User talk:Coredesat
Corey Smith
I find it troubling that the page for Corey Smith (Musician) has been deleted so many times. He is a very well established musician in the southeastern United States and is gaining notoriety throughout many of the rest of the lower 48 states. He has released 3 studio albums and has played countless concerts, many with crowds nearing 10,000. These distinguishing facts rival the reputations of many other personalities that have been allowed to say on Wikipedia. Should a notable personality be banned from biographical and factual recognition just because he hasn't signed with a major label yet? You may say that I am a hard core fan that just wants publicity for this artist but I am in fact not even a huge fan at all. I'm just trying to do what's right. Taking his article off of Wikipedia would be like removing articles depicting minor league baseball players or fresh Hollywood actors. While I understand that Wikipedia isn't a marketing or advertising tool, I think that notable personalities that are well known, even if only to a specific culture of people in a specific region (in this case about 7 states), should be recognised at least biographically. — kookamunga187
Ben Stewart
Ah, sorry about that. Thanks for taking care of it, — thesublime514 • talk • 03:55, July 7, 2007 (UTC)
YATE deletion
Hi, I noted that you deleted the YATE page. Your rationale was "The result was delete, especially given the campaign the people involved have been running to get the article kept. Wikipedia is not where things go to become notable. --Coredesat 05:40, 4 August 2007".
I believe you have overlooked the reason that the page was nominated for deletion (notability) and my response to that.
I did not see either the original nominator Calltech or anyone subsequent address the fact that a publishing coproration like O'Reilly is a large secondary source and that the notability guidelines state that for smaller projects it is unreasonable to expect many secondary sources.
Could you comment on that. AnandKumria 12:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback; having looked around I can see another article discussing Yate.
Inforworld article mentioning Yate.
Is that enough of a secondary source for the deletion to be reviewed?
AnandKumria 10:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
UFC 77
Hi Coredesat, you were the closing admin for a recent AfD nomination that I started. I believe that salting is inappropriate for this article as it will be verifiable soon, most likely in under a month or so. If the article keeps getting recreated with subpar content, it can just be G4'd. Will you please reconsider your salting? Please reply on my talk page. east.718 at 19:09, August 4, 2007
- Sounds good. east.718 at 20:46, August 4, 2007
- Reliable information is starting to get released in mainstream newspapers, [1] [2] [3] as well as industry sites. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Could you please unsalt the page? east.718 at 14:55, August 10, 2007
- The only blog source I provided was UFC Junkie, which is authored by Dann Stupp, a sportswriter for the Dayton Daily News (discussion on WT:MMA). Sherdog has been a reliable third-party source for years. Excluding Stupp, there is information on a date, venue, main event, and three other confirmed matches, which I feel is enough to merit an article. east.718 at 18:45, August 10, 2007
- Reliable information is starting to get released in mainstream newspapers, [1] [2] [3] as well as industry sites. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Could you please unsalt the page? east.718 at 14:55, August 10, 2007
Rudeness on Wiki
Hi Coredesat, I would like to draw your kind attention to the type of words Cachor uses in his comments. Please see the history on North Indian Cyclone 2007 page (Deep Depression BOB 06) and guide me.--Ugaap 01:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 6th, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 32 | 6 August 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I see you deleted Vulcan when it should have simply became a redirect. As Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Shorthands says: "Redirect is a recommendation to keep the article's history but to blank the content and replace it with a redirect. Users who want to see the article's history destroyed should explicitly recommend Delete then Redirect". Can you please restore it when you read this? Thanks. Mathmo Talk 20:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- No problem, thanks for realising it when I pointed it out and your speedy response. Mathmo Talk 23:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I just noticed the talk page was deleted too. Where there any comments or anything there? Mathmo Talk 00:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, just wanted to check. Memory not perfect, can't recall everything that was there! You can recreate it as a redirect or just leave it as it is, I don't mind at all. Thanks again for checking. Mathmo Talk 00:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Saige Thompson
I think you meant to say "the result was delete". There is no way this person satisfies any criterion for inclusion. Why was this article not deleted? Valrith 21:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Saige Thompson. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Valrith 22:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Username blocks
I saw your block of User:Badassbassist. I'd like to point you to WT:U, where there's a discussion going on about the fact that blocking is being used as a first resort for all questionable usernames, instead of a last resort or a quick way of doing with blatantly inappropriate usernames, as the policy says.
