User talk:Kuyabribri

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Deletion of Easy Comext

Dear, You have just deleted my article on "Easy Comext" because of the copyright. I am professionnal who's working on this project. The aim on my article is to find be more visible, it's not a promotion article. I'm the owner of the text who has been re-copied. Is it a problem if I copy myself ? How can I proove that I'm the legal owner of this text ? If I modify the sentences but keep the idea, can you confirm me that my article won't be deleted ? thanks for your help, Vialepa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vialepa (talk • contribs) 09:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Your first comment indicates that you did not read the notice in the blue box before saving your message. Please read the fifth bullet in that box. I will, however, address the rest of your comments.

Wikipedia is not here to make things "more visible"; it covers what has already been covered in reliable, secondary sources. If you own the copyright to the copied text, you can license it to Wikipedia; however, I have found that the overwhelming majority of the time such text is not written in an encyclopedic manner and is not appropriate for Wikipedia anyways. Although I don't have access to the deleted text, I do remember that the text of this article was not appropriate for Wikipedia.

I will not "confirm" that an article won't be deleted. All articles must meet the criteria of verifiability, notability, and neutral point of view. Also, since you work for the topic of the article, the policy on conflict of interest strongly discourages you from writing or editing an article on this subject. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Your moving of U.S. cathedral articles

Hi,

Sure, I'm open to reverting them. I realized after I moved St. James that I probably shouldn't have. As for St. John Berchman, I realize there aren't any other Berchman, but I was hoping to help differentiate it from the five other St. John cathedrals. Goldnpuppy (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not overly insistent one way or the other on the (city, state) versus (city) disambiguation for those three articles, though I personally prefer the (city) disambiguation. I have found since I left that message for you that there is some disagreement and inconsistency on how to apply the AP Stylebook guideline. The inconsistency seems to arise from the fact that the naming convention specifically applies the AP Stylebook guideline only to the articles on those cities, not using those cities' names in disambiguation. And I'll leave it up to you on the St. John Berchmans cathedral; I only insist that "Shreveport" be spelled correctly. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Zuvvu page

Zuvvu page is not unambiguously promotional, because we have renamed our company from Twtbuck to Zuvvu and working on two new Technologies 1. Social Media page rank and 2. Social Media User Activity score. Moreover, we are getting over 10,000 plus daily searches and wikipedia is great way to let people learn about zuvvu and keep adding to it. Media has covered us especially for our unique offering which can be found in highly reliable reference and sources. Because we have introduced new technologies, we can't simply put redirect on our previous page. If you want us to remove anything from present draft, would remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuvvu (talk • contribs) 16:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Biosolar deletion

Why was it deleted, specifically? Or what could I do to avoid it being deleted? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierredemaere (talk • contribs) 19:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The article was written as if to promote the company. All articles must meet the guidelines of notability, verifiability, and neutral point-of-view. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

About Biosolar

You state that it failed on multiple count: notability, verifiability, and neutral point-of-view.

So, Biosolar is not a notable company? What do I need to do? Provide you with 1,2, 3000 links to websites that can attest that this company exists? So, how many do I need?

I wasn't neutral? Please, substantiate your claim by providing evidence. I am not a journalist major, but I can use passive voice if you like. This is my first article.

I would also appreciate a warning when articles are deleted. WE, contributors, put a lot of hard work to make WIKIPEDIA work. We work for free. It seems that there are rules for not deleting material on wikipedia, why is it that you can just delete it without warning people. Fortunately, because I had a feeling that this wasn't as easy as I thought it should, I copied the work I did. However, if the practice of deleting is going to continue, let me advise that some of your smart people find a way to resolve this conflict.

Thanks. (Notice the polite tone of THIS message!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierredemaere (talk • contribs) 20:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I will address your comments in order:

I only made a blanket statement regarding the policies that all articles must adhere to. The article Biosolar was deleted on the grounds that it was written entirely in promotional, PR language and would have required a complete rewrite in order to be appropriate for an encyclopedia. This is an extension of the neutral point-of-view policy.

I never said this is not a notable company. If you look at my user page, I plainly state in the "Policies" section that I don't like calling something "non-notable", as many Wikipedia editors I come across like to. But all articles must meet the threshold of notability as outlined in the notability guidelines, and their meeting of these criteria must be referenced to reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Bear in mind that there are some subjects that don't meet the criteria, and no amount of editing will make them meet the criteria. This is, again, a generic statement that may or may not apply to this company.

