User talk:Kuyabribri/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Sorry for the mistake at John S. Tanner. I was anxious to take a break which I had planned to do when I got to 50th in seniority of the current representatives, and leapt before I looked, thinking he was #50, rather than departing and removing the order of precedence box. (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Rebecca Cardon

Thanks, that's great: LSNED. I'll go ahead an open another afD. 842U (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for your help on Yuan Chang. I could see that "something" had gone wrong but didn's understand what or how to (easily) correct it. BTW, this is merely in response to the general request to review random bios for notability. Not a vendetta or anything!  :) Student7 (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Blood libel (disambiguation)

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Blood libel (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No need for a dab page to cover 2 articles; hatnote already exists at Blood libel which is sufficient

While all 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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —KuyaBriBriTalk 22:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with deletion - I am not all that familiar with DAB page rules, I prematurely started the DAB page, then realized a hatnote would be better - so I added that hatnote. If I could have, I would have removed the DAB page, at that time, but of course, I cannot. I would appreciate it if you would. -Best regards-KeptSouth (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I am not an admin either, but you can place a {{db-author}} tag on the top of the page to indicate to admins that you, the author and sole contributor to the page, request its deletion. This way it will be deleted much sooner than the 7-day requisite for prod. —KuyaBriBriTalk 22:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, ok, I just figured you were. Thanks for letting me know. I am sure someone will remove it soon, but if not I will follow your directions. KeptSouth (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Bob Bilyeu Camblin

First time user so I am just getting use to the format. I am trying to create a page similar to Jack Boynton's page and will continue to try and fix it. Is it your suggest that I should I type in the -hang on- message or just start from scratch? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbilyeu (talkcontribs) 13 January 2011

You are certainly welcome to place the {{hangon}} tag on the page and explain why you believe the page should be kept on the article talk page (Talk:Bob Bilyeu Camblin). Please note that the reason I tagged the article for deletion is because it is written as if to promote this person and is littered throughout with peacock terms. It also violates Wikipedia's core content policy of neutral point of view, and I have reason to believe that you are the subject or are closely connected with him, and therefore have a conflict of interest. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Got it. I am closely related and was trying to get a page up shortly after his death. I will remove the peacockiness and try again. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbilyeu (talkcontribs) 15:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Lady Cosima Windsor

I'm sorry, but I had to remove your Prod. Deletion of any article about royalty, especially of the British House of Windsor, sparks debates at WP:AfD, and can go any way, see WP:OUTCOMES. Any proposed deletion is supposed to be non-controversial, and this is not surely so. Bearian (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Understood. You might want to leave a similar message with Sheepdean (talk · contribs), as I only copied the prod tag that s/he erroneously left on the talk page, in accordance with AGF. I have no opinion one way or the other on the merits of deletion. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Whatever the outcome, you must be aware that there are rapid Royalists at WP, and they would want to debate this. I think she's very weakly notable, IMHO. Thank you! Bearian (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Added by User:CharlesCo

Hi! I created an article a few days ago (which you proposed to delete) and there is a score next to this article on my "My contributions" page: sometimes written in red and sometimes in green. Do you know what does it mean? Thank you

BR CharlesCo (talk) 08:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to the "My watchlist" page, not "My contributions", as that's the only page I see that has a red or green number. That number corresponds to the increase or decrease in the size of the page with each respective edit. I'm not sure if the number is in terms of bytes or number of characters. The line on your watchlist only shows the most recent edit. Hope that answers your question. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough! Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesCo (talkcontribs) 08:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

IC-92AD re-nom'd for deletion

Aight, I re-nom'd it for deletion. Thanks for the heads up. (talk) 03:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Full Service (band)

Hi, I declined your speedy deletion request for the above article, as its coverage in the sources provided constitute a clear and credible assertion of notability. Feel free to take it to AFD. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

