User:Pontificalibus/Archive/02

DVLA

mywheels and dvla. The site mywheels claim to charge for DVLA data but in fact they do not. MoneyMate (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Regardless the link doesn't really belong in the article. See WP:SPAM --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed site has changed MoneyMate (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Camelford

Camelford? I'd almost forgotten about that! It would be good to have a comprehensive survey summarising all the published documents. I doubt I'll have time, but I'll contribute if I can. Emrys2 (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Nathan J Lester

Hello Pontificalibus, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Nathan J Lester - a page you tagged - because: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 11:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I am familiar with the critera but I didn't believe the assertion of importance or significance was credible in this instance. A list of years for unspecified awards is not sufficient information to be credible. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Since you're familiar with the criteria you should know that if notability is asserted, it isn't worthy of speedy deletion. The deletion process for articles that assert notability is PROD (as I see you have done) or AFD. Please take another look at the CSD criteria, thanks! --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 12:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I believed an article needed to make "any credible claim of significance or importance". I don't think there was such a claim here. If there was could you point it out to me? Sorry if I come across as accusatory, but I genuinely can't see what the credible claim is here! --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure! Where it says "won numerous awards for his work", this statement is enough "assertion" to make you have to take the article deletion process to the next step, ie PROD. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 12:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Out of interest what counts as "credible". I note A7 "does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible". Are there guidelines as to what is credible or not? --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Altered Speedy Deletion rationale: Kellyville-Rouse Hill Bushrangers

Hello Pontificalibus, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have deleted a page you tagged (Kellyville-Rouse Hill Bushrangers) under a criterion different from the one your provided, which was inappropriate or incorrect. CSD criteria are narrow and specific to protect the encyclopedia, and the process is more effective if the correct deletion rationale is supplied. Consider reviewing the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks again! Coffee // have a cup // ark // 11:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this article was a clear case of db-club, it may have been G11 also, but often articles can fall under more than one category. However the critera I chose was not incorrect. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Virus

I assumed it was a web-related virus (per A&: Web content). Understood, thanks. -- fetchcomms☛ 23:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to User:Smithers7/Guestbook, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Bihco (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That's his vandalism page --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

A glass of grog for ye

A glass of whisky

Arr!! Talk like a pirate (talk) 10:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for participating in my RfA. I thank you for your kind inputs and I will be sincerely looking at the reasons that you opposed me so I can improve in those areas. Have a great day ! --Zink Dawg -- 00:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gracie and Zarkov

While examining the editorial actions of a sockpuppet I ran across a number of bad faith nominations. This was one of the deletions I overturned after finding a significant number of sources pointing to its notability. Please let me know if you are not comfortable with this action. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Good Call

On the Josh Milton article I was paring down to see if any of it could be saved. Looking aqt the refs apparently not. Good call. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It was the "he graduated in 2011" bit that initially rang my alarm bells. :-) --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

Hello, Pontificalibus/Archive! This is just a note thanking you for participating in my recent Request for Adminship, which passed with a total of 93 support !votes, 1 oppose and 3 editors remaining neutral. While frankly overwhelmed by the level of support, I humbly thank the community for the trust it has placed in me, and vow to use the tools judiciously and without malice. KV5 (Talk • Phils)

Daniel Mamora

Hi. I must disagree with your removal of the speedy tag from Daniel Mamora. The article (created by a user with the same name as the subject) states that the subject is a student at a K-12 school who has been a substitute announcer on The Price is Right and is a host at a major-market radio station. That alone defies logic. A little bit of investigation produces no evidence whatever that the latter two claims are true. Wikipedia's been punked. JTRH (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You had tagged the article as a blatant hoax. This applies only when no investigation is necessary (e.g. Daniel is head of the United Nations and King of England.) When I read it this was not the case - if I'd known what Loma Linda Academy was or what K-12 meant I might have thought differently I suppose. However I have now tagged it appropriately under critera A7, as there is no credible assertion of importance or significance. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! JTRH (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Terror law

A terror law is one that allows policemen to sneak up behind criminals and shout BOOO!.Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

lol! --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

slap me

OK bend over and i'll get the buttery asparagous.Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Emergency Aid Links on Haitian Earthquake Site

Then please replace it with something better, don't just leave it with nothing. Lives depend on it.

