User talk:Finngall

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Hello Finngall! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! —EncMstr 19:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community
Things to do
The Signpost
6 September 2016

your deletion of Dada Nada Page[edit]

looks like you prob did this via "quick deletion" - i truly wish you'd not done that and would've given others an opportunity to respond to the possible deletion.

It was not a new page as it's been there for many, many years.

the reason you gave was that it was redundant as it was in a page about recording artist/screenwriter/film producer/actor Robert Ozn

While DaDa Nada is one of Robert Ozn's acts, it is entirely separate and also an act that is by far the most recent, particularly as it relates to a a very important pro-peace, anti-terrorism music release he's about to make in 2016, which was also the subject of an indiegogo campaign.

i'm a huge supporter/fan and want to see that it as easy as possible for journalists to get information about DaDa NaDa. Once that release occurs there will be searches for DaDa NaDa and it's now going to be confusing because they very likely will not know that that name has a relationship to Mr. Ozn.

There have been times in his career that he only uses that moniker without any reference to any other identity.

I truly appreciate how you care about Wikipedia, but this deletion from my point of view was a bit overzealous in the fact that you didn't give anyone time to respond.

I passionately disagree with it and would really appreciate it if you or whoever followed you would restore it.

Thank you, MusicalTheatreBuff — Preceding unsigned comment added by MusicalTheatreBuff (talkcontribs) 22:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Procedure: As noted above, I am not an administrator and do not have the power to delete articles. I had proposed it for deletion for reasons I listed on your talk page--once tagged as such, anyone can object to the deletion by simply removing the tag. The article was deleted by an administrator after one week with no objections. This process is distinct from the speedy deletion process whereby an article meeting certain criteria can be deleted immediately.
  • Content: Nothing in the article was backed up by any sources whatsoever, and I found nothing about Dada Nada to indicate that it merited a separate article. As it is really just a solo vehicle for Ozn, anything about it can and should be covered under his article. Perhaps Dada Nada could be turned into a redirect to the Ozn article, but nothing more.
To be fair, I will request its undeletion in the appropriate forum, but then I plan to put it forth for discussion via the more formal articles for deletion process, where the community at large will have an opportunity to comment. You will also have time to improve it if you can, but I stand by my assessment of the article in the state it was in at the time I tagged it. --Finngall talk 23:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
(PS: I had just purchased "Feeling Cavalier" on iTunes shortly before tagging the article, so it's not like I'm not a fan, but I'm trying to be objective here...)
@MusicalTheatreBuff: Article is now up for discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dada Nada. --Finngall talk 00:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Bandar bin Abdulaziz Al Saud[edit]

Hello Finngall. Would you please use the discussion page of the article and explain what makes you sure that it was Bandar bin Saud who died. Regards --Dangermouse600 (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Dangermouse600: Ummmm, because every cited source named Bandar bin Saud as the prince who died? It looks like some of the sources themselves got confused about the relationships, but the name was consistent. --Finngall talk 20:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


Sorry about that, I had the page open while I was doing a google search looking for copyvios or evidence of the term's existence, and I'd opened it before you did the Prod so I didn't see it when I placed the speedy. I speedied it as a hoax because it appears to be entirely his creation, the person he said created it doesn't appear to have done so. Apologies for the confusion. JamesG5 (talk) 02:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@JamesG5: Yeah, it's totally non-notable self-promotional (insert your favorite perjorative noun here), but now that Dr. Trevino has removed the prod tag, it'll be a matter for AfD momentarily. --Finngall talk 02:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Tagging of Drogo of Nesle[edit]

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Drogo of Nesle. I do not think that Drogo of Nesle fits any of the speedy deletion criteria  because The mention of the first crusade, and of Emicho give ample context. I request that you consider not re-tagging Drogo of Nesle for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. Before tagging for "no context" a Wikipedia search and a web search on terms mentioned in the article is strongly advised. DES (talk) 03:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Page has been Deleted[edit]

Hi Finngall,

I have created a page for Our Startup company and no way it is related for Promotion. Please suggest what changes are required if i want my page to be created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kishore.Gurram (talkcontribs) 06:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Startup companies are not generally considered notable enough to merit an article in Wikipedia.
  • "Telling the world about our company and its services" is the very definition of advertising, which is not allowed on Wikipedia.
  • It's not your article--even if an article were allowed to be created, you would not be allowed to have control over it.
  • Regardless of any of the above, we STRONGLY discourage editors from creating articles on subjects with which they have a close connection.
If you want there to be a Wikipedia article about your company, then stop worrying about Wikipedia and build the company to the point where someone else might consider writing about it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which covers subjects that are already notable. It is not a free web host for companies which seek to become notable. Please read the pages on Wikipedia's policies which I have linked to above. You are more than welcome to edit articles on other subjects, but PLEASE do not attempt to recreate an article on Instasafe again. Thank you for your time. --Finngall talk 14:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of 'Radіo[edit]

Hi Finngall!