I am not an administrator and don't have access to the text of the deleted article. But I do remember that as I said before, the article was mostly written in PR language. I am not a journalism major either, which is irrelevant because I have encountered people from all sorts of professions who write great articles, and by the same token I have encountered people from all sorts of professions who write terrible articles.

You received two warnings that this article was nominated for deletion - one from me, and one from another user. Those warnings both explicitly stated that it was nominated for speedy deletion. The criteria for speedy deletion are very narrow and may only be used in those circumstances where submitting the article for a full community discussion on deletion would be waste of time because it would be a foregone conclusion that the discussion would result in deletion. Note that since I am not an administrator I only nominated the article for deletion; an administrator had to review the article and agree that it met the speedy deletion criteria before actually deleting the article. Also note that this happened again two hours after I initially saw the article, which means that four editors, two of whom are administrators, agreed that the article meets those narrow criteria for speedy deletion. The full policy for deleting articles is at Wikipedia:Deletion policy.

If you like, you can create a draft to work on in your user space. These are subject to considerably less community scrutiny (but not zero scrutiny) and you can work on it there and ask for comments before posting it to the article space. For instructions on how to do this, see Help:Userspace draft. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 23:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Need help with the two pages created

Hi,

I am sorry if I broke rules. I thought I could list the items published by the authors. If not, Can I just delete their bibliography and leave the biography intact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevorbauer (talk • contribs) 20:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The biography you speak of was written in flowery, promotional tone. I requested deletion of these articles because of the flowery, promotional tone, not because of the bibliographies. I recommend you create a draft in your userspace before publishing these articles to the article space again. Pages in the user space are subject to considerably less scrutiny (but not zero scrutiny) and you can request feedback from other users. For instructions on how to do this, see Help:Userspace draft. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eureka Mall

The original deletion rationale no longer applies, but I still think the place fails WP:GNG. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I have retracted my !vote accordingly. Thanks for the heads up. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 05:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Delcan page

Hi,

you nominated my article on the Delcan for deletion due to G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion guidelines (and it was deleted). Can you please tell me what areas of the article need to be rewritten in order to comply with this guideline? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delcan

Thank you, YaniraKat (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Good thing you caught me before the article was deleted. Most people ask me such questions after the article is deleted.

Wikipedia is not a replacement for the company's website. The entire "Markets and Services" and "Locations" sections would need to go. The "History" and "Projects" sections need to be condensed into paragraphs, not laundry lists. Most importantly, you need to provide references that are independent of the company. All references on the article are to the company's website. Given what I've read on the article and in the links provided, this company may meet the notability criteria for inclusion, but you need to provide reliable, secondary sources to verify the content and to establish that the subject meets the notability requirements. As it stands this article requires a complete rewrite to become encyclopedic. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Sarraino theory

Tagging COI does not really appear necessary, as the article is original research anyway. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 22:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I nominated this article at AfD a few hours ago. The COI tag may be overkill, but it is not unjustified. Note the similarity between the article creator's username (Peelthetruth (talk · contribs)) and the YouTube username of the uploader of this video. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Unintended editing

Hi, the page that was created and deleted was created by my 10 year old daughter. Just discovered this now. My apologies for that. عمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for the heads up. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 23:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Harry Snodgrass page - text from another site that was originally on Wikipedia is now a copyright violation?

The text that was entered in this article has made the article marked for deletion. The original source of the text was a wikipedia listing that was originally written by me and removed by mistake when someone highjacked an old account I had. This text then populated many websites which have kept the text online. Now my article has been marked for deletion stating it is a copyright violation. This is incorrect. How do I remedy this? I edited the page to avoid the text but still include all the facts that are accurate - hopefully that helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedoctorbrain (talk • contribs) 17:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not a copyright violation. Someone else tagged it as such and I removed that tag because a Wikipedia page cannot be a copyright infringement of a Wikipedia mirror site. That user probably didn't do a thorough enough job of checking the copyright status of that page. That being said, there are still issues with this article as the tags on the article explain; copyright infringement just isn't one of them. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Should we just have the original article reposted since this article seems to keep having problems no matter what I do to fix them? Just a thought since I saw you chatting with John CD about the original article. The latest update states notability is in question as well as the sources are primary. I have updated all of the references for this page and made sure the articles point to Harry Snodgrass in each of the articles in some fashion. Yes the articles are for major magazines and listings of awards as well as Mr. Snodgrass being appointed to certain positions, but this information verifies the comments made in the article. Any thoughts? Thedoctorbrain (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

