Jump to content

User talk:Andyjsmith

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Content586 (talk | contribs) at 00:29, 25 June 2010 (→‎Review Institute of HeartMath revision). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hi

Thought I'd let you know that Wickysicky has been posting messages about you on my talk page. No matter what I say to him he is convinced that you have been vandalising spaceduck! --5 albert square (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lol they are a little! He moaned at me because I didn't view the Youtube video or look on itunes, er the pc I'm at for the next couple of weeks doesn't have itunes downloaded as far as I can see and I am not about to download it just for that, and the Youtube video is just some spoof. The BBC video didn't even mention anything called Spaceduck and Google can't find anything under Spaceduck composer! I'm actually surprised that XLinkBot hasn't been along yet to remove the Youtube link, normally he removes them quite quickly! --5 albert square (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to sit back now and let things take their course. I've raised a sockpuppet investigation which should hopefully be enough to get the guy blocked, and the AfD is certain to result in deletion. Don't feed the trolls! andy (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm not going to. I've given my two pence worth of thoughts to the whole thing, not going to say any more! --5 albert square (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia dishwashing

My hologram article, including the talk page, has been hastily deleted by another hard-working admin. I had written about a new scam in alternative medicine, and it was mistaken for an advertisement. I have continued the discussion on his talk page. Heyzeuss (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked by Chazella to review the block on his account, and as part of this, your linking to a file through torrentz.

I think it was a bad idea on your part to provide this link, both for the possibility leading to virus infected files, and the copyright violation. The link to the track listing on the BBC programme page was both far more appropriate, and all that was needed. I hope you are clear on this point, which is purely about your posting of that link, and not about the correctness of Chazella's response, or the wider AfD debate etc. Peter 14:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  • I understand. But the point of providing the link - which was to a virus-free site - was to counter his spurious arguments about the availability of the movie to download and what it actually contained. Technically any download might be a breach of copyright but in the UK (as I think in the US) there's a concept of fair use e.g. for purposes of reviewing or quoting, which I'd argue covers this situation. Point taken, anyway. andy (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of the One-Day-In article

Hi Andy, The article about the internet portal and mashup One-Day-In is a serious article about a serious and ambitious project. The article matches the WP guidelines and is quite similar to articles like Placeopedia, PlaceSpotting or Wikipediavision. These are similar portals and there is no reason for deletion. A correction of the deletion will be appreciated! Best, PG

The article does not meet WP guidelines for notability. See WP:N. andy (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just let me know what is wrong about it. I can not see where the article does not meet the guidelines and I can not see a difference to the three articles I mentioned above. If they get permission, why not my article? Please feel free to make changes.

Very simple: you did not provide any evidence that this is a notable website according to WP:N or more specifically WP:WEB. Indeed, I don't see how you could - it has very few hits on Google, strongly indicative of lack of notability. It has not "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself", nor has it "won a well-known and independent award", nor is it "distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster". You're on a loser here. andy (talk) 21:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sundown Adventure Land

Hi Andy, I am writing to complain about the speedy delete of Sundown Adventure Land. I see no reason and would like you to get in contact as soon as possible. Ackworth97 (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sponge Software

It would be appreciated if you could read Wikipedia guidelines before implementing them badly, and wildly deleting other people's work.

You placed the Sponge Software page under Speedy Deleting under A7 which specifically precludes content relating to software and other creative works itself. After spending several hours trying to improve this and several other articles on Wikipedia, it is not appreciated that admins do not follow guidelines which are there for all to follow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolvidnetwork (talk • contribs) 20:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not an admin. I didn't delete the article, wildly or otherwise. It was rubbish and deserved deleting anyway. Chill... and read the rules yourself. andy (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies, I didn't realise that you weren't an admin. I can see that you're trying to improve Wikipedia, although I do have some concerns that you may be a little gun-ho. I accept that the article was incomplete, and was working to improve it, albeit slowly. It would be better to try and add to articles rather than delete them. If you think that that particular page was bad, perhaps you could explain your opinion of this one? Iris_Software —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolvidnetwork (talk • contribs) 15:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a perfectly OK article. It claims that the company is notable ("largest private software provider") and backs up the claim with independent evidence, per WP:COMPANY. The awards aren't particularly brilliant, IMHO, but that doesn't matter in this case. andy (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to have a vendetta against me, having marked some of my other contributions for deletion. This doesn't appear to be particularly helpful towards encouraging community engagement. You don't seem to understand that people need time to fulfil your requests, and behave somewhat impatiently. One day, I hope you will learn of your ill ways, and come to understand that not everybody can be as perfect as yourself the first time. Coolvidnetwork (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not an admin, just an editor who helps to keep wikipedia up to the mark. If an article can be fixed I fix it or flag it for fixing, but if it can't be fixed I flag it for deletion. That's how wikipedia patrolling works. And anyway I don't delete articles, I simply draw them to the attention of admins who make a final decision. If the article is clearly unfixable they delete it. In the case of an AfD lots of people check the articles and have their say before any final decision is made. andy (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings and sorry...

Greetings Andyjsmith. I just slapped a speedy delete over your earlier one on Thats so rude. Not quite sure how it happened, but I suppose it should be left as is rather than start reverting, etc. Again, sorry.--Technopat (talk) 23:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Send me what you deleted - Stomz Stavros

ANDY,

could I please request the article I wrote on Stomz Stavros that you deleted? Please send to me.

