- 1 Deletion of the article "Techniche"
- 2 Notability box on Brent Bradley
- 3 The Selangor Philharmonic Society of Selangor
- 4 Maud Slye
- 5 Talk:History of timekeeping devices.
- 6 Talk: Re:Jacob Black
- 7 You may Delete
- 8 Evan Royster
- 9 Andre Migner dit Lagace notability
- 9.1 Why do you want to delete the Adrian Band arcticle?
- 9.2 I do have proof.
- 9.3 How the hell did you even find my arcticle?
- 9.4 Sorry
- 9.5 Ultravox - Dangerous Rhythm
- 9.6 MovingBoxes
- 9.7 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Carter
- 9.8 Will you help me Movingboxes?
- 9.9 Orange County Opera
- 9.10 Morbid: A Love Story
- 9.11 Please remove these college quarterbacks
- 10 Deletion of MyStrength Campaign
Deletion of the article "Techniche"
Hi! I have just noticed that you had placed a deletion tag on the article "Techniche" which now has been deleted. I don't think that you checked the history of the article before placing that tag. A deletion tag had been placed on it long time back and successfully defended[]. It was given on the page that it is held during this time of the year, so the persons responsible for the entry were not present to defend the deletion.
But, I'm very sure that after going through the earlier deletion logs, you can un-delete it because its your responsibility as you didn't go through the article history properly.
This is one more reason you better do something about it[]. You can clearly notice that one red entry which you have got deleted because one can't always be present to defend deletions on Wikipedia. I think its also the responsibility of the "deletion tagger" to go through the article history properly!
Notability box on Brent Bradley
Hi. You marked my article on Brent Bradley with a notability box. I am currently adding some of the more prominent podcasters using various podcasting resources around the internet. This guy has also played with a number of very prominent musicians regularly for decades. It certainly seems more valid than some of the others I ran across in searching for individuals who are influential in the relatively new field of Podcasting, like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Butler
I will attempt to search out more facts and references on Mr. Bradley in attempt to flesh out the article, which I believe is of general interest and fits the criteria for encyclopedic notability. Any suggestions are welcome. Jones8888 (talk) 10:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
UPDATE: I added an article to the St. Petersburg Times article on Bradley that substantiates all of the facts noted in the article. However, my ref tags don't seem to be working, did I do something wrong? nm I fixed them Jones8888 (talk) 08:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- ok I just read your reply, look you said the other guy's article (a very thin and unnoteworthy article it is) is ok because he has a Guardian link. I provide a St. Pete Times link and you denigrate the article. Look, it's a factual article in a major U.S. newspaper that authenticates a great deal of the wiki article. The guy regularly interviews notable bands who value his interviews enough to prominently feature them. They don't do that for every little interview they get. I don't know what more you want. It seems like you are predisposed to delete this article no matter what I put up. You said link to a major, trustworthy news source and I did that. I don't get where you come up with it "seems like a get to know your neighbor" article while the other guy's Guardian article is just peachy.Jones8888 (talk) 08:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the fact that he interviews notable people and they value it enough to feature it DOES make him notable. Listen, you claimed you needed attribution from a reputable source. I did that.Now you are just being unreasonable. Typical wikipedia fascist bullcrap, some controlling editor gets a hair up his ass and unilaterally decides to delete an article he doesn't like. Now go get some of your collaborators to back you up, you do this for each other so you can support each other's extremist policies and seem to have "consensus". This article is as valid as 100 others I can link, but I hate to do that because then you'll put them on the hitlist too. You are working for the good of the wiki, you're engaging in personal fiat, period. You are an asshole.
The Selangor Philharmonic Society of Selangor
It might not have been your intention, but you placed certain tags on the page created by me, that ought not to have been placed there in the first place. I save often. Check history. The page is not even 24 hours old. If I went around placing tags on peoples pages 15 minutes after they make the first save, there will be a lot of irate people. Including you. So, chill. Give it a break. Smile. If you have problems with the essay, please be specific and I will definitely address, each and every single issue you raise.jefferyseow (talk) 08:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
"My purpose was to give you notice of what my concerns were". You only gave me notice that it was your "opinion" that the essay was an advert. I am now asking you to clarify your position instead of being trigger happy. You did not give me notice of what your concerns were.
"you removed the tag without an explanation or improving the issues."
