User talk:Kuyabribri

Please click here to leave me a new message.

UK Airport Lounges

Thank you for the advice, I will read the help me sections before re-submitting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirley286 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Quick note

Hey Kuyabribri, and thanks for your work on Wikipedia. I had a quick question for you... at this diff you left a template admonishing someone for refactoring on ANI. I think the sentiment is right. However, I wonder if you've read Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars? I only ask because I know there are some people who get really offended by templates, and when an editor has many months in and more than 500 edits, I'd hate to lose them over something silly. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 08:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Although I have never read that specific essay, I am aware of the sentiment it expresses and I do try not to leave template warnings for experienced/established editors. I admit that I don't usually check the contribution history of an editor I have never come across to determine whether he/she is an established editor before making the decision to leave a template warning, but I do factor in the circumstances. When I left that warning, there was a rapid succession of posts at ANI and the manner in which Golden Sugarplum removed another user's text, specifically, the removal of the last portion of one user's comment but leaving that same user's signature ([1]) led me to believe this was a bad-faith removal. Additionally, I noticed a large number of template warnings on the talk page already (though they related mostly to notifications for deletion and orphaned images). Though I did not say it on the ANI thread, I did accept his explanation that the removal was accidental. I will try to be more careful about this in the future. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Francis Boulle

I removed your speedy deletion tag from this article, as it contains an assertion of notability (i.e. the starring role in the TV show) and therefore is not eligible for speedy. Please be more careful next time. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This is what the article looked like when I tagged it. Hardly a claim to notability there. The claim to notability was added after I tagged it ([2]) and the speedy tag was re-added twice by SDPatrolBot. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You tagged it four minutes after it was created. When you tag something that early, you have a responsibility to take a moment to check and make sure that it isn't a stub on a genuinely notable subject that's being created by an inexperienced editor. As per WP:CSD, "Before nominating a page for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere, reverted to a better previous revision, or handled in some other way." The edit you tagged for deletion was the first-ever edit by the page's creator, User:Wondot9, and taking ten seconds to check Google News for "Francis Boulle" would have turned up this article on Boulle and his show from The Daily Mail, along with several others. Because you were lazy and slipshod, you inadvertently bit a new editor making a constructive addition to the encyclopedia. As such, please try to be more careful in the future. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Point taken. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The Amazing Race article reformat opinion

What would you say if we changed the way we display airport names on all of the TAR pages? That is, instead of using the full name, we can just use the IATA codes, so instead of having [[Los Angeles International Airport]] we'd use [[Los Angeles International Airport|LAX]] and the like. I also don't know where I should propose this change to a larger audience.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not too fond of this idea. From a purely stylistic standpoint, I don't like the idea of placing abbreviations (or IATA codes) on an article without placing their expansion first. I might see this making sense if we needed to say "Los Angeles International Airport" multiple times in the same paragraph or section, but we typically don't do that in TAR articles.

As to your second question regarding getting a larger audience, I don't see a WikiProject that is applicable here, so I would say that since the season 18 page is the one most likely to be on people's watchlists, post your proposal there, and then on other seasons' talk pages post a message pointing to the discussion on the season 18 talk page. Hope that helps. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Notability not inherited

Hi, I'm writing to you regarding your removal of the speedy deletion template by stating that notability was asserted due to being the descendent of someone notable here: [[3]] Just wanted to draw your attention to the policy about notability not being inherited: WP:NOTINHERITED. I see no other notability claims in that article at this time. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

And I've removed the tag again. CV that is an essay, and as it stands there is enough in the article to make it pass csd#a7, if you believe the article should be deleted, you should take it to afd. Also when a user who is not the creator removes a csd tag you should not restore it--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I was in the process of typing up a response but Jac said pretty much what I wanted to say. Claiming inherited notability is enough to get past A7. CV, I was actually in the process of doing my WP:BEFORE due diligence to open an AfD when you replaced the CSD tag. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha. The AfD is open. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Pell Grant C+P

It was a copy+paste. I somehow ran across it and decided it was better than what was already there. I didn't spend a great deal of time investigating, so maybe it wasn't! Fleetham (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Need some help

Hello Kuyabribri,

I suppose because I'm quite new here and every person here has his own talk page I'm a little bit lost. Since I have no idea how to contact the administrator NawlinWiki who actually deleted my article about InVision Software I'm writing to you to ask for some advice. I changed the text of the article and started it anew at Special:Mypage/InVision Software. Could you possibly help me by reviewing the text or recommend someone who could do this instead? I read all the necessary guidelines, but I can see that I'm just far away from contributing a good article. The only references I can provide are the company's website and some online published articles of the same... Please answer if possible! Thanks a lot! 4ernoMore (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I have gone over your userspace draft as well as my reasons for nominating the last iteration of InVision Software for speedy deletion, and have come to the conclusion that if I were to see this article in the article space, I would nominate it for deletion under the same criteria of no indication of importance and blatant advertising or promotion. Following are my concerns with the article:

• Most of the article reads as a press release and it is littered with flowery filler terms. For example, the first three sentences of the article are basically just a fancy way of saying "InVision Software is a workforce management company based in Germany." Additionally, this article uses the words "portfolio" and "solution(s)", which are two major pet peeves of mine, in places where a word like "product" or no word at all would suffice.
• It is important to note that "advertising" and "promotion" do not necessarily mean an attempt to sell something, but they also include statements that only serve to publicize someone or something. One way to look at this is how might a person like me, who is neither an affiliate of the company nor a client/customer, describe what this company does? Judging from a quick overview of the company website, I would say it provides software to employers to assist with workforce management.
• Even if this article were completely rewritten from an encyclopedic, neutral point of view, it must meet notability criteria in order to be included on Wikipedia. These guidelines, while by no means perfect, have been developed and refined by the community, in part because Wikipedia is not about everything. In a nutshell, the company must be the subject of coverage in multiple, reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Company press releases, websites, Facebook/LinkedIn profiles, etc., are not sufficient to qualify under this criteria. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for the guidelines that apply to this specific article.

