User talk:Tutelary

Speciality Restaurant

Hi, My page for the above restaurant chain in india has been tagged for speedy deletion. I had typed the information manually with basic info only and under the correct head. Kindly advise the what is putting this article up for speedy deletion. Thank you Cmadtha (talk) 05:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC) cmadtha

Emperor Blackhat

Hello, What can I do for my article, please tell me, you added a speedy deletion tag on my article, but it is a notable personality please see the talk page of Emperor Blackhat for more information

Joseph B. Platt

Hi Tutelary,

I saw that you tagged the entry for Joseph B. Platt for deletion. I did copy it from another source but I was trying to leave the source credit: http://www.idsa.org/joseph-b-platt There in the first paragraph is the source of the information. I was surprised that Platt is not in Wikipedia already. He designed the Parker fountain pen's iconic Arrow Clip and he was the set designer for the epic film 'Gone with the Wind' I am new to Wikipedia and I'm not sure how everything works. Can you assist me in order to properly give Joseph B. Platt the credit and acknowledgement he deserves? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LPWaterhouse (talk • contribs) 18:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

You cannot use any non-free text. In short, you have to paraphrase everything (and even then, if it's too similar, then it can be tagged as a copy violation.) For the reasoning on why this is a speedy deletion criteria, it's because it has potential legal issues for Wikipedia. You need to write everything in your own words, and while you can use it as a source, you can't just copy and paste the text and put it as an article. Tutelary (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to LastPass (software) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"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:

• |Safari]]. There is also a LastPass [[bookmarklet]] for other browsers.<ref name="features" /><ref>{{cite web | url=https://helpdesk.lastpass.com/features/bookmarklets/ | title=Bookmarklets |

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Live at the Brattle Theatre

Hey there. I realize that the original author was blocked for jokes/vandalism in other articles, but Live at the Brattle Theatre was created before they were blocked, and is a real album by a notable artist. For future reference, just because an author gets blocked does not mean we delete all their articles. Deleting articles like this would be cutting off our nose to spite our face. Know what I mean? :) Steven Walling • talk 23:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. I'll look into their block before I use the CSD nomination for it again. Just curiously, how would the CSD nomination category for blocked/banned users be used correctly in that sense? Tutelary (talk) 23:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

One of two ways, to my understanding:

1. If a user was banned for specific activities. For instance, if I was topic banned from writing articles about Evan Dando for BLP violations, and I did that anyway.
2. If a user is sockpuppeting. Often obsessive people come back with a secondary account to repost articles etc. repeatedly, even after being banned/blocked. If an account is identified as a sockpuppet and then blocked, articles they created in violation of ban might be tagged this way.

Of course, if someone writes an article that violates another CSD criteria, it doesn't matter if they are blocked or not, we should delete. Thanks for the quick and courteous reply, Steven Walling • talk 23:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I understand what I did wrong this time and I'll make sure not to do it again! Tutelary (talk) 23:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

No worries, I know there is a lot of work to do with new page patrol, etc. We all learn as we go. Steven Walling • talk 23:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014, Reply

Dear Tutelary, thanks for your gently message. On the talk page of the article that you've updated, we have left important information that establishes a separation of the two articles in question. If you consider joining information from two articles, we believe that a redirect link is right. Best regards. --Escrituras (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Then create the text for the church, then. Don't copy text from another article. I redirected because this is the case. Tutelary (talk) 00:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Again, thanks for your help. We are going to create the text for this article. --Escrituras (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Unjustified reversions

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Heartbleed. Users are expected to collaborate with others rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Please assume good faith from other editors. If you resort to undoing their changes, please pay particular attention to how you do that. Revert only when necessary, and when you have to, do so in a respectful manner. --Chealer (talk) 03:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

7 Th Day

dnt put the full plot and story in wiki as it is easily accessible to each and every one, i tried to edit it but who the hell r u to edit and put all story again and again in it, including the second climax and suspense, its still running in theaters, plss remove it Please see WP:SPOILER. We are not going to omit the plot just because it is still recent. It is Wikipedia policy to even include such things. Tutelary (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Archiving help

Thank you for your help with the archiving business, I think I've gotten the hang of it now --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 02:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Also I decided to add the auto-archive, I see the appeal of it and it will definitely help when my life gets busy again --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 02:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Whittl

Hello Tutelary. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Whittl, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@FreeRangeFrog:, I'm going to stop new page patrolling, and focus on recent changes now for a while now. Sorry for all the trouble. Tutelary (talk) 10:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Naya Rivera wasn't fired

Hi Tutelary, A Rep for Naya Rivera confirmed to USA Today that she wasn't fired from Glee, if it was true Naya would have confirmed it herself

