User talk:UtherSRG

Reguarding your speedy deletion of the malamanteau page, I just looked at the criteria for speedy deletion, and it seems that this is being misused: Non-criteria The following are not by themselves sufficient to justify speedy deletion. . . . 4. Neologisms. New specialized terms should have a wider hearing.

What could be done to improve the entry? If it is citable in one of the published XKCD books?

zOMG

		zOMG
		I, Hojimachong, hereby award UtherSRG A completely gratuitous zOMG barnstar, for being 110% awesome. Plus 1. --Hojimachongtalk

Merry Christmas

JoJan is wishing you a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Castle Cove Public School

You tagged Castle Cove Public School for speedy deletion. Please note that {{db-a7}} does not apply to schools. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

So what category are schools eligible under? If there isn't one, there should be, for certainly not all schools need an article. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The reason that school articles are not eligible for speedy deletion under {{db-a7}} is that schools can be notable even without references. High schools are considered automatically notable. Elementary and middle schools need to demonstrate notability through references. If this cannot be done, then the article should be merged into the corresponding school district article or article about the locality. 08:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Should or must? I don't see anything in this particular article worth saving. Do you? - UtherSRG (talk) 08:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The name of the school, the grades it offers, the name of the principal, and its URL are all worth saving. I have added that information to Castle Cove, New South Wales and changed the school article to a redirect to the education section of that article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Fine. - UtherSRG (talk) 08:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You guys make it hard for people to be enthusiastic about contributing to wikipedia. I'm a new user and this was my first page. I hadnt completed it yet and I was going to add some more things like an info box when I got the time. It had taken quite a while to do what I had done (despite how minimalistic you believe it was). I'm not having a go at you but I am in serious doubt that it was necessary to remove the page. Bonjour! Je m'appelle lcb1994 ^talk 09:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No matter how large you could have made the article, could you have shown that the school was notable? notability is the main key to whether an article stays or goes. If the subject of the article is not notable, it is highly likely that it will be deleted in some fashion, no matter how large the article is. Can you say that your school is notable, according to our guidelines? I find it highly doubtful. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, this wikipedia article [[1]] states that "...a user's contributions that consist solely of a lone edit to their user page should not normally be speedy deleted unless it consists solely of spam or other speedy deletable material. They may have simply created their page as their first edit, and could return at any time. Such pages should be sent to Miscellany for deletion and the user notified as normal." It seems to me that you HAVE NOT followed the criteria for a speedy deletion. Bonjour! Je m'appelle lcb1994 ^talk 11:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You weren't creating a user page, you were creating an article. Your user page is user:lcb1994. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing that you don't have a decent reason for its deletion if thats all you have to say. Bonjour! Je m'appelle lcb1994 ^talk 04:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are trying to say, but I think you don't either. I think you are confusing a user page with an article page. In that context, your statements make no sense. I marked an article for deletion, not a user page. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Castle Cove Public School

You should read this better, as you nominated the article for speedy deletion but A7 writes: an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools) --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 10:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, see above. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It's probably not my place, and since I'm not an admin, my input has little bearing on the matter. However, I have worked with UtherSRG at WP:PRIMATE, and respect his judgment. My thoughts on the matter are as follows:

