User talk:Kuyabribri

Please click here to leave me a new message.

UK Airport Lounges

Thank you for the advice, I will read the help me sections before re-submitting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirley286 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Quick note

Hey Kuyabribri, and thanks for your work on Wikipedia. I had a quick question for you... at this diff you left a template admonishing someone for refactoring on ANI. I think the sentiment is right. However, I wonder if you've read Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars? I only ask because I know there are some people who get really offended by templates, and when an editor has many months in and more than 500 edits, I'd hate to lose them over something silly. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 08:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Although I have never read that specific essay, I am aware of the sentiment it expresses and I do try not to leave template warnings for experienced/established editors. I admit that I don't usually check the contribution history of an editor I have never come across to determine whether he/she is an established editor before making the decision to leave a template warning, but I do factor in the circumstances. When I left that warning, there was a rapid succession of posts at ANI and the manner in which Golden Sugarplum removed another user's text, specifically, the removal of the last portion of one user's comment but leaving that same user's signature ([1]) led me to believe this was a bad-faith removal. Additionally, I noticed a large number of template warnings on the talk page already (though they related mostly to notifications for deletion and orphaned images). Though I did not say it on the ANI thread, I did accept his explanation that the removal was accidental. I will try to be more careful about this in the future. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Francis Boulle

I removed your speedy deletion tag from this article, as it contains an assertion of notability (i.e. the starring role in the TV show) and therefore is not eligible for speedy. Please be more careful next time. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This is what the article looked like when I tagged it. Hardly a claim to notability there. The claim to notability was added after I tagged it ([2]) and the speedy tag was re-added twice by SDPatrolBot. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You tagged it four minutes after it was created. When you tag something that early, you have a responsibility to take a moment to check and make sure that it isn't a stub on a genuinely notable subject that's being created by an inexperienced editor. As per WP:CSD, "Before nominating a page for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere, reverted to a better previous revision, or handled in some other way." The edit you tagged for deletion was the first-ever edit by the page's creator, User:Wondot9, and taking ten seconds to check Google News for "Francis Boulle" would have turned up this article on Boulle and his show from The Daily Mail, along with several others. Because you were lazy and slipshod, you inadvertently bit a new editor making a constructive addition to the encyclopedia. As such, please try to be more careful in the future. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Point taken. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The Amazing Race article reformat opinion

What would you say if we changed the way we display airport names on all of the TAR pages? That is, instead of using the full name, we can just use the IATA codes, so instead of having [[Los Angeles International Airport]] we'd use [[Los Angeles International Airport|LAX]] and the like. I also don't know where I should propose this change to a larger audience.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not too fond of this idea. From a purely stylistic standpoint, I don't like the idea of placing abbreviations (or IATA codes) on an article without placing their expansion first. I might see this making sense if we needed to say "Los Angeles International Airport" multiple times in the same paragraph or section, but we typically don't do that in TAR articles.

As to your second question regarding getting a larger audience, I don't see a WikiProject that is applicable here, so I would say that since the season 18 page is the one most likely to be on people's watchlists, post your proposal there, and then on other seasons' talk pages post a message pointing to the discussion on the season 18 talk page. Hope that helps. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Notability not inherited

Hi, I'm writing to you regarding your removal of the speedy deletion template by stating that notability was asserted due to being the descendent of someone notable here: [[3]] Just wanted to draw your attention to the policy about notability not being inherited: WP:NOTINHERITED. I see no other notability claims in that article at this time. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

And I've removed the tag again. CV that is an essay, and as it stands there is enough in the article to make it pass csd#a7, if you believe the article should be deleted, you should take it to afd. Also when a user who is not the creator removes a csd tag you should not restore it--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I was in the process of typing up a response but Jac said pretty much what I wanted to say. Claiming inherited notability is enough to get past A7. CV, I was actually in the process of doing my WP:BEFORE due diligence to open an AfD when you replaced the CSD tag. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha. The AfD is open. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Pell Grant C+P

It was a copy+paste. I somehow ran across it and decided it was better than what was already there. I didn't spend a great deal of time investigating, so maybe it wasn't! Fleetham (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Need some help

