==Deletion review for [[:Murder of Somer Thompson]]==
==Deletion review for [[:Murder of Somer Thompson]]==
An editor has asked for a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review#Murder of Somer Thompson|deletion review]] of [[:Murder of Somer Thompson]]. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. <!-- This originally was from the template {{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~ --> <tt>[[User:Decltype|decltype]]</tt> ([[User talk:Decltype|talk]]) 06:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review#Murder of Somer Thompson|deletion review]] of [[:Murder of Somer Thompson]]. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. <!-- This originally was from the template {{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~ --> <tt>[[User:Decltype|decltype]]</tt> ([[User talk:Decltype|talk]]) 06:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
== Removal of DYK hooks ==
Thank you for helping at DYK. I understand you are as administrator; however, it is customary to place a hook that is rejected back into the Talk template to resolve any issues that were brought up. The hook from Prep 2 had two other alt hook suggestions. Are you declining both these articles as ineligible? Thanks in advance [[User:Calmer Waters|<span style="color:black">'''''Calmer'''''</span>]] [[User talk:Calmer Waters|<span style="color:Blue">'''''Waters'''''</span>]] 14:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Revision as of 14:45, 5 November 2009
IMPORTANT NOTE: ADD YOUR MESSAGES AT THE BOTTOM, NOT THE TOP. OTHERWISE I MIGHT NOT SEE THEM.
Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.
If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.
You do wonderful work, and although we've never met face to face there are many people at Wikipedia who care very much about you. All the best, Durova30823:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
God... I'm really sorry about this. Words cannot express how much sympathy and condolences I have for you and your family. I just wish there was more I could do to help you out in your troubled times. (X! · talk) · @047 · 00:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't words. I don't have a way to say it. I wish I knew you a bit better. When you look, you'll find us all here... wishing we had some way to do more to help and support you in your heartbreak. FT2(Talk | email)00:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my gosh... I'm so sorry for what happened... Loosing a loved one is not easy in any way. You will be in my prayers as well. I just feel so bad about this. I'll take care of the NewPages backlog for you while you're gone man, so you don't worry about it. My deepest sympathies go out to you.
I'm not going to pretend I know how you're feeling, but I was on the verge of tears just reading your userpage. I'm so very sorry for your loss. — neuro(talk)22:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I only found out about this terrible situation recently, but please let me add my sincere condolences to those above. A terrible situation and my deepest sympathy both to you and your families. Manning (talk) 02:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I only just now stumbled upon your userpage, but, I'm very sorry for your loss. Losing one you love is a very tough thing to go through. :( -- Aeru Amo (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taking it from someone who has epilepsy in the family
I feel really really bad. My mother has epilepsy pretty bad and I feel really sorry that your fiancee had to go so soon. I know how hard it is to lose people you love so much. I've lost two grandfathers on the same side of the family in 14 years. This sucks for you man. Listen, a good Wikibreak would help, get things solved personally, and decide what's better for you. Always look at the road ahead when the time comes. Coming from someone who's been through it. Good luck man.Mitch32(Want help?See here!)23:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh man, i'm so, so sorry.
Dragonfly, I just got told what happened. I can't believe I was only talking with you about this the other night on IRC. I am devastated that someone I know and respect is going through the pain which you are. I would like to extend my deepest sympathy to you on the loss of the most precious thing in your life; it hurts, i've been there before.
I want you to know that I, and many many other Wikipedians will be here for you if you need to talk, get things off your chest, whatever.
Stay strong, and take as long as you need, my friend. We'll be waiting.
I don't even know why I'm writing this. I used to be Purplefeltangel on here, many years ago, and I'm sure you don't remember me but I remember you. All I can say is I'm sorry. I'm not normally one to do things like this but I wanted to reach out to you. There are no words, but my thoughts are with you. --✶♏ݣ01:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Take your time coming back
First off, I'd like to say how deeply sorry about your loss. I also think that nobody expects you to come back right away from this. Take your time coming back; your top priority should be you and taking care of yourself. We got plenty of people who are able to pick up where you left off. For instance, I can start bigtime on that NewPages backlog so all your effort doesn't go to waste. I'd pick up on other stuff, but I would need admin tools for that (and even though sometimes I ponder adminship, I don't think I'd get it or do that good of a job myself with them).