1. {{db-a7}} does state that schools are exempt. However, Uther has a point. Under what category do schools fall under? This sounds like an issue that should be taken up Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, not on someone's talk page. Admittedly, my obscure high school is represented on Wiki, but should it be? What about all the community schools that function as high schools in remote villages in lesser developed countries (such as Madagascar—a place to which I've been)? Do they deserve Wiki pages? I feel the history of this speedy deletion section needs to be reviewed and the issue of schools need to be addressed... but not here.
2. Uther is right about the user page issue he discussed with Lcb1994. An article is not the same as a user page.
3. My sympathies to Lcb1994. I, too, was once a new editor to Wiki and had fair share of speedy deletions that I did not agree with. (The link shows the second attempt to speedy delete. The first attempt went through seconds after the article's creation.) Don't lose heart. Article creation is not something that I feel a new editor should jump into. Start with looking over existing articles and make some contributions there. (Spend an hour on Wiki looking around, and I'm sure you'll find at least 20 things to fix, even as simple as basic grammar.) Learn your way around, build a name for yourself, and after a few dozen or hundred constructive edits, be bold. I know Wiki encourages you to "be bold" from the the start, but from experience, it's safer if you spend a few days or weeks getting broken in on existing articles. Even after nearly 3,000 edits, I got my butt chewed over attempts at renaming, deleting, and creating categories. There's a learning curve, and as the Wikipedia community grows and develops, the curve gets steeper. Please stay with Wiki and keep contributing. Use this experience in a constructive manner and learn from it. Both I and Uther value your presence here. Good faith is fundamental assumption here, but the creation of a new article (or category, in my case) is one of those places where experience is important, otherwise Wiki would be a land of chaos and disinformation, not information.

I hope this helps. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - UtherSRG (talk) 06:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Drakshasava

Hello UtherSRG. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Drakshasava, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article is a stub, but provides sufficient context, including a wikilink to Ayurveda. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Bujutsu kodosokukai

We were totally stunned today experiencing that our article "Bujutsu kodosokukai" has been deleted, and that very fast after the notification. During the last month we have worked intensely to correct it according to the wiki credentials and common guidelines stated amongst others by you. It felt as if the message we wrote under the discussion have not even been read, and we sincerely hope that this is not the case. But we have started a discussion page User:Freezydk/Bujutsu_kodosokukai where we have repeated the message.

The Bujutsu kodosokukai page has been published on Wikipedia for almost 1½ years ago and at that time not much was done to correct the errors and mistakes other than another upload. The author of the article would like to apologize for this but he has been through an unpleasant personal tragedy of a longer duration and could not cope with the situation at that time.

We appreciate that you and other people spend so much time and effort and doing a marvelous job in controlling and investigating, that the knowledge published on Wikipedia is correct and objective. And we believe ourselves that the latest upload was in that category. We have tried to make corrective actions towards all the issues that were raised. It was not meant as an unfriendly gesture that we deleted the message boxes after the upload, because that was what the content said, that you can delete it when you have made the corrections.

But we also know that we lack in experience and this is our first article, and English is not or native tongue, so there will be mistakes and errors, for that we apologize. That is why we need help and support from guys like you and tell us what exactly is wrong in our article so we can correct it. To us Wikipedia is a good and comprehensive media which we use a lot and we want our knowledge and experience to be represented here as well.

We hope that we can have a serious and respectful dialogue and come to a mutual understanding and we can finally upload our article without it being deleted again.

Best regards,

{Freezydk (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)}

Deleted because it was a recreation of a previously deleted article, multiple times. Find some other admin to approve it.You seem to be attached to this article and the subject it is about, likely someone who works for the organization. Please read WP:COI, our policies on conflict of interest. Also, you have failed, again, to cite verifiable and reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your organization. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Broken (sam clark single)

Hello UtherSRG. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Broken (sam clark single), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A9 only applies where the artist has no article, but Sam Clark has. A7 doesn't apply, either. This may well fail WP:NSONGS, but it's not speediable. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 13:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Roger that. Off to AFD... - UtherSRG (talk) 13:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Unwarranted revert

hello.  I'm a bit puzzled.   That was a good-faith edit and addition, and it was valid and relevant, so I'm not sure what the problem was. You just threw it out, with no reason or explanation. I know the policy of Wikipedia reverting, and what you did simply was not following that. And I don't understand why you disrespected it that way, treating it as if it was vandalism or something, when careful viewing would show it really wasn't.

