Jump to content

User talk:Erpert/Archive 1

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nefesf9 (talk | contribs) at 10:17, 17 July 2010 (→‎Genocide and Resistance Research Centre of Lithuania: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Feel free to leave me a message in a new section at the bottom of the page. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


Mind if you cool your Delete button a bit?

Hmm.. at a prefunctionary glance at your contributions it seems you havent added much content beyond AfD tags
and such related discussions.
Mind if you cool your Delete button for few fortnights?
Excessive AfD is as community damaging as vandalism and revert wars are.
Kind regards --Zarutian (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Recommend you re-read this section. ----moreno oso (talk) 02:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Still not bad faith. Now, please leave me alone. Erpert (let's talk about it) 02:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Erpert, why is there a link to my twitter account being the reason for the information about the Buckeye Barbeque Qlub being taken down?
I did not provide any bias opinions about the student organization.
Feel free to fill me in. I was trying to make this page to create an informational page about the organization.
Benjamindwallace (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Your nomination for the deletion of the article "Dr. Jeanne Bathgate"

Hello, Recently, you listed the article "Dr. Jeanne Bathgate" for deletion. You said that the school she works at was "baulkham", however, it is "baulkham hills high school". A Google search for the school returned 18,800 results, and a search for "dr jeanne bathgate" returned 291,000 results. If possible, could you please reconsider your deletion listing. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRAHSsucks (talkcontribs) 06:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


Billie Jean black sequin jacket article by DinhoGauch10

Hello,

I understand what you mean, and I apologize very much, but I am not a fan writing the article. I am merely familiar on the subject. I went through and made more accurate sources, but none of my sources go to a main page, except to show the newspaper and story.

I apologize, but I do not understand what you mean by zero notability. We are talking about a superstar whose career began with the song Billie Jean, his black sequin jacket and white single decorated glove. Those are iconic, significant and culturally important, says our government. The album Thriller is considered culturally revolutionizing, and that is mainly because of Billie Jean and his attire during his Motown 25 appearance. Michael has always been a fashion icon, and now for the This is it, he was making a fashion comeback. Since Motown 25 he has always worn his black sequin jacket, white glove and moonwalked for the song Billie Jean. Those are all significant. There is a Billie Jean page, a Motown 25 page, and a moonwalk page. How can there not be a Billie Jean black sequin jacket page?

The video I use in the article is in the wiki commons, and used on the Moonwalk wiki page. I use it, because it is currently the only FREE picture/video showing Michael Jackson in his black sequin jacket. As for the other picture, it looks better than no picture, and I do mention it is not the Billie Jean jacket, so I really do not understand what you are referring to there as well.

The article is not bias by any means, and is absolutely significant, as it is the jacket he wore for every performance of his biggest song Billie Jean. I feel that I have done a very good job establishing the facts of the jackets significance.

I have filled the article with nothing but absolute truth, backed up by news articles, actual quotes, and newspaper sources. I have altered some sources to make it much more accurate and blog free, I do apologize very much for the use of the blogs and have removed them entirely!

It is my goal to get the article approved with wiki guidelines. I hope I have made the appropriate alterations.

Thank You for your time.

—Preceding [[Wikipedia:DinhoGauch10 (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)|DinhoGauch10 (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)]] comment added by DinhoGauch10 (talkcontribs) 14:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Your nomination for the deletion of the article "Pete Kettlewell"

You have flagged the article on Peter Kettlewell for deletion. You say he is non-notable and you say that Google does not turn anything up on him. You mentioned his credit on imdb, however, Mr. Kettlewell was not the man in question, as he has never worked on the show "Titans". Either this is another Peter Kettlewell in question or the imdb page is wrong. In fact, this Wikipedia page is just part of the process I have undergone to make the Holmes Group more widely-known. (An imdb page is in the works.) One look at the article I have written will show that he is not non-notable, in fact, he has had one of the most successful television careers in Canada. You may or may not be aware of this, but it is a difficult thing to do. As a producer for the highest rated program in the history of HGTV and as a Vice President for a company that makes millions every year, he is more than notable in the television and business fields in Canada. The reason for the lack of information about him is only due to work/ business items that outweighed the appropriate time to publish the article. Also, you said he was only nominated for a Gemini once, when he has won before. [1]

For these reasons, your lack of information on the subject makes you incapable of deeming this article non-notable. Please remove your deletion warning immediately. If you have any suggestions to making the article more Wikipedia friendly, I am completely open.