America is the closest developed nation to the disaster and should therefore be well represented. 69.171.160.147 (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.160.147 (talk)

Haitians in Miami

Hundreds gathered Wednesday night for a prayer service at Notre Dame d'Haiti Catholic Church in Miami. At the beginning of a Creole song of mourning, attendees were restrained. But emotions gradually erupted and by the end of the hymn people were wailing, some of them kneeling in tears with their hands in the air, or even rolling on the floor.

Father Reginald Jean-Mary reminded them that Haiti has historically suffered misfortune followed by worldwide apathy. But he said Haitians are the children of God as much as anyone, and they deserve common fairness.

"Worry bordering on despair" was paraphrased, and I think rather conservatively. Everyone is waiting for news. Miami's Little Haiti neighborhood is significantly affected by this. Do you have a way to express this other than the wording I added to the 2010 Haiti earthquake article? --Moni3 (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It is obvious that many people waiting for news will be worried, we don't need to tell people in the article. See Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Avoid_editorial_opinion. Also, the quote you give above is a group of people at a prayer service, not "Miami's Haitian population of 110,000" described in the article. I expect those 110,000 will be feeling a lot of different things, including happiness and indifference depending on what news they have. --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The focus of the article is a neighborhood with significant ties to the disaster. What you expect is not relevant. It is what is represented in the source. So, again, how would you--and read the source, please--convey the ideas in this article in one phrase? Work with me here. I'm saying that Miami's Little Haiti neighborhood is waiting for news is insufficient. While people waiting for news express worry I admit may seem obvious, there are 110,000 Haitians in Miami, and the source represents many of them as quite emotional. How would you represent this idea? I'm watching your page, so a talkback template is unnecessary. --Moni3 (talk) 14:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this but I just can't imagine any adjectives that could be added here so as to enhance the article.--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Another source. And another. The Miami Herald does not have these stories, I suppose, because they do not have specific stories about the Little Haiti neighborhood. They are, however, printing in Creole, which I have never seen before. --Moni3 (talk) 14:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't doubt the sources, I'm just concerned that our reporting of them must not make the article seem sensationalist or otherwise less encyclopedic. I don't think adding extra adjectives here will provide more information beyond what would already be evident to any reader of the article. --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I suppose we are diverging on what we consider accurate vs. sensationalist and what constitutes encyclopedic writing. I do not consider it sensationalist to summarize the sources to say that Miami's Little Haiti neighborhood is deeply affected by the earthquake worsened by the disruption in communications. I do not consider them extra adjectives either. Encyclopedic writing does not mean representing issues without any emotion at all, especially if sources specifically express the intensity of such emotion. Humans are clearly affected by this event; writing for an encyclopedia allows us to represent how they feel about it. Do you have suggestions about how to convey what these sources have written? --Moni3 (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I made this change. I do think we disagree somewhat as I found the main point from those 2 articles you have there is that many are "waiting in limbo" for news, which I think was originally conveyed quite adequately. --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think there is room to expand this when much more information comes out about the connections of friends and families between Miami and Haiti. I'll compromise on "anxiously" and welcome your assistance to expand this when more developments come to light. Thank you for working with me. --Moni3 (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, although it might be better in Response to the 2010 Haiti earthquake where there would be more room for writing about this, and keeping the section in the main article as more of a summary of that. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism on 2010 Haiti earthquake

Thanks for removing the stupid 'hitler dead' vandalism Pigeonshouse (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The page was under a co-ordinated attack but it's protected from anonymous edits now.--Pontificalibus (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Haiti help by National governments

Pontificalibus, you suggested that I:

"please cite a reliable source for the content you're adding".

Would you help me understand why the citations/footnotes are not adequate. The sources I cited (Newspapers, government agencies) do not appear to be unreliable?Swensink (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean this? The first paragraph about France had a reference. However this was followed by several paragraphs of detailed information that had no references. Do you have sources for these as well? --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see the page has been updated since I removed your unsourced content and someone has added a a tag asking for additional references. Give me some time to review the references that are now there and see if the tag can be removed.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks. Await your comments.Swensink (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems ok now, so I removed the references tag that another editor put there.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks, I appreciate your help as I am a little new to this.Swensink (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)