More interesting, though, would be a little competition to try to create the smallest article that would pass FA review. I think for this purpose the title should be excluded from its length. This is not entirely silly idea, if thrown to the pedants who lurk in WP namespace.
I did manage to shorten it (to "Is it?") but beyond, say, a single character (e.g. an up arrow pointing at the title) it does become pretty pointless. I hope you took AGF as I do do some heavy and, I hope, valuable work on WP in all kinds of domains and I just wanted a bit of harmless light relief.
I never "added" things about him being in the games Hearts of Iron II and III. That was added before me. I simply felt that removing it due to "whoever added this is a fucking child" and "fuck off you child" were not very good reasons. Upon thinking about it, however, I agree that it is a bad idea to have it in the article. --Mrdie (talk) 21:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain this deletion
Hello. We posted a Wikipedia article for a non-profit organization called "Lone Star Holidays, Inc" and it was up for a month. Then suddenly today it was deleted. I am curious as to why this happened. We used the Texas Articles of Incorporation, postings on other sites, and the Company Bylaws are references. Thank you for any answer you can provide.
I don't know what happened, but it seems from your Talk page that you recently lost someone. Very sorry to hear that.
I do not have too much information about him. He is very known in Polish community as a founder of the first Polish parishes in New England since 1887. The information about him is from the publication issued by the St. Joseph Parishe in Webster, MA. It was the first parish founded by Fr. Chalupka.
If you need more information you can get them from the pastor of St. Joseph parish in Webster.--WlaKom (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I need not convince you. If you accept a thousands of athletes and musicians who are known to a small group of people, and briefly, but the person who in the nineteenth century led to the construction of many churches in New England is for you not notable, can be regarded as discrimination. So please revert your deletion of this article.--WlaKom (talk) 21:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me offer an outside opinion here. The main thing that we look for in articles is sources to document the person in question. It may be that there are additional sources to document Chałupka; would they be easy to find? If someone provides good sources on a topic, that is essentially a free pass to creating the article. But we generally do not accept new biographical articles if no sources are apparent.
By the way, to demonstrate my ignorance about the topic, let me ask about the content of the article. Were there really no Catholic parishes at all in New England until the 1880s? That seems surprising to me, given the length of time that the area had been settled up to then. I must be misunderstanding something. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article creator was a bit careless: he established the first Polish parish in the area. I tend to agree that sources about this person are rather scarce, for wikipedia inclusion criteria. I was looking for "resurrecting" the page, but failed to find enough info. - Altenmann >t23:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This type of discussion is, without question. You expressing an opinion about the article which has not seen. Further discussions in this way is treated as religious discrimination.--WlaKom (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did look at the deleted article text, which is what led to my question. I assure you there is no religious aspect here; we attempt to apply the same standards to all biographies, religious or not. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
we attempt to apply the same standards to all biographies, religious or not.
See my third line.
To answer:
Were there really no Catholic parishes at all in New England until the 1880s?
I recommend to read more about Polish immigrants in New England. You will find some of them on Google. Right now I am working on one of them.--WlaKom (talk) 23:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Altenmann clarified that what the article meant is that Chałupka founded the first Polish parish in New England. While this was certainly important for Polish Catholics in New England, it is not the same sort of feat as founding the first parish at all in an area. I recommend that you continue working on the article in private, find some additional reliable sources on Chałupka, and then resubmit the article. If you run into any questions about what sort of sources are considered reliable, please feel free to ask me at User talk:CBM. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
find some additional reliable sources on Chałupka
Did you read the sources listed in the article? Did you find this sources not reliable? If yes, what is wrong in the sources?
So, are you going to recover this article, or not?--WlaKom (talk) 00:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only source listed on the article is "The 150'th Anniversary of Polish-American Pastoral Ministry, Webster, Massachusetts (September, 11, 2005)", which I assume refers to an article in the Polish-American Journal. I have not managed to find a copy of this (my library does not seem to subscribe to this newspaper). Could you quote from it to show exactly what it says about Chalupka? Based on the title, it appears that the article is not primarily about Chalupka.