—Preceding 21:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)|unsigned]] comment added by SpencerJamesK (talkcontribs) 19:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

    • I was hoping we could have a discussion about the validity of this article's existence, but you have responded with no legitimate arguments. So I will just have to make my arguments better. Despite what you, again, "believe", I simply ask if you consider Mike Holmes is non-notable. If you think Holmes is notable, look at the facts: Peter Kettlewell has been an active part of the show since the very first season. Also, Kettlewell was written up in Report on Small Business Magazine which is included with The Globe and Mail, a national newspaper. [2] As you stated referring to ANYBIO, he should be included seeing as he is a winner of the only TV Award for Canadian television and it is one of the biggest awards in Canada. (Think the Emmys). I'm sure you would consider an Emmy award winner a valid entry for Wikipedia, would you not? Also, as I have said before, his profiles on imdb and a variety of other websites are in the process. If you want to talk like adults, lets talk like adults. Also, take a look at his TV page, and you tell me what's non-notable about these credits: [3] To avoid further confusion, I will now be chaning the article's title to "Pete Kettlewell" as a search for Pete instead of Peter comes up with more results. Also, see Holmes on Homes and Holmes Inspection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpencerJamesK (talkcontribs) 22:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Your nomination for the deletion of the article "His Holiness Ramesh Baba ji"

Ramesh Babaji meets the criterion of "Creative professionals." He has extensively spoken on the spiritual philosophy of Bhagavatam [4] and Bhagavad Gita[5]. He is considered a renunciant because he has made available all his wisdom to those having interest at no cost [6]. Not many people in the world would have the courage to do that. He has single handedly inspired an effort to protect more than 10,000 stay cows from slaughter. He is inspiring a devotional movement among thousands and thousands of villagers of Brij Dham and now all around the world. He is also inspiring protection of thousands of acres of land from illegal mining.

These are among many reason why he should be considered a "creative professional" working towards the cause of protecting highly neglected environment in India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geeta.mandir (talkcontribs) 05:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Your nomination for the deletion of the article "Harihar ji Maharaj"

I am surprised that you have recommended this article for deletion. While other articles on much lesser known and prominent personalities exist. Guru Harihar ji Maharaj is treeted with great respect among his followers as the founder of Geeta Ashrams across the world, and Geeta Dham in India. A long list of names of world wide Geeta Ashrams is given at the end of the article. In addition, a long history of Harihar ji Maharaj's associations with leading political figures of Indian freedom movement is also given. The list of trustees of Geeta Dham is also provided as a reference to the article. If you visit many of the sites that are linked to the article, you will find the picture of Hariharji Maharaj as the leading figure for the particular Geeta Ashram, accepted even more than eight years after his death. The fact that an individual is being treated with respect more than eight years after his death is a testimonial to the respect he commands world wide.

It is because of establishing Geeta Dham, and sacrificing his life to preserve the spiritual philosophy of Bhagavad Gita [7] Harihar ji Maharaj should be considered a creative professional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geeta.mandir (talkcontribs) 05:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

New Member

Hello,

I apologize for not using the sandbox mode, actually I thought that I was. I was just familiarizing myself with the process.

I have used Wikipedia for years and I would really like to become involved with the community. Thank you for the suggested reading I will be sure to make that my next priority.

If you have any other suggestions I would love to hear them. I want to help in any way that is needed. Safe guarding knowledge is a civic duty that has been an integral part of civilization from the very first written word. In fact it could be argued that it is one of the driving forces in it's development.

Thank you for your insight and suggestions. I look forward to "speaking" with you in the future.

Jason Breithaupt JTs Services (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Reubedan

Hello Erpert, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I deleted Reubedan, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided. The speedy deletion criteria are extremely narrow and specific, and the process is more effective if the correct criterion is used. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Tim Song (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I notice that you have proposed the deletion of this entry for a very self effacing, brilliant chemist.