I not even going to ask why it was deleted, because the rules and guidelines here are so convoluted and confusing, I find I don't care why.

Just to be clear however, I am publishing an online comic book, and a print version. I own a VFX and ScFI web entertainment business and therefore distribute content for public consumption. There are many other entries on this site having to do with comic books and comic book characters. I, apparently, incorrectly assumed it was appropriate to post my own IPs.

Thank you in advance for sending the article I wrote.

Rob--RobKing21 (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YPIH

It's ok to delete this page. Promoting... no. But it is a series of related articles I'm working on. :) Cyprian Henterfield (talk) 09:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CWG Magazine

I will re-submit this page again if it gets AFD'd. For now, it will stay in my special pages. Archer Drezelan (talk) 09:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Letters Burning

You're attacking my pages, and I don't appreciate it. Archer Drezelan (talk) 09:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Treatments for Nasal Spray Addiction

My article was deleted because you thought it was similar to Rhinitis Medicamentosa. The content is completely different. Your article deals with causes, symptoms and pharmaceutical treatments. Whereas mine is an article on natural treatments only (alternative medicine) which you have not mentioned in your article. I wouldn't mind it being incorporated in to rhinitis medicamentosa, however since it is alternative medicine it may not be permitted.

Unfortunately I was too late to stop the article being deleted. What recourse do I have?


(Daveed55 (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

No copyvio?

You said it's Post_Deployment/Mobilization_Respite_Absence_(PARMA)&action=historysubmit&diff=368404372&oldid=368403931 a word-for-word copy; is this not copyvio because it is military and in the public domain or something? — Timneu22 · talk 15:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • It fails WP:NOTGUIDE because it's a simple copy with no analysis, expansion etc i.e. not of encyclopaedic value; but it's not actually a copyvio because it's in the public domain. Don't you just hate it when someone just chucks in a lump of uninteresting, undigested text they found on a page somewhere? andy (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great. The author removed prod tags. I added them back. This probably will mean AFD coming soon. — Timneu22 · talk 15:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Peskin

The neutral version of the article is that he's a charlatan and a shyster and a quack? If that's true, then don't you think that maybe he's somebody we just shouldn't have an article about at all? Bearcat (talk) 07:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Trouble is, he is probably notable. I found lots of references to him all over the web, divided between praise and condemnation. He makes lots of unsupported claims but the undoubted fact, supported by evidence, is that he's been the subject of legal action for falsehoods. So yes, that's the neutral version - he's a notable quack! andy (talk) 07:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Digi makeover

What speedy deletion criteria apply to games? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • In this case: spam, nonsense, vandalism; anyway it could have been prodded - SPAs with only one edit who create silly stubs usually don't bother contesting prods. andy (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't do prods, they're not worth the time. I don't think this is either spam, nonsense, or vandalism. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Waste your time at AfD then. Do I care? andy (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody can remove a prod for any reason or no reason whatsoever. And even after the prod is complete and the article deleted, anybody can come in for any reason or no reason whatsoever to challenge the deletion and the article has to be undeleted and the afd process begun anyway. So why not just go straight to the afd? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I see an article like this I guess it's a kid playing around so I use twinkle to stick a prod on it. Takes a few seconds. The kid never comes back. A week later it's gone with no further effort on my part. The AfD noticeboard isn't cluttered up and no other editor has to waste a second's thought on it. Also - more importantly - WP:AFD says that you should "Confirm that the article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion or proposed deletion." This one is clearly proddable although a doubtful candidate for speedy, so prodding should come first. AfD is what follows after a contested prod. andy (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So we get to see crap like this sit around for at least 12 days. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Them's the rules. Efforts should be made to salvage crap articles and prodding is one way of getting the author to do that - even though it won't work in this case. However, db-spam ought to work. andy (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AH, well, our mileage varies.  :) Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Angry Birds

Greetings. By sheer chance, I noticed that you placed a speedy delete on an article for Angry Birds (I think because I had tagged its creator for some reason using Twinkle). I completely agree that the article, as it was at the time you tagged it, was certainly deserving of deletion, but at the same time the game is a notable release, with extensive coverage in third-party media. I have gone through the article and completely re-written it, and would respectfully ask if you could review it and determine whether a speedy is still warranted. Thank you for your consideration. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 03:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I had a quick look at what you'd done and it seemed OK to me but I didn't have time to say so. The speedy tag was still there - you could have removed it. An admin came along and deleted it. So it goes. I suggest you ask for it to be reinstated. andy (talk) 08:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to delete the tag but it didn't let me, even though I didn't create the article. Anyway, there's a happy ending. After I got done with it, an anon IP vandalized it, then an admin saw what was there and deleted the article. I asked for it to be reviewed again, and another admin saw it and went back through the review log and saw what I had done and reinstated my version. So it's back and fully cited. No worries! :) --McDoobAU93 (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi Andy. Thanks for alerting me of the bobo I made. I Appreciate it :D Cheers James'ööders 13:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome andy (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review Institute of HeartMath revision

Hi Andy. Thanks for alerting me about the Institute of HeartMath page. I completely overhauled the entire page to address the criteria you mentioned. Will you please take another look and consider taking away the deletion nomination. Please contact me there are any further issues. Thanks! Content586 (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any specific reason for this? Content586 (talk) 00:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andyjsmith&oldid=370008254"