BLP proposed deletion of Roberto Sebastián Brum

Hi, I had placed that tag as the source you speak of was an external link, and I have the understanding that external link != source. From what I've seen, a great deal of external links are websites that would not qualify as WP:RS, often because of affiliation with the subject, or, in the case of links to imdb, reliance on user generated content. Please let me know what you think. Regards, RadManCF open frequency 18:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The notion that EL != source is not necessarily true. In a well-written article, yes, the ELs should be different from the references, e.g., ELs should include a person or company's official website, while references should include independent RS coverage. But it doesn't really matter what the references are called on the article, as long as we can use them to verify the information. In this case, the "external link" is, from what I can tell, an online database of football (soccer) statistics for Argentinean players, much like the sites that comprise, which I have used to verify dozens of articles on baseball players and is generally considered reliable. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I just looked at the link, and its actually the website of the association football club that Mr. Brum plays for. Would this site be considered to be independent? I wouldn't think so, but I don't deal with sports articles often. Regards, RadManCF open frequency 19:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I see no evidence that it is the website of Olimpo de Bahía Blanca. In fact, the website's "Contact Us" page says in bold red letters that BDFA (which translates to "Argentine Football Database") does not represent any club. You can use Google Translate to get a rough machine translation of the page. If it were the club's official website, then that source would not be considered entirely independent (though in my book it is a step above a self-published source or blog and is potentially reliable), and an article should not rely only on that source. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


I was redirecting to the 4chan article where this incident is listed (section Dusty the Cat) - as I went in via a redirect it didn't work the way I wanted. Then I found you'd CSDed it. Which way do you want it to go? Peridon (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm OK with a redirect. On a side note I have warned the creator regarding NPOV as that "article" was a major BLP violation and blatantly POV. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorted it so it doesn't double redirect. Peridon (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
On another side note I've requested oversight on the initial article contribution. I'm not sure if it's oversightable as the oversightable content is on an external website, but I'll leave that up to the judgment of the oversighters. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Leaving it to you. I'm off to bed... Peridon (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Appeal to nature

Thankyou again Kuyabribri for your help with the afD process. The situation has gained some attention from experienced editors who recognise a problem but think it is better to fix the article rather than delete it and i am hopeful this is possible. Might you know how to conclude the review early, preferably leaving the discussion page as it is being referred to in related discussions? Or should we just let the afD review run, and let/make reviewers decide the outcome? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisnabreeny (talkcontribs) 03:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I say we let it play out and let the admins decide the consensus. You can, however, place a comment on the AFD discussion to the effect of "I withdraw this nomination" and explain why. As long as anyone else has an outstanding delete !vote the discussion will not be closed early, but the closing admin will certainly weigh in your withdrawn nomination when judging consensus. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I thought that might be most appropriate, after all my boat rocking. (eeek). Lisnabreeny (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Patrolled edits

Hi, I noticed you nominated Disney's Haunted Halloween for speedy deletion; when you use speedy deletion tags, can you also check that you've marked the page as patrolled so it doesn't show up on the list of new pages awaiting review? Cheers, Feezo (Talk) 20:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess Twinkle failed at doing that in this case. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with Tanith Lee redirect pages deletion nomination

Your reasons for speedy keeping were quite reasonable. I have already removed the offending circular links from her pages. I think I had better apologise for overreacting by nominating the redirects for deletion in the first place. I kept finding more and more of those frustrating circular links, and forgot that just because somebody made some strange paths with them doesn't mean they aren't useful. So thanks again for taking care of things in a rapid and reasonable fashion. Sorry for the trouble. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Wi-Fi list

Thanks for fixing the Wi-Fi thing. I noticed that Twinkle didn't complete the AfD, but I didn't think it had noted it anywhere, as there was no notification on the page, and no notification on the AfD list. I was just going to ignore it and come back to it later, but thanks for fixing it. I'll justify my rationale promptly! -- mitchsurp -- (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Bobby Barr