I have known Chris for many decades, initially in the pharmaceutical chemistry field and latterly in industrial chemistry. I asked him to write a short piece explaining some of the more important work that he has done which has a significant contribution to ensuring we live in a clean world. Chris has always worked quietly in the background and generally has an aversion to any self-seeking or publicity of any sort. It is interesting that a person such as yourself seeks to eradicate any mention of him or his contribution to world science. He will be quite pleased to have his entry removed as he finds any acknowledgement of his talent an embarrassment. You say there is no mention of him or his work on search engines - I'm not surprised as this is quite deliberate on his part. If, however, you were involved in his area of expertise in either Europe or USA, you would find he is very well known indeed. It is true that he is not well liked either in Government circles (because of his work with Biofuels) or with Greenpeace and the like, who don't want power stations cleaned up they just want them all shut down. All of this is another subject and one on which he doesn't want to be drawn. I now have a different opinion of Wikipedia as it seems to be at the mercy of any radical who wants to suppress information that he or she doesn't agree with. A very sad situation. Geekiep (talk) 12:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

  • I didn't propose this deletion; I simply agree with it. And why are you posting this on everyone's talk page? Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I was advised that you proposed this deletion.
    • Your suggestion that two of the products mentioned were hoaxes will come as a surprise to both E-on and RWE together with other power generators who have purchased hundreds of thousands of tonnes over the last 5 years. If you want to act as the worlds policeman then I suggest you get your facts right. If this is the standard of information from Wikipedia then effectively all information published must be considered suspect and at the mercy of self appointed ill informed amateurs who want to pontificate on subjects they know nothing about.Geekiep (talk) 11:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Well, you were advised wrong. And I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works. Regardless of how well you know Mr. Edgecombe, all information on here has to be verifiable. (Personal attacks won't get you anywhere either.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
        • I was advised by one of Wikipedias other self appointed monitors that you proposed the deletion. I think I am begining to understand exactly how Wikipedia works. It seems to exist as a vehicle to massage the egos of various non entities with little regard for what is useful, interesting or of note. Get yourself some sort of entry on Google and whatever dross you come up with is considered gospel. So called verifiable information seems to rely entirely on Google. In the case of Edgecombe and many like him, such detailed information is either classified or subject to commercial secrecy agreements. But, hey ho if all you want to read about is fiddle players and the like then Wikipedia is your goal. Do what you wish, I'm sure Chris will be quite happy to be rid of the lot of you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geekiep (talkcontribs) 22:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

"Self appointed monitors" - now take a wild guess what this means. Just for your edification I would suggest "self appointed" means someone who takes it on themselves to act in a capacity not asked for by others. "monitors" means a person who edits information by their own rules. I would suggest that you re-read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA I have made no personal attacks on you. You may well identify yourself from certain general comments made, but that would be your interpretation. WP:USEFUL is very much a matter of opinion - I don't find you useful but I'm sure someone, somewhere must find you useful.Geekiep (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, it seems that you can't stand up for yourself and justify your libellous allegations that Edgecombe and I are perpetrators of some strange hoax and are liars WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. If your only action is to threaten to run to teacher and have me banned then you don't deserve to remain in any position of authority. The only thing you base your scandalous allegations on is a lack of a Google entry, which any industrial chemist worth his salt will avoid like the plague. I have been reading up on your record and find that scurrilous accusations without any form of real research or justification is your style. You, sir, are a disgrace.Geekiep (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Skylar Thomson article

I'm sorry there were no direct copyrights for the picture, I've put them with 'Sources' now. It was a little difficult because Skylar sent me the picture herself. So I guess the picture belongs to the one who took it and to Skylar as it belongs to her photo shoot. (Names of all the persons are on the page now.)

About the google results; maybe you should check out this website as well : www.crossoverentertainment.com

Looking forward to any other things I should add to the page so it won't be deleted.

kind regards Equestrian jumper (talk)

