User talk:Sparthorse
November 7 2011
I've attempted to add my first Article; a brief summary of a company named StrateSphere Enterprises. It was immediately flagged for speedy deletion. The reason the page exists at all is because there is a "dead link" from the KAEC page. Just trying to help out, but I really don't understand what I would have to change about this entry to make it more relevant. According to their website, they also own the rights to franchise COSI restaurants in the Middle East. Would more references to StrateSphere Enterprises increase it's "relevancy"? Koravecz (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Please cheek again Create page. Fan of Wikipedian's — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.48.196.197 (talk) 06:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
October 29 2011
Hi, can you please give me a hint what I must change on the Sorting Thoughts page. It is enough to add a link to some review page like: [MacUpdate] or [Softpedia]? --HendrikEbel (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
+
Thanks for your quick response. I think I understand the rules now. Please delete my site Sorting Thoughts. --HendrikEbel (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
October 26 2011
Sorry about the improper outbound links. I saw that the page for Search Retargeting had no content, so I decided to submit information about the topic. I have only just learned how to create a cited section. I hope that it now follows the rules and regulations. Sorry again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zackmfc (talk • contribs) 17:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
October 22 2011
Thanks for your answer. I agree with parts of it. What you did not take into consideration is that I was in the start -up phase - especially for the article about Lancaster. While I were collecting information I was interrupted. kind regards
BirgerH (talk) 09:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
October 21 2011
There was a page about "Document classification". But this has two meanings: As automated document classification in computer science and as intellectual document classification i library and information science. The original page was ONLY anout automatic classification. I therefore made a new entry: "Automatic document classification" and changed the first to be about document classification in general. YOU changed it back and wrote that I used too much private research. This is simply nonsens. Please look at the text before you delete it. This kind of experience may make me less inspired to continue contributing to Wikipedia.
Kind regards Birger Hjørland BirgerH (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC) BirgerH
x
all the info i changed was true, i am a friend of alistair slowe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rameshawkins123 (talk • contribs)
October 2011
Hello Sparthorse. You tagged "Adsasdsasada" for speedy deletion, but you did not notify the article's creator that it had been so tagged. There is strong consensus that the creators of articles tagged for speedy deletion should be warned and that the person placing the tag has that responsibility. All of the major speedy deletion templates contain a pre-formatted warning for this purpose—just copy and paste to the creator's talk page. Thank you.Template:Z19 — Abhishek Talk 08:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure sure if I am writing this in the right spot and I think you are the person who wants to delete the article James, son of alphaeus biblical criticism. I'm happy for it to be deleted. I'm a bit of a noob at wikipedia but I'm starting to get a few things. I have rewritten my article making sure that every statement has a biblical quote. Because the nature of the piece has changed I have placed the article back in James son of Alphaeus. If this still doesn't meet the requirments of wikipedia then I will require some extra specific assistence.
Bunofsteel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunofsteel (talk • contribs) 06:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok I am confused. Your criticism is that I am making an argument rather than stating a series of facts and therefore constituting original research. I have trouble understanding why this isn't original research.
Possible brother of Matthew
Another Alphaeus is also the name of the father of the publican Levi mentioned in Mark 2:14 (fact from Matthew). The publican appears as Matthew in Matthew 9:9 (Interpretation as it is truer to say that Matthew tells the same story where the publican is Matthew son of Alphaeus), which has led some (who) to conclude that James and Matthew might have been brothers (sounds like original reserach). However, there is no Biblical account of the two being called brothers, even when they appear side by side in the synoptic list of the Twelve Apostles, next to the fraternal pairs of Peter and Andrew and the sons of Zebedee (true but the biblical references should be here).