From the looks of things right now, it looks like this article is not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Of course, you are welcome to prove me wrong by rewriting the article from a neutral point of view and providing evidence of coverage in reliable sources as I explained above. You are also welcome to see Wikipedia:Alternative outlets for a list of sites using wiki technology that might be willing to host your content as is. I hope that helps. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for taking the time and helping me understand how the article can be improved. Now I get your point! I will look through the files you recommended. Once again your feedback is much appreciated. 4ernoMore (talk) 11:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Who's Who

Why is Who's Who unreliable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flying Fische (talk • contribs) 20:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

If your question is about Who's Who (UK) being reliable/unreliable, I think you are better suited asking your question at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If this is about a paid Who's Who, those are vanity publications that, from what I understand, have little to no fact checking, and persons with entries can have whatever they want put in there, regardless of whether or not it is true, as long as they pay a fee. I suspect your question is about the former, so please ask your question there. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Florence Peake

In view of the fact that deletion of Florence Peake has turned out to be more controversial than I expected, (as shown at User talk:JamesBWatson#Florence Peake and A7) I have restored the article and reopened the AfD. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me. I will respond on your talk page momentarily, to keep the full discussion in one place. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

AfD of Transformice

Thank you for helping clean up my mess. [4] Is it in order now? Active Banana (^bananaphone 14:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine now. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

/* Contested proposed deletion: Efax */

Hello, thank you for your attention to our request regarding the eFax disambiguation page. I have offered a response to your comments on the talk page and would appreciate your review, and reply. Thanks for your attention to this. j2globalwiki ed — Preceding unsigned comment added by J2globalwiki ed (talk • contribs) 17:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LiveChat (3rd nomination)

Hello KuyaBriBri, thank you for the comment under the article I edited. I wanted to improve it and did the research to provide the references from more reliable sources. I encountered some articles and included several of them (i.e. from PC Magazine and InternetRetailer.com) in another edit. Should I also remove the links to pages where this software can be downloaded? Klim3k 18:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I recommend removing the links to pages where the software can be downloaded. They don't serve any encyclopedic purpose and can be interpreted as advertising. A link to the company's official website for this product (if one exists) under a separate "External links" section is acceptable. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• As you advised, I have just removed the references to download pages of the software and add-ons pages. How does that look now? Klim3k 21:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Comm100 copy

Hello! I'd deleted this after it had been tagged for a speedy. Here's the author's last version. Please let me know if I can do anything else for you. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Removed article copy after review. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I weighed in on the SPI. Looks like a clear case of WP:DUCK to me. Good catch. PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

New User. You nominated "jennifer teeter" for deletion

I am brand new at this, and I was unaware of everything that went into making a new article. I believe it has been taken for speedy deletion, though I am not entirely sure. I am very confused about the way things work, and how I am supposed to rectify that there is indeed notoriety. I am simply trying to make it "correct" and have it un-deleted. Is it possible you could help me with this? I have read all the policies on contesting deletions and such, but it all just sounds like jumbled words. I joined specifically to make her a page because she has yet to have one added. And when I joined I wasn't even aware there was a whole hierarchy of people deciding things were not good enough to be on wikipedia. I don't need to understand every in and out of it, I just would like to know how to make it fit the criteria so it can be put back up again and what steps I need to take to do that.

Thank you. Marli — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marlipaige (talk • contribs) 02:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

First off, I didn't nominate the article for deletion. Another user nominated it for deletion. Actually, two users did. And an administrator (a third uninvolved user) decided that the article qualified for deletion under the deletion policy, and actually performed the deletion. I became involved after these three events took place, mostly as a "cleanup" activity, and I don't even know what the article was about.

Wikipedia is not about everything. In order for an article to remain, it must be demonstrated that the subject has been the subject of coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Blogs, Facebook/MySpace/Twitter/LinkedIn profiles, YouTube channels, and official websites do not in and of themselves qualify as coverage in reliable sources. Examples of reliable coverage include articles about the person in newspapers, magazines, or other publications that have established fact-checking. The full policy regarding notability criteria for people can be found at WP:BIO.

There are some people that just plain don't meet notability criteria, and no amount of "correcting" or "making it fit" will make them meet notability criteria. I'm not saying this is necessarily true regarding this article (again, I never saw the article), but it's possible. If that's the case, you might want to see WP:OUTLET for a list of websites using wiki technology that may be willing to host your content.

I also want to clear up what appears to be a misconception on your part. There is no "hierarchy of people" that decides what articles get deleted. Anyone, including you, is welcome to express an opinion in a deletion discussion. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 04:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Indented line Thank you again for your speedy response. I appreciate your willingness to help me. I submitted a good number of links that I think will suffice as notoriety, but if not, I guess I will just have to try again or wait until there are more links on the web to prove it.

Thanks again Marlipaige (talk) 04:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Marlipaige

Proposed deletion of Judge Harry Pregerson Interchange

The article Judge Harry Pregerson Interchange has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I've never heard this name; this doesn't seem like a notable interchange. Almost every freeway to freeway interchange is named in CA; doesn't mean that they're all notable.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rschen7754 06:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Judge Harry Pregerson Interchange for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Judge Harry Pregerson Interchange is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judge Harry Pregerson Interchange until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Rschen7754 21:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Steele (2nd nomination)

Again, I'm probably wrong on form and placement but I'm not sure how people get to see these things so hopefully my learning curve will improve. My question has to do with if there's anything else that you recommend that I, as the proponent for deletion, should do regarding this re-nomination for deletion of the Dennis Steele article? Much thanks for your help. --TR05401 (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The guideline for appropriate notification of interested editors is at Wikipedia:Canvassing. As for anything else you can do, you are welcome to civilly and politely respond to anyone who disagrees with your opinion at the AfD discussion page in an effort to persuade them to change their opinion. If you choose to do so, be aware that there is a line between being civil and being obnoxious or obsessive. You definitely don't want to come off that way, because it can cause uninvolved editors who might otherwise be neutral to not want to help you. Hope that helps. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 04:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, such advice is much appreciated. I'd seen the mention of noticing/advising an affected individual of a discussion for deletion underway and sent it along to DS at his website contact page since apparently he's blocked from his DennisRFV username talk.