Thanks for Damage move

  • Referencing me to the activism page doesn't sway me. The article is largely unsourced and unsupported and frankly, lacks depth. If we look at the dictionary definition of activism it says "The use of direct, often confrontational action, such as a demonstration or strike, in opposition to or support of a cause." The Theron article shows that she once told a TV celebrity show that she and longtime boyfriend Stuart Townsend would not wed until gay marriage is legal in the U.S. That doesn't reflect an active involvement in that topic. A statement in an interview does not impart active involvement in working for a cause. In comparison, when you compare it to the actual Activist section of her article, she has actively been involved in women's rights organizations and marched for abortion rights, animal rights and involvement in PETA, and various involvement in organizations regarding South Africa. That qualifies as actively supporting those causes, vs. a statement in an interview. That is why I don't feel she should be categorized as active in LBGT rights. It's true that there is no wide definition of what that means, but I somehow feel that saying something in an interview isn't the same as actively involving oneself in what is basically a political/rights movement. The article just doesn't support that inclusion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
    • This is exactly what I'm talking about. You somehow don't feel that saying something in an interview...etc. If there is no consensus either way, any person can very well challenge your opinion. Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually, looking at your talk page, it appears that you have a history of edit-warring and were even blocked for it. You might want to read WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
      • As a matter of fact, I started a thread on Talk:Charlize Theron about this. And for the rest of your comment, comment on contributions, not on the contributor. I made no comments on my perception of you, and you are in no position to draw assumptions based on discussion on my talk page, thank you very much. I was not blocked for edit warring, I was blocked for correcting an error supported by references that was done by another editor with whom an "interaction ban" was in place, and all editors involved in that discussion agreed that the actual edit I made was correct. Shortly after that, the other editor was banned for a year for personal attacks, which was part and parcel of why I had issues with that other editor. In fact, I have never been blocked for edit-warring. You don't know what you're talking about. You might want to read WP:CIVIL. Then go elsewhere than the Wikipedia article and investigate what actual activists do, rather than try to connect a statement on a celebrity news show to actual activism. They are nowhere in the same universe. I have challenged your perception of what makes someone an activist. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Please stop posting de facto lies, Chowbok. I do deny it and submitted proof that I am not the same person. In fact, the lie comes from your assertion that the sock also denied it. She posted a mea culpa on her talk page and admitted to the actions. Your bad habit of stalking my edits and posting things such as this is actually actionable as far as spreading personal attacks and the wikistalking. That you tried to assert that various editors in good standing are also socks of mine simply shows your bad faith bias. Please stop stalking me and trying to smear me at every turn. You are garnering no fans by doing this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

otheruses3 ==> otheruses

Please do not use {{otheruses3}}. It redirects to {{otheruses}}.174.3.123.220 (talk) 05:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to say that I am sorry for second-guessing you and declining the speedy deletion tag you placed on the above-captioned article. I have to say that the article that you saw that I assessed was very borderline, and I might have tagged it myself. I was sufficiently curious to do a little research, make some edits and add a couple of citations; I believe it now does meet notability standards. If you feel strongly about this, I'm certainly at your service; if you cared to contribute to the article, it could certainly use some work to balance the self-promotional aspect. By the way, if you wanted to take the article to an articles for deletion process, I would not be upset in the slightest; I am still thinking that this individual is more notorious than notable and it may well be that getting the community to contribute to an AfD would be a very useful idea. I will look forward to any comments you care to make. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Emily Wright

Hello Erpert,

Emily Wright is one of the first women engineers to break out in this male driven industry. She has engineered seven #1 records (possibly more, still looking into it) in the past 2 years. More than any other women has ever had in the business. Personally I think that is quite notable!.

I pressed publish by mistake before I got to the references for her engineering work. All 3 of the references listed in her background are noting her previous career. But there are at least 10-15 wikipedia articles where she is credited as a recording engineer and many google reference.

I think it is an incredibly common name therefore her credits do not jump to the top.

Please reconsider your call for deletion.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erin12345678 (talkcontribs) 03:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

GOST 7396

GOST 7396 descript some types of plugs and sockets: from A to G, and Type I. They have only one special type of plug: type C1 in GOST 7396 therms. It is ungrounded plug with round base, that named in article "AC power plugs and sockets" as a "soviet plug". That have not a grounded plug with 4mm pins. See source. And in russian wikipedia this article was deleted.