Hello Kuyabribri. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Bobby Barr, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The original discussion resulted in a no consensus, and since he's played for a pro club, WP:ATHLETE would appear to apply. Needs to go to AfD if you want this discussed further. . Thank you. GedUK  08:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hold that thought, I missed the 2nd AfD. GedUK  08:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, it's fiddly. Whilst the 2nd AfD was a delete, it was in 2007, before he'd played anywhere notable. I'm struggling to find anything that tells me how far down the hierarchy professionals played, but I think D2 is, off the top of my head. The Speedy definitely doesn't apply, he's played for pro (I think) teams whereas he hadn't before. Even at the most recent deletion in Feb 08 he hadn't played. I'm pondering what to do with the PROD. I think I'll need to check with the WP:FOOTY to see if I can find out how far down pro leagues go in Scotland. Thanks. GedUK  08:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
SD2 isn't pro, so I've learnt something there! The PROD is the way forward. I'll watch it, and if it gets removed, then it has to be AfD, again. GedUK  09:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Understood. I just thought I'd throw the G4 in there and let an admin decide, since as you know I can't see the deleted version. Honestly I didn't think anyone would research it that far. Thanks! —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

TAR18 U-Turn

Because the first U-Turn isn't one like any from the previous seasons, it would be better to have a different symbol for it at this stage just in case the traditional U-Turn comes back. Giving it the same symbol as previous versions when it is unique doesn't really help.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

dab page with just redlink items can be valid

In response to your prod at Talk:St. James Catholic Church and Cemetery‎ and note to my Talk page (thanks!), i removed the prod. It's important for you understand that a dab page with just redlink items can be valid, so that this doesn't keep coming up. I could address your concern for this one easily by just creating one of the articles, but there are other such dab pages you might find. Let's settle this right now, by please discussing at Talk:St. James Catholic Church and Cemetery‎. Thanks! --doncram 18:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Responded at Talk:St. James Catholic Church and Cemetery‎ per request. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, we both commented there. I guess the issue is not about there being all redlink items. --doncram 19:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

see also links from dab pages

Also in your edits at St. James' Church dab page, you revised a "See also" section link to St. James Episcopal Church (disambiguation), to put in "St. James Episcopal Church (disambiguation page)" instead. The St. James Episcopal Church (disambiguation) is preferred, by some policy/guideline statement that i can't find/recall right now. Basically it has to do with general efforts to remove links to dab pages, except for from redirects. St. James Episcopal Church (disambiguation) is clearly labelled and goes to the other page by redirect. It is the preferred format now for a See also link from a dab page. --doncram 19:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

One place the current policy appears is "Where an article intentionally links to a disambiguation page, that link should be through a "Foo (disambiguation)" redirect, to make it clear that the link is intentional.", in lede paragraph at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links.
I reverted your change at Cathedral of St. James which put in a pipelink, hiding the fact that the See also type link was a link to a disambiguation page. You could have just believed me. If you still don't believe me, please ask other editors for direction at the Disambiguation wikiproject talkpage, or elsewhere. Is this gonna get tedious, fast? --doncram 20:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Understood. Wikilinking to redirects are a personal style pet peeve of mine (even though that's precisely what redirects are for) and I prefer to have links piped to the actual page title, even where the displayed text is a redirect to that page. Ultimately it does no harm either way. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC) edited 21:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

imperfectly supported items on a dab page

I object highly to this edit by you, which removed multiple items from St. James' Church dab page. Several were redlink items for NRHP-listed places, which were not perfectly compliant with MOS:DABRL. Please don't remove any such items, please instead just notify me and i will fix them. There is ongoing cleanup campaign to check and fix all such items, to address previous concerns by another disambiguation-focused editor. Frankly i don't like to have to keep working at that, because all the NRHP listed ones will get articles eventually and are deemed Wikipedia-notable topics. It seems like a waste of time to be refining the supporting bluelinks to conform perfectly with MOS:DABRL. It is even more a waste of time to deal with arriving editors who remove the items for not complying perfectly. Your raising an issue is okay; it is NOT OKAY for you to simply remove the items. Please don't.