Hello Kuyabribri,

I suppose because I'm quite new here and every person here has his own talk page I'm a little bit lost. Since I have no idea how to contact the administrator NawlinWiki who actually deleted my article about InVision Software I'm writing to you to ask for some advice. I changed the text of the article and started it anew at Special:Mypage/InVision Software. Could you possibly help me by reviewing the text or recommend someone who could do this instead? I read all the necessary guidelines, but I can see that I'm just far away from contributing a good article. The only references I can provide are the company's website and some online published articles of the same... Please answer if possible! Thanks a lot! 4ernoMore (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I have gone over your userspace draft as well as my reasons for nominating the last iteration of InVision Software for speedy deletion, and have come to the conclusion that if I were to see this article in the article space, I would nominate it for deletion under the same criteria of no indication of importance and blatant advertising or promotion. Following are my concerns with the article:

• Most of the article reads as a press release and it is littered with flowery filler terms. For example, the first three sentences of the article are basically just a fancy way of saying "InVision Software is a workforce management company based in Germany." Additionally, this article uses the words "portfolio" and "solution(s)", which are two major pet peeves of mine, in places where a word like "product" or no word at all would suffice.
• It is important to note that "advertising" and "promotion" do not necessarily mean an attempt to sell something, but they also include statements that only serve to publicize someone or something. One way to look at this is how might a person like me, who is neither an affiliate of the company nor a client/customer, describe what this company does? Judging from a quick overview of the company website, I would say it provides software to employers to assist with workforce management.
• Even if this article were completely rewritten from an encyclopedic, neutral point of view, it must meet notability criteria in order to be included on Wikipedia. These guidelines, while by no means perfect, have been developed and refined by the community, in part because Wikipedia is not about everything. In a nutshell, the company must be the subject of coverage in multiple, reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Company press releases, websites, Facebook/LinkedIn profiles, etc., are not sufficient to qualify under this criteria. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for the guidelines that apply to this specific article.

From the looks of things right now, it looks like this article is not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Of course, you are welcome to prove me wrong by rewriting the article from a neutral point of view and providing evidence of coverage in reliable sources as I explained above. You are also welcome to see Wikipedia:Alternative outlets for a list of sites using wiki technology that might be willing to host your content as is. I hope that helps. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for taking the time and helping me understand how the article can be improved. Now I get your point! I will look through the files you recommended. Once again your feedback is much appreciated. 4ernoMore (talk) 11:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Who's Who

Why is Who's Who unreliable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flying Fische (talk • contribs) 20:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

If your question is about Who's Who (UK) being reliable/unreliable, I think you are better suited asking your question at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If this is about a paid Who's Who, those are vanity publications that, from what I understand, have little to no fact checking, and persons with entries can have whatever they want put in there, regardless of whether or not it is true, as long as they pay a fee. I suspect your question is about the former, so please ask your question there. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Florence Peake

In view of the fact that deletion of Florence Peake has turned out to be more controversial than I expected, (as shown at User talk:JamesBWatson#Florence Peake and A7) I have restored the article and reopened the AfD. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me. I will respond on your talk page momentarily, to keep the full discussion in one place. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

AfD of Transformice

Thank you for helping clean up my mess. [4] Is it in order now? Active Banana (^bananaphone 14:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine now. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

/* Contested proposed deletion: Efax */

Hello, thank you for your attention to our request regarding the eFax disambiguation page. I have offered a response to your comments on the talk page and would appreciate your review, and reply. Thanks for your attention to this. j2globalwiki ed — Preceding unsigned comment added by J2globalwiki ed (talk • contribs) 17:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LiveChat (3rd nomination)

Hello KuyaBriBri, thank you for the comment under the article I edited. I wanted to improve it and did the research to provide the references from more reliable sources. I encountered some articles and included several of them (i.e. from PC Magazine and InternetRetailer.com) in another edit. Should I also remove the links to pages where this software can be downloaded? Klim3k 18:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I recommend removing the links to pages where the software can be downloaded. They don't serve any encyclopedic purpose and can be interpreted as advertising. A link to the company's official website for this product (if one exists) under a separate "External links" section is acceptable. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• As you advised, I have just removed the references to download pages of the software and add-ons pages. How does that look now? Klim3k 21:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Comm100 copy

Hello! I'd deleted this after it had been tagged for a speedy. Here's the author's last version. Please let me know if I can do anything else for you. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Removed article copy after review. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I weighed in on the SPI. Looks like a clear case of WP:DUCK to me. Good catch. PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