In order to establish that Mr. Snodgrass meets notability criteria for inclusion, the article needs to have sources that are independent of the subject and are about him, not just mention him in passing. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

He had numerous articles about him but that was a number of years ago and they are not on the web. The list includes Mix Magazine, Film and Video, and others. he is also interviewed on many DVD extra sections for the films he worked on. I don't know how to inclue those sources but they exist. Thedoctorbrain (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Pickles147258

I have deleted his comments and edit summary from this page history. Google Translate was very useful  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I was going to ask when I saw the revdel on my WL. I have no idea what was said but I'll take your word for it. Thanks, and cheers! —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Close of two deletion discussions

Kuyabribri, could you please consider undoing your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Griffin and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Griffin? First of all, per the AfD process and template, articles must not be blanked during a deletion discussion, which is essentially what the creating user did. Second, this is the second time this user has done this—see the history of User:Dontforgetthisone/Phil Griffin. Third, and most importantly, there is no reason for a copy of these articles to exist in userspace, as the odds on them ever legitimately being mainspace articles is basically zero. The store in question is now defunct; as such, there is almost no way for it ever to gain notability, as nothing new is going to be written about it. The person (the founder of the store) has never had notability, and was attempting to inherit notability from the store itself. The only way he could have an article is if he does something entirely new which is notable, in which case the article needs to be completely rewritten anyway—it won’t even be able to cover the stuff about “The Griffin”, as its unverifiable. Were I the closing admin rather than the nominator, I would not have allowed userfication even if asked, because userfication should only be done when there is a reasonable chance that the article will become an actual WP article sometime in the vaguely near future. Dontforgetthisone needs to understand that it’s not that these articles aren’t ready for main space, it’s that by the very nature of the subjects, they will never be ready for mainspace. I saw the move this morning, and had been intending to undo it, but ran out of time and by the time I got to work you’d already closed the AfD.

Finally, if nothing else, the mess that was made of Phil Griffin needs to be fixed needs to be fixed. In the process of making this article, Dontforgetthisone moved the previous Phil Griffin page to Phil Griffin (presenter) and created a disambiguation page; that dab should be deleted (someone else added another name, but it’s a redlink) and the presenter article moved back to the main name. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Belated thanks, by the way. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Jeremy Case

You proposed it for deletion? Really? I haven't stopped creating it yet. Chill out. Assume good faith. There are plenty of reliable sources for the article. You just have not given me time to put in them in the article. Seriously. Slow down and assume good faith.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

See my comment on your talk page (which I was in the process of typing up when you left me the above message). —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

I made this lovely cheeseburger just for you. I may have one too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Bravo Plantation (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

mineralpro

I am quite disturbed that before I even completed my post on a company called MineralPRO you proposed it be rapidly deleted. What is that about?? What a slap in the face to the notion of a user-based and inclusive site. Not even any hegemonic corporate site would act so hastily and aggressively. They would at the least allow an individual to explain their case. When I saw the warning message, dug far enough through the thick of wiki pages to figure out what the problem was, and then returned to add my legitimate 'independent sources and references' the page was completely gone. All the work I had put into it over the morning was wiped out. And what is troubling is I still can't determine the slippery line between what is a legitimate basis for a company to merit being listed on wikipedia. Take Culligan, its an international company, lots of dealerships, etc. Its therefore more legitimate for being listed, than MineralPRO, also an international water filtration company. I can find you dozens of legitimate links, news articles, BBB citations, etc. etc. Please explain what that fine line is. I'm not only really put off by my first experience with wikipedia, and have wasted several hours crafting something, I now am lead by fear of trying to determine whether I should try rewriting the article--this time with my references--with no guarantee it won't be deleted. how do I move forward in knowing whether the fuzzy criteria distinguishing what is a legitimate business to publish and one that somehow isn't applies to MineralPRO? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enliten9 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not an administrator and don't have access to the deleted article; therefore I can't address the specific issue with this article. However, given the criterion under which the article was deleted, it was either written solely as if to promote or publicize the company or completely littered with fluff and PR-speak that there was no encyclopedic content. I am pretty sure that in the case of this article it was the former, i.e., the article was written solely as if to publicize or promote the company.