What I am trying to say is that, in order to decisively establish that Franciszek Chalupka himself has been the subject of reliable sources, the article needs to identify some sources that are directly about him. I attempted to find such sources but did not succeed; I tried both various web searches and the Lexis-Nexis database. Is there a published biography about Chalupka that I did not manage to find? — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My fiancée died last month. I do not want to have any more arguments on my talk page
It is not the right answer I expecting from you. You are the one who remove my article. So, the last time I ask you. Are you going to revert that article?--WlaKom (talk) 07:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this edit is that it restored previous vandalism, with these sections as obvious problems:
Hayes's pirate past - dubious claims about Hayes contributions to South Park and the Simpsons.
Pre 1983 Hayes - neither Phil Lynott, Bono, Van Morrison nor Daniel O'Donnell were ever in a band called Napoleons' Wig and the paragraphs about legal dispute with the Hitler estate looks like something that might be found at Uncyclopedia.
The 2fm show - some sections of this were vandalised, such as the name of the Mariah Carey single, the section about Jim Jims' behaviour every second Tuesday, the name of the U2 single and radios being distributed to prisons and psychiatric hospitals.
My apology I thought your edit was adding the detail about the song charting - it's been a long day already - was chasing a reference for that. Dan arndt (talk) 04:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use rationale for File:Five Men Named Osama.JPG
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Five Men Named Osama.JPG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just chased around trying to understand this same issue, relating to your deletion of Talk:Judiciary of England and Wales, with that cryptic explanation of 'test'. Noting your positive response to Pdfpdf, please do give a clearer explanation for this sort of (much appreciated) admin job. thanks. Ranmore (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for your fiancee coma
I was wondering why you deleted/moved my two files! Did I miss a warning?
You have explained both cases clearly, but you may not judge an unfinished article
The catalan gunpowder it appears in the 120 volumes ESPASA Enciclopedia (WIKI pretends to substitute paper Enciclopediae!!)
I did not enter the reference but I will
The Catalan celestina, Dr. Garcia Valdecasas (Dr. n law & Dean of Bologna University) has proven the author was fron Aragon
for the rest the books that backup the theory are referred and available in libraries
I think I have corrected all the issues...
They were unfinished... But on the other hand...
Do you think anyone can consider being my own work, the fact of publishing works from other people already published in encyclopediae or research books 5, 30 or 80 years ago? (80 years ago I wasn't even born)
The only thing I shouldn't do is to draw my own conclusions, but this is not the case, for I just publish assertions from other people's works already published in other books or encyclopediae
I've copied the references from worldcat.org
Catalan gunpowder
1. ^ Enciclopedia Universal Ilustrada Europeo Americana., Madrid 1934-96- VOL.46 - Page 122- ISBN 8423945006
2. ^ NASA CONFERENCE PUBLICATION #2014, VOL.1, Page 73 - R. Cargill Hall - OCLC Number: 5354560
3. ^ a b La historia del muy alto e invencible Rey Don Iayme de Aragon, primero deste nombre llamado el Conquistador - Bernardino Gómez Miedes - Valencia (viuda de Pedro de Huete, 1584)
4. ^ NASA CONFERENCE PUBLICATION #2014, VOL.1, Page 78 - R. Cargill Hall - OCLC Number: 5354560
5. ^ NASA:The Use of Rockets as Military Weapons at the Siege of Kai Fung Foo in 1232 A.D
6. ^ H.S.T.I.: A Gap in the history of gunpowder and cannon
Catalan Celestina
? La agudeza y arte de ingenio. Oraculo manual y arte de prudencia. El comulgatorio de varias meditaciones de la sagrada comunion. - Baltasar Gracián - Amberes - Verdussen, 1669.
? Joannis Lodovici Vivis Valentini de disciplinis libri XX. : Excvdebat Antverpiae Michael Hillenivs in Rapo, 1531; [T.I] de corruptis artibus liber primus [ -septimus]. [T. II] de tradendis disciplina sev de institvtione Christiana liber primvs. [T. III] De prima philosophia siue de intimo naturae opificio liber primus [ -octavus]( Juan Luis Vives : Amberes : Michael Hillenius, 1531)
? Juan Luis Vives Obras completas : primera translación castellana íntegra y directa : Juan Luis Vives - Lorenzo Riber : Madrid : M. Aguilar, 1947. OCLC: 234096159
Hello, in February 2008 i created a scientific page about Fluorescent Solar Collectors a new type of solar panels.