New User. You nominated "jennifer teeter" for deletion

I am brand new at this, and I was unaware of everything that went into making a new article. I believe it has been taken for speedy deletion, though I am not entirely sure. I am very confused about the way things work, and how I am supposed to rectify that there is indeed notoriety. I am simply trying to make it "correct" and have it un-deleted. Is it possible you could help me with this? I have read all the policies on contesting deletions and such, but it all just sounds like jumbled words. I joined specifically to make her a page because she has yet to have one added. And when I joined I wasn't even aware there was a whole hierarchy of people deciding things were not good enough to be on wikipedia. I don't need to understand every in and out of it, I just would like to know how to make it fit the criteria so it can be put back up again and what steps I need to take to do that.

Thank you. Marli — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marlipaige (talk • contribs) 02:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

First off, I didn't nominate the article for deletion. Another user nominated it for deletion. Actually, two users did. And an administrator (a third uninvolved user) decided that the article qualified for deletion under the deletion policy, and actually performed the deletion. I became involved after these three events took place, mostly as a "cleanup" activity, and I don't even know what the article was about.

Wikipedia is not about everything. In order for an article to remain, it must be demonstrated that the subject has been the subject of coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Blogs, Facebook/MySpace/Twitter/LinkedIn profiles, YouTube channels, and official websites do not in and of themselves qualify as coverage in reliable sources. Examples of reliable coverage include articles about the person in newspapers, magazines, or other publications that have established fact-checking. The full policy regarding notability criteria for people can be found at WP:BIO.

There are some people that just plain don't meet notability criteria, and no amount of "correcting" or "making it fit" will make them meet notability criteria. I'm not saying this is necessarily true regarding this article (again, I never saw the article), but it's possible. If that's the case, you might want to see WP:OUTLET for a list of websites using wiki technology that may be willing to host your content.

I also want to clear up what appears to be a misconception on your part. There is no "hierarchy of people" that decides what articles get deleted. Anyone, including you, is welcome to express an opinion in a deletion discussion. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 04:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Indented line Thank you again for your speedy response. I appreciate your willingness to help me. I submitted a good number of links that I think will suffice as notoriety, but if not, I guess I will just have to try again or wait until there are more links on the web to prove it.

Thanks again Marlipaige (talk) 04:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Marlipaige

Proposed deletion of Judge Harry Pregerson Interchange

The article Judge Harry Pregerson Interchange has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I've never heard this name; this doesn't seem like a notable interchange. Almost every freeway to freeway interchange is named in CA; doesn't mean that they're all notable.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rschen7754 06:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Judge Harry Pregerson Interchange for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Judge Harry Pregerson Interchange is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judge Harry Pregerson Interchange until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Rschen7754 21:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Steele (2nd nomination)

Again, I'm probably wrong on form and placement but I'm not sure how people get to see these things so hopefully my learning curve will improve. My question has to do with if there's anything else that you recommend that I, as the proponent for deletion, should do regarding this re-nomination for deletion of the Dennis Steele article? Much thanks for your help. --TR05401 (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The guideline for appropriate notification of interested editors is at Wikipedia:Canvassing. As for anything else you can do, you are welcome to civilly and politely respond to anyone who disagrees with your opinion at the AfD discussion page in an effort to persuade them to change their opinion. If you choose to do so, be aware that there is a line between being civil and being obnoxious or obsessive. You definitely don't want to come off that way, because it can cause uninvolved editors who might otherwise be neutral to not want to help you. Hope that helps. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 04:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, such advice is much appreciated. I'd seen the mention of noticing/advising an affected individual of a discussion for deletion underway and sent it along to DS at his website contact page since apparently he's blocked from his DennisRFV username talk.

I hadn't really intended to pursue discussion unless there arose a misunderstanding of fact or if a relevant item that I was aware of might help to clarify. For instance, and as an example only, when Steele was arrested at a Democratic Party function (I'm not a registered Dem) here and claimed a First Amendment infringement as a defense, it isn't generally known that he and an associate improperly obtained press credentials (they lied according to the associate's admission at an available web forum) to gain access to the function that they weren't otherwise able to gain admittance to. The disruption he caused was one of a series of stunts that he engaged in as a form of politicking in lieu of a substantive campaign.

