User talk:Noq

dePRODing of articles

Hello Noq, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD templates you added to a number of articles were removed:

• PROD removed from Nuspire, by User:Nubee, with summary '(Challenging a proposed deletion for Notablility by adding references from national and local new sources.)'
• PROD removed from Telerik, by User:Mahanga, with summary '(rm prod, meets software reqs for inclusion, revert back to pre-advert revision)'

Please consider discussing your concerns with the relevant users before pursuing deletion further. If you still think the articles should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may send them to WP:AfD for community discussion. Thank you - SDPatrolBot (talk) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Classical Esther Silverherb

Thank you, noq, for your very kind message. I am very obliged to you, and may I please have the honor of your acquaintance? How may I ask questions to you ect? I know nothing of the computer, and I hope writing on the talk page in this fashion is not a mistake or a liberty. My first wish is to be a good Wikipedian, but I have no idea how. Please help! And once again, thank you. Please contact me! It shall gratify me unspeakably. Again, thank you, and goodbye!(UTC) p.s. what does (UTC) mean anyway? @.@ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Classical Esther (talk • contribs)

Speedy deletion of ANATROLLER ARI-100

Please do not delete this page it is for infomational purposes on Canadian robotics, this robot is studied at the ETS university in montreal and the article is currently under construction, I should be inserting media refernces of the robot right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs)

Hello Noq

Hello noq, i believe that the page which you put up for deletion, Puzzles FC, should not be deleted, Look in the talk page for the particular artice for more details. If you still believe you should still put up the week long delete, which i strongly urge you not to, then you may. Please dont, you will see why in the talk page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Footylegend456 (talk • contribs) 11:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Nineteen speedy deletions in one day?

Hi noq. I see that you have speedily deleted 19 articles yesterday.

For a while I have been trying to welcome new wikipedians who seem to show promise, and unfortunately it appears our paths crossed when you speedy deleted an article created by one of those individuals User talk:Melnakeeb. I tried to see the article which you speedily deleted on Feb 14, but I cannot find any trace of it. I wonder if you could tell me what the issues were and where I can see for myself the article which was speedily deleted.

Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I only nominate articles for speedy deletion - an administrator is needed to do he actual deleting if they agree with the nomination. The particular user you highlighted above created an article without showing why it should be there. The article is currently available in the google cache As you can see it consisted only of an infobox with no indication of what it actually did. noq (talk) 07:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I am glad to see that the article which was so speedily "speedily deleted" is back. I realize some articles have to go, just want to say that sometimes the speed in which things are done actually detract from Wikipedia. This is not the first time I have noticed a potentially good article written by a newbie Wikipedian being hastily removed, without much thought to the effect it has on someone who may become a valuable Wiki-contributor. I hope more people are sensitized to this issue and will monitor such removals more closely. Ottawahitech (talk) 12:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Removed speedy deletion tag: User talk:Youssef Tabti

Hi Noq! Firstly, thanks for helping out in CSD areas. I just wanted to inform you that I removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on User talk:Youssef Tabti- because: user talk pages are exempt from G8 If you have any questions or other message, please contact me. Thanks Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Cantor (software)

Hello Noq . Cantor (Software) is about a open-source GUI frontend software for 4 open-source Computer algebra system langueage acting as backends. This is a new software in KDE 4.4 which is a cross platform .Even though it is a new software , it is supposed to gain popularity . I think deletion of it is like the deletion the happened to Okular when article and software were first made . Now Okular is the defacto Document viewer on KDE4 , and most feature-rich document viewer on Linux.