I hadn't really intended to pursue discussion unless there arose a misunderstanding of fact or if a relevant item that I was aware of might help to clarify. For instance, and as an example only, when Steele was arrested at a Democratic Party function (I'm not a registered Dem) here and claimed a First Amendment infringement as a defense, it isn't generally known that he and an associate improperly obtained press credentials (they lied according to the associate's admission at an available web forum) to gain access to the function that they weren't otherwise able to gain admittance to. The disruption he caused was one of a series of stunts that he engaged in as a form of politicking in lieu of a substantive campaign.

It isn't entirely clear to me (may have missed it) if I should also neutrally notice previous contributors to the earlier deletion discussion. I'm not sure how this gets circulated so I don't want someone to take offense that might be inadvertently left out of a redo of a deletion discussion they'd previously participated in. --TR05401 (talk) 05:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no requirement to notify previous contributors to either the first deletion discussion or to the article itself; however, it is not discouraged either. If you do so, you should notify all contributors, with the exception of bot accounts or editors who did not contribute substantive content to the article (i.e., don't notify editors whose sole contributions to the article were to wikify, correct grammar/punctuation, add categories or maintenance tags, etc.). A neutrally worded notice can be placed by pasting the following on the user's talk page: {{subst:AfD-notice|Dennis Steele|Dennis Steele (2nd nomination)}} ~~~~. You can preview the wording of that notice here. Notifying the article subject off-wiki was probably not a wise move, especially since the subject has edited the article, as it has opened the possibility for people to come to Wikipedia for the sole purpose of defending the article. I'm not sure how likely this is to happen in this case, but it does happen often. If Steele does contribute to the discussion, the closing administrator will take into account his conflict of interest, which means that unless he can demonstrate a clear understanding of Wikipedia policy, his statements will carry less weight.

I do have some further advice/criticism: Since this subject is a biography of a living person, you really ought to provide some reliable source evidence of the claims you make regarding this person. Simply stating "I know it to be true" or citing firsthand experience is not sufficient; this is considered original research. Even though these claims are not part of the article itself, it seems you are attempting to either dispute the reliability of the sources provided in the article, or frame them in a different context. This information can be considered libelous if it's not backed up with a reliable source citation.

In my opinion, the matter at hand here is not how significant this person's failed campaign was, but whether or not he meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for inclusion. In short, these state that a person is suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia if he/she has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. In general, passing mentions in the context of something else do not constitute significant coverage. Politicians can bypass these criteria if they meet specific criteria for politicians, but I don't believe Steele meets them (others may disagree).

Please click on the blue links in my comments for help understanding Wikipedia's policies on the terms I've used. And if you have further questions, please let me know. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but I only just saw this. As you can see I'm still getting up to speed on the various nuances of policy vs. guidelines regarding politicians who may also claim notability via bio. It was my intention to make certain that a good faith attempt to advise the subject of this discussion so that a later complaint of having been deleted w/o some form of notice wouldn't occur. I'll follow your other recommendation regarding earlier participants since this isn't about stirring up some hornets' nest.

My familiarity with libel is solely as a legal matter and am comfortable w/my statements about a person in their role as a public figure.

I'll look over the material you've suggested but other than having moved the issue forward there's probably little more that I should contribute. I'm sure that the system here is more than capable of arriving at a proper conclusion w/o my repeated responses.

Again, your insights are appreciated. --TR05401 (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal of image

Hello, I see you put a speedy deletion on an Best Western logo I uploaded as there was already one on here.

Just wondering if you'd be able to direct me to the link?

Thanks Wagg4 (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

See File:Best Western logo.svg. You could have easily found this yourself by going to the Best Western article and clicking on the BW logo. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I did, but it came up as a 20X20 pixel image. But that link works thanks Wagg4 (talk) 20:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...

..for closing that "small" tag. This is not my day - first I forget to press "Save page" to put the AfD template on the article, then in apologising for that I screw up the AfD log... Better go back to bed! JohnCD (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hal Trosky or pro-baseball players prior to 1965

He wasn't drafted, Trosky was an amateur free agent signing. Prior to 1965 there was no major league baseball draft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Baseball_Draft

Just letting you know.- William 10:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Ian Edmondson

I saved the article on Ian Edmondson and added to it for you.82.18.199.36 (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for Speedy Deletion recommendation

Hi,

Not sure what happened, must have been a typo. I found that I created two pages (one with a capitalization issue) when I was trying to just do one entry! Anyway, I totally agree about deleting the page that was duplicated in error. (I wonder how I did that!)

Best,

Sidhevair — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidhevair (talk • contribs) 22:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

... for this. I'm already floundering around after only being away for a little while. Best, Airplaneman ✈ 23:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Big Splash Trust

I don't understand (a) why you marked this entry for speedy deletion after it was amended and (b) why you didn't respond to my comment before doing so. I'd find it genuinely helpful if you could explain, please.Bcjtbst (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I was offline for a while and had no idea you had commented on the talk page, let alone had time to respond. I don't remember the specifics of the article, but the reason it was deleted was "unambiguous advertising or promotion", which means that the article was written in an overly promotional tone to the point that there was no encyclopedic content worth saving.

In order for an article to remain on Wikipedia, it must at the minimum: 1) contain reliable sources that verify its content; 2) be written from a neutral point of view; and 3) meet certain notability criteria.

If you would like the deleted article in draft form for you to work on, I can request that the administrator who deleted the article create what is called a "userspace draft" where you can work on the article in a location where it is subject to considerably less scrutiny from the community. I should caution you, however, that if you are somehow affiliated with the organization you seek to contribute an article about, you are strongly discouraged (but not expressly forbidden) from creating or editing such articles because of conflict of interest, which hinders users' ability to write anything from neutral point of view.

