User talk:Blanchardb

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by .

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koren (disambiguation)

I did a search and it appears to be a viable page (if renamed) Any chance of retracting that nomination? I'd be happy to do the work. I tend to forget about messages or AFD pages I covered because there are so many of them, so if you respond somewhere, please leave a message or template on my talk page. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did the work for you and withdrew the AfD. Incidentally, I also felt it was right to remove the initial sole entry, since it already has a {{prod2}} tag. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - Mgm|^(talk) 19:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop vandalism

Redirecting "Palestinian Terrorism" to "Palestinian Political Violence" is not NPOV. I went to "Palestinian Terrorism" to learn about Palestinian groups like Hamas that are specifically terrorist, not merely violent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.244.178 (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

van Bruggen

I have tried to make it better to the best of my ability. I just found out she died, but there is no article fro her. I have now denoted that she was an artist/critic/sculptor. I will put more about Claes Oldenburg.--RayqayzaDialgaWeird2210 01:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem

I can restore it if you'd like. Usually, when user and article match, it's self-promotional. Only takes a moment; hang on...--PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cd-MaN83

Regarding the reverting of my edits on Steve_Gibson_(computer_programmer): while it is true that the link was to my personal blog, this is mostly because the other site (grcsucks.com) is dead. It is my opinion that all prominent viewpoints must be presented in an article, and considering that my blog references writeups done on this topic by people like the author of NMAP or the author of Snort (two very prominent products in network security), I feel justified in my opinion that this is a relevant viewpoint.

Being new to Wikipedia I would like to ask the question: under what form would the link be acceptable?

Cd-MaN83 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

While it is true that Wikipedia wishes that all prominent viewpoints be exposed in its articles, one exception to that policy, which continues to receive overwhelming support from the Wikipedia community and is strictly enforced by the Wikimedia Foundation for legal reasons, is biographies of living people, when such biographies are improperly referenced and negative in tone. Steve Gibson might sue Wikipedia for libel if something is said about him that cannot be backed up by reliable sources. Since a personal blog cannot in any way constitute a reliable source, it is better not to have the information at all than to have it without references, no matter how prominent the viewpoint may be.

Also, you are talking about information that came from a site that no longer exists (grcsucks.com). It is quite possible that the very reason the site no longer exists is that it was brought to court for libel by Mr. Gibson and was ordered shut down by the court. In fact, the very name of that site suggests that it was created solely to give negative information about Gibson and GRC, without proper references to back up what they say. If that is the case, no information that comes from there and cannot be found elsewhere on a non-blog site should be included in Wikipedia under any circumstances. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the detailed explanation. I'm sorry to hear that there is no way to include this content on Wikipedia, but I do understand the problem. -- Cd-MaN83 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry for bothering you again, but would it be acceptable (from a Wikipedia policy point of view) to include the link a text along the lines: "there are several controversial claims made by Steve Gibson. You can find a collection of opposing viewpoints at ..."? -- Cd-MaN83 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

No. The article already states the ones that can be referenced, and can be claimed as controversial. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slmgr.vds

I see. Well, since i know nothing more about the file, you may delete it. Veraladeramanera (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of "Philadelphia Eagles vs. Arizona Cardinals" The deletion of an article you created, Philadelphia Eagles vs. Arizona Cardinals, has been proposed for the following reason:

Please do not create an article about a single game. You are welcome to improve the article to meet Wikipedia's quality standards and remove the deletion notice from the article. You may also remove the notice if you disagree with the deletion, though in such cases, further discussion may take place at Articles for deletion, and the article may still be deleted if there is a consensus to do so.

Wikipedia has certain standards for inclusion that all articles must meet. Certain types of article must establish the notability of their subject by asserting its importance or significance. Additionally, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, content inappropriate for an encyclopedia, or content that would be more suited to somewhere else (such as a directory or social networking website) is not acceptable. See What Wikipedia is not for the relevant policy. You may wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Navychappy"

This page was last modified on 13 January 2009, at 17:11. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.) Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.

I understand the rules about not creating seperate pages for a single game, I would agree to delete the page without a problem, sorry for the problem this may have caused, I am getting a hang of this now. Thanks Terry A. Chapman, B.S.W. (talk) 07:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

La Forêt des Mal-Aimés

Just a quick, friendly note on La Forêt des Mal-Aimés. I had no problem identifying the subject (the missing image title told me it might be a Pierre Lapointe album, the Pierre Lapointe confirmed it), so I declined the speedy. Something else going on here that I'm not seeing?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I tagged the article, I had no image title. I originally intended to tag the article as an A9, but there was simply no author mentioned or even hinted at, so I did not think it applied. Think of it as an A1 that was remedied before you had a chance to handle it. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Not criticizing; I just like to double check because sometimes there's more going on that can be expressed with the canned CSD tag. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour!

Bonjour! Ca me fait plaisir de voir un autre québecois :D --Mixwell!^Talk 01:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stringendo

You commented about the stringendo page as a deletion candidate... however, it was not finished at that time! It still isn't, but now notability is certain. Thanks.