If you told me what your specific issues were or gave me your specific reasons why you said it was an advert, instead of a form response, I would then be able to give the admins a reasonable reason on the talk page. Because you gave no specific reason, it would be impossible for me to respond. So now I am asking you specifically why you say it is an advert.
"Please do not submit articles if you're not ready to have other editors see them and comment upon them."
Please do not tag articles without good reason. You and your tags, without clarification, are not helpful. "This food does not taste good" does not help a cook improve a dish.
Still, if you really wish to not be helpful, I suppose anyone could find any reason to tag any article, couldn't they?
So, if you really wish to be helpful, be helpful.
I took a look at the article, and yes, the additional information you added does help. I also removed the "This article does not cite any sources" template, since it seems that you've added sources. Quanticle (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
|The Exceptional Newcomer Award|
|Don't get too Huggle-happy... you'll burn out fast. Good work, though. · AndonicO Engage. 12:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)|
Talk: Re:Jacob Black
Thanks! I try. :) Any suggestions for the page? I'm trying to check up on it often, cuz alot of kiddies (i.e. overexcited 13 to 14-year-old girls) come on here and start typing unnecessary stuff in... Amalik914 (talk) 03:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, some out-of-universe information would be good. But like you said, there aren't many reliable sources out there (apart from Meyer herself), even though Jacob IS in fact a main character- he narrates more than one-fourth of Book 4, and he plays a pretty big part in Book 3 as well (go check them out!). And yes, it would also be good to add some of Taylor Lautner's comments on the character; I'll try to look up some interviews/videos, but I don't think he's said much about it yet. The focus is mainly on Bella and Edward, so unfortunately most critics don't spend too much time talking about Jacob. However, I do know for a fact that Meyer wrote this long description of Jacob's experiences in Book 1 and 2 (stuff that he doesn't get to talk about himself in the novels), and she's had it up on her official website for a while- think maybe we could include a few minor details from that?
- It's just that some editors are debating on merging the Twilight characters' pages- other than Bella and Edward's- together and shortening them, and Jacob's page was mentioned. Also, someone complained that his page is too detailed and should contain summaries instead. I'm worried about adding too much stuff, especially if someone's just going to edit it out later on and make his page shorter. Amalik914 (talk) 06:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Movingboxes you seem to be making notations on a political page. Are the notations based on the inaccuracy of content or on a dislike for the political affiliations in the postings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- Since you didn't indicate which article you're talking about--and I've made a few dozen edits today--I'll just have to guess to which article you're referring. Since editing on Wikipedia, I've been accused of being a Scientology apologist, a homophobe, and now, against whatever it is you are. The content isn't necessarily inaccurate (although it certainly seems tainted by POV and a disregard for the processes of the encyclopedia). What I dislike is people using the encyclopedia to promote their own interests, whether those interests be Republican, Communist, Nazi, Green Party, Tory . . . or their own political consulting business. Movingboxes (talk) 23:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_political_consultants —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- The point? How many of these articles were created by the subjects? Also, please sign your comments--it makes it easier to keep track of discussions. You can sign by using four tildes at the end of your comment (one of these "~"). Movingboxes (talk) 23:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Your speedy nomination of Dasi Township Junior High School
Hi there, just to let you know i changed your speedy nomination category to CSD A3 rather than CSD A1, as all the article has is an external link. Hope you don't mind! Ged UK (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hi again. That's why I changed it, A3 is specifically for articles that are just links. I agree, it's not particularly important, getting it nominated is more important, but some admins get picky about these things, and I didn't want to see the article stay on a technicality. Ged UK (talk) 08:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Re: Richard Steel
I am actually not an admin (trying to become one, though!). I simply removed that request because it was not a valid request. I will look into what you mentioned, and I will make sure that whoever is responsible for these edits will be dealt with accordingly.
O, BTW, Welcome to Wikipedia!