Yhis is not my original article but trabslation from the original text rue:Радіо_Лем.фм

It article aboout about ONLY Radio in Lemkos language around all world. Today it seems impossible find more medii for such very small people,with it's original culture , folclore etc...

Golodg (talk) 00:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC).

@Golodg: Please read the general notability guidelines for Wikipedia. Without significant coverage in reliable sources, it doesn't matter how unique it is. --Finngall talk 00:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Civility Barnstar Hires.png The Civility Barnstar
Congratulations! Javier José Moreno Tovar18 (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Sigurður Guðmundsson[edit]

I took the speedy off of Sigurður Guðmundsson, you might want to have checked what links here first as well as the fact the guy does have some foreign wikis. Though I might of done the same as you! But it does look like he is notable and apparently was on a Icelandic stamp! Wgolf (talk) 00:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Wgolf: When all the article says is "he exists and someone thinks he's a great guy" with that referenced "someone" being his publisher, I don't think "decorated author", I think "borderline spam" (shrug). --Finngall talk 01:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Same here-and I've gotten the same message to me before where they will say to check. (I have put speedies on people that turned out to be notable as well) Wgolf (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


This point. In fact, I've just removed the section you dab'd. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 17:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

That Spanish-speaking company is actually remarkable, it's just promotional[edit]

I did a quick Google and several reliable sources showed up (I don't read Spanish-language media but at least I know Univision, which reported the company). If the ad tone could be edited out, and article translated into English, the article could stay. Ueutyi (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ueutyi: It's not just promotional, it's a flat-out copyright violation and needs to be speedied as such regardless of notability. --Finngall talk 23:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I actually didn't see that. My original plan was to remove all Spanish texts and replace them with a one-line description. You were faster than me. Ueutyi (talk) 00:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


Would it be ok and accurate to cite things from social media? Ie; twitter or instagram. --Treeman2000 (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Treeman2000: Social media sites are generally not considered reliable sources for any purpose and should not be used. --Finngall talk 00:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Conversation with User:MassiveLizard


This is *not* creation of my own fiction. It is something from Nietzsche philosophy, perhaps you should read him! Don't be a dolt and think before you act!!I ask with sanity of your own mind research then you may do so. I expect now, this instant, for you to redacted it MassiveLizard (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@MassiveLizard: If the term were not in fact your own invention, then I would assume that I could find references to it in Nietzsche's writings online despite my lack of formal philosophical studies. Instead, a Google search reveals that the only place on the Web where the search terms "Nietzsche" and "attemptist" exist on the same page is...your article. --Finngall talk 04:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


Yes I am, that is notable! Research and you will find that it is fact, again you have made an erroneous mistake and now I expect an apology once you realize your error. This should not be democracy as it is on wikipedia! It dulls the information and leads to error; any learned man with taste and as now I suspect you are not would concur. I plan to uproot the foundations of wikipedia! I suggest you at least read the website before you answer again. You are probably normal, and enjoy destroying! Good for you, no, I am serious, but have conscience to moderate your alter ego, thence you pursue the art of something MassiveLizard (talk) 04:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Think, why can't you think![edit]

A simple search will reveal nothing; I will tell you why! It a long treatise and Google has its limitations; you are out of you depth-- retreat before you drown! and why if have not studied philosophy are reporting on such matters! Dammit I will in fact grab a direct quote from the book citing the term, again once you realize your error, I expect you to support me and apologize MassiveLizard (talk) 04:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The quote[edit]

these philosophers of the future may have a right, it might also be a wrong, to be called experimenters [Versucher, i.e. attempters] MassiveLizard (talk) 04:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

You seem fairly intelligent-- I was wrong[edit]

I would like to exchange correspondence my email: [email redacted] MassiveLizard (talk) 04:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Now that anger-- a clouding agent has left my head[edit]

What do you think of Nietzsche from your little experience of philosophy? MassiveLizard (talk) 04:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

User:MSRI-Berkeley username issue[edit]

Hi Finngall - thanks for the comment on my username. I will add a comment to it that the account is not actually to edit Wikipedia pages, but to be a demo account for the dashboard I'm using to assist in hosting Wikipedia Edit-a-thon events. The individual mathematicians who are doing the editing will all be creating their own personal accounts, mine is just to be able to show them how things work on the WMF page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MSRI-Berkeley (talkcontribs) 22:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@MSRI-Berkeley: So noted--I don't think that noting this would prevent a prevent a block, but I'll call it to the admins' attention with regard to alternative options--they may have better advice. Thank you for your time. --Finngall talk 22:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Ada Zanditon article update[edit]