I realize that you're admin, and I appreciate that, and the work you've done, keeping things clean, fixed, and proper, on various articles.   But that doesn't mean you're infallible every instance. And, frankly, it really seems you violated or ignored policy, plain and simple, in this regard.   Explanations are generally supposed to be given for reverts. Especially for non-vandalism and good-faith edits.

Is there a reason why "Wildcat", which IS an article on Wikipedia, is not suited on the "See also" section, on the Bobcat article, when the "See also" section is practically empty?   I mean, it is related, and has some relevance.   So what's the issue?

Did you think it was "vandalism"?   If so, why?   It clearly wasn't.   "Wildcat" is related to the article, and is a valid referral, and it is a wiki link article.   So what exactly is the problem?

Only actual vandalism and/or provably inaccurate things should be "reverted", per Wikipedia policy, NOT good-faith edits that are relevant or accurate. That "See also" link was appropriate, yet you abruptly summarily undid it with NO explanation. Which is against Wikipedia policy.   The edit was fine (and even arguably needed), but your revert was not.

To be blunt.   There was NO good reason for your unexplained revert and throwing out that good-faith edit.   Except that you may have mistakenly or hastily thought it was either vandalism or unneeded.   If so, you're simply incorrect on both counts.   It was not vandalism at all, and it is relevant and needed.  

And even if you personally thought it was unneeded, Wikipedia policy is that THAT DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE.   Because it's not supposed to go by personal tastes.   As long as the edit was somewhat related, and not vandalism.  Articles belong to the entire Wikipedia community, not to any one editor or even to any one Admin.   Things like that are not to be reverted, simply cuz you don't like it.   Or hastily assumed to be vandalism, because other people have inserted real vandalism into the article.   And the policy doesn't give exemptions (from what I've seen) to Admins.   The "See also" section is basically empty, and the link that was added there in good faith is related and has some point to it.

So I'm just wondering what happened.   Did you maybe assume it was vandalism? Or that it was unnecessary?   Also, as I said, from what I understand, no one person "owns" any Wikipedia article, admins included.   And from what I understand, only outright vandalism, or truly inaccurate or truly irrelevant things (it's not like the link was about "railroad trains," but was about "cats"), are to be "reverted".   NOT good faith additions that are valid or related.   And from what I understand (and know) an explanation is to always be given for a revert.   As I said, the edit and addition was fine (and isn't "boldness" encouraged by Wikipedia too?).  I saw no reason given for the revert.   And Wikipedia says there should really always be given one.   And the edit was not vandalism, but was valid.   So I'm curious...what's the issue here?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.230.199 (talk • contribs)

Chill dude. It wasn't a great edit. why list that species, and not all the other species in the family? Why that species, which isn't in the same genus, and none of the other species which *are* in the same genus as the article? It was random and meaningless, so I removed it. I have a button that allows me to revert, but doesn't allow me to add an edit summary. I felt it was random and meaningless, and as such, it was vandalism. Hence the single button revert. Get over it. I'll keep doing that to similar edits that are random and meaningless. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

they're both NOT house cats, so it's not totally random or unrelated. It was a well-meaning sincere addition.

it's hard for me to "chill" when being wrongly called a "vandal", sir. And when there's an Admin who seems to be "revert" trigger happy. To be frank.

It's not that big of an edit, obviously, I know. But it's the PRINCIPLE. You feel me?

ok, please listen carefully, Stacey....

Wikipedia policy is that "See also" links are NOT GENERALLY supposed to always be directly stuff that was mentioned in the article, but at least somehow related.

that's one:...

number two: you're going off about "why not list other species in the family" when why couldn't YOU have done that yourself too? the Policy is NOT to "revert" with a convenient button or whatever, but to MAYBE MODIFY OR ADD OR HELP AN EDIT, whatever it is.

and frankly, I don't see how the "not add more cats to the family" is somehow an excuse to "revert" and call something "vandalism" when it really isn't.