If I am making an arguement I would like to know what exactly my argument is. I know what I would like to argue but I haven't done it. I have highlighted the facts that have led me to my conclusions however, given that I am referencing Mark at every step and not taking Mark out of context. I don't see how I am producing original research. Bunofsteel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunofsteel (talk • contribs) 10:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
So Sparthorse now I know that you are yanking my chain. I thought you were going to say that I using a synthetic argument. Do not combine material from "multiple sources" to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the "sources". A synthetic argument according to wikipedia requires more than one source. I have used the Gospel of Mark and which other source? I can't see how I can make a synthetic argument with only one source. The possible brother of Matthew is a synthetic argument because it uses both Matthew and Mark to make a conclusion that is not stated by both. This remains and yet mine is continually removed. Please explain this. Bunofsteel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunofsteel (talk • contribs) 19:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
So how the "possible brother of Matthew" not a synthetic argument? Possible brother of Matthew
Another Alphaeus is also the name of the father of the publican Levi mentioned in Mark 2:14. The publican appears as Matthew in Matthew 9:9, which has led some to conclude that James and Matthew might have been brothers. However, there is no Biblical account of the two being called brothers, even when they appear side by side in the synoptic list of the Twelve Apostles, next to the fraternal pairs of Peter and Andrew and the sons of Zebedee.
It suggests that the publican is the same even because it quotes two different source to imply have Matthew and Levi are the same person when neither source says they are the same person. There is also no source symphasising that argument. Bunofsteel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunofsteel (talk • contribs) 21:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 08:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
— Abhishek Talk 08:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Regarding Kofi Annan, I do not see any personal analysis. It is a series of facts, so please let me know what are you talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.172.47.121 (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello. I was not aware of an edit summary to provide reasoning for my edits. Sorry about that. However, I can elucidate: There is a lot of misconception surrounding Charles Pellegrino's Wiki entries: a lot of them have been mysteriously deleted (I just re-added Ghosts of the Titanic, his book). Also, the entry seems largely dedicated to tarnishing his image rather than being objective about his successful work with archaeology, paleontology and microbiology, or about his slew of books and involvement in documentaries. How many Wiki articles about people are dedicated to slander like that, as opposed to a broad overview of an individual's career? And the blogger who supposedly "unmasked" him, if you read on his website which the Wiki article links to, you'll find it to be one that spreads hoaxes, about more than just him, but about 9/11 too. It is even more absurd that he named it Jamescameron.blogpost.com because Jim Cameron is close friends with Pellegrino, and that is not Jim's official wesbite at all. Additionally, David Brennan is a longtime enemy of Pellegrino, so why would his statements carry enough merit to persist on that page? Titanic1986 (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)}}
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Well in that case, if you find the cited sources sufficient to prove Charles Pellegrino lacks a PhD (which I know is not the case), is it not enough that the article is called "Charles Pellegrino" instead of "Dr. Charles Pellegrino"? Why is it necessary to report such controversial material on the article that can potentially harm the author? How does dedicating such a remarkable amount of the article to this issue make the article objective? Is Pellegrino's career truly defined by this one incident alone?
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I have several reasons to believe otherwise (Pellegrino himself wrote about the ad hoc tribunal in Her Name, Titanic in the 1980s) and I know David Brennan is Pellegrino's enemy, because he was posting 9/11 hoaxes on Pellegrino's discussion forum (and his own blog) years before going to the media about this (heck, he got the idea of going after Pellegrino's PhD from Pellegrino's own books detailing his experiences with Vicotria University). Either way, I feel like my discomfort with the article is being misinterpreted - I have no problem with it being called "Charles Pellegrino" instead of "Dr." and am not concerned whether or not anyone believes he has a PhD. My issue is indeed the matter of undue weight and anyone reading it has only learned about controversial matters related to Pellegrino's career as opposed to things like his contributions to Jim Cameron's AVATAR, his dives to the RMS Titanic in 2001 with JC, more about his books or what not. It makes no sense why so much attention is placed on the PhD controversy in the article, if Wikipedia believes he lacks it, simply drop the "Dr." part. It is not as if I am debating the Last Train controversy outlined in the article, because that is relevant to his work as an author, and people may need to know that the book was revised. But all this information about the PhD controversy doesn't seem very objective, especially when the articles about his books have vanished, and there is mention of little else beyond controversies. I'm new to Wiki so thank you for the links, will certainly discuss this in CP's Talk page.
A barnstar for you!