I've removed the offending section. The USA Today article came at 11:51 PM, after I went to bed. Thanks for letting me know. Also created a relevant talk page on the matter. Tutelary (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoseAurora (talk • contribs) 16:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Nexus LARP

Hi Tutelary, My page was marked for speedy deletion while in the middle of editing and revising its content. The page is a viable page that has all the needed information if not more than other LARP societies that currently have wiki pages. If there is some other reason why this was flagged for deletion please tell me why. I see no reason why any thriving organization should not be able to survive when attempting to get their name out to the public as a documented member of the business world. Pantherios — Preceding undated comment added 01:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

@Pantherios:, I tagged it for deletion under speedy deletion criteria A7, which means that it didn't make a credible claim of significance for this event/group. If you were to make a credible claim of significance, I'd be forced to remove the tag. Tutelary (talk) 01:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Saintseneca

Hello, Thanks for your message! In regards to the Saintseneca, I felt like being a new band that is on a major-indie label (ANTI-), and substaintial attention from major music new sources like Rolling Stone and NPR, and are on the major US touring circuit would qualify them to be notable for a wiki page, no?

Thanks. Jessrock12 (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Regardless, I saw that it potentially qualified for an A7, and when it was not. I apologize, as it is very bitey to mark an article for deletion, even if it sees as it qualifies for a speedy deletion. Added a few tags that are seen as needed. Since you're the one who created it, maybe you can work on that. Tutelary (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be sufficient now (Saintseneca) I will continue to improve it as well. Jessrock12 (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedies

Regarding this and this: since repeated counseling and warnings have not been effective, the next speedy deletion tag you post will result in your being reported to the appropriate noticeboard. VQuakr (talk) 04:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Ferdinand Porsche

Why did you remove the lines from Ferdinand Porsche's Wikipedia page that stated he was a Nazi? Is this not true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.219.189 (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I removed them because they were not substantiated by reliable sources. If you were to add a reliable source to the claim, then I would not have reverted it. But as it sits, it seemed unconstructive to me. Tutelary (talk) 01:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Dopplers

I removed the manufacturers names from Doppler page but there are only two in the world that I know of and yet you list some of the large numbers that make ordinary dopplers. This is inconsistent. Bryan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryanbeattie (talk • contribs) 13:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

@Bryanbeattie:, I removed them because they linked to their external sites, and seemed promotional at my first look. I reverted back my other edit of mine, and allowed it to go through (though removed some of the promotional language according to WP:SPAM and the de-capitalization of 'app' according to Wikipedia's manual of style.) You're more than welcome to add them back, as long as the addendum is not promotional and doesn't link to their sites in the article. Tutelary (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

sock

Jimmy Carter was a sock, I tried to report it on the UAA page but I just got 3 edit conflicts and the name will be deleted from the page soon anyway so I wanted to make sure you saw this. Any similar names are likely also socks. —Soap— 14:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me. I wasn't aware. ^^ Tutelary (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Neo-Nazism, Ukraine section.

As I briefly explained in the edit I made - the Ukraine section is inaccurate and echoes pro-Kremlin propaganda rather than being a reflection of reality. Svoboda is heavily referenced but is not a Neo-Nazi party, it's just a right-wing one. The Svoboda wikipedia clearly states in the second paragraph -

The party was founded in 1991 as the Social-National Party of Ukraine (Ukrainian: Соціал-національна партія України) and acts as a populist proponent of nationalism and anti-communism. It is positioned on the right of the Ukrainian political spectrum,[2][10][11][12][13] and some scholars classify them as far right.[4][14][15][16] Scholars and journalists disagree over Svoboda's politics, some stating members of Svoboda are fascistic or anti-semitic,[17][18][19][20][21][22][23] while other scholars and media, as well as Svoboda itself, state that its politics are nationalist, but not fascistic or antisemitic.[24][25][26][27][28]

There are no references for claims such as:

Svoboda's ideology is based on 'ethnic purity' with anti-Russian, anti Polish and anti-semitic rhetoric, denial of OUN war crimes and the paradoxical heroization of Nazi history with concomitant denial of collaboration.

By 2005 an important step of rehabilitation of Ukrainian nationalism was Victor Yushchenko's appointment of Svoboda member Volodymyr Viatrovych as head of the Ukrainian security service (SBU) archives. This allowed Viatrovych not only to censor ultra nationalist history, but also its official dissemination.

This is basically making wikipedia a Kremlin mouthpiece and I think it's unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.148.5.81 (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Chris Tomlin

I have put true info. Why did you remove it?