I think you should have made a request on the user's talk page, since "Badassbassist" in no way indicates that the user obviously meant to disrupt Wikipedia. If you want to defend the idea of blocking as a first resort, you should do so at WT:U. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
For s-protecting LiveJournal. Kyaa the Catlord 04:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Hermes in popular culture, AfD
This is not a request to move the article back into main space. During the AfD discussion, User:AndyJones requested that the material be userfied so that s/he could work with it for a different article. In good faith, and following consensus, you deleted the article; however, you did not userfy it and did not give a reason for not doing so. I just wanted to ask why the article was not userfied, as I thought that articles at AfD which are not copyvios or BLP vios are generally userfied by the closing admin if somebody requests it (if this is wrong, please do let me know!) Please do not take this message as disagreement with the decision to delete. I voted to delete the article and my mind still has not changed. I just wondered why you denied User:AndyJones's request. Oh, and I've been todl in the past that I can be blunt in user comments in these cases. This is really just my personality when it comes to these things, so please keep in mind that, if this seems a little blunt, its not me trying to be uncivil, but merely me being a bit socially bumbling :) CaveatLector Talk Contrib 22:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I notice this page has been protected since June, no discussion has taken place in several weeks. Would you mind unprotecting? I'm not looking to make any edits, just figure a page shouldn't stay protected longer than needed. Thanks. VxP 23:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
RfA removed
Please don't delete removed RfAs, they are generally archived and placed at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies. Andre (talk) 01:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Userfication of Hermes in popular culture
I noticed you specifically did not userfy per the request at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hermes in popular culture. User:AndyJones has a small constellation of these deleted pages in his userspace. Would you mind if I userfied it to join the others, or is there a policy problem I'm missing? Cool Hand Luke 16:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm part of this consensus. I doubt many of these could be improved, but it's at least work giving AndyJones a shot. Thanks. Cool Hand Luke 22:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Slovio
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Slovio. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 08:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
How much do you know about boxing
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heavyweight&diff=150066403&oldid=150062498 on heavyweight, our argument was ONLY about 90.72 kg and 91kg, and that is microscopic difference, so friend, who gave you the right to revert everything. You are aware these people are wrong, go under request pages for protection from yesterday, i left you a message and links in regards to that, also read links on heavyweight discussion, you will get to know a great deal. If you could give me your email, that's even better, i have dozens of great websites to send you. There are users and even administrators against me, so i have to talk to you private, as they can easily trace any public library ip and bring it to me. So I barely use it now. Simply leave email here, then i will reply, then you can delete it. Now, revert back the comments on boxers I left which are all true. So many users here do not get anything. Also privately get in touch with other boxing editors, let's find out what others think, you will be surprised...
- Truth/Boxing Fan
Breaking Laces
So you deleted the page, and then when I ask you why, considering Breaking Laces meets 5 of the criteria listed for notability (and wiki only requires 1), you go and just delete my inquiry without responding to me. Please see the discussion page of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breaking Laces, where I point out each of the 5 criteria Breaking Laces meets, and tell me why the band should not have a wikipedia page. Or are you and the three or so others who discussed deletion the sole meters of which bands are credible?
If the deletion stands, I again ask that you update the "Band Notability Criteria" page so that bands know when they are allowed to have a Wikipedia page.
I'd like to know which course of action you will be taking (reestablishing Breaking Laces' wiki page, or updating notability criteria), and I thank you in advance for your reply.