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
| Thank you very much for being so vigilant in reverting vandalism on my pages!! Thanks!! CTJF83 18:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC) |
Re your edit summary: "Once a speedy deletion request has been declined another should not be made. Maybe a prod?" It's also customary to mark the page as patrolled if you've tagged it with a speedy to avoid wasting the time of other patrollers. Using Twinkle would do this automatically for you. Regards, Bazj (talk) 09:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
| Nice job! LAAFan 19:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC) |
Speedy deletion declined: Robotech: Love Live Alive
Hello Sparthorse. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Robotech: Love Live Alive, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not a blatant hoax. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: ELID
Hello Sparthorse. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of ELID, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to schools. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Garrett dubose
Hi. You tagged it as nonsense. That's a tag with a Wikipedia meaning. It doesn't mean the everyday nonsense as opposed to something real. It's for things like 'treryttciuy uiyu6xrtrtrr'. You should do a Google search without quotes if it's not got numbers in the words or is all consonants, as it might be some variety of Foreign (y and w count as vowels in this test). If the words come up, put quotes round the sample and look for a copyvio. Nonsense can also be in English, but it looks like 'Anterior blue the forward fish into noon haphazardly'. (Something like those old spam email subject lines...) All the words mean something, but not together in that order. Something like 'shawn is the most awesomest and he luvs kylee minog and she luvs him' is obviously utter bilge, but not Wikipedia nonsense. The sentence makes sense even though at least part of it is fairly obviously less than true. That's an A7. I deleted this one as A7, anyway. Cheers. Peridon (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: Awliaya Motobi Md. Abdul Mukit Siddique Al-Quadri Al-Chisti
Hello Sparthorse. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Awliaya Motobi Md. Abdul Mukit Siddique Al-Quadri Al-Chisti, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: enough content has been added since you tagged it to escape A3, and enough assertion of importance for A7.
You tagged it as A3 only a minute after creation - that's much too soon, for A1 or A3 you should wait at least 10 minutes. New users often put in a few words and then click "Save" to see if it works - it is very discouraging and WP:BITEy if a speedy notice pops up immediately. See {{uw-hasty}}. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'd missed the note about waiting ten minutes on CSD:A3. Thanks for pointing that out. Sparthorse (talk) 09:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- No problem. I have removed your "wikify" tag - the article already had eleven wikilinks in two lines, one could hardly ask for more than that! See my addition to User talk:Saifiadarbar for useful advice to give this sort of newbie. JohnCD (talk) 09:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your help with the vital work of patrolling new pages. I noticed that you are not marking some of the pages you've reviewed as patrolled. Please do remember to click the 'mark this page as patrolled' link at the bottom of the new page if you have performed the standard patrolling tasks. Where appropriate, doing so saves time and work by informing fellow patrollers of your review of the page, so that they do not duplicate efforts. Thanks again for volunteering your time at the new pages patrol project. — Abhishek Talk 14:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Again, you don't seem to have warned the user about the speedy deletion on Need for speed all games. Please do that. Cheers. — Abhishek Talk 15:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- As you will notice from the relevant edit summaries, I use Twinkle. I apologise that Twinkle appears not to have marked pages as patrolled or informed the user about the speedy delete suggestion, but really you ought to be addressing these bugs to the developer of Twinkle, not to me. Thanks, Sparthorse (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- A new page will have 'mark this page as patrolled' only if you open it from Special:NewPages. If you open the page from Special:RecentChanges or Special:Contributions/newbies, you won't find that and hence twinkle too does not mark it as patrolled. So I suggest if you come across a new page anywhere other than Special:NewPages, go to Special:NewPages and open the new article so that the page ends up being marked as patrolled. But Cheers. — Abhishek Talk 15:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, its definitely a Twinkle bug. I just added a Prod tag to Inseo Chung after getting to the page from Special:NewPages and it left the page marked as unpatrolled. I had to go back to the page and manually mark it as patrolled. Sparthorse (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- A new page will have 'mark this page as patrolled' only if you open it from Special:NewPages. If you open the page from Special:RecentChanges or Special:Contributions/newbies, you won't find that and hence twinkle too does not mark it as patrolled. So I suggest if you come across a new page anywhere other than Special:NewPages, go to Special:NewPages and open the new article so that the page ends up being marked as patrolled. But Cheers. — Abhishek Talk 15:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- As you will notice from the relevant edit summaries, I use Twinkle. I apologise that Twinkle appears not to have marked pages as patrolled or informed the user about the speedy delete suggestion, but really you ought to be addressing these bugs to the developer of Twinkle, not to me. Thanks, Sparthorse (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
PROD's are not marked as patrolled by TW. The reason being that the page author may remove it from an otherwise unnecessary page. So there's no bug here. Cheers. — Abhishek Talk 15:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Do you think?