The article being too scientific was not published. But you proposed to move it to a userspace so i could consult and edit it. I did not have the time sine 2008 to do it but now i would like to carry on the work on it .
Could you re-install this article so i can work on it - I have also several colaborators for several industry which want to help me. Can you re-instate the article in a way that other can work on it too.
I would be willing to restore the article and move it into your userspace so you can consult it, if you want. DS (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello DragonflySixtyseven: Thanks for the edits to the draft article I'm working on about Wikipedia administrators. You definitely understand better than I do about Wikipedia's administrators. The clarifications are very insightful and a much better reading of the source-- although in some parts of your edits I think you went way beyond the source and included an insider's understanding. Nonetheless, I appreciate it and this article is giving me a better understanding as to what Wikipedia's administrators are all about. Varks Spira (talk) 23:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for William of Enckenvoirt
On September 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William of Enckenvoirt, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
W/re the gallery in the "distant relations" section of Family of Barack Obama, each relationship cited a WP:RS. However, the reason I'm pinging your talkpage is actually not to debate this issue privately (I already know what you would argue in this regard, after all) but instead to question your coming to the article and deleting only part of this type of charting. Why did you not remove the chart illustrating the relationship between Obama and Queen Elizabeth II? Since a substantial portion of the population of the US could have a similar chart drawn, why do you believe this chart in this instance passes muster?
Ps - If you could await the result of the discussion here --> Talk:Family of Barack Obama#Gallery of distant relationships and chart of Obama's relationship to the House of Windsor -- before removing the chart (or both charts, for that matter), I'd really appreciate it. Thanks! :^)↜Just M E here , now00:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I see now you had deleted both. My bad. (I'd nevertheless still appreciate it if you could hold off a while until the discussion of the charts on the talkpage commences, though.)↜Just M E here , now00:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DS, I have answered your question at my RFA, but am really curious to know what motivated you to raise it in the first place ? Abecedare (talk) 22:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC) Not really important. Maybe 6 months down the line, we can discuss the nuances of privacy vs accountability. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 00:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just read about your loss on your userpage, and although this may not mean much coming from just another anon user on the web, you have my condolences. I had a somewhat close relative in his mid-50s die a few weeks back after a sudden illness, and that affected me enough to know that I cannot really imagine being in your shoes. Best wishes. Abecedare (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I posted the story "A tale of Danith Horn" on here a little while ago, and It says It was deleted for "Improper use of bookpedia" While I have no problem with the deletion, I would like to know specificly why it was deleted (So future submissions won't be wrong) and also if you could send send me the page (The text bassicly) to danith_horn@hotmail.com? I would like to save it to my hardrive. Thank you very much for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazuick (talk • contribs) 15:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep getting it wrong
I have submitted my bio twice on Wik but it keeps getting deleted. I am a well known author, editor and owner of my own publishing company. Everything can be verified very easily. Please check into this Thanks fo much
Janet K. Brennan
aka jbstillwater
jbstillwater.com
Editor in Chief, Casa de Snapdragon Publishing, LLC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbstillwater (talk • contribs) 21:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, DragonflySixtyseven. You have new messages at Drmies's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Ah, hadn't thought about sorting like that. Yesterday while at the back end of the queue I found two deleted pages that were still listed. I had also seen someone else complain about an admin deleting pages but forgetting to mark them as patrolled first but the admin wasn't working from new pages. There still needs to be a better system to see which pages have been marked as patrolled other than through new pages. Enter CambridgeBayWeather,waits for audience applause,not a sausage14:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK having just done a quick check they do now vanish from the list. It just dawned on me which talk pages you were talking about. I didn't get to those from the new pages but from another editors contributions. They had tagged several pages for deletion but hadn't checked to see if there was a good version to go back to so I checked their other taggings. Enter CambridgeBayWeather,waits for audience applause,not a sausage14:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a copy of my book which is sellling at Barnes and Noble _ I am just furious
I am very upset about the fact that one of your "editors" deleted me because he said that my work has been "self published." IT IS NOT. Casa de Snapdragon is a mainstreem, tradtional publishing company that operates the same way that all of the major houses do. Spartz has said that my books are only sold on Amazon. They are not! They are also sold in Barnes and Noble and Hastings and all of the major book stores around the world.
