User talk:Teb728

/Archive

---

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Any interest in adminship?

I've seen you around a lot at WP:MCQ and some at WP:HELP. You clearly know what you're doing, and a glance through your talk page archive shows that you have a record being calm, rational, and friendly to new users. As far as I can tell, you've never either stood for adminship or declined to do so after being asked, so I'll become the first: any interest in being nominated? Steve Smith (talk) 09:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring you, but I have been unusually busy last few days. I am drafting a reply on my PC and hope to post it soon. —teb728 t c 08:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hate to be a pest, but how's that reply coming along? No hurry from my end, just wanted to remind you that the offer stands, if you're interested. Steve Smith (talk) 05:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm still planning to reply. I've been on a l o n g wikibreak for the past year+ -- partly due to a flakey computer and partly due to other projects. —teb728 t c 23:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Lonelydarksky

teb728, can you discuss with Lonelydarksky of your thought on moving pages of Startling by Each Step (novel) and Xuanyuan Jian: The Scar in the Sky, since he's the one who asked to me of doing so? I don't want to start an edit war.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 06:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I already posted at Talk:Bu Bu Jing Xin (novel); talk pages are the place for article discussions. I don't know about the other article. —teb728 t c 06:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The other article is the same reason, thought the translated title not official so wanted me to put the the pinyin transliteration of the Chinese title.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 07:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

LINCOLN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, 1938 - 1955

Thank you for your help in preparing the page: Lincoln University School of Law, 1938 - 1955. I want to ask you for another favor. I did the research for this article, so obviously, I want to be accurate. Therein, I stated that this law school was the only one to have been created as the result of a lawsuit. That statement is not correct. One other law school, Southern University School of Law in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, was also created and established as a result of a lawsuit. The source for the information about Southern is the Wikipedia article on Southern University School of Law.

An interesting point is, however, that both Lincoln and Southern were established as traditionally Black law schools that were set up by the respective state legislatures in response to lawsuits filed by African Americans claiming violations of their civil rights. I'll leave it to you to make the changes and if you deem it noteworthy, to incorporate the point newly raised herein. Thank you again. Slidhome (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

3RR

Hey, just for what it's worth, I was not in the wrong for blocking the user without a warning. Nowhere on Wikipedia:Edit warring does it say that prior warning is required before blocking due to 3RR/disruption. Thanks for getting involved though. I hope after this settles down, I'll be able to recruit the user as a writer. Clearly he's passionate about storms :) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It does say that however at WP:AN3, which is where you as an WP:INVOLVED admin should have gone. —teb728 t c 22:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Tri Beta

Thank for your help with the image and the infobox on Tri Beta, as one of people who have edited it in the last month could you chime in on whether it should be moved to Beta Beta Beta over the redirect. Beta Beta Beta has some trash edits to it, before it became a redirect, so we'll need to make it formal, and if you are opposed, maybe it is for a reason I haven't thought of.12:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht (talk • contribs)

I have no opinion on the move. —teb728 t c 17:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, thank youNaraht (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Arnold Leibovit page plus images

Your inference that I am being paid is incorrect. I am not being paid nor have I ever been paid for any work done on the Arnold Leibovit and linked pages. . A third party connected us a few years ago and I voluntarily agreed to edit his pages thinking this would be great way to learn how Wikipedia works. Early on, I thought about whether or not getting paid for this was even appropriate but a little research showed me it was not. I never met the guy,never talked to him on the phone...only email. I think or at least I thought I was behaving in line with the philosphy of Wikipedia which I understand to be: Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia where anyone can contribute to and edit pages. It is in that light that I am trying to learn the Wikipedia way. However regretibly, I have run head on into an enormous collection of image submission guidelines that are significantly confusing and complex, and while I have asked a few times for help, I get only criticism and false accusations. Is there anyone there who can actually explain to me like I am a fifth grader and not an IP attorney how to properly get an image onto a page so that it won't be deleted in 7 days? In addition,I have edited the text of his page and used the apparently acceptable page of another film producer as a model, yet you tell me it still has issues. Pls enlighten me. Thanks.Recado (talk) 06:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page. —teb728 t c 09:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, Maybe we are getting some place. The first thing I need is for you all to accept that I am not being compensated in any way by Arnold Leibovit or any of his interests. You must accept that because that is simply the truth. I have no other way to prove it. It my word against yours,and I am a little bothered that you made the assumption of guilty until proven innocent. I am a pretty ethical guy and I ask that this be accepted and put aside. I intend to be unbiased, neutral, etc. I owe Leibovit nothing and he owes me nothing. Any resemblence to anything other than this is probably caused by my relative newness to Wikipedia.