For a further explanation of any of the terms I've used, please click on the blue links above. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Pobreng Alindahaw

Re. A9 of Pobreng Alindahaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views),

As this is about some kind of ethnic folk-song, not a contemporary musical recording, it's debatable whether A9 applies. I think, perhaps, a PROD would be better - I suggest changing it from a CSD to a PROD. What do you think?  Chzz  ►  14:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I was on the fence about that too, but went with CSD mainly because of the author's numerous warnings on copyvios (which I have reported at AIV; this article originally had the lyrics in it but I removed them as there was no indication that they are public domain). I do think that if we disregard all of the author's issues, prod is a better way to go with this one. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep; I understand.

I've boldly done this - I see a new user, not getting the idea about refs, and all the speedy-warns are unlikely to help; I wanted to emphasize the key point. Hope you don't mind that action. I'll check back on the user, of course; if they keep doing it, it'll be a competence issue.  Chzz  ►  15:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I've recreated the article; I found a few refs - enough for a stub, I think. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  16:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Council on International Law and Politics

You have marked this entry for speedy deletion pursuant to Section 11 of the policies, essentially b/c of "self-promotion". If you would care to visit the website of the CILP, you would be able to see that this is an NGO incorporated as a not-for-profit charity and it pursues a number of pro bono activities of benefit to developing countries and large numbers of stakeholders in many parts of the world. None of the persons involved, including myself, have any profit seeking motives. The entry for Wikipedia was created to inform a wider international audience about the beneficial activities of this genuine charity, not to gain personal, let alone financial benefit. I do not see what would be contrary to Wikipedia's mission in this entry. Frank Emmert (talk) 14:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

"Promotion" means that an article seeks to tell how good or great something is, or to "spread the word" about it, and applies to non-profit/community/charitable organizations and individual persons just as much as it does to for-profit businesses. All Wikipedia articles must be written from neutral point of view, which is one of the core content policies. Your disclosed involvement with the organization means you have a conflict of interest, and per policy editors (myself included) are strongly discouraged from creating or editing articles on such subjects, mainly because most people in that situation have difficulty maintaining neutral point of view.

Please do not interpret anything I have said here to mean that the cause that this organization undertakes is not noble or admirable, as it certainly is. See this essay for some advice on creating articles on these types of organizations. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Orenduff (2nd nomination)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Orenduff (2nd nomination). You were involved in the previous AfD and are are invited participate in the current one. —Bagumba (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Template:Z48

Article's whose AFD you commented in back at AFD a month later

Since you commented in the AFD for this article last month, I thought you might want to know its back at AFD again this month. [5] Dream Focus 03:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Removing BLP prod tags

Sorry, I wasn't aware that this was possible. I'll keep it in mind in the future :) Rymatz (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011

Hi Kuyabribri. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for Seonggwang High School, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers and review the criteria for speedy deletion. Particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion, proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. There was no G11 advertising in this article. To be sure that you are applying our most recent policy changes, please take a moment to read these updated pages:

• WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#N - CSD exceptions for schools
• WP:NPP - where you will learn about the other NPP tasks
• WP:DEL - deletion policy
• WP:CSD - speedy deletion

It's a lot to read but it will help towards our current drive to improve page patrolling. Happy editing! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Posted by User:Ivyleague100

Hello Kuyabribri. Please advise as to how a new discussion can be opened with regards to this page. Many thanks. ivyleague100 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivyleague100 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:BEFORE to see the due diligence that is required before opening a deletion discussion. If after doing that you still believe the article should be deleted, see WP:AFDHOWTO for the three steps on opening a discussion. Hope that helps. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Gallowglass (band) - contesting WP:CSD

Hi Kuyabribri Just a note to let you know I've contested your WP:CSD here as the A7 criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance (even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines). Such claims are made in this article. Plutonium27 (talk) 22:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It appears an administrator has agreed with me and deleted the article as A7. If you would like clarification, please contact that admin directly, as I had no say in his/her decision to delete the article. For future reference, an editor who is not the creator of an article may remove a speedy deletion tag in order to contest its deletion. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Saw it yesterday. No problems there. Plutonium27 (talk) 19:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey

Heyah, could you check my page again on Dean Smith ( actor) as i have put a reference in :) Thanks x. Dean personally requested on twitter that I make him a page so I would like to keep it going. I tried to put a reference in at 1st but it came up with an error code which I have now sorted (hopefully) x — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lola-razz (talk • contribs) 19:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The article still has no reliable sources. Posting a link to the IMDb main page is not a reliable source. You also need to be aware of the conflict of interest guideline. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I have replaced them with websites of the shows that he was in. I am not a close friend or any way involved with Dean. I simply follow him on twiiter, I asked him something as I couldnt find it ok Wiki and he said that I could create a page for him. Sorry for the bother I have caused (Lola-razz (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC))

DcGLass/Sandbox

Kuyabiri

I got your email message re the removal of the text I had in the DcGlass sandbox. My intention was to put up a draft which I was going to use to learn editing. I thought that the sandbox was a place for drafts and that it was in the user's own space. Let me know where I should work on my draft. I am new to this so I appreciate any help you can give me.

Dcglass (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Dcglass

You are absolutely correct that the sandbox is the proper place for drafts. However, you created two identical pages, one at Dcglass/sandbox and one at User:Dcglass/sandbox. I requested the "Dcglass/sandbox" page be deleted, because in order for the wiki software to recognize that a page is in your user space, the "User:" prefix is necessary. Otherwise, the page is considered an article and subject to all the community scrutiny that articles are subject to. You are welcome to continue working on the draft at User:Dcglass/sandbox.