Again, sir, Wikipedia policy (NOT my own opinion), is for someone (and it didn't say that Administrators were above the rule) to MODIFY an edit that might need elaboration, or help it or add to it, but NOT to summarily revert it.

number three: what is so "random" about "Wildcat" to the article "Bobcat"??? It's RELATED in that both Bobcats and "Wildcats" are NOT house cats, and are of interest.   It's not like putting "Wall Street" as a link to "Bobcat"? Hello? It's not random or unrelated like that. It was related, and it's encouraged to put stuff in the See also sections that are related, but not necessarily what's in the article already. So, with respect, I think you're really uptight and incorrect...on your analysis, that it was irrelevant, random, or vandalous. Not sure why you're this uptight. I see how many people you've prematurely and uptightly done this stuff to.

ONLY REAL VANDALISM AND REALLY TRULY IRRELEVANT THINGS OR INACCURATE THINGS SHOULD BE REVERTED.......

NOT good faith additions. That ARE related.

and again, to your "why not add other species" line, that's not my job solely, though I do understand your point to SOME extent, but the question could be turned to you...why couldn't YOU add to the See also section, and so forth?

Did you notice, Stacey, that the "See also" section on this particular article is like LACKING and empty?

Really, though, why the uptightness with something like this? I mean, you seem to be KNEE-JERK and think just about everything is worthless or "vandalism" or "random". I noticed that some were that, but not everything.

I've edited literally HUNDREDS of articles with 99% of my edits being respected and understood, big and small.

even if that particular edit was not necessarily all that "great", it was not necessarily "vandalism." That's a STRONG WORD. And should not be thrown around or bandied about so hastily or loosely. But really. How am I supposed to "chill" with you basically saying I vandalized an article?

It was in NO WAY "vandalism" or "random"? It's NOT like it was a willy nilly addition from left field that had zero to do with anything. I meant well, and it had some relation. More stuff should be added to the "See also" section, but that doesn't mean that my little added wiki link was wrong or useless or "vandalism". thank you... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.230.199 (talk • contribs)

Ignored. Take your rant elsewhere buddy. I'm not interested in an anon's rantings, particularly one who can't figure out how to sign their rantings after having "edited literally hundreds of articles...". You don't know me. You only think you do. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

ok, I'll make it way shorter, since you seem not to want to deal with things like long "rants".

As I said, you may have a little point about the "family" or species listing issue.

My only point though was that it was not like the link was "Wall Street" or "Race cars" which have nothing to do with "Cats". It was not totally irrelevant, or "random", and definitely not "vandalism". There was some relevance or relation. It was NOT totally out of left field, like you're saying.

and also, my point was why couldn't YOU maybe add to the "See also" list with some extra species? Instead of just reverting the thing completely? 68.237.216.108 (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

My point in those rhetorical questions is that Wildcat is less deserving to be there than various other Lynx species. However, none of those has any reason to be there, either. A reader can easily navigate to various related species articles via the genus link, or to other cats via the family link. "See also" should be used only as a last resort when you don't know how to figure out how to word a link into the text of an article, not as a laundry list of somewhat related articles. It was "random" in the sense that it appeared from no where, was of less relation to the article compared to other links that could have been there, and had no rationale given. I am done with this conversation. If you want something done about this, writing on my talk page will not be effective. If you reply here, I will consider it harassment. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy notice on Mana Bar

I removed the speedy notice you added, because it seemed that you did it a bit prematurely. I had added {{Underconstruction}} to prevent a notability speedy deletion, which you seemed to overlook. The article is less than a day old. If you still want it gone, check back in a few days. - Zero1328 _Talk? 22:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I dislike that tag for new articles. You can make your own sandbox and get the article into good shape in your own user space before having it moved into the main encyclopedia. That tag should only be used on existing articles undergoing a rewrite. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it also felt a bit odd for me to add that tag. Even so, I would still argue that it may have been acceptable as a stub, but either way, it should be checked again in a few days to see how it goes. - Zero1328 _Talk? 05:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, if it passes WP:AFD. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Neanderthal