I will pull (well, it is already gone) the photo of Leibovit until I can get one that is acceptable. I will make it a point to reread all the guidelines. Regarding the Arnold Leibovit page, I edited it to resemble the Nora Ephron (director of Sleepless in Seattle) page so I can't see how this could be a problem in terms of the critique of resume, lists, and advertisement. However, if the issue is notability, then I need to work on that since you rejected some of my resources. Pls comment on all this. Thanks. Recado (talk) 22:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I accept your statement that you are not employed by Leibovit, and frankly I do not understand why you are defensive about the subject. Even if you had been a paid writer, that would not make you unethical. Editors who are connected with subject are almost always ethical and frequently intend to write about their subject in an unbiased and neutral way. Their connection just makes it difficult for them to judge neutrality.

When I asked if you were a paid writer/consultant, it was not an accusation: You had said you were “maintaining a number of Wikipedia pages for a friend,” but later you said you had never met him. I simply wanted to understand why you were maintaining the pages for him.

I will reply to your article-related comments on your talk page. —teb728 t c 20:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

PLEASE HELP!

Larry N. Jordan (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I appreciate your feedback on the article I tried to write on Larry N. Jordan but somebody named OrangeMike has now targeted it for discussion about deletion claiming it is a "puff piece" and that I "admit" to being close to the source, etc. First of all, I don't think what I wrote is much different than most of what I read on Wikipedia which cites people's accomplishments. As for being "close" to the source, Mr. Jordan is a professional colleague, that's all. I have expanded the article this morning to cite more specific sources but as for claims that he was praised by Bill Clinton, etc., this comes from Mr. Jordan's bio on Amazon that was written by his book publisher. Why would that be any less trustworthy than any other source? I'm not married to the guy, I'm not related to him, I don't have access to his personal files. I got some of this information from public sources on the internet which, the last time I checked, Wikipedia was also on... So I am really floundering here. I need HELP before my post gets deleted by OrangeMike or somebody else. I have found Wikipedia to be excessively complicated and I really don't have the time to study up on it, so coaching me on what to do is probably futile. This post may be more trouble than it's worth. I just find Larry Jordan to be a very interesting fellow and a good guy and thought: why shouldn't HE be on Wikipedia considering a lot of people I see on here who probably can't hold a candle to him and his good works. Any help you could offer would be very appreciated! Lisa Brown--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by LisaBrown2012 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)‎

Before I comment on the article I want to complain about your posting on my user page: While it is not totally forbidden to edit someone's user page, it is bad form unless you are trying to help the user with the content that THEY are trying to put on THEIR page. When you want to send a message to another user, the place is the user's talk page. Most signatures have a link to the user's talk page: In your signature above, that link is "talk"; in my signature below it is abbreviated as the solitary "t". If you wind up on someone's user page, you can always get to their talk page by clicking the "Talk" tab at the upper left. I moved your post here for you. —teb728 t c 18:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Secondly, when you send a message to somebody, please sign it with four tildes i.e. ~~~~ This automatically adds links to your account (typically your user page where can see what you want people to know about you, your talk page where they can leave you a message, and a list of your contributions where they can see what you have been working on. When you signed just your name, I didn't who you were. I added your signature above for you.