Since your user name strongly resembles the name of the person your proposed article is about, I should advise you of Wikipedia's policies on autobiographies and conflict of interest (click those blue links). In short, both state that writing an article on yourself or some subject that you are affiliated with is strongly discouraged. Let me know if you have any further questions. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Again Shoumita Roy

This article Shoumita Roy is an autobiographical spam. The article has been challenged and deleted multiple times. I have noticed you have challenged it few times. But, once deleted, she again creates the article. She also includes her name in different lists like, notable Bengalis, Bengali actresses. I deleted her name from the lists. But, she has undone the change. I also added {{db-spam}} in the main article. But she has also undone that.
I have read Wikipedia instruction wp:editwar, that's why I have not reverted her changes. But, she is continuously spamming. --Tito Dutta (Talk) 08:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not an administrator and do not have the ability to block a user or delete an article; however, I do know how to get administrator attention on various matters. After reading the comments on your talk page and doing a little investigating, it appears that the multiple spellings have already been dealt with through create protection. If you believe this user has been abusively using multiple accounts to create these different spellings, please let me know which accounts and I can fill out a sockpuppet investigation.

For your information, if a speedy deletion tag is repeatedly removed by the article creator, you are allowed to replace it without fear of an edit warring violation. As long as you adequately warn the user that an article creator may not remove a speedy deletion tag (you must first assume good faith and assume that the user is simply unaware of the policy), those removals are considered vandalism and can be grounds for a block. Note that this policy does not apply if an uninvolved user removes the tag in good faith. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

About: Shoumita Roy

Hi Kuyabribri!
The user Shoumita Ray is writing the article Shoumita Roy again. So, I request you to block the user Shoumita Ray.
Regards,
Guitarist^{(talk|contributions)}_{11:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)}

I am supporting the request. --Tito Dutta (Talk) 12:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not an administrator and cannot block anyone. However, in accordance with AGF and some investigating I have done, I have made a block request at WP:AIV. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --Tito Dutta (Talk) 14:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Guitarist^{(talk|contributions)}_{14:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)}

Hello. After looking at the deleted pages linked from your AIV report, I decided to block Shoumita Ray (talk · contribs) as a sockpuppet of Soumita Roy (talk · contribs) due to the quacking I heard. Since the articles are now salted, I didn't block the other account, but did leave them a final warning with a note about the socking. Unless they come up with another article title to evade the protection, or engage in further sockpuppetry, I'm not inclined to block them at this time. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Good! -Tito Dutta (Talk) 18:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, hadn't known about the puppeting. Blocking is fine since that was occuring. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Followup: There was quite a collection of socks, after all. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

speedy deletion of Canyon Road, Santa Fe, New Mexico

Technically, your nomination was valid. As it existed at that time, the article was written in a purely promotional tone. However, I found it to be relatively simple to fix by simply removing the over-the-top language and stripping the article down to the basic facts that were hidden in the hyperbole. I've never been there, had never heard of it before yesterday, and yet I was able to fix the problem you identified with one edit [6]. Just something to think about when doing new page patrol, that we could speedy delete something doesn't always mean we should. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Posted by User:NadejdaKontrol

Hi Kuyabribri,

You tagged my page for a 'speedy delete'. The page was for BusinessBecause and I'm trying to establish why it was deleted as I tried to include some references that I found that validate the website.

I've seen some other websites like this one that are listed on wiki e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quacquarelli_Symonds and so I wanted to share this one too. I'm very interested in wikipedia myself from a personal perspective. What sort of content/sources and references would I need for this type of entry to be considered valid for an encyclopedia entry?

Thanks Nadejda — Preceding unsigned comment added by NadejdaKontrol (talk • contribs) 12:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't have access to the deleted article (only administrators do), so I can only respond with general information that is not specific to the article in question. Click on the blue links throughout this message for definitions of the terms I use.

The article BusinessBecause was deleted on the grounds that the article made no credible claim that its subject meets notability guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia. In English, that means that when stripped of fluff words, all the article said was "X is a [person, place thing, animal, company] that does Y."

In order for an article to remain on Wikipedia, it must contain reliable sources that verify the facts presented in the article, and it must be written from a neutral point-of-view. Additionally, a subject must also meet the aforementioned notability guidelines for inclusion, which essentially state that the subject must have been the topic of coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The fact of the matter is that not all companies or websites meet those guidelines – Wikipedia is not about everything.

You are more than welcome to try again. If you wish to do so, please contact Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs), the administrator who deleted the article, and request that the article be "userfied". This means that the article will be placed in a location in your user space, where it will be subject to considerably less community scrutiny than an article page. In that location, you can work on the article, and ask for help along the way until it's in such a state that it's ready to become an article. Note that user pages are still subject to some scrutiny (e.g., libel and copyright violations are not allowed), and they are not private.

As I mentioned before, there are some subjects that do not and will never meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If you find that this subject falls in that category, please see this page for a list of sites using wiki technology that might be willing to host your content. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Jesse Pinkman (Breaking Bad)

Thanks for reaching out. I've commented on the Jesse Pinkman talk page, and I've watchlisted it so I can keep an eye on the conversation. — Hunter Kahn 15:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

DcGLass draft

Kuyabiri,

I noticed that many of my colleagues in the field of Social Psychology have wikipedia entries. So it seemed appropriate to me to include my own Bio as I am a well known figure in Social Psychology and Behavioral Medicine. What is the appropriate way to submit Bio's to wikipedia? Thanks for the help. David Glasss — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcglass (talk • contribs) 20:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, you are strongly discouraged from writing an autobiographical article. However, if you wish to suggest that someone else create an article on you, Requested articles is a good place to start. Also, if you wish to have an article on yourself, please read (do not skim, but read in its entirety) Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

Twinkle kind of barfed up the original AfD I tried to post and I had a mess of a time cleaning it up, thanks for the help with that! Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I've also re-added it to the log. Cheers! —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The template I created

I apologize, I created that template linked it to a page and the template showed up as a redlink, I trying purging the page but the template was still a redlink, I then clicked on the the redlink (to create the template) and copy and pasted what was in the original template into this new one. I clicked save and the template appeared on the page where it was supposed to be, sorry for the trouble, Magister Scienta^talk (4 August 2011)