Please see the policies on notability and neutral point of view. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business directory. There are certain criteria that any subject must meet in order to merit an article, which are outlined in the notability criteria for inclusion. Notwithstanding that, an article on a subject that meets those criteria cannot be written in a tone that promotes or publicizes the subject.

Note that I only nominated the article for deletion; an administrator had to review the article and agree with my assessment that the article met the criteria for speedy deletion before actually deleting the article. You may do either of the following: 1) request that the administrator who deleted the article place the article in your user space for you to work on until it is ready to be moved back into the article space, or 2) request deletion review, which is a process by which you can request reinstatement of an article that was speedily deleted, but only under certain circumstances. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 06:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

rod paige beverly hall etc

I'm not enough of a wikipedian, nor interested enough to contest the reverts. Personally, I think your analysis of the Rod Paige is slightly off. I gave a citation to an article in the N Y Times; I think that fairly meets the definition of a reliable source The article (and others from the Times) talks about the scandal in Houston. I think that if the Sec of Education of the United States of America is involved in a scandal, and that scandal is widespread, and the scandal is central to the reason the person was selected to be the Sec Ed, well, isn' that pretty newsworthy ? The n y Times thought it worthy of several articles; I think by def that makes it worth a subheading.

Beyond that, given that there are reliable news accounts of cheating scandals in at least 3 major school districts - Houston, Atlanta, Wash DC - this seems pretty important. but like I said, I ain't that interested (the main reason is this: wiki allows my hard work, mostly in the area of DNA sequencing and related fields, to be resold for a *profit*. I find this abhorrent; and as a result, don't do much on wiki anymore - the idea that our hard work can be, litarraly, ripped off and resold just seems wrong to me. just my 2centsCinnamon colbert (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, Iapologize if I added libelous material; at the time I wrote the material, I thought that I had sources.

The text you added to Rod Paige was written as if to scandalize and it read like an op-ed piece. Of the three sources you added, one is a blog and one is an op-ed piece. Both of those are generally not viewed as reliable sources, but this is especially true if it contains contentious information about a living person. The one source you added that is reliable didn't mention Paige at all.

Don't interpret my comments or actions to mean that this "scandal" doesn't merit a mention at all; on the contrary, if this can be written in an encyclopedic manner and cited to reliable sources, then it definitely merits a mention in Paige's article.

As for your last comment, I can't help you there; I'm a volunteer editor just like you and know nothing of the inner workings of the Wikimedia Foundation. What I can tell you is that when you submit any text to Wikipedia, "you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." In plain English, "if you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." I'm not trying to be antagonistic here; I'm only quoting the text found at the bottom of every Wikipedia editing screen near the "Save page" button. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 02:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tag change

Hey, Kuyabribri, I saw that you changed the tag I put on FinderQuit from A1 to A7. Now, I don't disagree with you; I had been considering doing the db-web tag myself, but I decided against it, since a program could be construed as not really *web* content per se. But that's neither here nor there, because I wanted to ask you about what you saw as context for that article. It's not really a criterion I've ever been too comfortable with using, but I figured, since the article gave essentially no information other than that it is a program, it seemed similar to the example given at WP:CSD#A1. How does one (or you, specifically, if you prefer) define "context" in this...um...context? Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

A1 is not a criterion I tag often, and offhand I can't think of a good example of what would qualify under that criterion. What I can say is that the fact that you could tell me the article was about a program means it doesn't qualify for A1. The fact that you can't tell me anything more than that means that it doesn't make a credible claim to notability. Hope that helps. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I see what you're getting at, I think, but I could use the same logic in the example given for A1, so is that what the criterion is really talking about? that is, If an article was called Joe Smith, with the text "He is a funny man with a red car. He makes people laugh", well, then I know it's about a guy with a sense of humor and a red car, but according to the text of A1, that still qualifies as "no context." Do you see what I mean? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

All the more reason why I don't tag with A1 often. If I were to find that text on an article titled "Joe Smith", my first inclination would be to tag as A7. But if I were to find that text on an article titled "Peanut butter and jelly", maybe then I'd consider A1. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. I don't see myself using much either from here on out. Thanks again! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind that 1) I'm not always right, and 2) articles can fall under multiple speedy deletion criteria, hence why the {{db-multiple}} tag exists. Feel free to ask others, particularly administrators who speedily delete articles, what they think as well. Cheers! —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Bristlecone (Company) deletion

