User talk:Anetode/archive 14: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
'''''No longer active.''''' |
'''''No longer active.''''' |
||
---- |
---- |
||
==Aset Ka content deletion== |
|||
(Deletion log); 00:37 . . Anetode (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:DarkMark.jpg" (Speedy deleted per (CSD G4), was a copy of material previously deleted per XfD. using TW)<br> |
|||
(Deletion log); 00:37 . . Anetode (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:AsetianBible.jpg" (Speedy deleted per (CSD G4), was a copy of material previously deleted per XfD. using TW)<br> |
|||
(Deletion log); 00:37 . . Anetode (Talk | contribs) deleted "Aset Ka" (Speedy deleted per (CSD G4), was a copy of material previously deleted per XfD. using TW) |
|||
<br><br> |
|||
Good evening, I am contacting you in the hopes to solve this situation. This article and images, uploaded by the user Hellensmith37, are not a copy of the old material that was deleted a year ago. The article was actually removed before due to an act of vandalism and not supporting with references by the original writer. But the new writer has made a quite better work, even including references to international published material, with real and active ISBN numbers, that can substantiate the whole article, who now complies to the Wikipedia rules. Please double check the old article and compare it to the new one and you will see how it cannot be claim to be a copy of previously deleted material. Also the 2 images were deleted, one of them a book cover, and both well uploaded under the guidelines and with the correct information on copyright and fair use. Both images were before never present on Wikipedia, and again substantiated as being a copy of previously deleted material. I have talked with other admins that agreed this is the case of a misunderstanding, due to the article being previously deleted because of lack of real confirmable sources, which is not the case this time, and asked me to talk directly with you so you can undo the 3 deletions. |
|||
As much as we might disagree with the contents, we can nevertheless deny its verifiability through published works. And in this case, there are several ones mentioned, even an international publication, that is readily available on Amazon and countless bookstores around the globe.<br> |
|||
I am sorry for all the trouble and I appreciate some help on this case to bring the article and images back in place. Thanks a lot for your time. -Gustavus |
|||
==Sarcasm Pt II== |
==Sarcasm Pt II== |
||
Revision as of 06:12, 15 May 2008
No longer active.
Aset Ka content deletion
(Deletion log); 00:37 . . Anetode (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:DarkMark.jpg" (Speedy deleted per (CSD G4), was a copy of material previously deleted per XfD. using TW)
(Deletion log); 00:37 . . Anetode (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:AsetianBible.jpg" (Speedy deleted per (CSD G4), was a copy of material previously deleted per XfD. using TW)
(Deletion log); 00:37 . . Anetode (Talk | contribs) deleted "Aset Ka" (Speedy deleted per (CSD G4), was a copy of material previously deleted per XfD. using TW)
Good evening, I am contacting you in the hopes to solve this situation. This article and images, uploaded by the user Hellensmith37, are not a copy of the old material that was deleted a year ago. The article was actually removed before due to an act of vandalism and not supporting with references by the original writer. But the new writer has made a quite better work, even including references to international published material, with real and active ISBN numbers, that can substantiate the whole article, who now complies to the Wikipedia rules. Please double check the old article and compare it to the new one and you will see how it cannot be claim to be a copy of previously deleted material. Also the 2 images were deleted, one of them a book cover, and both well uploaded under the guidelines and with the correct information on copyright and fair use. Both images were before never present on Wikipedia, and again substantiated as being a copy of previously deleted material. I have talked with other admins that agreed this is the case of a misunderstanding, due to the article being previously deleted because of lack of real confirmable sources, which is not the case this time, and asked me to talk directly with you so you can undo the 3 deletions.
As much as we might disagree with the contents, we can nevertheless deny its verifiability through published works. And in this case, there are several ones mentioned, even an international publication, that is readily available on Amazon and countless bookstores around the globe.
I am sorry for all the trouble and I appreciate some help on this case to bring the article and images back in place. Thanks a lot for your time. -Gustavus
Sarcasm Pt II
Obviously you didn't read the article very well, as evidenced by your comment "There are competing claims[1]" on the nomination page. The article didn't assert that it was the first gay bar in the world, in Europe, in the British Isles or in Ireland. It is notable as the first gay bar in Northern Ireland. That's hardly "none asserting notability", as you had put it. Had you actually read the article properly, I'm sure you might have noticed that. --90.206.36.142 (talk) 03:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)