Hi Finngall I seen you replied to my request for a deletion tag on the Ada Zanditon article -- I am currently employed by Ada Zanditon myself and she asked me to either delete the page or put the correct and up to date information on the page instead. I was hoping you could help me as I would now like to amend the information which is incorrect and also add more information about what the brand and Ada Zanditon has been doing since 2013. If you can help me in anyway I would really appreciate it, as I can't get in contact with the person who created the article or the administrator of the article. Thank you, Eden Curtis Edencurtis (talk) 10:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Edencurtis: Several points here:
  • First off, be aware that neither Ada, you, nor anyone else owns the page or any of the contents therein. This is an encyclopedia article, not an extension of her own web site. If she is notable enough to have an article here, then that article cannot and should not be deleted purely on the subject's say-so.
  • As per Wikipedia's terms of service, if you are working for Ms. Zanditon and editing the article on her behalf, you must declare this connection publicly, preferably on your user page.
  • Editors who are closely connected to a subject are discouraged from editing the article on that subject for reasons of conflict of interest, and because of the difficulty such editors would have in maintaining the neutral point of view which is to be expected from an encyclopedia article.
  • In light of this, I recommend that whatever changes you propose be posted to the article's talk page as suggestions. Keep in mind that the article should be primarily sourced from third-party sources rather than from her own web page.
Feel free to ask further questions. Thanks! --Finngall talk 14:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Light (web browser)[edit]

Hi! I got a notification that my article had been reviewed after requesting help from a bunch of relevant WikiProjects (this was before I realised I'm actually allowed to add those tags to the article talk page myself, without being a member of said projects), and then I got a notification saying my article had been reviewed, with your username attached. But nothing was changed in the talk page or anything. I'm a bit confused as I've never interacted with WikiProjects before, so, which one of those are you from, and should your review/assessment of my little baby article be up somewhere? Should the project templates in the article talk page be updated with your assessment? Thanks :D [Amazing spaghetti generator]-(~~~~Xmoogle (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)(SQUIRTY NOISES)

@Xmoogle: I'm not affiliated with any of the relevant WikiProjects--I was just doing a more general new page patrol. I did check it over, but more with an eye towards whether it was spam, on an obviously non-notable subject or otherwise eligible for speedy deletion, and/or whether it had issues that merited copyediting or the application of maintenance tags. Unreviewed articles show up as yellow in the list of newly-created pages--my marking it as "reviewed" simply turns off the yellow background for the benefit of others who patrol this list. My assessment was that it is a reasonably sourced article on a subject that appears to be notable by Wikipedia's standards, with nothing that required immediate correction, and my review shouldn't be construed as anything more than that. Further, this "review" is completely separate from whatever subject-specific review processes the various projects may undertake, and does not affect the "unassessed" status on any particular WikiProject. Let me know if you have any other questions. Thank you for your contribution, and happy editing! --Finngall talk 20:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
@Finngall: Thank you, this clears things up. And thanks for your assessment that it's not an inherently terrible article! Plus I've learnt something new with that {{reply|user}} template. :) Xmoogle (talk) 12:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


Hi Finngall,

Apologies I am a very new Wikipedia editor, as I'm sure you've realized! I don't represent the subject in an official capacity, I'm just a good friend and I know the page makes them uncomfortable and unhappy as a lot of it was added passive aggressively by an ex-partner so I said I'd see what I could do as a favour. If nothing else please just remove the last sentence (about flora and fauna).

Thank you!


Jambadger99 (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


This speedy reason should be used only when you can not tell what the article is about, not just where it is very short, or contains only an infobox. DGG ( talk ) 15:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Finngall,

I am enjoying Wikipedia and didn't mean to make anyone crazy when I posted the Ole Entertainment page. It is meant to be a page about a company and, living here in Atlanta, I used the Coca-Cola Company page as a sample. Was that not a wise idea?

Anyway, Ole is a great company offering small movie makers with an opportunity for a real break in the film industry.

I have read more about Wikipedia, changed the page considerably based on your comments and have re-posted the page. However, when I was typing the name of the new page . . . I typed it as Ole Entertainmen . . . leaving off the "t'. I didn't notice my error until after I hit "Save" . . . can you take that page down for me. However, first, please look at it and tell me if it will make Wiki editors dance and sing. I truly want to be a respected member of the Wiki world.

My direct real world email address is: I am still learning to use the very interesting vehicle.

Thanks very much for your help and guidance.