At end: excuse me for my english :)Tucvbif (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

but maybe just I must to nominate this article for deletion.Tucvbif (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Your nomination to delete Jeniva

Information should be gathered before the band has an article. Please read WP:BAND. Erpert (let's talk about it) 21:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Enough information has now been provided on the page. If there is anything else needed on the page, tell me and I can add it. Two members from the band Jeniva are currently in a famous Japanese band, Matenrou Opera, that has just signed with a major music label (King Records (Japan)). The Jeniva page is needed to provide further information on Matenrou Opera. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anzi123 (talkcontribs) 22:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Your nomination to delete Arnie Bong Fernandez Arquiza

As of the moment, I don't find your nomination substantial. In the Philippines, Bong Arquiza is indeed famous. The reference books stated in his page can be found in the national library of our country. You may visit it for purposes of verification. And in line with his notability, you may google his name and you'll see the number of search results you will find. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.114.232 (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Arquiza

I've restored your nomination to its original wording following vandalism by 112.202.114.232. I've also posted a warning to SpAs and IP users. Peridon (talk) 21:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

MK5384

Whilst you're more than welcome at my talk page, WP:DTTR. Conversations will be answered. Further templates will be summarily removed without being read. Thank you.Mk5384 (talk) 08:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The "made-up" tag you put on Tharks

I was wondering what you believe might be made up in this article. The Tharks are mentioned in Burroughs' Mars novels as you can see in the product description here on Amazon.com and in the cast list of Princess of Mars at IMDb. I know some of what's described in the article sounds way out there, but that's exactly what the Mars stories are like. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I have removed your "madeup" tag, because the Edgar Rice Burroughs novels do exist (and a film is in preparation) and do feature Tharks. The article has problems, but it isn't a hoax. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

In addressing the nominator's good faith concerns, the article has now been edited, cleaned up, and sourced, and contains no original research. I believe this Walt Disney produced classic short from early animation history now meets WP:NF and merits an article on Wikipedia. I invite you to revisit Music Land and offer suggestions toward further improvement. Thank you, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your suggestions. --Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Citra-Solv, LLC

Your nomination was a good one... catching obvious COI of a meager little stub. However, my own research finds that although Monty seems rather too proud of his brief acting career, he has greater WP:GNG notability for other hings. I will be giving the article a major face-lift later today to change its focus and improve its sourcing. Best, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Inre THIS. We do what we can :). Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd appreciate your help in showing me what criteria are flagging this for speedy deletion

I'm new to wikipedia and trying to follow all the rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HARD EVENTS (talkcontribs) 19:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Can the speedy deletion tag be removed from the page? I was advised by an admin on a previous page like this page created by a different editor that rather than tagging it for speedy deletion, to move it to the creators user page, which I have done now. Tomdresser27 (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, this is the user, kfdwiki. I heard of the deletion of my page, Rainbow Math, and I don't understand why this isn't notable. I made sure it was notable and honest, and I deleted the "non-notable" Podcast section (I understand that.) What I don't understand is why this page is going under? Maybe the page could use some freshening up, but that's what we are all here for. If there is a reason for deletion that I haven't been informed about, I would like to know. ~ kfdwiki ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfdwiki (talkcontribs) 00:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:N. Erpert (let's talk about it) 02:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
How is this not notable? I made sure it was. It's as serious as I can get. Kfdwiki (talk) 13:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)kfdwiki

David Mccaskill Elliott

I'm also researching an AfD on David Mccaskill Elliott
He goes by Dave. Search for Dave on Google and you'll find hits.--mboverload@ 05:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD Peeping Tom

Greetings Erpert - am slightly surprised at the speed with which deleted Peeping Tom (theatre company). The AfD had been up for less than 24hrs and, apart from my two comments, there were no deletes (or keeps, for that matter) but that doesn't mean consensus was reached. Appropriate non-admin closures is clear on the cases it covers and you seem to have been a bit eager to close this one. As you can see from my contribs., I'm all for speedy deleting, but this was a borderline case and deserved closer attention. Looking forward to your feedback, cheers! --Technopat (talk) 08:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

About Rivulets

That's fine. I probably shouldn't have added it after you already PRODded it. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

A "POV film" is one that handles the entire action from the perspective of the actor or actors. We will never see an overall wide shot unless the wide is itself a perspective of one of the actors. Think Blair Witch Project... a perfect example. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The Show

I added new references. The album is on amazon and billboard, and this band is very important. they just recently played the O2 Arena, also played by Kelly Clarkson and Hole. They have also been mentioned in publications such as Jersey Beat and Village Voice. Although they are still an indie band, they have many radio stations internationally that have the Show in consistant rotation. The album has sold over 30,000 copies, and still is selling consistently. The Show are going to be huge pretty soon, so their wiki has to come now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CjsRoxMySox (talkcontribs) 03:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Aunt Esther

Aunt Esther is awesome, that's what she had to do with the discussion. :) Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 00:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