I noticed Neanderthal has been protected for nearly a year and a half; it seems about time to give anon editors another go. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Larry Hansen

Feel free to delete the article in a speedy fashion, and similarly with the kid's own article and the albums. But "why wasn't this speedied"--is that a rhetorical question? The article says "he is a veteran on the Alaska scene": of course he's not, but it's a claim to notability. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I only added my own article to go along with my band's article. I figured that doing this would be a good idea seeing as how I'm the frontman and manager of the band. We are not simply a 'local' band. We have done a lot in the short time the band has existed for one. And two, I don't like how you're addressing me as kid. It's rather disrespectful and I am not vandalizing wikipedia. You are misinterpreting my submissions completely. I am simply expanding what is suppose to be a community-operated encyclopedia. I've done nothing even close to vandalize this website. If you want vandalism, try encyclopedia-dramatica. Another thing is, even though I'm 15, I've been a proud part of the music scene in Alaska for years, and am highly-respected for not just my own music, but for promoting other notable bands in my homestate. Don't criticize my age. I just tried to expand your encyclopedia. If you delete any of my work please send it to darkiris@live.com that is all I ask --Larry52333 (talk) 04:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• I intended no insult here--but I got almost 30 years on you, so you're a kid to me, and I never said you were vandalizing Wikipedia. But at age 15 you cannot be a veteran on any music scene, that's obvious. Drmies (talk) 04:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The vandalism comment was actually directed towards UtherSRG, who posted on my talk accusing me of vandalizing. Sorry for getting the two of you confused. For one thing, Alaska has a fairly small music scene, and I've been a part of it for about five years, and as so, I've been titled as a veteran of the music scene by fellow musicians, venues and promotors, so it's kinda hard to contest that claim regardless of my age. As for my Dark Iris article, we are a notable act because we have been covered in newspapers and local magazines and partially on the radio, but even more so this summer after our debut album official releases. And it clearly states in Wikipedia's Notability (Music) page that newspaper, magazine and radio coverage are good enough reasons to consider a band notable, as stated below:

"This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries"

If the statement above is true, then there is no reason why we can be considered otherwise a notable band. I reference all of our news articles, reviews, magazine articles, etc. as links on the reference section of the article. I'm not sure how many I have posted as of now, but I can think of a few more sources to post to the references section which I will do right now and will continue to do every time I find new press releases and other related objects. If this does not explain well enough why I think Dark Iris is a notable band, please tell me how this does not apply. Thank you. --Larry52333 (talk) 05:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, UtherSRG if none of the information I've specified is enough to keep my work on Wikipedia then can you at least 'userfy' it so it won't be completely lost? Thank you. --Larry52333 (talk) 05:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

There are many types of vandalism. You may not have intended it as so, but that doesn't change the outcome. I will indeed "userfy" the articles so you can grab them. I'll post inks to them on your talk page when I have done the task. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Unprotecting

Could you unprotect Neanderthal extinction hypotheses as well? Abductive (reasoning) 04:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello from Britain

Hi, I just got your message about notifying you if I ever create another primate article. Do you want me to notify you on your talk page or somewhere else? I was fearful that an admin would delete my entries for not being informative enough so I'm glad that I'm doing something right (Elspooky (talk) 11:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC))

Here is fine. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Victims of Circumstance (album) speedy declined

Hey, I declined your speedy deletion request on the grounds that A9 only applies if there is no article on the band. There (for now) is one. If Dark Iris is deleted after the AfD concludes (as seems likely), then the album article will need to go as well (or you could go ahead and nominate it at AfD as well). LadyofShalott 02:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thee are 2 album articles. One you declined the speedy for, the other was converted into a redirect to the band. Which is the more appropriate action? - UtherSRG (talk) 04:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... well, there is arguably more justification for the one remaining as an article to exist as such since it is the first (not yet released) album, and the other is a second not yet released album. I'm not sure there's any conflict between the two different actions. LadyofShalott 17:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The second album isn't even recorded yet. It shouldn't even be a redirect to the artist, because WP:CRYSTAL. The first should be a redirect to the artist and then deleted when the artist is later deleted, which I'm sure it will be. - UtherSRG (talk)