- As far as the whole thing with Morningwood is concerned, if you detect vandalism, revert the edits. That's the only thing you can do at this point. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 08:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
No we are having a BLP dispute
No we are having a BLP dispute, the editor in question wants to use headings such as "moral failings" and make add their own commentary about events. I am just about to make a report to the BLP noticeboard about it. I have no problem with adding the facts and the link they provided but we don't put editoral commentary in articles. --Forcedtocreateanaccount (talk) 11:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- no problem mate, it DOES look like a content dispute and to be fair, most BLP vios are a matter of content :-) The other editor has been blocked, a few of us have tried to explain to them why we have a NPOV approach and linked them to the relevant policies but that just makes us "BIAS" and that we have an "agenda". As a British atheist, my bias towards american preachers is not particular high... :-) --Forcedtocreateanaccount (talk) 11:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I don't know you but I'm very glad to see your involvement with Yahweh, thanks. Hope very much that you'll stay with it. If you run into difficulties, you might post further requests (already begun) at the Judaism and Christianity wikiprojects. You might also want to cite relevant policies/guidelines in discussing matters with users who have strong viewpoints, such as role of secondary sources. As need be, you might raise certain matters with the Reliable Sources noticeboard, etc. Good luck! Thanks again. HG | Talk 11:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, forgot to stop watching your talk page, and I noticed you doing a tidy-up. Not sure if you've discovered this yet, but there is a bot that can archive your talk page for you by whatever parameters you set; then you don't lose the discussions, they just get filed away. It's called MiszaBot and there's guidelines at User:MiszaBot/Archive_HowTo. Might save you a bit of time! :) Ged UK (talk) 12:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey, yea, sorry about that. That was me taking bad advice from another Wikipedia member... I'm still learning the ropes -- a little wet behind the ears when it comes to how processes of certain things work... Chinatary (talk) 06:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
You may Delete
I have enabled rollback on your account. You can read WP:ROLLBACK for more info about when it is appropriate to use the tool, and you can look at WP:NAS/R for a more technical description of how Rollback works, as well as a link to a sandbox where you can test the tool.
Please remember that Rollback is only to be used for blatant vandalism, nothing else. If you have any question about whether or not an edit is vandalism, use the "undo" function and leave a more descriptive edit summary. Please remember that any misuse or abuse of the tool may result in its removal, so be careful.
Im finding wiki somewhat difficult to navigate. I hadn't reviewed your comments prior to making my last revision. Please hear my case: the information listed is objective, verifiable, and without a point of view. Though Wiki "doesn't exist to post official bios," the bio is indeed an externally existing link. It also does not have a POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsphillfan (talk • contribs) 15:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
is this the appropriate way to contact you back? please post on my page with an annswer to that. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsphillfan (talk • contribs) 17:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Rather than revert the entire article back to the previous one, can't you just insert what it is that you want? I'll give you a for instance. The page lists the former Mayor's involvement in an anti-gun coalition. Mentioning this is completely absurd, as the Mayor's participation amounted to a one-day involvement. It's completely irrelevant to the Mayor. --Dsphillfan (talk) 17:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Link to page
Hello Movingboxes, I see that you are doing a good job in improving Wikipedia and fighting vandalism. I suggest that when you give a warning on a talk page, do also provide the link to the page which you are referring to. Andvd (talk) 07:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Andvd
Hi, I don't know if you are actually interested or if you were just fact-tagging something only partially done, but yes, there is a non-dog dog recognised by the United Kennel Club in the Sighthound & Pariah Group. It is provisionally listed as Canis lupus dingo, although some zoologists believe it is C. l. familiaris. --Hafwyn (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, when you are patrolling and do a speedy deletion can you mark it as patrolled first and then do a speedy deletion? That why it's off the list as needing patrol and the rest of us don't waste our time. It is the correct way to handle them. Thanks fr33kman (talk) 04:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- patrolling is going through the Special:Newpages page and marking them as patrolled (or not) so that new pages actually show up on Wikipedia instead of getting a 404 (page not found) error. The page that you just did a speedy deletion tag on was in that list and I was merely stating that if you picked it up from that list to do a speedy deletion on it, could you mark it as having been patrolled? That way no one else bothers to mark it because it is marked as "patrolled". That's all :-) fr33kman (talk) 04:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- First, thanks for helping out. The best way to tackle stuff that shouldn't be here is the Special:Newpages page and select new pages from there. If you are a user that has been around for a while (a so called; "autoconfirmed users" [check your prefs] you can approve new articles to wikipedia and have them show up after you've done that. Without patrolling, the articles don't show up and wikipedia doesn't grow as fast. The recent changes page is for ALL changes. That's new pages, old pages, minor changes, etc...
