User talk:Caleb Crabb

Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist and topic subscriptions to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 09:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, dear Mister Sinebot, either you don't like my signature or you can not read it. (And I really do not sign this time because you will do it for me afterwards again). Looking forward to knowing more about the issue. Thanks,--Caleb Crabb 11:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Caleb Crabb. You have new messages at Matthewrbowker's talk page.
Message added 17:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

I also commented on User talk:slakr, expressing concern about the SineBot problems. Hopefully, they'll be resolved soon. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 17:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edit.

Hi Caleb,

I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to review my article, I noticed that you said that there weren't enough credible sources other than at the schools site itself. I have added numerous sources from a variety of places. I was wondering if you could re-review my article, if there still aren't enough sources do you have any tips or suggestions?

Here is the link to the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Romeo_Engineering_and_Technology_Center

Thanks for your help and time,

AXTX (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AXTX,thanks for your understanding and for your time. From what I see at a glance, the new sources you added seem independent indeed but I didn’t have a closer look yet. If they show the school is notable and it had or has a wide-range media coverage, that’s (perhaps) good. Other improvements can surely be made if the page was to be created (of which, like I said, I am not sure yet) but the major concern being notability here, I guess a thorough review of the new sources is the critical point. If I have time, I’ll try to do it by next week but someone may do it by then. Also, I am sure you read this page but in case you had not, it might be of some help. Best, --Caleb Crabb 21:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AXTX, I took some time to read most of the references you added. You did a lot of work. The notes might be enough. But as they focus on incidents -gun scare and bomb threats- and on architecture design innovations at the creation, I don’t know, really. It might appear as of limited encyclopedic interest (although interesting from a regional or practical perspective). So, here is what I think. I am not convinced those data would not be better off in a new section of the Romeo High School article. What do you think ? You may submit the article again and receive positive comments from a reviewer, though. I’d be neutral and not decline again, but I would not endorse the creation, personally. Also, if you were to submit the article again, you might consider not mentioning the vision statement nor mission statement. Or if mentioned, I would put them in a clear « quotation » style, to avoid sounding heavily biased. The Romeo High School article is yet (from what I see) quite to amend in that way too (As for one, I would -perhaps will- cut those sections in the existing article and the activity sections too : after all, the School site is in the link and those who wish may have a look there easily). That makes another reason to put all the data you collected about RETC in a new section of the existing article about RHS rather than to create an article. At least, that’s my personal view. Feel free to ask again. Hope that was helpful. Keep up the good work ! Best, --Caleb Crabb 11:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-European College of Chiropractic

Hi Caleb. I'm afraid I've declined your WP:PROD on Anglo-European College of Chiropractic because the article has been deleted via PROD once before. If you'd like to pursue deletion, please take it to WP:AfD. Thanks, Whouk (talk) 12:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Whouk. Thanks for letting me know. I hadn’t noticed the previous deletion and still can’t find any trace of it, though (certainly not in the non-existing talk page nor in the page history, from what I see). But if the article has been previously deleted somewhere in the past, that is no wonder. I am not sure, by the way, that all policies state that a once deleted article can not (if re-created) be proposed for deletion, neither -a very common view and a rule that exists somewhere (I’ve just read it in the WP:PROD page, but that’s not what the tag says in those cases (unless I am very much mistaken)- that an article once discussed for deletion, and kept, can not be proposed for deletion (I am not talking about putting back the PROD tag once it has been removed by an editor who contests the deletion). Anyway, that is not a real problem and you did well to remove the tag if you think it is fairer to ask for deletion and debate, which might indeed be the case. Thanks again. Best,Caleb Crabb 16:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your review of the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Battier

Hi Caleb,

Thanks for your review of the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Battier Appropriate internal links have been added, so the entry is now wikified. Hopefully the general notability has been improved. Looking forward to receiving your comments and recommendations. Best, Ken Ken2011shibuya (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ken2011shibuya,

The page was "wikified" so you did well to remove that tag. But as for notability and sources issues, I think you could (should ?) have left them or at least one in place. References are only primary sources. Someone may put those tags back, I suppose. Best, --Caleb Crabb 06:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]