag or you can pop by again and check that I added the proper sources. Thanks.CindyBo 04:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Cindy. peterl 04:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Tag

Hi, Could you explain why you've marked some of the articles created by User:Sumibot for deletion? I've added appropriate references in the articles created. --(Sumanth|Talk) 09:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that these articles are not about any person(you've added db-bio). These are Indian location articles.--(Sumanth|Talk) 10:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I marked them because of non-notability. There's no notability information as to why these articles are notable. Wikipedia is not just a list of things; things need to be notable to be included. peterl 10:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I couldn't quickly find the right non-notable template tag. db-bio was the first one that I saw. peterl 10:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the articles created by this bot are at the sub-district level in India. These things have already been discussed at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Sumibot. Please do not hastily mark them for deletion. --(Sumanth|Talk) 10:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't know. Maybe have a link to that page. peterl 10:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please remove the tags? As per policy I cannot delete the tag as I am responsible for creation of these articles. Do you mean to say that we need to have a link to the discussion on article pages? I don't think that is required as the page itself cites the references. The bot user page also gives info about its tasks. I think that should suffice. The bot wouldn't be

approved without proper trial. --(Sumanth|Talk) 10:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined the speedy deletion. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Cities and shops, "Cities and villages are notable, regardless of size." A ecis^Brievenbus 11:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected: I was going to decline the speedy, but Khukri (talk · contribs) beat me to it. A ecis^Brievenbus 11:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bible Buffet

The AGVN's reviews are good enough to have a link on Wikipedia, this one is no exception. I'm going to go make dinner now, I'll add the link back later tonight. Duhman0009 23:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. See not-notable link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Angry_video_game_nerd) peterl 20:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CVU status

The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 17:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop of Raphoe

Hi, I removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on this article. The formatting's a bit of a mess, but I can't see what's particularly confusing about the article to the point that we don't know where it contextually fits in the grand scheme of encyclopedic knowledge. Johnleemk | Talk 17:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"brian d foy" is never capitalized

I undid your edit. You need to read closer before making changes like that. --Randal L. Schwartz 00:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reconsider the link to the sed cheat sheet

see the sed talk page, it uses copyrighted material without aknowledgement. consider the edit done by this user: See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/81.198.226.118 he was spamming on irc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.124.141.250 (talk) 11:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy hints

1. Any assertion of notability prevents a speedy A7--if you think the notability is inadequate, use PROD or AfD. 2. Only the types of things listed in WP:CSD can be speedied. Films and other fiction are not among them. Reason is, they take moret than one or two people to judge fairly. DGG (talk) 11:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Chill

I am adding the website right now for notabillity. What do you mean it sounds like a hoax? Any tips to improve it? I just found it on the requested articale list so I made it.--Natasha (talk) 03:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok I will try to reword some sentences Natasha (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 12:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cells in spreadsheet article

Because cells can have numerous meanings including jails and biological cells, it should have quotes around the word in my opinion.

@@ Line 87: / Line 87: @@
 What do you mean it sounds like a hoax? Any tips to improve it? I just found it on the requested articale list so I made it.--[[User:Wompa99|Natasha]] ([[User talk:Wompa99|talk]]) 03:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    Ok I will try to reword some sentences [[User:Wompa99|Natasha]] ([[User talk:Wompa99|talk]])  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|comment]] was added at 12:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+== Cells in spreadsheet article ==
+Because cells can have numerous meanings including jails and biological cells, it should have quotes around the word in my opinion.