It isn't entirely clear to me (may have missed it) if I should also neutrally notice previous contributors to the earlier deletion discussion. I'm not sure how this gets circulated so I don't want someone to take offense that might be inadvertently left out of a redo of a deletion discussion they'd previously participated in. --TR05401 (talk) 05:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no requirement to notify previous contributors to either the first deletion discussion or to the article itself; however, it is not discouraged either. If you do so, you should notify all contributors, with the exception of bot accounts or editors who did not contribute substantive content to the article (i.e., don't notify editors whose sole contributions to the article were to wikify, correct grammar/punctuation, add categories or maintenance tags, etc.). A neutrally worded notice can be placed by pasting the following on the user's talk page: {{subst:AfD-notice|Dennis Steele|Dennis Steele (2nd nomination)}} ~~~~. You can preview the wording of that notice here. Notifying the article subject off-wiki was probably not a wise move, especially since the subject has edited the article, as it has opened the possibility for people to come to Wikipedia for the sole purpose of defending the article. I'm not sure how likely this is to happen in this case, but it does happen often. If Steele does contribute to the discussion, the closing administrator will take into account his conflict of interest, which means that unless he can demonstrate a clear understanding of Wikipedia policy, his statements will carry less weight.

I do have some further advice/criticism: Since this subject is a biography of a living person, you really ought to provide some reliable source evidence of the claims you make regarding this person. Simply stating "I know it to be true" or citing firsthand experience is not sufficient; this is considered original research. Even though these claims are not part of the article itself, it seems you are attempting to either dispute the reliability of the sources provided in the article, or frame them in a different context. This information can be considered libelous if it's not backed up with a reliable source citation.

In my opinion, the matter at hand here is not how significant this person's failed campaign was, but whether or not he meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for inclusion. In short, these state that a person is suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia if he/she has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. In general, passing mentions in the context of something else do not constitute significant coverage. Politicians can bypass these criteria if they meet specific criteria for politicians, but I don't believe Steele meets them (others may disagree).

Please click on the blue links in my comments for help understanding Wikipedia's policies on the terms I've used. And if you have further questions, please let me know. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but I only just saw this. As you can see I'm still getting up to speed on the various nuances of policy vs. guidelines regarding politicians who may also claim notability via bio. It was my intention to make certain that a good faith attempt to advise the subject of this discussion so that a later complaint of having been deleted w/o some form of notice wouldn't occur. I'll follow your other recommendation regarding earlier participants since this isn't about stirring up some hornets' nest.

My familiarity with libel is solely as a legal matter and am comfortable w/my statements about a person in their role as a public figure.

I'll look over the material you've suggested but other than having moved the issue forward there's probably little more that I should contribute. I'm sure that the system here is more than capable of arriving at a proper conclusion w/o my repeated responses.

Again, your insights are appreciated. --TR05401 (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal of image

Hello, I see you put a speedy deletion on an Best Western logo I uploaded as there was already one on here.

Just wondering if you'd be able to direct me to the link?

Thanks Wagg4 (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

See File:Best Western logo.svg. You could have easily found this yourself by going to the Best Western article and clicking on the BW logo. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I did, but it came up as a 20X20 pixel image. But that link works thanks Wagg4 (talk) 20:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...

..for closing that "small" tag. This is not my day - first I forget to press "Save page" to put the AfD template on the article, then in apologising for that I screw up the AfD log... Better go back to bed! JohnCD (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hal Trosky or pro-baseball players prior to 1965

He wasn't drafted, Trosky was an amateur free agent signing. Prior to 1965 there was no major league baseball draft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Baseball_Draft

Just letting you know.- William 10:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Ian Edmondson

I saved the article on Ian Edmondson and added to it for you.82.18.199.36 (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for Speedy Deletion recommendation

Hi,

Not sure what happened, must have been a typo. I found that I created two pages (one with a capitalization issue) when I was trying to just do one entry! Anyway, I totally agree about deleting the page that was duplicated in error. (I wonder how I did that!)