I don't think that it has enough context.Please do not remove the deletion tags. Please do not think I'm being rude.Look,the article,has only one line definition,and therefore,It does not has enough context to define it.Wikipedia is not a place for only one line definition articles,It should be improved.Dipankan001 (talk) 15:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- I will see that:-)By the way sorry if I was rude.Dipankan001 (talk) 15:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Good luck having every page on Template:Autonomous_republics_of_the_Soviet_Union deleted as A1. →Στc. 02:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Could you please tell me the reason why I still get the red box referring to the "speedy deletion"? Is it going to disappear or do I have to do something myself? Thanks, Barbara — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbara70 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 05:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
New Page Patrolling
Hi. I'm just letting you know that I have declined your CSD A7 on Dwijavanti Athreya. As an academic, the subject may be notable if correctly researched and sourced - did you search for sources? In the case of unreferenced biographies of living persons like these, please consider using WP:BLPPROD instead. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I just wanted to thank you for withdrawing your deletion recommendation for the new page I created on John Isaac. And I appreciate the reformatting that you did to make its layout more wikipedia consistent. It was my first attempt and while I was able to figure a few things out quickly, I was going to have to take a little time to work out the rest. Thanks Debsmusings (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
One more quick addition/question... How does one make it so that a search for John Isaac will bring up a choice of pages? Thanks Debsmusings (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
New Page Patrol survey
 New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Sparthorse! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC) |
Since it was contested so strongly, I sent it to AfD. Please discuss. Bearian (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Take a look at my edit again. I didn't remove any references. I removed ref tags from something that wasn't a reference. 69.181.251.214 (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Read WP:NOPRICES. 69.181.251.214 (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
From WP:PRICES: "Product prices should not be quoted in an article unless they can be sourced and there is a justified reason for their mention". Note the word unless and the clauses that follow it. That price is both sourced and relevant. See the articles talkpage for an extensive discussion. Best, Sparthorse (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- I read both the guideline and the talk page. I saw no discussion about a justified reason, merely which source and which price to use. The article likewise lack any compelling reason to include any price. 69.181.251.214 (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
| Thanks for fixing my talk pgae. Bearian (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC) |
Project Accessory
Sparthorse, you may want to add the deletion notice regarding Project Accessory to the talk page of Worstcook's sock, the IP 205.209.83.211. (S)he flips between the two constantly, and won't acknowledge your communication on his/her talk page. Drmargi (talk) 00:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- No problem. I've learned from long experience that the editor using the two accounts is no guarantee that anything relating to text, be it in the article, on the article's talk page or on his/her own is any guarantee he/she will process what is being said. This is a person to whom an edit summary is a virtual stranger. Instead, he/she seems to have a mania for creating tables and overly complicated systems of color coding. The article is about a spin-off from another of Bravo's endless stable of elimination shows, and is about as notable as any other of their shows is, but there's little hope he/she will invest any effort in writing narrative until the table are done, if ever. Drmargi (talk) 00:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Flying Pen Press
I appreciate that you put a notice on my talk page about your proposed speedy deletion of Flying Pen Press. That gave me the opportunity to work on it and to know what to do if the article was deleted before I could finish my second edit.
As I edit several Wikis and haven't been very active here since my first account ended years ago, I'm not terribly familiar with Wikipedia's current and ever-changing policies.
Is it standard now to mark an article for speedy deletion three minutes after the first edit? In this case, a simple search could have indicated the publisher is mentioned several times on Wikipedia which has full articles on some of its authors. I'm not complaining (it's my fault I didn't put the construction tag on the first edit), but it might discourage newer editors who haven't been doing this for several years.
Thanks for listening! Alden Loveshade (talk) 02:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I posted a very similar note on the article talk page but wanted to put one here. I believe I've followed your helpful suggestions correctly and have added highly reliable sources. Therefore I've followed the instructions on the deletion template and removed it and the construction template. If I've done something wrong please let me know! Alden Loveshade (talk) 04:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
A tool for you!