Warm regards from Atlanta, Tom Ross

ThomasARoss (talk) 02:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Conversation with User:Polythesis

The article on the Relationship between Tyranny and Arms Control is no longer a draft.[edit]

It may be a stub for the moment, but the first paragraph of the introduction is complete and references have been provided. How do I stop the talk page from redirecting to the draft talk page now that the redirect from the actual article to the draft has been removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The wiki authority (talkcontribs) 19:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@The wiki authority: Generally it is better to work on an article of this length in draft space and move it to main article space when it is done (which it obviously wasn't then or isn't now). Also, I would have recommended that the completed draft be evaluated by one or more of the fine volunteers at Articles for Creation before moving to mainspace. As it is, to me this looks like an opinion essay, not an encyclopedia article, and I have weighed in appropriately at the article's AfD discussion. --Finngall talk 20:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Finngall The article is currently one paragraph. That's not very long, but it is long enough to create the article and add additional material at a later date. I am not required to contribute more the one paragraph in order to create the article. Let's just focus on the first paragraph for now, since you and a dozen or so other Deletionists will not even allow that one paragraph, even though it was completely neutrally written and it clearly cited 9 sources that each directly discuss the well established concept that there is a relationship between arms control and tyranny. It is not my opinion that there is a relationship between arms control and tyranny; it is a fact, and a very notable fact. Did you read the references? It seems that you either have not read them or you have simply chosen to ignore them. Are you familiar with the criteria for determining if an idea is original research or if it is was pre-existing research? You do not appear to be, or perhaps you are willfully ignoring Wikipedia's policies on this issue to further a Deletionist agenda. The determining factor is whether or not there are reliable, published sources that mention the relationship between tyranny and arms control, which there are many of, almost a dozen of which have been cited so far either in the article itself or during the debate on whether or not the article should be delete. If there are sources that discuss the relationship between tyranny and arms control, then the work is not original research and it is not an opinion essay. This is so obvious that I can't help but conclude that you are aware of this and yet you have decided to disregard Wikipedia's policies and the sources I provided and to delete the article anyway in violation of Wikipedia's policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polythesis (talkcontribs) 16:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@Polythesis: Several points:
  • Main article space is not the place for incomplete articles. Incomplete articles should be worked on in draft space or user space and moved when complete. Regardless of what anyone else may think of the article, it is obviously far from complete.
  • Please reread WP:OR. As defined by Wikipedia in the context of creating an encyclopedia, original research "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. " At best, given the highly incomplete state of the article, it is not clear that this does not meet this definition, but it seems clear to me that it will when it is completed. Further, any article needs to maintain a neutral point of view, and while I'd need to see more to make a judgement, I can see this essay straying far from neutral territory.
  • I will freely cop to being deletionist in my outlook, in that I feel that in general a bad article on a given subject is worse than no article at all. I can and do improve articles rather than call for their deletion, but there's at least gotta be some potential for a good article there.
  • I have tried to give advice, and other experienced editors have tried to do the same. Wikipedia is a collaboration towards a common goal of building the best possible encyclopedia. It doesn't mean everybody has to get along with everybody else, and heated arguments happen everywhere. But the editors I have seen trying to interact with you are trying to be helpful, and I feel like all we're getting in return is "Lalalalalalala, I can't hear you." If you continue to reject sound advice from people who have read and edited many, many articles, then maybe Wikipedia is not the place for you. --Finngall talk 18:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated[edit]

Hi, I'm Diannaa. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Dr. Artika Tyner, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 03:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Richard Hills Jr. page[edit]

Hi Finngall, my page is tagged with possible speedy deletion but all the content is correct and true. On IMDb you will be able to see I am attached to the film I mention and that I'm working with the people I mention so if if you could let me know if there's something you need me to change to make sure it doesn't get deleted I would be extremely grateful. Many thanks, Richard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rising Stars (talkcontribs) 17:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Rising Stars: Good luck on your career, but the standard for articles here is that somebody else (from a major media source) should be writing about you. Wikipedia is not the place to be promoting yourself, regardless of how much you have achieved. --Finngall talk 17:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Temitope Isaac Ajijola[edit]

Hi Finngall, I saw that you have reviewed my page. Thank you. However, I feel it was quite harsh to nominate it for deletion. Back here, Temitope is a known figure and i believe he deserves to be on wikipedia Ibifolayemi (talk) 00:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ibifolayemi: Claiming to be "known" means relatively little unless you can provide verifiable references to reliable sources to back it up. There were no such references in the article as written, and not even a claim that he meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies. An administrator agreed with my assessment and deleted the article. This does not preclude you from trying to create it again, but if you wish to do so then I recommend creating it as Draft:Temitope Isaac Ajijola and submitting it through the Articles for Creation process where the draft can be evaluated by an experienced editor as to whether it is ready to be moved to main article space. Please read the pages I have linked before you begin, and feel free to ask questions. Thank you for listening. --Finngall talk 03:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)