Also, it would have been considerate when you are asking about an article for you to link to the article: If you enter [[Larry N. Jordan]] it will be displayed as Larry N. Jordan. That way I can get to the article conventiently. I entered a link above for you. —teb728 t c 19:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

As for the article: The subjects of all articles must be notable by Wikipedia’s standards. So start by reading Wikipedia’s notability standard for biographies. Ask yourself which of the criteria there qualifies Jordan as notable. Emphasize that in the lede section of the article. So, is he notable because he was a commercial publisher from the age of 15? Is he notable for Jim Reeves: His Untold Story? Frankly neither seems very impressive to me. It is essential to cite independent reliable sources which verify the facts that make him notable. A bio on Amazon that was written by his book publisher is hardly an independent reliable source, for both Amazon and his publisher have a financial interest in making him look good.

You might clarify what you mean by “commercial publisher”: Is that he published commercials or that made money publishing? I think it improved the article when you took out some unencyclopedic and difficult-to-verify details like his daughter’s schooling.

As for OrangeMike saying you are Jordan’s friend, you said that yourself on the Help desk; what you said there sounds more than a "professional colleague." The Articles for deletion discussion should go on for a week before a decision is made. If you have not gotten the article up to snuff by then, you can ask for it to be moved to your user space for you to work on it some more. —teb728 t c 00:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/anything cool by ilop

Hello TEB728. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/anything cool by ilop, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article criteria do not apply to the Wikipedia talk: namespace. Thank you. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 22:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Prod of David Landa

Thank you. I have added an external source and two internal sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Landa (talk • contribs) 04:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion: Douglas Tait (illustrator)

Douglas Tait (illustrator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi TED728. I noticed you declined the speedy before I had the opportunity to explain it. I would very much appreciate that opportunity, if you are willing to do so and reconsider. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 06:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Have you read WP:CSD#A7? It sets a very high bar for speedy deletion: the article does not need to show the subject is notable—just indicate why its subject is important or significant. "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." But I am open to persuasion; so what is your explanation? How can winning an award not indicate significance or importance? —teb728 t c 06:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've read WP:CSD#A7 and thanks for being open to listening to my concerns. First, I'll note that I believe(d) #A7 applies because it covers "An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization (for example, a band, club, or company, not including educational institutions),[5] or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. We agree that the only claim of notability here is the award. However, we haven't established the notability of that award; or what distinguishes this award winner from the scores of other recipients who have not received BLPs based on it.

Second, to really appreciate the reason this stub was created you have to understand the creating editor's history. I invite you to review the full record on the Douglas Tait AfD, then review the BLP's log for the kind of edits Novaseminary consistently makes to the existing BLP. This editor has already been ANI'd for this behavior of obsessive battling and persistent disruptive edits just 3 months ago and continues to ignore all warnings now. Instead, this editor has engaged in an unrelenting one-person campaign against this BLP for over a year and the current AfD is simply the latest forumshopped effort. The editor's stated intent and clear record is to delete and/or diminish that BLP: either piecemeal or all at once; by whatever policy or means are necessary - but absolutely not to improve or strengthen it. The editor has already rejected several invitations to collaborate to improve the BLP. So this stub and this editor's subsequent disambiguation efforts are simply the latest efforts by one determined editor with a vast knowledge of WP policies, but whose disruptive edits are pretty blatant. If there was legitimate interest in creating an article and meeting the notability threshold for Douglas Tait (illustrator), that would be one thing. But instead the stub, like the disambiguation, are just being used as vehicles by an editor on a mission. That's why I proposed the speedy and on the policy merits, I still feel it is justified. But if you can suggest a better option, I am very open to suggestions. Thanks! X4n6 (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

In the first place, in assessing an A7 speedy one does not look for notability: Although notability is one of the standards for AfC and AfD, the standard for A7 is quite different—a credible claim of importance or significance. You question the notability of the award, but A7 explicitly “does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim … does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines.” (emphasis added) So the notability of the award is not at issue. You ask why other recipients of this award do not have bios: Perhaps nobody has written their bios yet, or perhaps the bios were deleted at AfD (where notability is at issue), but I still don’t see how they could be speedied for A7.