For that reason, I reverted the page to the February 2010 version, losing some later edits by you and me both that were adding value. It is MOST important to have the dab page be complete and in progress. Fine-tuning formatting of items is of secondary importance, IMHO. It is destructive to simply remove all items as a matter of punishment being applied to other editors working in good faith, when there is good reason to believe the topic is in fact Wikipedia-notable and should appear in the dab page.

Also, your edit removed multiple other St. James Church items from various other countries. Actually i bet all these are valid Wikipedia topics. It seems in general that single items for a non-US country turn out to be a very important, notable church. While directory-type additions of multiple churches within the U.S., besides for NRHP-listed ones, can be pared off. I'll check out those non-U.S. items and maybe start articles for them. --doncram 19:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I realized after that wholesale deletion, after our discussion, and after I walked away from the computer for an hour that there were items that probably should have stayed given my narrow interpretation of MOS:DABRL. I'll back off on the matter for now, and will re-add the ones I added to the list after the {{uc}} tag is removed (if you don't re-add them yourself).
Before I completely let this issue go, I would like to point out that I take exception to your admonishment of my actions in your comment above. While I have no problem with anyone reverting my edits with a valid explanation, your comments such as "Please don't remove any such items, please instead just notify me and i will fix them" border on WP:OWN and I interpret them as an attempt to discourage me from being bold.
Additionally, you stated "Your raising an issue is okay; it is NOT OKAY for you to simply remove the items." How am I supposed to know that you or anyone is watching any particular page I edit? I have no idea who has this page on their WL, or who checks it without it being on their WL, so I rarely factor that in when I edit a page. Plus I don't think we've ever crossed paths except maybe in passing. Would you have preferred I just leave a message on the talk page, which had not been edited since 2008, not knowing if anyone was going to read it in 2+ years? That's not how I work, mainly because it flies in the face of "be bold". —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
With help of editor User:Peter I. Vardy who addressed the ones in England (he seems to specialize in English churches and I asked him to help out here), I'm done i think with fixing up that dab page. I and Peter created a bunch of stub articles for obviously notable places, or built a supporting bluelink to fully conform to MOS:DABRL. I think there were one or two apparently non-notable places, upon Google searching, that i deleted. I hope you'll agree this is better for Wikipedia, and in particular more friendly to the newbie editors who probably added most of the items.
Sorry about the admonishing tone, I guess. I was frustrated with the wholesaleness of the deletions. I see what you're saying about "being bold", but in fact there is a lot of editing of this dab page and others, and I think you would have gotten a response (from me) at the Talk page. Or you could raise a question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation. I do think that just deleting stuff as done by a number of disambiguation-focused editors is harsh and is part of the unfriendliness problem of Wikipedia, and I would like to build consensus of editors towards more thoughtful treatment of items added by newbies to dab pages. That's mainly where i am coming from now. Cheers, --doncram 22:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Orphan talk pages

Recently we had a discussion about orphan talk pages to deleted / redirected articles. I at first thought that WP:PROD was the answer, but that's for articles only, not talk pages. At your suggestion, I asked at the Village pump and got the answer. WP:CSD#G8 says that "talk pages with no corresponding subject page" can be tagged for speedy deletion using Template:Db-g8. Guy Macon (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Good catch

IMO you raised an important point at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Apparent_annual_creation_of_role_accounts_for_a_class_assignment, thanks, and several editors are trying to find a resolution (so please join in if you wish). In the meantime the consensus is that this isn't an urgent problem so we don't need to issue warnings or otherwise upset good faith contributors. - Pointillist (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Robeson House (London)

I believe I have fixed it now, it was a cut and paste error. Mtking (talk) 04:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit war