Hi Sparthorse! I've just come across one of your edits (or that you have been patrolling new pages), and noticed that you might appreciate some help with references.
I case you're not aware, you might consider using this tool – it makes your life a whole heap easier, by filling in complete citation templates for your links. All you do is install the script:
// Add [[WP:Reflinks]] launcher in the toolbox on left
addOnloadHook(function () {
addPortletLink(
"p-tb", // toolbox portlet
"http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webreflinks.py/" + wgPageName
+ "?client=script&citeweb=on&overwrite=&limit=30&lang=" + wgContentLanguage,
"Reflinks" // link label
)});
onto Special:MyPage/skin.js, then paste the bare URL (without [...] brackets) between your <ref></ref> tabs, and you'll find a clickable link called Reflinks in your toolbox section of the page (probably in the left hand column). Then click that tool. It does all the rest of the work (provided that you remember to save the page! It doesn't work for everything (particularly often not for PDF documents), but for pretty much anything ending in "htm" or "html" (and with a title) it will do really, really well. So long! --Sp33dyphil © • © 04:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
The discussion was in 2007, where the article was deleted as a possible hoax, and the sources cited in the article didn't exist then, so I don't think Template:Db-repost can be used. I've nominated the article for deletion as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James stunt. Peter E. James (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
A tool for you!
Hi Sparthorse! I've just come across one of your edits (or that you have been patrolling new pages), and noticed that you might appreciate some help with references.
I case you're not aware, you might consider using this tool – it makes your life a whole heap easier, by filling in complete citation templates for your links. All you do is install the script:
// Add [[WP:Reflinks]] launcher in the toolbox on left
addOnloadHook(function () {
addPortletLink(
"p-tb", // toolbox portlet
"http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webreflinks.py/" + wgPageName
+ "?client=script&citeweb=on&overwrite=&limit=30&lang=" + wgContentLanguage,
"Reflinks" // link label
)});
onto Special:MyPage/skin.js, then paste the bare URL (without [...] brackets) between your <ref></ref> tabs, and you'll find a clickable link called Reflinks in your toolbox section of the page (probably in the left hand column). Then click that tool. It does all the rest of the work (provided that you remember to save the page! It doesn't work for everything (particularly often not for PDF documents), but for pretty much anything ending in "htm" or "html" (and with a title) it will do really, really well. So long! --Sp33dyphil © • © 04:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
A barnstar for you!
|
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar |
| FGF is currently a full-time college student NOT attempting to promote anything what-so-ever. Information added was only a mere attempt to update few people (lol) who may be interested in her (un-paid) community services & passion in good health.I will read & learn more how to edit Wiki (smile). Meanwhile, I believe it was you who compromised with me, and correctly formated the Freeda G. Foreman page. I sincerely thank you for trying to help instead of injuring the page to win this situation. ;-) Monkfree (talk) 03:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC) |
Aaron Hanson
The policy has two different standards which is the result of protracted discussions on the talk page. To add a BLP PROD the article must contain no sources at all, whether reliable or not. To remove a BLP PROD you need a reliable source. At the time you tagged it the article did have a source (a link to the guy's website), which while unreliable is still a source so the article doesn't qualify for BLP PROD. There have been several proposals to allow articles which cite only unreliable sources to be tagged with BLP PROD (indeed there's a discussion ongoing right now about it), but none of them have got consensus. I suggest you send the article through regular PROD or AFD. Hut 8.5 19:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Question
Were you the one who placed the speedy deletion tag? If you are, you made a big mistake. If not, can you tell me who did it?Mark (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Sparthorse, is the hauntng of the Anguished Man painting real or not. You said was a HOAX. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImhotepBallZ (talk • contribs) 20:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Apologies
Sparthorse,
I would like to apologize for any breaches of the rules that I may have done, as I am only new to the site and still learning many new things.
did not mean to make trouble and I look forward to making a good contribution to Wikipedia with factual, non-subjective evidence, which in previous articles I have accidentally my own opinions and signed off the article with my name. I went through any things you sent to me in terms of help and getting started and understood many points.