My book, "A Dance in the Woods" which tells of the healing time after the death of my daughter while living in a small village in Italy is a true story and has been critically acclaimaed by Santosh Kumar, who also mentnions my name in his own Wik article.
I have written for years for major magazines and have been featured in Chicken Soup for the Soul twice. If you visit my own web-site at www.jbstillwater.com, you will learn much about me and my work. Also, try visiting my publisher at www.casadesnapdragon.com. I can tell you that he is not happy being labeled as a self publisher. Casa has just submitted a book to the Pulitizer Committee and is about to publish another Pulitizer nominee, Charles Ades Fishman for his book on the holocaust, "The Death Mazurka".
If you still refuse to produce my article, then by all means, please delete it off google. It is embarrassing to say the least and could truly hurt my 40 year career in writing.
Below is the cut and paste from Barnes and Noble. I can show you many more of the book stores but that is your job to find. And I can tell you that it is all verifiable. Just google me at Janet K. Brennan
Harriet Murphy
by Janet K. Brennan, John Newlin (Photographer)
BUY IT NEW$15.95 Online price$14.35 Member price Join NowAdd To List uiAction=GetAllLists&page=List&pageType=list&ean=9780979307560&productCode=BK&maxCount=100&threshold=3 GET FREE SHIPPING ON ORDERS OF $25 OR MORE
Learn about Fast & Free Delivery
DELIVERY & GIFT DETAILS:
Usually ships within 24 hours
Delivery Time and Shipping Rates
Eligible for gift wrap & gift message.
BUY IT USED4 copies from $11.47
See All Available
(Paperback)
Reader Rating: (3 ratings)
Detailed Rating:
"Book Clubs" See All
Read customer reviewsWrite a ReviewPub. Date: January 2009
280pp
More Formats Online Price
Hardcover $25.95
Buy it Used: 4 copies from $11.47 See All Available Product Details
Pub. Date: January 2009
Publisher: Casa de Snapdragon Publishing Company
Format: Paperback, 280pp
ISBN-13: 9780979307560
ISBN: 0979307562
Synopsis
Come in, enjoy a cup of coffee, and sit a spell with Harriet Murphy as she regales you with her tales of family, life, and love in the early 1900's in the former gold mining town of Old Pine near Lake Tahoe in Northern California. This is a period in U.S. history of great mechanical and cultural inventions as well as a time for women attempting to gain their well deserved right to vote.
Her tales revolve around a woman living alone in the hills of the Sierra Nevada with her horse, Pager, and a myriad of other wonderful and colorful characters. Her humble abode is the log cabin that her father built for her family soon after he came across the country in the great gold rush of 1849. Although he never struck it rich in the mines, he found it a unique, yet ideal, place to live and care for his wife and daughter, Henrietta.
Customer Reviews
Reader Rating: Ratings: 3Reviews: 3
See All Reviews
Harriet "Dang" Murphy is a sight to behold, a GREAT read
by PeggieLee
Reader Rating:
See Detailed Ratings
February 22, 2009: Boy oh boy...Oprah should get this one.. I could not wait to turn the pages to read what
happens next. This book is pure joy filled with laughter, adventure, tears, shock, awe and even a few mysterious spirits of the Tahoe. I loved the time period ( turn of the centry) and each character woven into the stories have their unique "self" that Janet Brennan carries throughout consistently.
Each of the chapters holds a unique story that is somewhat resolved at the end, yet, the stories are all interconnected and flow wonderfully. Janet K. Brennan PLEEEEEZE don't make me wait too long for a sequel...Peggie Devan
Review for Harriet Murphy; a Little Bit of Something - CarrieAnn Thunell
by louie10
Reader Rating:
See Detailed Ratings
January 30, 2009: How truly wonderful to find such down-to-earth stories about a woman of great strength of character! A feminist for her time, this gal weathaers many storms of indifference and judgmentalism as she goes about the business of surviving as she sees best fit. It is with some relief that I have finally found a story teller who can spin a tale that warms the heart father than degrades it as so many of the modern writers do! It is much better to have one's spirit lifted, and perhaps even enlightened, rather thn dragged through the mud of depravity that fat woo many authors find necessary.