Why am I the one receiving this? It should also be the other editor as well!!! NVM. Intoronto1125 (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

TAR18 Dilophosaurus

The info really has no place on the page. Even though it's been said to be a Roadblock on the official site's videos, there's really no reason for us to point out what it is, even if we have reliable sources to back it up. Should we remove it and remind Intoronto1125 that there's a reason we don't feature task information in the Future legs section?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the content to the "Development and filming" section, but honestly I think it should be removed entirely and we just report on the Roadblock normally.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Now that I've had a little bit of time to review the real content issue instead of the edit warring, I'm going to have to agree with you per WP:NORUSH. Although cited, it's just going to be removed when the episode airs in less than 48 hours. I don't see it as being of the same caliber as, say, racers being sighted doing a task in some country, or pre-race promotional material hinting at some unexpected twist, both of which do belong in the "Development and filming" section. —KuyaBriBriTalk 04:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the text now. At least we have this information now so we don't have to randomly guess at what dinosaur it is later.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Michael W. Allen

Thank you for the message re Allen - I will open a new afd. MarkDask 15:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Employee Assistance Programs


You've given me an edit warning that I don't deserve.

Prior to my involvement the article had no references. It read like an advertisement for EAP and I think Wiki frowns upon that practice.

I started a new section "Workplace Bully Concerns" and backed it up with about 20 independent references (from US and Canada). Despite this another editor (Cknoepke) keeps attacking it with endless frivolous arguments (just read the Discussion Page)and repeatedly deleting my edits. I haven't bothered with others edits.

On Jan 5, 2011 Cknoepke wrote: "You are correct in assuming that I am an EAP professional, but I am an external contracted provider ....."

Cknoepke is by their own admission a private EAP provider, so they have a vested interest in censoring/deleting/attacking my edits. Albertoarmstrong (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring is unacceptable, no matter who is right. A bold, revert, discuss cycle is acceptable and encouraged, but multiple reversions of the same edit are not. If someone persists in making edits you disagree with, seek consensus on the talk page or on one of the avenues of dispute resolution.
I will respond to the rest of your comment at WP:NPOVN. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Megan Carroll

I was going to leave you a note about that one wondering how you hadn't noticed it was a blatant attack, but then I looked in the diffs, and when you tagged it, it was just silly. I've left a rather sharp little note on the author's talk page. Keep up the good work. Peridon (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Employee assistance programs/Bullying

HI, I am pretty expert on workplace bullying but dont know much about EAP. However it looks to me like Talk:Employee assistance programs/Bullying is justified in being a section in the EAP article as undoubtably WB is an important aspect of EAP work. Talk:Employee assistance programs/Bullying is well cited. I am not too sure what the current reservation is - is it that it is considered POV ? It is a well documented fact that employers often deal badly with workplace bullying disputes and try every trick in the book to blame the target and Talk:Employee assistance programs/Bullying rings true to me. Personally i would just have a few sentences in workplace bullying and a link to EAP. (you can respond here - i have this page on watch).--Penbat (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

My main problems are that 1) the working page text comes off as having been written by someone with an axe to grind, and 2) (possibly a direct result of 1) it strays pretty far off the main topic of EAPs, which as I understand it is the definition of WP:COATRACK. I don't doubt that some of the text is appropriate for Wikipedia, or maybe the entire text can be kept but majorly rewritten to remove the axe-grinding aspect. That's why I moved it to a working page and asked for help on Talk:Workplace bullying instead of outright deleting it. If you're an expert in this area and can rewrite it to conform to NPOV and keep it on-topic then be my guest. I do not claim to be a subject matter expert; I became involved in this because I stumbled across an edit war while I was on a regular RC patrol, and stumbled across a major NPOV problem. The editor who added the "bullying" section apparently did so in response to the overwhelming praise/promotion that had been on the article previously (I have since removed much of it), but a major POV article does not become neutral by adding a bunch of the opposing POV. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of an article "SuTeam Škola Sporta"