Maybe, in my English writing you may find some grammatical or spelling errors, which if permitted you can edit and correct such things. Is it possible for me to be granted permissions for the Albanian version of Wikipedia, guaranteeing I will not break any of your rules? Please do not delete my article about the Pelasgian people, as I will correct it as the rules require.
Adrian LUKA Melbourne, Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian LUKA (talk • contribs) 02:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Sparthorse. While anyone can upload anything to Youtube, this particular video includes a professional set and credits indicating that it was a commercial television broadcast in Taiwan. I think that it qualifies as a reliable source. (The station identifier is included at the end of the 3rd part). However I'd like someone with a better (i.e. any) grasp of Cantonese(?) to review it and confirm my conclusion. Pburka (talk) 03:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
"Redirect to: Pagename"
I noticed you correctly redirected pages from Tennisbestsport (talk · contribs). He's a quacking sockpuppet of Saihimesh (talk · contribs).
If you ever see a user create pages with "Redirect to: Pagename", chances are he's a sock, and should be reported to WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Saihimesh. Thanks. →Στc. 05:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
It appears that you have been "STALKING" me. Please stop doing this and don't ever edit my user page. ImhotepBallZ
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| HI Sparthorse.
I was not trying to add links to Credit Counselling. I was trying to add the references of where I got the info. NCR Debt Counsellor (talk) 07:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
Journal of Foreign Relations
Look again, there were two AfDs and the second one was closed as "delete". Please restore the speedy tag. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 10:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I've fixed the reference - which has brought the article to view. (Apart from the first line, all the article had got into the ref...) Don't know if you saw the rest of the thing. You might have another look just in case. Peridon (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Rich Tosi
Thanks for spotting it. Ideally, you should have actually checked that external source, and then you would have seen the article is an exact copy of it [1]. I accordingly deleted it as copyvio. Anything that sounds like it was written as a promotional bio is more than half the time a copyvio, and that's a very convenient & indisputable way of removing them quickly. In patrolling, always keep a special watch for the most serious problems that would justify speedy.
Please don't be discouraged at the notices on this page. It takes a while to learn all the possibilities, and what we're doing is trying to help you learn, because the work needs doing. As a more general guide you may gfind it helpful to reread WP:Deletion policy and WP:CSD every week or so as you gain experience. The next step is watching some of the discussions at WP:Deletion Review and AfD and WT:CSD so you see what standards and interpretations are being used. Those discussions can get complicated; watch them for a while first, but once you see the style and the manner of argumentation, then join in, because we always need new voices. DGG ( talk ) 21:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I deleted it, and then put it back. It ain't a hoax - it's something on CBBC. I've added a ref and stub. Needs some work (including a copyed.......), but I think the author is rather young. Peridon (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- I've left her a message - have a look at it and see if you can help too. The Grange isn't mentioned in Young Dracula, and I've told her we may have to merge it. Peridon (talk) 22:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- Just looked in the history of your userpage. Interesting. You must be getting under people's skins... :) I've never had anyone create a page on mine. :( Peridon (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that was weird, wasn't it :-) Sparthorse (talk) 08:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Just looked in the history of your userpage. Interesting. You must be getting under people's skins... :) I've never had anyone create a page on mine. :( Peridon (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
New Page Patrolling
Hi. Thank you for patrolling new pages. I noticed that you recently patrolled Tudur Hen. This page appears to have no references. Please consider returning to the article and placing an appropriate maintenance template. Thanks, and happy patrolling! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for spotting that. I've tagged the article. Thanks, Sparthorse (talk) 10:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Gotta let this one go...
You can't A7 (person) something about Ash Ketchum, as he ain't real... It's not web-based either, so a PROD is probably the best idea. Peridon (talk) 11:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: PixelMags
Hello Sparthorse. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of PixelMags, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims coverage in reliable sources. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I've contested the speedy, see talk page for more details. C(u)w(t)C(c) 20:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I have added the notable articles to the fleetcare talk page in an attempt to clear it from its road to speedy deletion. Both articles (along with one Wikipedia article) are from independent sources and the sources in both cases are credible. (talk) 14 November 2011.