User talk:Kuyabribri

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Deletion of Easy Comext

Dear, You have just deleted my article on "Easy Comext" because of the copyright. I am professionnal who's working on this project. The aim on my article is to find be more visible, it's not a promotion article. I'm the owner of the text who has been re-copied. Is it a problem if I copy myself ? How can I proove that I'm the legal owner of this text ? If I modify the sentences but keep the idea, can you confirm me that my article won't be deleted ? thanks for your help, Vialepa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vialepa (talk • contribs) 09:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Your first comment indicates that you did not read the notice in the blue box before saving your message. Please read the fifth bullet in that box. I will, however, address the rest of your comments.

Wikipedia is not here to make things "more visible"; it covers what has already been covered in reliable, secondary sources. If you own the copyright to the copied text, you can license it to Wikipedia; however, I have found that the overwhelming majority of the time such text is not written in an encyclopedic manner and is not appropriate for Wikipedia anyways. Although I don't have access to the deleted text, I do remember that the text of this article was not appropriate for Wikipedia.

I will not "confirm" that an article won't be deleted. All articles must meet the criteria of verifiability, notability, and neutral point of view. Also, since you work for the topic of the article, the policy on conflict of interest strongly discourages you from writing or editing an article on this subject. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Your moving of U.S. cathedral articles

Hi,

Sure, I'm open to reverting them. I realized after I moved St. James that I probably shouldn't have. As for St. John Berchman, I realize there aren't any other Berchman, but I was hoping to help differentiate it from the five other St. John cathedrals. Goldnpuppy (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not overly insistent one way or the other on the (city, state) versus (city) disambiguation for those three articles, though I personally prefer the (city) disambiguation. I have found since I left that message for you that there is some disagreement and inconsistency on how to apply the AP Stylebook guideline. The inconsistency seems to arise from the fact that the naming convention specifically applies the AP Stylebook guideline only to the articles on those cities, not using those cities' names in disambiguation. And I'll leave it up to you on the St. John Berchmans cathedral; I only insist that "Shreveport" be spelled correctly. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Zuvvu page

Zuvvu page is not unambiguously promotional, because we have renamed our company from Twtbuck to Zuvvu and working on two new Technologies 1. Social Media page rank and 2. Social Media User Activity score. Moreover, we are getting over 10,000 plus daily searches and wikipedia is great way to let people learn about zuvvu and keep adding to it. Media has covered us especially for our unique offering which can be found in highly reliable reference and sources. Because we have introduced new technologies, we can't simply put redirect on our previous page. If you want us to remove anything from present draft, would remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuvvu (talk • contribs) 16:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Biosolar deletion

Why was it deleted, specifically? Or what could I do to avoid it being deleted? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierredemaere (talk • contribs) 19:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The article was written as if to promote the company. All articles must meet the guidelines of notability, verifiability, and neutral point-of-view. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

About Biosolar

You state that it failed on multiple count: notability, verifiability, and neutral point-of-view.

So, Biosolar is not a notable company? What do I need to do? Provide you with 1,2, 3000 links to websites that can attest that this company exists? So, how many do I need?

I wasn't neutral? Please, substantiate your claim by providing evidence. I am not a journalist major, but I can use passive voice if you like. This is my first article.

I would also appreciate a warning when articles are deleted. WE, contributors, put a lot of hard work to make WIKIPEDIA work. We work for free. It seems that there are rules for not deleting material on wikipedia, why is it that you can just delete it without warning people. Fortunately, because I had a feeling that this wasn't as easy as I thought it should, I copied the work I did. However, if the practice of deleting is going to continue, let me advise that some of your smart people find a way to resolve this conflict.

Thanks. (Notice the polite tone of THIS message!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierredemaere (talk • contribs) 20:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I will address your comments in order:

I only made a blanket statement regarding the policies that all articles must adhere to. The article Biosolar was deleted on the grounds that it was written entirely in promotional, PR language and would have required a complete rewrite in order to be appropriate for an encyclopedia. This is an extension of the neutral point-of-view policy.