You seem not to appreciate that the various categories for speedy deletion are intentionally made very narrow and specific. This is because speedy deletion allows one admin to delete a page with no discussion. Deletion on the basis of something so subjective as notability can only be done at an AfD discussion. (or PROD for uncontroversial deletions)

If I were looking for notability, I would find it in references to the McDonough profile and the Defoe article (recently added), which show significant coverage in two reliable sources, and which may be enough to fulfill WP:GNG. If you want to discuss the illustrator’s notability, the place for that is an AfD discussion. But if you do nominate it at AfD, I would strongly urge you not to bring up your dispute with Novaseminary, for that would likely backfire. —teb728 t c 01:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful response. It simply seemed logical on some level: that if the standard of A7 is "a credible claim of important or significance" and that claim is based wholly and solely on a single award, a review of the credibility of that award seems reasonable. Note I said "credibility", not "notability." I'll willingly concede I misstated that in my original post, which likely contributed significantly to the confusion. A7 does say: "The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible." However I suppose the rebuttal is, because the threshold is so low, the claim is deemed credible by the presence of the links provided. So I'll take your point.

Finally, I really have no dispute with Novaseminary. Any dispute is with the editor's edits and tactics re: this BLP, which are on record and available for review to anyone as they deem appropriate. But again, I appreciate your point and the rest of your comments. Thanks again. X4n6 (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Universiteti i Prishtinës

You declined WP:CSD#G6 request with the edit summary "deletion is not uncontroversial: nominating for RfD". Given that consensus was reached (here and the rest of page), why do you consider this to be contraversial? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

See the RfD discussion: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#Talk:Universiteti i Prishtinës —teb728 t c 21:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

You have no idea on what you are getting into. The split discussion lasted since 2007 and only now came to consensus. Why can't you carry on with WP:RM after this all ends? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Could you please just withdraw this AfD? The article needs a talk page and the temporary status your RfD nomination gave that page just made the things more complicated. You can start a WP:RM discussion whenever you want, but RfD is a wrong place for it as this article is just one of several created after split (University of Pristina was split into University of Pristina (1969–1999), Universiteti i Prishtinës and Univerzitet u Prištini) and all of them should be discussed in one central location. Thus it is not an RfD question at all, so your RfD nomination was bogus from the very beginning, and I would have closed it by now if I wasn't participating in the discussion before. Still you can close it as "withdrawn" and move on with whatever suggestions you have. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Ahmad Balal etc

Dear User:TEB728, I am sorry for this late response to your comments and advice on the above mentioned page, thank you. I have also given some further comments and am reading up on various Wikipedia guidelines now, having signed up formally. Thank you again AsadUK200 (talk) 05:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)AsadUK200

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Minerva University

Hello TEB728. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Minerva University to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I know that A7 does not apply to educational institutions, but it seems to me an "online university" is less of an educational institution than a business / web content. —teb728 t c 03:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I was tempted, but I'd rather err on the side of caution. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: User:Openhost101

Re your message: Actually, I did block him, but something went haywire with the block. The account really is blocked, but the log entry for it wasn't written. I did get an error from the Wikimedia servers after I placed the block and I suspect that the error was from it trying to write the block log. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. —teb728 t c 23:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I tried to "correct" the log by unblocking and reblocking him, but it just made a bigger mess. Suffice it to say, he really is blocked. Trying to alter his block, popups, and the WP:AIV bot all confirm that he is truly blocked. The logs are just all messed up. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a WP:VPT thread about the issue now. WP:VPT#Blocks stopped showing and do not appear in logs. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Redirect at Trisler, Joyce

Morning!