Looks like I failed in due diligence here, otherwise I would have noticed that you created the correctly spelled name 8 minutes after you created the incorrectly spelled name. I'll put a CSD tag on the incorrect spelling. No worries, we all make mistakes. Cheers! —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Posted by User:Jacobga

hi why did you put a speedy on crown point north — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobga (talk • contribs) 17:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Please read the tag on the article. I will not respond further if it is evident that you have not read the tag. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hi Kuyabribri, just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Sebastian Carlsen

OK, to repost on Saturday, then since taht is teh issue? VsanoJ (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming that you're asking me whether this article can be re-posted on Saturday. As long as the article contains a reliable source that establishes that this person has played in a fully professional league, you can re-post the article. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Will, do! VsanoJ (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Kuyabribri means that the requirement is that the player has played in a fully professional league game: WP:NFOOTBALL states that "A player who signs for a domestic team but has not played in any games is not deemed to have participated in a competition, and is therefore not generally regarded as being notable." If there are at this time no reliable sources proving that Carlsén has played in a fully professional league game, we'll have to wait until August 13, when Helsingborgs IF play their first game since the loan of Carlsén. If and when you can prove with reliable sources that Carlsén has played in at least one fully professional league game, I suggest you contact the administrator who closed the AFD, Anetode. I do not recommend you to recreate the article; that would make it eligible for the G4 speedy deletion criteria. HeyMid (contribs) 17:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

So, if I repost the same article WITH a link to the local Helsingborg newspaper and/or another South Swedish newspaper, that should be OK, right? That is what i was planning......or what am I missing?? If a player appears on national TV, he/she is notable but I understand that Wikipedia has rules so that the whole site does not get cluttered with junk.VsanoJ (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, a television appearance does not make the player notable, at least not on Wikipedia. HeyMid (contribs) 22:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I never sad ONE appearance, correct? It seems like everyone really is trying to missunderstand me. Oh, well...see y'all on Sunday :-) VsanoJ (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

A television appearance in and of itself does not make a player or any person notable. However, if this individual has a match appearance in a fully professional league as defined here, and that appearance is attributed to a reliable source, he is entitled to an article (I believe I said that already). —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I have recreated the Carlsén page. he has participated in a fully professional league game AND I have sources from one of Swedens big four newspapers and from the Swedish national radio website. VsanoJ (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Central Park, San Mateo, Ca Deletion

I'm only an occasional contributor to Wikipedia but I think its really lame that you tagged my entry on San Mateo's Central Park for speedy deletion. I spent my valuable time creating an article because I was interested in learning about the history of the park and no entry had been previously been created. I felt that the information should be readily available and modeled my entry after the entry on NY's Central Park. I am not affiliated with San Mateo's Central Park in any capacity but have a sentimental attachment as a result of the many weekends I spent there as a child. I'm not sure what I did wrong to cause my entry to be so speedily deleted. I used what available online resources I could to draft my entry. I'm just really bumped that all that time I spent creating that article was spent in vain. When I tried to figure out why and how I could go about fixing my article I was overwhelmed by pages and pages of rules which I just don't care enough to read through. This interaction has been thoroughly discouraging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Circes (talk • contribs) 23:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem was that half of the article was directly copied and pasted or very closely paraphrased from another website, and the rest only sought to tell me what amenities the park offers. The former is a copyright violation, and the latter violates Wikipedia's policies on neutral point of view and notability.

In order for an article to remain on Wikipedia, it must contain references that are reliable and independent of the subject, and which back up the claims made in the article. Those references additionally must establish that the subject meets notability criteria for inclusion, which in a nutshell state that the subject has been the topic of reliable source coverage. References to official websites and most blogs do not count towards establishing that the subject meets notability criteria, though in some instances official websites may be used to verify other facts presented in an article.

I would have given this article the benefit of the doubt and not requested deletion had it not been for the copy-paste issue. If you can rewrite that text in your own words, I would probably not nominate it for deletion (other editors may disagree). If you would like the text of the deleted article, you can contact Peridon (talk · contribs), the administrator who deleted the article, and he can "userfy" the page, which means he will put it in your user space to work on. In your user space, the page will be subject to significantly less scrutiny (though not zero scrutiny); however, he may have issue with the copyright violation content that you would have to work out with him. Note that the article was deleted at Central Park (San Mateo, California); if you do end up recreating it, please place it at that title, as it is the title that best conforms to the article naming conventions.

Click on any of the blue links throughout this message for definitions or additional help with any of the terms I've used. Let me know if you need more help or have further questions. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011

Thank you for your report about User:Mvbrg (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention (UAA). However, your report was removed as UAA is for name policy infringements that are serious enough to warrant an immediate block. General name policy violations should first be discussed with the user on their talk page. A helpful template to do just that is {{subst:Uw-username}}. Note that a request for comment can be filed if the user disagrees that their name is against the username policy, or has continued to edit after you have expressed your concern. You may find the UAA instructions helpful, and I'd recommend reading them over prior to making future reports to UAA. Thank you. Waterfox ^~talk~ 18:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you please explain this beyond a templated notice? I've seen numerous usernames that were abbreviations/acronyms of company/group/organization names get blocked at UAA, and as I explained in my UAA report that is exactly what this username is. Additionally this user's only article contribution was deleted as G11. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

See my reply on WP:UAA before I removed the entry. I understand the promotional clause of the username policy as protecting against usernames which in themselves clearly advertise an entity. In this case, I don't see this as being a blatant violation of UPolicy. This may warrant a block as a promotion-only account. — Waterfox ^~talk~ 21:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to continue pursuing a block for this account since it hasn't edited in a while. However, as a fellow regular user of UAA I do have a concern regarding your actions that I will be taking up at WT:UAA momentarily. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed your warning

I have to remove the warning. I wasn't vandalizing. I was correcting things in wikipedia. The hot air goes up instead of down, so the fan will circulate the house in the ceiling with 2 stories high to cool down the 2nd floor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whoisthisguy724 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI thread on Shroffameen

Just for your information, I've started an ANI thread about User:Shroffameen calling for his Twinkle access to be removed until he demonstrates competence with deletion. You may wish to participate. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Help with edited an article

Hey,

I recently created an article, titled NetworkGlobal Companies. It was deleted my first try, and I spent all day citing didnt sources on it and removing all unambiguous terms of advertising.