CarrieAnn Thunell - Editor in Chief, Nisqualey Delta Review
Pardon me for butting in: does not the publisher's website say that Janet K. Brennan is the editor-in-chief, here? And is it therefore not a bit strange to say, "I can tell you that he [the publisher] is not happy being labeled as a self publisher," when that "publisher" is either Arthur Brennan or Janet K. Brennan? Drmies (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Janet K. Brennan's wikipedia page was wrongly removed and the statements made by the voting members are, at the very least, slanderous. Casa de Snapdragon is NOT a self publishing company. We are an independent publishing company and we currently have 7 authors (5 more coming under contract this year) who would be extremely upset at the suggestion that they are self-published. Before branding companies or individuals with that label, you might want to investigate your own wikipedia articles which define self publishing and independent publishers. If your "definition" of self publishing was applied to any other company, the Chicken Soup books, for example, would have been branded as self published as the editor and the owner of the publishing company are one and the same. And there are many authors in the same boat. Casa de Snapdragon's books, if you had taken the time to look, are in the Ingram distribution database and are available at various booksellers worldwide and Amazon happens to be only one. One of the places you can verify Casa de Snapdragon's distribution reach is by going to http://www.bookfinder.com and put Casa de Snapdragon in the search box or even Janet K. Brennan. I assure you that more than Amazon will appear either way.
Arthur Brennan
Managing Editor
Casa de Snapdragon Publishing
These are the facts:
Yes, you are right, I do co-own CDS Publishing, but we are not a self-publisher. As in the case of Alice Seebold (The Lovely Bones) when her husband published her book. And as is the case for so many publications including Chicken Soup for the Soul. Here is the difference, a self publisher can only get their books into Amazon at best. Barnes and Noble will not touch them and they can never go into major distribution companies like Ingram or Taylor. The obvious reason being they can not guarentee supply. That is the single biggest difference between self publishing and mainstream publishing, such as Casa de Snapdragon. One of our authors was previously nominated for a Pulitizer Prize for his amazing work in "Death Mazurka" He would not be too happy to think that people are saying that CDS is a self publisher. We also have several other wonderful and talented authors (visit the site) who are not related to us in any way and hail from all corner of the earth. Labeling them as self published authors would be highly insulting and unwarranted to them, as well.
I will tell you that what really angered me was that when I checked to see the reason why they deleted my bio was that "I was a mere self published author who only sells her books on Amazon." My books are in every major bookstore around the world. See the link below. CDS is not my only publisher. I have been published by Rodale Books, Chicken Soup for the Soul, Cyberwit, HOrse and Tiger Press, and many others as I have been a writer all of my life!!!
Hi DragonflySixtyseven.
There is a page in wikipedia called Jacob Sheskin.
He is known mainly by his last name - Prof. Sheskin.
That's why there is a disambiguation.
I would like to put the disambiguation back.
(By the way, I don't know you, but I hope you will know no more sorrow.)
Elad189 (talk) 12:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so happy to see a fellow editor adding WebCite backup to articles in WikiProject Comics. Thank you for that, and I'll endeavor to step up my own efforts in that regard! --Tenebrae (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
you deleted my san antonio park article but the reason why is unclear. The park does in fact exist and the page listed the address. It might have appeared false because my wikipedia editing skills are fairly novice, however I can assure you the park does exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jefron123 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm.... i do not understand why you went into my name space and moved an article I was working on into main space... I was not done with the opening, or all the research since many of the sculptures later on have conflicting information, and was hoping to get it into DYK. Now it will not be able to go into DYK becasue I do not have time to flush out the opening and few other sections I wanted to create. Please ask the writer of the article before you move something like this again.