We are in agreement that the artist article will almost certainly be deleted, and then anything related to it. I'm not sure it really matters all that much in the meantime whether the other articles are allowed to stay as articles or be redirects, or whatever - after about 7 days, they will all vanish. LadyofShalott 04:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

True enough. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Blake Ian

Recreation Hi Stacey, Firstly let me apologize for the assistant working in my office who I had working on some things for me and decided to ignore the deletion / recreation process and instead just re-add the page over and over. I would like to discuss the issues which I thought I had initially taken care of myself when the page was first flagged. The subject is a very active artist with many published works. There have been articles in several major publications on the subject. The Daily News for instance was one I put in the reference section because I was able to find an online version of it. All Major credit listing sites (AllMusicGuide, IMDB etc...) list the subject and his works which span 10 years. He is well known in the music industry thru out the country.

Please let me know what other issues can be corrected and again my apologies for the way the deletion has been handled for the last few weeks, I was unaware and will be sure not to allow anyone else to log in as myself again.

Thanks, Anna —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnafPR (talk • contribs) 16:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Two things here concern me. 1. You sound like you are a PR firm working for Mr. Ian. That would mean you have failed to read WP:COI; to wit, you are not a neutral writer. 2. You have failed to read WP:V and WP:RS - you need to provide these kind of references to show his notability. Being seen near someone famous does not make someone notable. AllMusicGuide and IMDB are far from independent or reliable for our purposes. If you still feel this article should be recreated, take your concerns to WP:DRV. - UtherSRG (talk)

1. I do not represent nor am I affiliated with Mr. Ian. I do work as a writer and was interested in contributing to Wikipedia to learn about the process and help build it. I chose and topic that I had been somewhat familiar with and then researched it. 2. I see what you mean about the Daily News article, but I have found several other articles on the subject as well. Maybe I just needed to go about citing a little better. I am surprised that inclusions in both IMDB and AMG would not be relevant, but certainly Mr. Ian's inclusion in MySpace Celebrity's list of active artists (which includes well under 500 names) should show some notability as an online personality.

I appreciate your concerns, but again as I am looking to learn and contribute in the correct way to Wikipedia, Please consider these responses.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnafPR (talk • contribs) 15:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

All information in an article should be able to be referenced with the highest scrutiny, especially when the article is about a living person. We do not wish to put false information out there, whether it makes the person look better or less than reality. As such, unreliable sources or sources that could come from non-disinterested parties must be held suspect and avoided. This includes anything that doesn't have a strict editorial review process (such as MySpace or blogs), anything that comes directly or indirectly from the subject (as it could be self-promotional or self-aggrandizing), or anything that could be tainted by the same. Ah well. Good luck in your endeavor. Feel free to bounce ideas off of me. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response... As I said I am interested in learning the process and the proper protocols so I appreciate the info. I did try to use other articles covering similar subjects as template (ie other singer-songwriter articles). Also, so you are aware MySpace Celebrity is a separate venture and entity from the social network site. It is an online entertainment magazine with a legitimate editorial and writing staff. I will follow the next steps you suggested, as I said I have put time and effort into the research and creation of this article and would like to see it thru to have it restored. Thank you again for the discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.195.212 (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting. I'll have to check it out. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Zirve 2010

Hello UtherSRG. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Zirve 2010, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A9 requires that the artist does not have an article and that there are no claims of importance/significance regarding the musical recording itself. Thank you. Tim Song (talk) 07:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Since that's the case, I've now redirected the album article to the artist. - UtherSRG (talk) 08:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Areapal