Saw your declination for the speedy, which I honor. In case this raises questions, however, I have placed it for speedy again under G8 - the target has been speedied under G11.

--Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Teb728. You have new messages at Talk:Con Los Años Que Me Quedan.
Message added 02:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Non-free content review

Hello TEB728! You posted Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fair use review back on 21 June 2008 and the project again is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Non-free content review. The outcome of the 2008 deletion request was Keep/Reform. Did enough reform happen or was the can merely kicked down the road? Since you originally requested the project be ended, it would be nice to have your thoughts at the MfD discussion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

乌拉跨氪

Thanks for your answer. 乌拉跨氪 did not discuss. The first time, he deleted many phrases of these articles (almost distorted the articles), I sent him several messages. No answer, the artcicles were corrected back. He deleted them again, then forbided the author — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.117.157.164 (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

But how can Chinese wikipedia let him do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.117.157.164 (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Chinese Wikipedia is a separate project. Nobody on English Wikipedia can do anything about what they do there. —teb728 t c 20:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Portal:Katy Perry

I have a question - I cant find the tag for an empty portal for deletion. I have been asked to fix this ..but the pages are all messed up. How can I get these pages deleted so I can make the portal for the kids that asked. I have done this many mnay times before but the "emptyportal" tag is gone what should i use?Moxy (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The speedy tag for empty portals is {{db-emptyportal}}. The only other speedy tag for portals is {{db-speedy delete if article}}. —teb728 t c 04:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

No speedy deletion for Team Noname

Hi there,

I don't think Team Noname should be speedily deleted. There is an assertion of notability, so if you think it's not notable, it should be listed on AFD. --Slashme (talk) 09:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. —teb728 t c 09:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Declination of CSD of Carlo schmid gymnasium

I noticed that you declined the CSD for the said article even if you're not an admin. Why do you do so? TruPepitoMTalk To Me 09:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Plus, it (the article) is already deleted. TruPepitoMTalk To Me 09:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

You have to be an admin to delete a page, but anybody (except the creator) is allowed to remove a speedy from a page that does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion; see for example the instructions at {{db-a7}}. The page in question was clearly for an educational institution (a gymnasium), and it was nominated for A7. The page, however, does not qualify under A7 because educational institutions are explicitly excluded from A7; see either {{db-a7}} or A7. (See also the post above for 03:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC))—teb728 t c 09:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Final words: see second comment. TruPepitoMTalk To Me 10:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Umm, I don’t understand what you are referring to: Is it your comment above that the page was deleted? You do understand don’t you that the page was deleted after I removed the speedy and that it was deleted under a criterion totally unrelated to the one that I removed.

If you are asking for my take on the deletion, I am mystified by it: The deletion was based on the criterion, “Articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article.” When I read the article, I had no trouble identifying the subject. —teb728 t c 21:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

A pie for you!

For actually tagging this article for speedy deletion, and not cut & running, like I did. Don't know how I could have thought it wasn't a hoax/or vandalism. I swear I'm half asleep today! -.- -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 10:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Welcome, host!

Hey TEB, this is Jethro, the current maitre'd at the Teahouse. My position is not one of any particular authority, but just to oversee the Teahouse and make sure things are running smoothly. I wanted to welcome you as a host, and thank you for joining us. Here are a couple of resources you might find helpful as you're hosting:

• User scripts - This is a list of user scripts which can allow you to automatically post talkbacks for the Teahouse, provide invite templates to new users, and a few other things.
• Host expectations - Just a short list of general expectations and guidelines you should consider following in your work.
• Hosts talk page - A good page to keep in your watchlist for announcements and other discussions related to The Teahouse.
• Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host_lounge/Maitre_d/Calendar - The maitre'd calendar so you know who to go to with questions about The Teahouse on a given day.