--Found5dollar (talk) 01:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is me, I just want to know why being friendly with people was so bad. It wasn't like I was terrorizing to hack all of wikipedia, I said punch punch I attacked you and that I don't like Coldplay and reccomended bands. I may have been obcene but you were cussing when you threatened to kick me out. Like I care I am just bored and wikipedia was there. lol Me and my GF had a good laugh over this whole thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMagicMan666 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alberto Martinez
Please get off your high horse and reinstate the Alpo (Alberto Martinez) article. I just watched a fascinating documentary on the man's rise and fall. When I went to learn a little more about his life via wikipedia, I was beyond disappointed to see that 1) you deleted his page, and 2) you did it because you have a problem with the way the sources were listed. Who cares about what you think--people are better off having defective information than no information at all. No one in their right mind treats wikipedia as a 100 percent accurate source of information. Most of us are casual users who like to learn something in general about a subject that just popped into their head. So when you delete an article like Alpo's, you turn a valuble resource like wikipedia into your own personal forum to criticize, complain and exercise some phantom control. I went through your page and read that your S.O passed away and I empathize with you. But I also noticed that you have spent way, way too much time in front of a computer nitpicking, deleting and amending articles. If you're not careful, you're going to see that life has passed you by. But that isn't my business, nor is it any of my concern. What is my concern is how you took it upon yourself to act as some sort of information manager and delete an article I wanted to read this afternoon--the one about Alberto "Alpo" Martinez. You are very, very selfish for doing that. Please take steps in the future to refrain from deleting articles you really don't have much of a cause about. I could understand your desire to delete the page if, say, you are related to Mr. Martinez and have a desire to set the facts straight on the man's life. But judging by the prolific nature of your "deletes," you seem to be a person who spends far too much time in front of the computer.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.43.167 (talk • contribs)
You misunderstand. The point is that, in articles about people who are still alive and can potentially become upset and/or litigious, we cannot say negative stuff without providing very detailed sources. This is one of Wikipedia's core policies, and it exists both to protect people who are the subjects of our articles, and to protect us. Simply saying "page d3 of the newspaper" is not enough, since it doesn't say anything about what newspaper or when; for all I know, it could have been made up. Perhaps we should have an article about Alberto "Alpo" Martinez. But we shouldn't have had that article about him. DS (talk) 23:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Erkman27
Hi there. I'm going to have to agree with Alberto and say you are quite proud of yourself and you use this pride to assert yourself as some sort of Wiki god. You spout Wiki guidelines to shelter yourself from the bs you pull because you believe yourself to be in the right. This time you've messed with the wrong user. You deleted an article on Hack Movies on Oct. 24. I suggest you reinstate it. There are many guidelines and laws governing Wiki and throughout the land to protect people from nasty things but those laws generally stand for themselves in the long run and not necessarily what is right. I myself stand for justice and know quite a bit about the internet including being able to shift things around on other people's systems. I'm tired of playing nice with jackholes like you. I had more than plenty qualifying info on that page on it took me over three hours to create it. I suggest once and only once that you return it. You are free to report me of course but I will take action against those persons as well. You had no right to delete that article and you have to learn to be fair and just to people and not to take advantage of them just because you can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erkman27 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Erkman27, I've been asked to come in and take a look at the article that was deleted. Basically, the problem with it was that there was no way anyone else reading it could verify that it was true. To help with that, we use reliable sources (things like magazine articles, certain websites) that are independent of the company itself in order to prove that what the article states is correct. If not, anyone could write anything about anything, and you'd have no way of working out what's right and what's baloney. We also ask that stuff is notable - it means that it's featured in enough sources to be seen as significant. Generally, this means that things like forums, blogposts and stuff aren't helpful. The guys over in the Film wikiproject can probably help you out in finding if there's stuff out there that can help you. Stuff that's got a cult following usually gets picked up on, so you might luck out. Also, deletion isn't forever - we can restore the article to a sandbox - a space in your user area - for you to work on until it meets these criteria. Deletion isn't forever, we can get things back if you want to work on them.