This article is basic for all sports and can be used, by everyone as a guide for introducing kids in sport. In this article there is explained how someone can organize sport for young kids. It is just a beginning of educating people of how and why are basic sports important for kids and why they do not need an early specialization in sport. Please send me an e-mail so I can modify the article so it won't be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.dakic (talkcontribs) 17:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia policy on promotion and neutral point of view. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of R. v. Cinous

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article R. v. Cinous has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Even in translation, there is too little context to see what type of case this involves, and where it was decided; it also appears to be non-notable

While all 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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Good Job on Gricar

You did a good job on the Ray Gricar biography.  :) J. J. in PA (talk) 02:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I saw a documentary on his disappearance on Investigation Discovery a couple of days before I started editing the article. When I pulled up the Wikipedia article I noticed it was a jumbled mess and decided to do something about it. I'm still not done (still need to work on the "Disappearance" section) but real-life business has kept me from spending more time on it. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

AdventureGamers PROD

Although I respect your adherence to the policy, I think this is a case where the policy lacks foresight, specifically with regard to change in other policies. The rules for referencing and removing un-referenced material were significantly strengthened since the article's 1st AFD 5 years ago. Andrevan@ 15:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Digital Blasphemy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Digital Blasphemy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital Blasphemy (4th nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

I eventually got round to AfDing it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Deluge (prehistoric aux)

Thanks for you guidelines Kuyabribri, my mistake. I used WP:RFD#HOWTO now. I have another doubt, i'm sure you can help. megaflood is now a redirect to Deluge (prehistoric), but actually the first is the good, scientific term for the concept. Could you tell me please how to change that?, i.e., how to move Deluge (prehistoric) to megaflood and the redirect it there?. I searched for the instructions unsuccesfully. Gaianauta (talk) 09:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

First, nominating a redirect at RfD is a two-step process, and you have not completed step 2. You need to follow step 2 at WP:RFD#HOWTO in order for the nomination to be complete. Alternatively, you can respond here with a detailed deletion rationale, and as long as I can see your rationale meeting one or more of the criteria at WP:RFD#DELETE I'll go ahead and nominate it on your behalf.
It's ok now, i think i managed with that one. Thanks again Gaianauta (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Second, in response to your question regarding moving pages, I have gone ahead and placed a requested move template on the talk page on top of the section where you placed a move rationale. —KuyaBriBriTalk 13:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

David Price (Soccer)

Another page David Price (Football) has been created instead. Please advise on deleting the page David Price (Soccer)and all its history. Do not want to merge. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by PAL1234 (talkcontribs) 14:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Help with deletion

Yes, please I need help with the article for deletion. I read for about 3/4 of hour and must still be totally confused if I didn't do what I was supposed to do. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Please respond below with a policy-based rationale for deletion. Deletion policy may be found at WP:DP. As long as I see your rationale remotely meeting one or more valid deletion criteria I'll go ahead and complete a nomination for you. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I find two deletion criteria (1) Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed & (2) Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth). For #1 all I can find about him is a series of interlocking webpages, for #2, I don't see anything in his biography which makes him a notable subject. The page reads like a LinkedIn or FaceBook profile, rather than an encyclopedia entry. Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean McLaughlin (media activist & educator). —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

No deletion for Surprise elimination at discussion point.

