User talk:Deepfriedokra/archived 20131214

User talk:Dlohcierekim/boatramp

HiDlohcierekim, how to SemiProtect a Wiki page, Can you please help? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KSavvy (talk • contribs) 22:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New message!

Hello, Deepfriedokra. You have new messages at StormContent's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tripoli for polishing

Hello,

Thanks for your coments about my page Tripoli for polishing. I would like to tell you that Rottestone is known and named as Tripoli, but really it is not Tripoli ( it was said in the page I made). The mineral tripoli has a different nº CAS, diferent structure and chemical composition than Rottenstone. I know what I´m talking about.

The main problem of the mineral Tripoli is that there is not a lot information about it becouse its not a commom mineral and its production is small. For that reason, I find interesting to do a page about it.

Anyway, I will get all the references and information. I will improve the rottenstone page and will do a new page named Tripoli Mineral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C.Damborenea (talk • contribs) 10:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Question about new article

Hi Dlohcierekim! I'm crafting an article on Spotware Systems (so far one sentence written). I searched Wiki for Spotware, saw multiple deletions, and assume it was blocked for continuous advertising. I'd like to give the article a shot (I'm in financial analysis and use cTrader often). I'll keep you updated on my progress and questions. Thanks! Kayakner (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My advice would be to use the Wikipedia:Article wizard to create the article and to have impeccable sourcing. Please read to learn about reliable sources. Someone unconnected with the subject needs to have written enough about the subject to provide content for an encyclopedia article. You can use the template Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL to search for reliable sources. Be very careful to describe how the subject meets notability guidelines. Over focus on features and why the subject is wonderful looks like advertising because that is what you find in advertising. Encyclopedia articles only care about that in passing. Awards, impact on the industry, articles written solely about the subject are more useful than a litany of "you should be this great product because it does all this." The more independent sourcing the better. No independent sourcing means no claim to notability and no justification for an article. You should very carefully read the notability guidelines as well as information about [[WP:V|verifiable information from 3rd party sources not connected with the subject. Dloh cierekim 17:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just saw your messages. Thanks for the advice. That template is really helpful! I'll be adding some more information from my search results to the article shortly. I'm not positive all the sources will be suitable for Wiki's notability, could you check them out and give me any feedback you have? Kayakner (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dlohcierekim, I'm not sure if you saw my message. I'm going to move my sandbox. Could you check out the article? Kayakner (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if there's any changes I should make. Any feedback is appreciated! Here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotware Kayakner (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a good start. Remember, the greater the sourcing, the greater the claim to meeting WP:GNG Dloh cierekim 23:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quoted you

here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

cool24.92.210.244 (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

As you previously participated in related discussions you are invited to comment at the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. mom had heart attack. consulting hospice. can't focus on much more.24.92.210.244 (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Glen Maney

The article Glen Maney has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The subject is a non-notable comedian and officer of a very small political party. This is a BLP that lacks any third-party sources.

While all constructive 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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sorry for the template. Bearian (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, but I think I merely declined the speedy. Don't think he's notable after improvements. don't see how standing for Parliament (maybe) makes him notable24.92.210.244 (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Surya Kavi Pt. Lakhmi Chand may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

surya kavi of Haryanvi Raagni and [[Swang]]. He is also referred as “Shakespeare of Haryana”<ref>{{{cite web |url= |title= Saang fest gets off to majestic start |last1=S.D. Sharma |first1= |last2=

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chess personalities, players, Wikipedia notable sources, GNG

For the record sir, you make an interesting and intelligent point about the conflict between Wikipedia "GNG" rules and the fact that Chess is not covered in the mainstream press, so therefore there are not many traditional sources and citations that a chess player or personality can claim. Can you please educate me a bit more in this conundrum and what do to about it? I recently had an article on a famous chess player not only deleted but savaged by a lynch mobb on here for that very thing. Pardon if this is hard to read as English is not my first language. Valeri Lilov (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

apparently, we will need to establish chess notability guidelines. The GNG reliance is going to cause us to delete articles about subjects that are the top of their sport. for now, the thing to do is argue the point at afd. 19:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC) Dloh cierekim 19:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure we can take the discussion to the AFD if you like. Is there any precedent for establishing field-specific notability guidelines on Wikipedia that are more lenient than General established guidelines? Pardon, is that what you are saying, like more lenient policies for chess? Please let us take this to the AFD discuss, can you begin for this please? Valeri Lilov (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The player you reference is apparently not a grandmaster. The matter has been discussed at AfD and the outcome was delete. The other player's article is at AfD and is notable as a grandmaster. Dloh cierekim 16:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Double redirect

Hello. I thought you might like to know that your protected page User:Dloh/w-a-v is currently listed at Special:DoubleRedirects because the target has moved. Please would you consider changing this redirect to point to the new target Template:Welcome-anon-unconstructive? Thanks! – Wdchk (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Thanks. no longer use the thing so. Dloh cierekim 16:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on deletion of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/redacted

You wrote in part that you were "not seeing any disparagement". Casting negative aspersions on the subject's choice of sexual partners is not disparagement? Hack (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was absurd, ridiculous, and stupid. Unbelievable. And the sole purpose of the article was not to disparage. Had it been a salvageable article, it would have been possible to remove the seeing around corners and leaping 100 feet and that other bit of stupidity. Taken as a whole, the purpose was not G10. I think the writer hit a block and just started adding nonsense. Then they gave up for a lack of sourcing. Had the article been entirely negative, ridiculing and belittling the subject-- including that childish nonsense sex stuff, certainly it would have been g10. Perhaps a thin line, but not quite crossed. Dloh cierekim 18:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Deepfriedokra. You have new messages at Hell in a Bucket's talk page.
Message added 02:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Deepfriedokra. You have new messages at Lettik's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Lettik (talk) 14:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

too nice out

it's to pretty out to sit on the computer all day. I'm going out. Dloh cierekim 16:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This article: Taipanese People's Republics should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because this article is about a micronation such as the Republic of Molossia, Principality of Sealand and other micronations that has an article on this wiki, this article is a fact not a fantasy fiction proved by websites. I don't think this article should be deleted unless I hear your reason why can't the facts of this micronation be on this article.--Rūku U~ōkā (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No assertion of significance. Not notable. No reliable information from verifiable sources. Read the deletion notice. If you can provide reliable information from reliable sources, we may be able to establish notability. Thanks and happy editing. Dloh cierekim 22:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please justify the reason

About deletion for the page "Mohan Rakesh"

Why do you think it is inappropriate. This will be the first time in the history that such a performance of Mohan Rakesh's work will be showcased in the New York City. This is a historic moment for the play and should be part of an encyclopedia. You can check the similar edit is available in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakharam_Binder under the "Adaptation and Translations" section.