Dear Kuyabribri, As a participant of a post-graduate institute, I have been working on this organisation, Bristlecone that is a subsidiary of M&M. This is a niche supply chain consulting firm. I intend to provide a centralized repository of this organisation as it can serve to provide rich knowledge into the supply chain domain for candidates pursuing a career in the same or seeking information on similar companies. Please note that the entire business model of this organisation is driven by B2B philosophies and hence the wiki page cannot be considered as any form of advertisement. The intent is only to provide information on supply chain consultant providers. I request you to please help me get to un-delete the page in the light of the aforementioned thoughts.--Narendrasagrawal (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

This article was deleted because it consisted only of links elsewhere. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it is not a repository of links, nor is it a vehicle for promotion. Additionally, all articles must meet the criteria of verifiability and notability. You are certainly welcome to contact NawlinWiki (talk · contribs), the administrator who deleted the article, and request its undeletion, but he will probably tell you the same thing I have told you.

You are also welcome to create a new article from scratch that has substantive encyclopedic content, but if it does not meet the aforementioned criteria regarding verifiability, notability, and neutral point-of-view, it is likely to be deleted again. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 23:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• • Being new to this space, I did not start off well. I submitted my draft without realising it would immediately be up for review. I did put in content to the page and have understood citations too. Plus there is a lot more content I intend to add. I would not leave a page undone now. I have realised it. Hence the request to un-delete it so that I can properly complete it.--Narendrasagrawal (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You can create what's called a draft in your user space, where it will be subject to considerably less community scrutiny, and you can request feedback from others. I should caution you that userspace drafts are still subject to some scrutiny; spam, copyright infringements, and personal attacks/libel are some things that are not allowed. For instructions on how to do this, see Help:Userspace draft. You can ask the administrator who deleted the article to "userfy" it (restore it into your userspace) for you to use as a starting point. I should note here as well that he is not required to do so, but will only deny your request if it's not in accordance with policy.

Another route you might consider going is the Articles for creation process. To be honest I'm not too familiar with it, so you'll have to go there to get further information. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Zheng

I've declined G4 but left A7. It's only a tiny fraction of the original. The original AfD is interesting reading.... Peridon (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Veronica Ros-Murillo

In case you were wondering, I consider your A7 tag was correct at the moment when you tagged it. I deleted it G10 because of a subsequent edit by the article creator. Cheers ϢereSpielChequers 22:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Understood; thanks for the heads up. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Ichthus: January 2012

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

• From the Editor
• What are You doing For Lent?
• Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
• Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

---

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here

Trophy Wife (US band) page

Hi there, I built the Trophy Wife US band page, citing international touring and a slew of articles about the band. I feel that as an active touring outfit since 2008, with a release that has sold several thousands and national press recognition, it is worthy of a page. I tried to cite correctly, and worked hard on it. I would ask that you not delete it. Thanks, I know you do a lot to edit these pages which I appreciate but I did work hard to make sure the piece was correctly cited.

Katyotto (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Response to what you put

Just playing.NCISfan2 (talk)18:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Please use the sandbox for testing of "playing", not the article space. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

remedy of speedy deletion nomination of Prelude Software article

Hi,

Could you please tell me how to post this information to conform appropriately. I noticed there are other articles, like Sungard, that have been allowed to be posted. In what way can our article for Prelude Software also be approved for posting?

Please advise.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.223.106 (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't write it as if to promote the company. Avoid using terminology I identify here. Also please see the policy on conflict of interest. All articles must meet the criteria on notability and verifiability. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Kuyabribri: a reply in the admin noticeboard

Hi Kuyabribri, I have just recently read about the noticeboard since I came by. I heard this incident happened almost a while now and I made a reply. Regarding to this issue (which also looked in the issue which is TAR 15), I will say that Singaporeandy was privy in editing. I used the theory which I know was Sasuke (TV series) (I'm a fan too). I used the theory which I need to keep in view for you. I hope you accede my reply there. (TranceX (talk) 13:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC))