Let me know if you have any question, and happy hosting. :) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jethro, and thanks for the welcome. Although I was aware of the user scripts and host expectations, and I probably have no need for the calendar at this time; I am particularly thankful for the link to the Hosts talk page. Does that page serve as a forum for hosts? I had looked for such a thing but didn’t find it advertised. —teb728 t c 23:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Essentially, yeah, it is a forum for hosts. If you have comments or questions for other hosts, it'd be the place to bring it up. In fact, you might consider bringing up the fact that it's not well-advertised to other hosts! I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Assistance please

Hi TEB728!

You've been here many years longer than I have - I am having difficulties with having this article deleted - per CSD A7 Unremarkable companies - as there are two editors (I suspect are both the same people) 108.34.225.65 and User:BlastGangg who keep on rmeoving my tag, or blanking the article (which I would then move to G7 Author requests SD) and then they re-add the content w/out the original A7 CSD tag. Here's the history - I'm somewhat unsure as to where I should pursue this further. AN/I? thanks, -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 10:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

How about taking it to AfD? —teb728 t c 11:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Smart thinking! shall initiate the discussion now. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 11:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

No warning?

Hi. Thanks for catching that BLP violation over at 2013 National Scout Jamboree! I was wondering why you didn't give the offending editor a warning, though? It seemed like a pretty blatant defamation to me (well, maybe more harassment than defamation, per that recent court ruling that it's not defamation to call someone gay, but still). Thanks. (I've given him a 4im, by the way, in light of his autobiography contribution, plus a rational application of WP:SNOWBALL to WP:CIR.) — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 06:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Per AGF I didn't read it as either harassment or defamation. I thought it more likely he was complaining that BSA homophobia was preventing his troop member and friend from participation. I took it as well-intentioned outing that was only only a little worse than the spam aspect of his post. —teb728 t c 08:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Maybe I was a bit too hasty to assume bad faith, but I don't know if I agree with you, still: He added the comment over the course of two revisions, and in the first he simply said "[redacte] will not be going at all." Considering his cheery disposition, and his use of parentheses to explain why [redacted] will not be going, I read it as a pure statement of fact - i.e., "He will not be going. He is gay," which I took to be harrassment since, I mean, you don't just go around saying "so-and-so is gay" on random articles for innocent reasons, unless of course, you are the overly proud friend of a homosexual. (I NEVER thought that I would actually be able to cite that essay in a legitimate discussion!) If you think I should take down the 4im, though, I suppose AGF means a tie goes to the runner, as it were. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 08:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Laboratory Technician redirect

Hi TEB728,
I agree with your re-direct here, but the creator of that page was a totally new editor and was rather unhappy.See FeedbackDashboard/58500 "My edits were deleted".
I have welcomed them and explained a little about what happened.

I can only suggest that when you make a re-direct like this, perhaps it would be good to consider informing the editor of what you have done and why? Regards, 220 of ^Borg 08:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. —teb728 t c 08:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

No worries! - 220 of ^Borg 10:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Declined speedy deletion

I see that your speedy deletion nomination at Aeiou (band) has been declined. You may wish to try PROD or AfD. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Removed {{prod}}

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Jamie Lynn Spears discography, which you proposed for deletion. I am leaving this message here to notify you about it. While you are right that the subject does not merit its own article, you wrote "Her discography is not extensive enough to need a separate article. It should be included in the bio."—that is, it should be part of the main article, Jamie Lynn Spears, so the correct procedure is a merge, not deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to it. Instead, feel free to list the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!

הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 04:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thanks and bon appetit The iWriter (talk) 08:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Contact photographer

"Greetings, Mr Jones. Wikipedia would like your permission to use your photo of the late Sir Denis Mahon at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/culture-obituaries/art-obituaries/8481701/Sir-Denis-Mahon.html . If you are willing to give it, then e-mail it at info-enwikimedia.org. Thank you very much."

Is that all right?--94.65.26.121 (talk) 01:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)