- If you aren't an autocoonfirmed user you can still use the newpages page to only bother with new articles, not all old stuff. If you are looking for vandals, then the recent changes is your place. I go for the newpages, because this is new content and I like that. Cheers fr33kman (talk) 04:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
RE: Proposed deletion of Next Plane Home
"Next Plane Home" is the upcoming single by Daniel Powter from his upcoming album, Under The Radar. I'm still workin' on it. Wikipedian 04:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Np. ;) Wikipedian 04:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
While you're AFDing contested prods, would you mind looking at Dangerous Rhythm? The editor's rationale for removing the prod can be found on my talk page. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 06:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
RE: Deletion of Quarterbacks
What about this Quarterback Brady Leaf? If you removed Brett Salisbury, Brady Leaf is a shoe in...
Forget about the gender, I am not a serious editor who is aware of the guidelines etc.. But one thing, the smoke has to be forced out (by slowly closing the jaw), it doesn't simply "waft out" of your mouth, and if it does, the amount of smoke is not nearly enough to creath the french inhale effect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- It's fine if you want to make those changes. I never could french inhale, so clearly I'm not one to draft the article. Just please preserve the gender neutral language and make sure you're not having things like "one must" and "he must" in the same sentence. Movingboxes (talk) 10:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I was not aware of my usage of this language, therefore I have not changed gender neutrality related stuff from your last edit, but only changed the technical information related to the french inhale itself. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 10:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Carnatic music terminology
Well that was pretty quick. Do you think you could give me more time to work on the article before you question the notability of the subject? He is the starting tailback for a major Division I football program. Thanks. Dincher (talk) 15:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. It's just that I was sitting here and working on it, I don't even think it's a half hour old yet. Thanks for the prompt reply too. Dincher (talk)`
Andre Migner dit Lagace notability
Why have you questioned the notability of this article? As far as I can tell, this man was the ancestor of many people still alive today. I believe his progeny make him notable. --Auric (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- I believe I indicated this with the sentence "They had six children, all of whom married and produced offspring. The first and last were male. His first son sired 13 children, his second son ten." A person having all children survive to adulthood at the time was relatively rare, I believe. So too is a person having ten or more children by one wife. While his indirect descendants outnumber his direct descendants, the number is still a large one. This all makes him notable, as it increases the chance that a descendant is also notable. --Auric (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Why do you want to delete the Adrian Band arcticle?
I do have proof.
How the hell did you even find my arcticle?
I created the article. Forgive me for delete the advice, but i think it's an influent song. Remember this is a free enciclopedia. I honestly created this article for give information to band fans/interested/etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Francodamned (talk • contribs) 19:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Question, I would like for you to examine most of the Quarterbacks in college football. You recently deleted Brett Salisbury who was a quarterback at the University of Oregon. If Salisbury was/is to be deleted how in the world is Brady Leaf continue to be a notable person on wikipedia?
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Carter
Will you help me Movingboxes?
Thanks for removing the deletion tag from Smith-Madrone Vineyards & Winery. Can you tell me how to make the article title capitals? Not just the Smith. Or can you direct me to the instructional page? Thanks --Lucy456 (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Orange County Opera
I'm going to see what I can do to help this one. I have already done major, and I do mean major, clean-up per Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines. Had to get rid of all those useless red links. Sheesh. And that long, long, long list of minor characters is going to be trimmed back like an overgrown bush. I did do a minor re-write to address POV and make it read a little better. I returned a few EL's you removed, but that is temporariy as I will be gutting them as I go through and source the entire thing... just wanted them close at hand. I did find some international coverage and will continue what I can to address notability. It is gonna be tough as it is an entire cast of unknowns, so I will rely on pre-release reviews to establish it through WP:GNG. Your earlier efforts are much appreciated. It may not survive the AfD, but it will be fun to see if I can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Thanks, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Please remove these college quarterbacks
It seems you are the only person I know MovingBoxes that sees the light on what is notable or not. Can you take a look at Cody Kempt and Kevin Craft Neither of them are notable. Please help me to remove them. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terminate4949 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of MyStrength Campaign
So, since no one else has created a wiki page about the program in the three years of its operation, I suppose then it makes more sense to not have a wiki page about it at all versus having one created by someone who is actually associated with the program? Yeah... that makes no sense at all. I guess we will have to get along without a Wikipedia page anyway.
AfD nomination of Roadology
An article that you have been involved in editing, Roadology, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roadology. Thank you.
Just to let you know
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)