Also, a touch of advice. There's a couple of golden rules here. One is called not making personal attacks. If you do it, you get blocked. Do it enough times, and you get blocked indefinately. If you have an issue, talk to us and we'll usually help you out if we can, or point you in the right direction. We don't make the rules - they're made by the people who use this place and we're just left to enforce them. Think of it less like a cop and more like the janitor from Scrubs and you get the idea. Anyhow, shout if you want a copy of your article, and look up those guys on the Film wikiproject if you need extra help. Laters, Gazimoff21:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you User:Gazimoff. I apologize for being stern but this user is one of many who believe they can take advantage of people not only here on this site but many others. They must learn that they cannot just do things like that and expect not to answer the consequences for those actions. All that would have been needed is contact me through the site to say "I noticed the page you posted might not have all the info it needs to qualify. Please add more information." Instead, it was completely removed without warning. This sort of action will not fly, regardless of what authority or power the person believes themselves to hold. Regarding the page itself, as I previously stated, there was more than enough qualifying information included to verify the production company as notable. I can site pages and pages of pages that should be deleted as according to your opinion of what is notable but the truth is it is notable beyond that as I have already proven with the links and references I provided. I thank you for the suggestion of Film WikiProject. I will check that out. And yes, I would like a copy of my article. How would you get that to me? Meanwhile, I ask that you and others really look at the qualifying info included, make cross references, and do REAL research to see the associations and importance of the info provided. I ask that you put a constant eye on user DragonflySixtyseven and please do real research and make sure that others have done that real research before jumping on the bandwagon of users who simply use ignorance as their shield to be a holes. My article is completely legit, qualifying, and notable. You just have to be diligent in your research as I have done. Erkman27 17:01, 27 October 2009 (CTC)
Alright, I've recreated the article and put it in a sandbox that you can find at User:Erkman27/Hack Movies. You can work on it there, get some sourcing together and so on. I'll do what I can, but I'm no film guru - the guys over at the film wikiproject know their stuff though so they should be able to help out. In the end though it's down to you - you know this firm, you know what they do, what makes sense. Use that to find the good stuff - the mag articles, the film reviews and so on. Point to these and the film wikiproject should be able to help you out with checking them over and putting them in. Seriously though, don't sweat it about Dragonfly67. We get tons of articles added every day. Some are adverts for stuff, some are just spam, some are just random and some are really obscure. We don't have a huge amount of time to check each of them out all the time, so most of them just get deleted. It's never seen as a big issue because if it's anything someone wants to work on and improve, we can bring it back if they ask. It's like I said about the janitor thing - crap appears every day and we're left to scrub it down and clean it out. Sometimes something someone wants gets cleaned out with it. The difference is though that you don't have to wade through a load of crap to find it and bring it back. Best of luck with it, and I'll keep an eye out for how you get on. Any time you need help, just drop by my talkpage. Gazimoff22:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DragonflySixtyseven, I was wondering if you would look through my contribs and possibly tell me if there are any areas that I need to improve on before becoming an admin? Corruptcopper (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the page because it said "you are so cool" over and over again, and that's it. Feel free to create a valid talk page. DS (talk) 10:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem - I was looking for a discussion from some time ago and thought it might have been there. Seems not.(although I am indeed extremely cool!) pablohablo.11:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thnx fer the tip
Hi, DragonflySixtyseven … My OCD compelled me to stick an {{Unsigned2}} on File talk:Touched by His Noodly Appendage.jpg after another anon created it, even though it was a nonsense edit … I never thought to do a {{Db-test}}, but upon reflection I agree that deleting it was a Good Call, and I'll try to remember to do that the next time I see the same kind of activity. :-)
Why did you delete the article? I added multiple reliable sources with significant coverage to it. Also, iPhone applications can't be speedied. Joe Chill (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DragonflySixtyseven!
Despite the fact that I endorsed the PROD (which was later contested), quite a few established editors contributed to the article, and I do not think it should be deleted without discussion. Would you consider reversing the deletion and listing the article at AfD? Regards, decltype (talk) 00:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Now, since the PROD was contested, clearly there's disagreement as to whether the article falls under WP:NOT..or not. In such cases I believe it is for the community to decide whether the subject is appropriate for inclusion. I am therefore listing the article at DRV. Regards, decltype (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for helping at DYK. I understand you are as administrator; however, it is customary to place a hook that is rejected back into the Talk template to resolve any issues that were brought up. The hook from Prep 2 had two other alt hook suggestions. Are you declining both these articles as ineligible? Thanks in advance CalmerWaters14:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Your submission of William of Enckenvoirt at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! cmadler (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