I never said this is not a notable company. If you look at my user page, I plainly state in the "Policies" section that I don't like calling something "non-notable", as many Wikipedia editors I come across like to. But all articles must meet the threshold of notability as outlined in the notability guidelines, and their meeting of these criteria must be referenced to reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Bear in mind that there are some subjects that don't meet the criteria, and no amount of editing will make them meet the criteria. This is, again, a generic statement that may or may not apply to this company.

I am not an administrator and don't have access to the text of the deleted article. But I do remember that as I said before, the article was mostly written in PR language. I am not a journalism major either, which is irrelevant because I have encountered people from all sorts of professions who write great articles, and by the same token I have encountered people from all sorts of professions who write terrible articles.

You received two warnings that this article was nominated for deletion - one from me, and one from another user. Those warnings both explicitly stated that it was nominated for speedy deletion. The criteria for speedy deletion are very narrow and may only be used in those circumstances where submitting the article for a full community discussion on deletion would be waste of time because it would be a foregone conclusion that the discussion would result in deletion. Note that since I am not an administrator I only nominated the article for deletion; an administrator had to review the article and agree that it met the speedy deletion criteria before actually deleting the article. Also note that this happened again two hours after I initially saw the article, which means that four editors, two of whom are administrators, agreed that the article meets those narrow criteria for speedy deletion. The full policy for deleting articles is at Wikipedia:Deletion policy.

If you like, you can create a draft to work on in your user space. These are subject to considerably less community scrutiny (but not zero scrutiny) and you can work on it there and ask for comments before posting it to the article space. For instructions on how to do this, see Help:Userspace draft. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 23:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Need help with the two pages created

Hi,

I am sorry if I broke rules. I thought I could list the items published by the authors. If not, Can I just delete their bibliography and leave the biography intact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevorbauer (talk • contribs) 20:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The biography you speak of was written in flowery, promotional tone. I requested deletion of these articles because of the flowery, promotional tone, not because of the bibliographies. I recommend you create a draft in your userspace before publishing these articles to the article space again. Pages in the user space are subject to considerably less scrutiny (but not zero scrutiny) and you can request feedback from other users. For instructions on how to do this, see Help:Userspace draft. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eureka Mall

The original deletion rationale no longer applies, but I still think the place fails WP:GNG. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I have retracted my !vote accordingly. Thanks for the heads up. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 05:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Delcan page

Hi,

you nominated my article on the Delcan for deletion due to G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion guidelines (and it was deleted). Can you please tell me what areas of the article need to be rewritten in order to comply with this guideline? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delcan

Thank you, YaniraKat (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Good thing you caught me before the article was deleted. Most people ask me such questions after the article is deleted.

Wikipedia is not a replacement for the company's website. The entire "Markets and Services" and "Locations" sections would need to go. The "History" and "Projects" sections need to be condensed into paragraphs, not laundry lists. Most importantly, you need to provide references that are independent of the company. All references on the article are to the company's website. Given what I've read on the article and in the links provided, this company may meet the notability criteria for inclusion, but you need to provide reliable, secondary sources to verify the content and to establish that the subject meets the notability requirements. As it stands this article requires a complete rewrite to become encyclopedic. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Sarraino theory

Tagging COI does not really appear necessary, as the article is original research anyway. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 22:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I nominated this article at AfD a few hours ago. The COI tag may be overkill, but it is not unjustified. Note the similarity between the article creator's username (Peelthetruth (talk · contribs)) and the YouTube username of the uploader of this video. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Unintended editing

Hi, the page that was created and deleted was created by my 10 year old daughter. Just discovered this now. My apologies for that. عمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for the heads up. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 23:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Harry Snodgrass page - text from another site that was originally on Wikipedia is now a copyright violation?

The text that was entered in this article has made the article marked for deletion. The original source of the text was a wikipedia listing that was originally written by me and removed by mistake when someone highjacked an old account I had. This text then populated many websites which have kept the text online. Now my article has been marked for deletion stating it is a copyright violation. This is incorrect. How do I remedy this? I edited the page to avoid the text but still include all the facts that are accurate - hopefully that helps.