Can you tell me please why was Cantor (Software) marked for speedy deletion ? Melnakeeb (talk) 10:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Because it does not currently meet the notability criteria. The article only contained an infobox and no indication of notability. For the article to remain it needs more indication of what it is about, why it is WP:Notable, and have WP:Verifiable WP:Reliable sources. If it meets these criteria in the future it can be recreated, but at the moment there is no reason for an article to exist. noq (talk) 10:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like i showed how notable is the software in my last comment more than i did in the article . Melnakeeb (talk) 11:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

For the second speedy deletion notice,I copied from a pdf under GFDL license . AFAIK this is permitted in wikipedia .Please see Credits and License section in [1] . I tried to show natability of software to avoid my first mistake that you clarified for me. Melnakeeb (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry my mistake, I have now removed the speedy tag and your hangon. It still does not indicate WP:Notability and requires third party WP:Reliable sources for WP:Verifiability. noq (talk) 15:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Never Mind. Thank you . I am working now on notability and verifiability. Melnakeeb (talk) 09:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Larken Egleston

FYI, now at AfD.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 02:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

edits

I dont make disruptive edits, you just dont know about this stuff so you dont have the authority to personally attack me. if you do, you will liklily be blocked--A.Shetty787 (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? noq (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ignore him. A troublesome account with a long chain of vandal edits took exception to you CSD tagging one of his nonsense articles. I've blocked him. SGGH ^ping! 18:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Joke

Oh come on mate, your British, you know our humour : ) Rademire (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Verve Productions

Hi, please can you tell me why you want to delete Verve Productions, I looked in the category, Television production companies in the UK, and it wasn't there, so I added this page to make the list more accurate. For if this category claims to list television production companies in the UK, surely for accuracy, Wikipedia needs as many of those companies listed as possible, otherwise the list is not complete?

Also I have looked at other TV production company pages and they seem to have much less supporting data than this one. For example Wag TV's page's only reference at all is their own website. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unique1000 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

How to pack for camping

Hmmm, it looks like we both have the exact same views... Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Anheuser-Busch and InBev

Hi Noq. The article's history is a bit complex, but it can't be Prodded, as it has been to AfD as Anheuser-Busch InBev and the result was keep and rename Proposed merger of Anheuser-Busch and InBev see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anheuser-Busch InBev. There was a second related AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anheuser-Busch InBev (2nd nomination), in which the result was to merge Anheuser-Busch InBev into Proposed merger of Anheuser-Busch and InBev. When the company merge did take place, the article was renamed Anheuser-Busch and InBev (which later got merged to Anheuser–Busch InBev), but then another editor recreated the article: [2]. I have now redirected the article to the proper target. Phew! SilkTork *^YES! 16:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ian Page (politician)

He gets mentioned on the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition page and is already a Socialist Party councillor (of their few) so seems worthy of a page to me. Maybe you disagree? I won't squabble.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 20:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If you can find WP:Reliable sources to show notability I will remove the prod myself. Wikipedia does not automatically count local councillors as notable. noq (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Grace Cathedral Community Church Flint

Spacebatman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has removed your PROD tag from Grace Cathedral Community Church Flint. My question is this: do you think there is an assertion of significance or importance made in the article? I'm thinking it's a local church that might be subject to speedy deletion under criterion A7. If you think there is an assertion of significance, it would have to go through AfD. What do you think? —C.Fred (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Jacobus P. van der Weele

Your prod tag was removed by the article's creator. I've listed it on afd. Woogee (talk) 19:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The Un-Proposed Deletion of Org Maker

Hello, I am User: Cdocrun, the writer of Org Maker. I noticed that you had nominated it for deletion, and I just wanted to point out that I think I've met the standards to keep the page, so could you take down the "this page has been nominated for a speedy deletion" banner? If I haven't met the criteria, would you tell me what I forgot so I can fix it? thank you. IT (Cdocrun) (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

it has not been nominated for speedy deletion but as an article for deletion which is different. The reasons for the nomination have been given at that page - specifically you have not shown WHY it is notable - just because it exists is not sufficient reason for it to have a page on Wikipedia. You need to show Notability with WP:reliable sources. This has not been shown and was why it was initially marked as prod. I would also recommend you read the conflict of interest guidelines. noq (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to be a bother to you once more, but could you be a bit more specific? I've read over the guidelines multiple times, and still cannot find what I did wrong. I had correct grammar, the page was unbiased and neutral, I stated in it why it was notable, the source did not conflict with guidelines, and I don't see how it conflicts with the Wikipedia's conflict of interest. IT (Cdocrun) (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)