Hello UtherSRG. I am letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Areapal, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, Reason: This is a new page and the article is a stub, but provides sufficient context, The website is found on the search engines and has been covered by news papers i have read in India . It would be great if you could help me shape up the article and contribute to it. Since this is my 1st article there were agreeable errors. But suggestions and improvements from a Senior member like you could encourage me to contribute more to Wikipedia. Thank you. - Spoiltsport

Thanks for the invite, but it is outside of my area of expertise. I've been doing User:WildBot patrols, which means I catch a lot of new pages early in their development. I probably tag more than I should for deletion, but that's my nature. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok. So Can you please take the Tag for speedy deletion off the article. Any suggestions ? Thanks. - Spoiltsport (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

@UtherSRG . Ok fine have a good day da thevidiyapaiyaa. - Spoiltsport (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems you've found someone whose expertise was more along the lines of what you needed. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

powlz.com

Hello I dont see why this page should of been deleted I am uploading it on the discussion so you can see why it shouldnt be deleted !! --Jacobhasnopens (talk) 11:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Do not do that. It is not needed. We can see the deleted page and judge based on that. You seem to be unable to comply with our policies and procedures. Stop being a nuisance or I will block your account. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The Mentor Philosophers

Please disambiguate the updated list of philosophers at The Mentor Philosophers. Thanks for doing the first ones. Cosprings (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Done! Thanks for the poke. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Mammals of India

I have nominated Category:Mammals of India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Shyamal (talk) 02:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed! - UtherSRG (talk) 06:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Fossa (anatomy)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Fossa (anatomy), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Fossa. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This was a dab split. Nothing to see here. These aren't the droids you are looking for. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for your help with the article Domesticated silver fox! Chrisrus (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

De nada. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Help! Hints needed.

Hello,

you have deleted my page (please see below). I wanted not to preach against you rules, so I have taken another wiki-page as draft (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieter_Bohlen). So I have built with this "template" the informations about my person, but you have removed it within one minute? why? please give me a hint! i do not know what I have done wrong, comparing with Dieter Bohlens wiki page. Thx a lot, Alex.

This was my page content:

---

Best Regards, Alex.

Don't write about yourself. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Jacques Vanneste

I wrote the article because Jacques is this year's winner of the Adams Prize, the most prestigious UK mathematics award; I think this makes him notable under notability clause 2. Would you mind undeleting it? Fivemack (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You were polite, and well reasoned. Yes, I'll undelete it. But you will need to cite verifiable and reliable sources on it very soon. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

King's Goanna

Thanks. (moving the header to the common name--King's Goanna. Another common name I found, so I was confirming, but this one is the best known. I may need some help with clarifying terms such as monotypic.

cheers.Bruinfan12 (talk) 01:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Let me know if you have any specific issues you need help with. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Malamanteau

This is a likely target for recreation; see XKCD. It may be a good candidate for page creation protection. Jminthorne (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:ISNOT an urban dictionary. XKCD just made it up. It's not a valid encylopedic entry. And even if it were a valid word, it would be a dictionary entry, so belongs on Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Clarification - I was asking if it should be protected from creation, not claiming that it is a valid article. Jminthorne (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

LOL! Oh. :) In which case, I fully agree, as I salted it the second time I deleted it. :) Sorry... I get a little short-sighted sometime. You did say page creation protection the first time. My bad. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It might be less contested if you made it a redirect to xkcd and protected the page from changes. Gemini6Ice (talk) 04:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

While it might be less contested that way, it then encourages editing of xkcd to support the need for the deleted article. I don't think that's a good idea. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

A redirect should be provided. Deleting the page and redirect outside of process [2] and then protecting the page [3] is simply not appropriate and gives a bad imporession to incoming visitors. Please restore the redirect. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. there is no need for a redirect. There is no need for the article to be created. A redirect from a bad entry encourages adding that info to the target of the redirect. Look at the delete history of the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)