I was wondering if you could please help me fix this?

If you are willing, I have the article saved in a word document and I can send it to you.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.251.11.207 (talk) 21:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

autopatrolled

I just thought I'd let you know that I have in the past accorded this editor autopatrolled rights and had to remove them again after many, many warnings about mass creating unreferenced, or incorrectly referenced stubs. Passing his stubs as patrolled does not help reduce the work load for the admins who are currently patrolling the work of the patrollers, and who are currently involved in developing a new system for the quality control of new articles that will largely replace NPP. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

References

Hi There,

I am having difficulty understanding what I need to do to add a valid reference for my article. Please let me know if you have any advice for the page I just created - SocialTyze.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LauraFrancis (talk • contribs) 19:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the issue with getting the references to show; however, in order to remain on Wikipedia, this article needs to be written in English, not in PR-speak. Statements like "specializes in making brands social" and "provides solutions" are woefully unencyclopedic and read more like a press release than an encyclopedia article.

Notwithstanding what I said above, this company must meet notability guidelines for inclusion, which in short require that the company must have been the topic of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. In English that means that some sort of reliable publications (i.e., not blogs or similar publications with little to no fact checking or editorial oversight) that are independent of the company must have written something about that company (i.e. not just mention it in passing in the context of something else. Hope that helps. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

speedy deletion of "Rotal Networks"

Hi, As I'm new on wikipedia editing/writing, I wrote my first article on the company I work in (Rotal Networks). I looked up for similar companies to see how I can write the page in the most objective point of view and tried doing my best. Since you marked this page as nominated for speedy deletion, I would like to ask for your help and advise on what I did wrong and what I must do in order for it to stay. I tried writing only general info about the company and it's solutions without stating out any unobjective pov, in the same way I've seen in other companies that has permanent pages in Wikipedia... Would you give me some advice? Many thanks!! Irit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irits (talk • contribs) 07:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not an administrator and do not have access to the deleted article, so my comments will be generic in nature. Click on any of the blue links throughout this message for additional information on the terms used. In order for an article to remain on Wikipedia, it must be written from a neutral point of view. If you work for the company, Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest strongly discourages you from writing an article on it, mainly because it is very difficult for people with conflict of interest to write an article from a neutral point of view. The fact that you want to write about the company's "solutions" tells me that you cannot write an objective article about this company, because "solutions" is a ridiculously ambiguous PR term that means nothing in an encyclopedia.

Notwithstanding all of that, in order to remain on Wikipedia a company must meet notability criteria, which require that the company be the topic of coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In English that means that multiple reliable publications (not blogs, forums, or similar media with no editorial oversight) that are independent of the subject have written about the company (i.e., not just mention it in passing). If your company does meet the criteria, then someone without a conflict of interest will write an article on it.

The fact of the matter is that there are some subjects that just plain don't merit an article. If your company is one of them, see this page for a list of other websites using wiki technology that might be willing to host your content. I hope that helps. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Virginia earthquake

Hi there. Feel free to renominate without the DRV - perhaps I was a little hasty in my actions in this case. Apologies for any inconvenience. — Joseph Fox 20:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

How is that a personal attack? You are attacking me by telling me it is a personal attack. The nomination for deletion of that article is uncalled for. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You could have said that the AfD was uncalled for and I would have let it go. But all you said was "what is wrong with you?", with no other comment as to what specific article or action prompted the comment, and frankly I don't know if it was targeted at me or at Googlemeister (talk · contribs). —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Please speedily delete my silly goof

Hi, Good catch thanks for the redirect. A user page is what I meant. Please delete the article I accidentally created. NewsAndEventsGuy/Which kind of editor do you want to be Happy day! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an admin but I did request that your mistake be deleted. It had already been deleted by the time I read this message. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

help

why is my page going to be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Browr020 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

what did i do wrong i was making a page for my company — Preceding unsigned comment added by Browr020 (talk • contribs) 26 August 2011

Note that most of this comment is copied from above.

I am not an administrator and do not have access to the deleted article, so my comments will be generic in nature. Click on any of the blue links throughout this message for additional information on the terms used. In order for an article to remain on Wikipedia, it must be written from a neutral point of view. If you work for the company, Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest strongly discourages you from writing an article on it, mainly because it is very difficult for people with conflict of interest to write an article from a neutral point of view.

Notwithstanding all of that, in order to remain on Wikipedia a company must meet notability criteria, which require that the company be the topic of coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In English that means that multiple reliable publications (not blogs, forums, or similar media with no editorial oversight) that are independent of the subject have written about the company (i.e., not just mention it in passing). If your company does meet the criteria, then someone without a conflict of interest will write an article on it.

The fact of the matter is that there are some subjects that just plain don't merit an article. If your company is one of them, see this page for a list of other websites using wiki technology that might be willing to host your content. I hope that helps. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Question about my first article Common Ground (Seattle)

Hello,

I recently did a paper about affordable housing development in Seattle, WA and learned about Common Ground (Seattle). In my research, I found a ton of stuff on Common Ground (NYC) and even a small Wikipedia entry about Seattle nonprofit Solid Ground. But nothing about Seattle's Common Ground, even though they have been around longer than the latter and from what I have found, have had a pretty remarkable impact on homelessness and building affordable housing.

Also, I have always wanted to author a Wikipedia entry; I thought this would be an appropriate first. I was rereading what I wrote and I think I can see the issue. Should I rewrite the Services section so that it is more general and less "listy" like a company pamphlet? I don't want to promote their business side. Yet at the same time, I think their work in building housing (like Common Ground NYC) is significant.

Thoughts?