I had the results for leg 1 (SL and PT) TAR 15. If i were you pointing the results at the discussion page, i would not revert it, because it has the true results even for the true viewers. I'm sorry but this is the way i do it even for season 10. ( (talk) 04:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC))

I am trying to draw legal attention for viewers and people what to know the placements of the 1st part leg. even if you remove it, i can still declare as a fixed property and there'll'e no more removal or any other vandalism on that. If this even touched, i could declare as vandalism and i will serve no right but as a responsible Wikipedian to revert it. I am putting this note back, and i wish no one would not remove that part anymore. The End, and no more. (Singaporeandy (talk) 11:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC))

I not putting it. i am sorry. i really meaned it but for the sake of viewers. Apologised after your real confessions. (Singaporeandy (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC))

Keren Pascual

Nice catch - twice. Peridon (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

UK Airport Lounges

Thank you for the advice, I will read the help me sections before re-submitting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirley286 (talkcontribs) 19:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Quick note

Hey Kuyabribri, and thanks for your work on Wikipedia. I had a quick question for you... at this diff you left a template admonishing someone for refactoring on ANI. I think the sentiment is right. However, I wonder if you've read Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars? I only ask because I know there are some people who get really offended by templates, and when an editor has many months in and more than 500 edits, I'd hate to lose them over something silly. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 08:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Although I have never read that specific essay, I am aware of the sentiment it expresses and I do try not to leave template warnings for experienced/established editors. I admit that I don't usually check the contribution history of an editor I have never come across to determine whether he/she is an established editor before making the decision to leave a template warning, but I do factor in the circumstances. When I left that warning, there was a rapid succession of posts at ANI and the manner in which Golden Sugarplum removed another user's text, specifically, the removal of the last portion of one user's comment but leaving that same user's signature ([1]) led me to believe this was a bad-faith removal. Additionally, I noticed a large number of template warnings on the talk page already (though they related mostly to notifications for deletion and orphaned images). Though I did not say it on the ANI thread, I did accept his explanation that the removal was accidental. I will try to be more careful about this in the future. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Francis Boulle

I removed your speedy deletion tag from this article, as it contains an assertion of notability (i.e. the starring role in the TV show) and therefore is not eligible for speedy. Please be more careful next time. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This is what the article looked like when I tagged it. Hardly a claim to notability there. The claim to notability was added after I tagged it ([2]) and the speedy tag was re-added twice by SDPatrolBot. —KuyaBriBriTalk 13:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
You tagged it four minutes after it was created. When you tag something that early, you have a responsibility to take a moment to check and make sure that it isn't a stub on a genuinely notable subject that's being created by an inexperienced editor. As per WP:CSD, "Before nominating a page for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere, reverted to a better previous revision, or handled in some other way." The edit you tagged for deletion was the first-ever edit by the page's creator, User:Wondot9, and taking ten seconds to check Google News for "Francis Boulle" would have turned up this article on Boulle and his show from The Daily Mail, along with several others. Because you were lazy and slipshod, you inadvertently bit a new editor making a constructive addition to the encyclopedia. As such, please try to be more careful in the future. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Point taken. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The Amazing Race article reformat opinion

What would you say if we changed the way we display airport names on all of the TAR pages? That is, instead of using the full name, we can just use the IATA codes, so instead of having [[Los Angeles International Airport]] we'd use [[Los Angeles International Airport|LAX]] and the like. I also don't know where I should propose this change to a larger audience.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not too fond of this idea. From a purely stylistic standpoint, I don't like the idea of placing abbreviations (or IATA codes) on an article without placing their expansion first. I might see this making sense if we needed to say "Los Angeles International Airport" multiple times in the same paragraph or section, but we typically don't do that in TAR articles.
As to your second question regarding getting a larger audience, I don't see a WikiProject that is applicable here, so I would say that since the season 18 page is the one most likely to be on people's watchlists, post your proposal there, and then on other seasons' talk pages post a message pointing to the discussion on the season 18 talk page. Hope that helps. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Notability not inherited

Hi, I'm writing to you regarding your removal of the speedy deletion template by stating that notability was asserted due to being the descendent of someone notable here: [[3]] Just wanted to draw your attention to the policy about notability not being inherited: WP:NOTINHERITED. I see no other notability claims in that article at this time. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