I have no idea what you are trying to say. What I do know is that you edited a discussion archive, which should not be edited; therefore, I have reverted that edit. My post on that noticeboard has nothing to do with the information that another user provided; it had to do with actions taken and comments made by that user that may be grounds for a block. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 02:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I need you to understand that I have read about the article and why it happens. Since I took notice on this article, I posted about the theory that it will help you. But I still could not take any action because I still need to keep in view for the theory. What I am trying to say is I need you to look more in the matters for the theory, not the part I need to decide the actions for. Kuyabribri, I apologised I did not understand about the postings for the noticeboard, but I understand about the theory to make sure that the way to make solutions for it. (TranceX (talk) 07:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC))

I'm still not sure what exactly you're talking about. If you have a specific issue, please identify it; don't assume that I can tell what you're talking about by using vague terms like "the theory". I have edited thousands of articles in the last 5+1⁄2 years and cannot be expected to vividly remember an edit that I made nearly a year ago. If you are expecting some sort of response from me, I will not respond unless I can identify what exactly the issue is. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

What I am talking about is I pasted my theory on the noticeboard, but did not know what regulations the noticeboard is because I did not notice that it was an archrive. This issue is actually my own reply. (TranceX (talk) 06:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC))

Okay, I think I understand now. The article text should not point a user to the talk page, and here is why: the talk page is for discussing improvements to the article itself. It is not a forum discussion about the article subject. One of Wikipedia's core content policies is verifiability, not truth. Additionally, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it is not a fansite for any television show or other work of fiction that might have an article. If you need to use the article text to point a reader to some detail that is covered on the talk page, then 1) that detail probably is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, or 2) it is pointing someone to original research, which is a violation of the verifiability policy.

Also, as I said in my first response above, the reason I reported Singaporeandy at the administrators' noticeboard was not because he added text referring to a talk page; it was because he made comments that I interpreted to be ownership of edits or legal threats. My complaint was rejected by the administrators who watch that board, and no action was taken against Singaporeandy. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I See, well thank you so much for the help here. I also learn a lesson here. In fact I want to know what happened here and I get that a lot. (TranceX (talk) 13:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC))

Proposed deletion of The Landmark (Toronto)

OK, thanks. I'm not conversant with all the policy requirements. I have my home page set to random Wiki article and when one comes up that I think needs deletion I propose it. Cheers! Tom Reedy (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I tagged the article but the discussion link goes to the old AfD. What is done when that happens? Tom Reedy (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Place a {{subst:afdx|2nd}} tag on top of the page. If you need further help let me know and I can complete a nomination on your behalf. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I think I got it now. I appreciate the help. I've always found the instructions for these procedures to be unnecessarily confusing, IMO. Seems like there should be just one page where you just put the name of the page, tick off what kind of deletion, the reason, sign it, and click, but then I'm not a programmer. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

You could enable Twinkle, which automates a lot of things such as deletion nominations, reverting vandalism, and maintenance tagging. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

speedy criteria

Please always keep in mind that not meeting the notability guidelines is not required to prevent speedy deletion. For speedy A7, the criterion is any indication in good faith of importance or significance, which is deliberately a very weak standard to avooid deleting things that might show notability if the article is improved further. My own experience is that it is very easy to drift from that into speedying things that one thinks clearly should not belong in Wikipedia regardless of the actual criteria. DGG ( talk ) 21:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

If your comment concerns a specific article or articles, please let me know which one(s). Thanks. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Like Moths To Flames

Hello Kuyabribri. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Like Moths To Flames, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: got albums released on a label (not self-released), which means this goes beyond the garage bands / youtube bands A7 is meant for. Thank you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monkey tennis. No need to expect a note about a DR listing--all the participants are probably dead and buried. Thanks for cleaning house! Drmies (talk) 04:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. This is the first barnstar I've received that wasn't a prank or other abuse of the recently-added WikiLove icon, so I shall display it with pride. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Congrats on your barn star!

Just had to write to say that you are my "wiki-hero" this week! Random research lead me to your page and I got a real kick reading your oh-so-patient responses to fledgling wikipedians who make the same mistakes over and over. I was thinking I must be such an annoying Wikipedia newby - until I read your posts and realized that: a) My errors are par for the course for a beginner; b) I'm not the only one to ever get an alarming seeming label added to my work attempts (even the dreaded speedy deletion tag!); and, c) none of my errors were all that serious (relatively speaking at least - though give me time, LOL!). In all, I found your posts oddly encouraging. Just wanted to thank you for that. Cat B

Cynthisa (talk) 03:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Modest Barnstar
		In recognition of all the work you’ve done lately! 66.87.7.209 (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)