Thanks. I read it and commented. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Also, sorry to open a can of worms. For the record, I like the redirects, hate the hatnotes. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the AFD close, on article, Oksana Grigorieva. Much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 13:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Please see WP:ANI, regarding above diff to Cat meat. -- Cirt (talk) 13:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Kylie Minogue Rare and Unreleased

Just a quick note

Hey, Erpert, just a quick procedural note. You recently performed several speedy non-admin closures at AfD. Here's one to help you remember. I don't have a problem with the closures, but this was an inappropriate NAC because speedy keep didn't apply to these cases, and they were closed too early. Please review Wikipedia:Speedy keep if you need to.

If the nominator does not understand deletion process, you should assume good faith, contact the nominator to make the error known to them and ask if they will withdraw the nomination, allowing a speedy keep. This is better than assuming they don't know what they're doing and closing the discussion. SwarmTalk 21:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

  • I did contact the nominator. (I even said that's what I was going to do in that AfD's closing comments.) And that was another editor suggesting the nominator didn't know whats/he was doing, not me. Erpert (let's talk about it) 21:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I understand; the point is simply that the speedy keep was incorrect.
    • If the nominator didn't understand the process, you may be able to get them to withdraw the nomination, allowing a speedy keep. In other words, you can speedy keep based on the withdrawal, not based on the fact that you don't think they understand deletion process. I'm leaving this message just in case you're not entirely familiar with what the exact speedy delete guidelines are. Regards, SwarmTalk 23:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

UNITED KINGDOM RADIO

  • the station talks about the most fascinating of topics. the united kingdom has no station like it and the name is unique to a station. all topics are useful and has listeners all around the globe who also finds it interesting. most topics are talked about as if the presenters are encyclopaedia so i think it is totally relevant for the station to be on there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.64.249 (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

RE: AFD Nomination

Sorry, I misread the page history and mistook the change for vandalism. My bad. C1k3 (talk) 08:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Torres effect

Hello Erpert, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I deleted Torres effect, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided. The speedy deletion criteria are extremely narrow and specific, and the process is more effective if the correct criterion is used. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. fetch·comms 21:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Patent nonsense is "sihfah asfsihs hgif ahsgs vfshaqgi" or "mango blue television scream tennis sailboat", so if it's comprehensible English, it's cannot be tagged as such. fetch·comms 21:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I can understand your reasoning for wanting to delete this article but scouthut cricket has been a tradition on the Isle of Wight for a long time and it would be nice to find an article about it.

Thanks Jake —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobjackman (talkcontribs) 19:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Hi Erpert. As much as I appreciate your idea in closing this, I felt I needed to revert your close to this discussion. At AfD, the longstanding practice is that someone who has not participated in the discussion must close it. Thanks for understanding... Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 22:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
    • My apologies; I just read WP:NOTEARLY. It would be nice if that aspect was included in WP:SPEEDYKEEP too, though. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
      • What sometimes happens is that the nominator, and anyone who has recommended "delete", will return to the discussion after sources have been added, and change their recommendation to "keep". In a situation like that, when there are no remaining "delete"s, then WP:SPEEDYKEEP applies. Sometimes they'll come back and say, "I've seen the added sources and they don't convince me." When the "delete" !voters are silent, we don't really know if they've seen the sources and are happy with the article staying or not. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 12:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I did read it. Once you get past the marketing-babble, it's promoting a "graphical representation of data and information." 69.181.249.92 (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
And WP:COI. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 14:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD closure

I don't do a lot of AfD, although I used to. It's just that the timing was really suspect. That article was nominated by a user with no prior edits soon after I'd blocked an abusive sockpuppet who'd vandalized that same page and who'd named himself after it. No shortage of weirdos on the interwebs. So, invoking WP:IGNORE as an excuse, I closed the discussion.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

List of Ontario universities by average entering grade

Hello,

Thank you for bringing it this to my attention. It was my mistake for posting this article twice. You're free to delete the article List of Ontario Universities by Average Entrance Grade, but please leave on the List of Ontario universities by average entering grade article. The reason why there is not sufficient explanatory text is that I was not done writing the article.

Thank you, Rob

Rob_g81 (talk) 3:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Why did you close the debate so early ? there were two delete votes ! Nefesf9 (talk) 10:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)