And I've removed the tag again. CV that is an essay, and as it stands there is enough in the article to make it pass csd#a7, if you believe the article should be deleted, you should take it to afd. Also when a user who is not the creator removes a csd tag you should not restore it--Jac16888 Talk 21:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I was in the process of typing up a response but Jac said pretty much what I wanted to say. Claiming inherited notability is enough to get past A7. CV, I was actually in the process of doing my WP:BEFORE due diligence to open an AfD when you replaced the CSD tag. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Gotcha. The AfD is open. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Pell Grant C+P

It was a copy+paste. I somehow ran across it and decided it was better than what was already there. I didn't spend a great deal of time investigating, so maybe it wasn't! Fleetham (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Need some help

Hello Kuyabribri,

I suppose because I'm quite new here and every person here has his own talk page I'm a little bit lost. Since I have no idea how to contact the administrator NawlinWiki who actually deleted my article about InVision Software I'm writing to you to ask for some advice. I changed the text of the article and started it anew at Special:Mypage/InVision Software. Could you possibly help me by reviewing the text or recommend someone who could do this instead? I read all the necessary guidelines, but I can see that I'm just far away from contributing a good article. The only references I can provide are the company's website and some online published articles of the same... Please answer if possible! Thanks a lot! 4ernoMore (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I have gone over your userspace draft as well as my reasons for nominating the last iteration of InVision Software for speedy deletion, and have come to the conclusion that if I were to see this article in the article space, I would nominate it for deletion under the same criteria of no indication of importance and blatant advertising or promotion. Following are my concerns with the article:
  • Most of the article reads as a press release and it is littered with flowery filler terms. For example, the first three sentences of the article are basically just a fancy way of saying "InVision Software is a workforce management company based in Germany." Additionally, this article uses the words "portfolio" and "solution(s)", which are two major pet peeves of mine, in places where a word like "product" or no word at all would suffice.
  • It is important to note that "advertising" and "promotion" do not necessarily mean an attempt to sell something, but they also include statements that only serve to publicize someone or something. One way to look at this is how might a person like me, who is neither an affiliate of the company nor a client/customer, describe what this company does? Judging from a quick overview of the company website, I would say it provides software to employers to assist with workforce management.
  • Even if this article were completely rewritten from an encyclopedic, neutral point of view, it must meet notability criteria in order to be included on Wikipedia. These guidelines, while by no means perfect, have been developed and refined by the community, in part because Wikipedia is not about everything. In a nutshell, the company must be the subject of coverage in multiple, reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Company press releases, websites, Facebook/LinkedIn profiles, etc., are not sufficient to qualify under this criteria. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for the guidelines that apply to this specific article.
From the looks of things right now, it looks like this article is not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Of course, you are welcome to prove me wrong by rewriting the article from a neutral point of view and providing evidence of coverage in reliable sources as I explained above. You are also welcome to see Wikipedia:Alternative outlets for a list of sites using wiki technology that might be willing to host your content as is. I hope that helps. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for taking the time and helping me understand how the article can be improved. Now I get your point! I will look through the files you recommended. Once again your feedback is much appreciated. 4ernoMore (talk) 11:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Who's Who

Why is Who's Who unreliable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flying Fische (talkcontribs) 20:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

If your question is about Who's Who (UK) being reliable/unreliable, I think you are better suited asking your question at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If this is about a paid Who's Who, those are vanity publications that, from what I understand, have little to no fact checking, and persons with entries can have whatever they want put in there, regardless of whether or not it is true, as long as they pay a fee. I suspect your question is about the former, so please ask your question there. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Florence Peake

In view of the fact that deletion of Florence Peake has turned out to be more controversial than I expected, (as shown at User talk:JamesBWatson#Florence Peake and A7) I have restored the article and reopened the AfD. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me. I will respond on your talk page momentarily, to keep the full discussion in one place. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

AfD of Transformice

Thank you for helping clean up my mess. [4] Is it in order now? Active Banana (bananaphone 14:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine now. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)