Best,

Sidhevair — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidhevair (talk • contribs) 22:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

... for this. I'm already floundering around after only being away for a little while. Best, Airplaneman ✈ 23:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Big Splash Trust

I don't understand (a) why you marked this entry for speedy deletion after it was amended and (b) why you didn't respond to my comment before doing so. I'd find it genuinely helpful if you could explain, please.Bcjtbst (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I was offline for a while and had no idea you had commented on the talk page, let alone had time to respond. I don't remember the specifics of the article, but the reason it was deleted was "unambiguous advertising or promotion", which means that the article was written in an overly promotional tone to the point that there was no encyclopedic content worth saving.

In order for an article to remain on Wikipedia, it must at the minimum: 1) contain reliable sources that verify its content; 2) be written from a neutral point of view; and 3) meet certain notability criteria.

If you would like the deleted article in draft form for you to work on, I can request that the administrator who deleted the article create what is called a "userspace draft" where you can work on the article in a location where it is subject to considerably less scrutiny from the community. I should caution you, however, that if you are somehow affiliated with the organization you seek to contribute an article about, you are strongly discouraged (but not expressly forbidden) from creating or editing such articles because of conflict of interest, which hinders users' ability to write anything from neutral point of view.

For a further explanation of any of the terms I've used, please click on the blue links above. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Pobreng Alindahaw

Re. A9 of Pobreng Alindahaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views),

As this is about some kind of ethnic folk-song, not a contemporary musical recording, it's debatable whether A9 applies. I think, perhaps, a PROD would be better - I suggest changing it from a CSD to a PROD. What do you think?  Chzz  ►  14:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I was on the fence about that too, but went with CSD mainly because of the author's numerous warnings on copyvios (which I have reported at AIV; this article originally had the lyrics in it but I removed them as there was no indication that they are public domain). I do think that if we disregard all of the author's issues, prod is a better way to go with this one. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep; I understand.

I've boldly done this - I see a new user, not getting the idea about refs, and all the speedy-warns are unlikely to help; I wanted to emphasize the key point. Hope you don't mind that action. I'll check back on the user, of course; if they keep doing it, it'll be a competence issue.  Chzz  ►  15:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I've recreated the article; I found a few refs - enough for a stub, I think. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  16:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Council on International Law and Politics

You have marked this entry for speedy deletion pursuant to Section 11 of the policies, essentially b/c of "self-promotion". If you would care to visit the website of the CILP, you would be able to see that this is an NGO incorporated as a not-for-profit charity and it pursues a number of pro bono activities of benefit to developing countries and large numbers of stakeholders in many parts of the world. None of the persons involved, including myself, have any profit seeking motives. The entry for Wikipedia was created to inform a wider international audience about the beneficial activities of this genuine charity, not to gain personal, let alone financial benefit. I do not see what would be contrary to Wikipedia's mission in this entry. Frank Emmert (talk) 14:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

"Promotion" means that an article seeks to tell how good or great something is, or to "spread the word" about it, and applies to non-profit/community/charitable organizations and individual persons just as much as it does to for-profit businesses. All Wikipedia articles must be written from neutral point of view, which is one of the core content policies. Your disclosed involvement with the organization means you have a conflict of interest, and per policy editors (myself included) are strongly discouraged from creating or editing articles on such subjects, mainly because most people in that situation have difficulty maintaining neutral point of view.

Please do not interpret anything I have said here to mean that the cause that this organization undertakes is not noble or admirable, as it certainly is. See this essay for some advice on creating articles on these types of organizations. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Orenduff (2nd nomination)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Orenduff (2nd nomination). You were involved in the previous AfD and are are invited participate in the current one. —Bagumba (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Template:Z48

Article's whose AFD you commented in back at AFD a month later

Since you commented in the AFD for this article last month, I thought you might want to know its back at AFD again this month. [5] Dream Focus 03:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Removing BLP prod tags

Sorry, I wasn't aware that this was possible. I'll keep it in mind in the future :) Rymatz (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011

Hi Kuyabribri. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for Seonggwang High School, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers and review the criteria for speedy deletion. Particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion, proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. There was no G11 advertising in this article. To be sure that you are applying our most recent policy changes, please take a moment to read these updated pages:

• WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#N - CSD exceptions for schools
• WP:NPP - where you will learn about the other NPP tasks
• WP:DEL - deletion policy
• WP:CSD - speedy deletion

It's a lot to read but it will help towards our current drive to improve page patrolling. Happy editing! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Kuyabribri. Please advise as to how a new discussion can be opened with regards to this page. Many thanks. ivyleague100