Wakx (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)Wakx

Speedy Deletion notice

Hi Kuyabribri,

I received a Speedy Deletion notice. I only included facts about the history of the company, rather than any of the tag lines or promo's behind it. I did happen to include External Links and put our homepage as I've seen on other wiki's. Any help would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NVISIONCenters (talk • contribs) 00:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with the response left for you at User talk:Lukep913 and have nothing further to add. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 00:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Assassination of Benigno Aquino, Jr.

Hi KuyaBriBri, in June 2010 you made major contributions to the lead section of the article Assassination of Benigno Aquino, Jr. Unfortunately most of the important content in the rest of the article isn't properly sourced, and recently, most sections of it have been tagged for lack of references. Owing to a recent history of (what I consider to be damaging) edits to the article Benigno Aquino, Jr. I want to use some of the material in the article, including your own work on the lead, to support the historical impact of Aquino's assassination, but I can't because AoBAJ isn't properly sourced. I lack the background to find the citations without spending far more time on it than I have available. So basically I'm just asking whether you would have the time to do some further work on that article, and perhaps even help to get Benigno Aquino, Jr. into a more resilient state (I've made a similar request to the original author of AoBAJ). I fully understand that you may not have the time to do so. Best regards. Rubywine . talk 15:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I admit I did a pretty crappy job sourcing the assassination article...when I found it it seemed to be a rambling mess ([7]). I added the "Background" section mainly to provide context for the assassination, and lifted most of the information from the parent article (a mistake, as I now realize). Most of the new information related to the assassination itself that I added to the article was lifted from this History Channel documentary reposted on YouTube. I don't want to get in to the situation on the parent article, but if I have time I'll go back and look for sources for the assassination article. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

User has not edited

When you make comments at WP:UAA please check either the user's talkpage or the AbuseFilter entries for deleted articles or evidence of promotion. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 18:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Understood. Wasn't aware of that before but now I am. Thanks. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Posted by User:Jason joy

can you pls help me Jason joy (talk) 15:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Help you with what? —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

September 2011

Hi Kuyabribri. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for Lawton Chilies Middle Academy, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers and review the criteria for speedy deletion. Particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion, proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. A7 criteria for speedy deletion is not applicable to schools. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 15:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaafco Trans

Sorry about that, I forgot to check the history. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Juvenile Justice in Pakistan

You ve mentioned copyright issues relating to the article. However, the article cited by you (ahrc) was also written by me.

How can I change the title of the article? Is my article categorized? How can I give it a category? Is there any manner I can insert photos other than doing it thru Commons W?

AJillani (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

School of the Future (Doukas School, Athens, Greece) speedy deletion

Dear Kuyabribri, I am contacting you in relation to an article I created today - School of the Future (Doukas School, Athens, Greece) - which you apparently nominated for deletion & then it was deleted by an administrator (as you mention in your talk page), as it was considered to be an advertisement. First of all, thank you for taking time in viewing my article & for your opinion. To be honest, I was suprised by the article's speedy deletion for 2 basic reasons: 1) this is an article for a school that really is very different & much more innovative from ordinary schools, as it also established by the prizes it has gained (therefore, it justifies the creation of a wikipedia article) 2) This is a much more wikified article (in terms of wikilinks, external links, most importantly references but also content to great extent, since it analytically describes the school's distinct characteristics) compared to all other 4 similar articles(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_the_Future), which, in my opinion, do not meet these standards equally satisfactorily.

For these 2 reasons, I proceeded with making the article public, without having it reviewed by one of Wikipedia experts. Apparently, I was wrong - the article needs to be modified. Of course, there is something wrong, no doubt, since the speedy deletion process immediately took effect. That is why I would like to ask you to tell me what are the phrazes or sections that you think are more of an advertisement, than a wikipedia article. As I read it again, I could think a couple of things that need to be modified, under a couple of sections, that indeed seem like an advertisement. But other than that, I can see a much more encyclopedic article compared to the other 4 articles on other Schools of the Future (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_the_Future) and I also find the necessary references that make this indeed a unique school. I have been working on this article, in order also to assure its neutrality, for more than a month.

Therefore, as I understand that there are good reasons for the article's speedy deletion, so I would very much appreciate specific remarks on its content, so as to make all necessary modifications and re-publish the article. Thank you for your patience. Kind regards, Panos PapoutsisPanos Papoutsis (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to be blunt here: Most of this article is unsalvageable. It is peppered with flowery, non-objective terms throughout ("one of the finest", "knowledge and skills required in this day and age", etc.). Normally articles on grade 9-12 schools or equivalent are kept unless they are blatant promotion, copyright infringements, or something of that nature. This article would need to be written from scratch. I should note that if you are affiliated with the school, that the conflict of interest policy strongly discourages you from writing an article on it, as editors with conflict of interest have great difficulty maintaining neutral point of view.

As for the other "School of the Future" articles, most of them have their own problems including promotional slant, but none to the degree of blatant promotion or copyright infringement. All of them remain on Wikipedia under the generally accepted criterion on grade 9-12 schools that I mentioned before. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Kuyabribri, thank you for your precious comments. I will write the article from scratch, or I will provide it to someone else that can write it from a more neutral point of view. It's a big effort collecting all relevant data and references for the school, so I will do my best not to abandon this effort. Best regards.Panos Papoutsis (talk) 11:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am having some trouble deleting the page. I would appreciate it if you nominated it for deletion since you know how to do it by protocol and have removed my tag. As you can see here in the WikiProject Visual Arts discussion page I mentioned on July 19th that I would be nominating it for deletion and also addressed why. I mentioned it there because I was hoping someone would take interest in helping things along should I do something incorrectly. I'm not sure what I did wrong since no one responded to my post. However, the article does not meet notability guidelines for an artist, nor do the listed references meet guidelines for trustworthy references because they are only event listings and blogs. No objections have been made regarding these problems and no improvements have been made (and there are no better sources that could be added. I've checked. She's simply not notable). Thanks. Warrenking (talk) 17:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)