User talk:Nancy/Archive 14

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

New Canal du Midi book

If you have any money left over from Santa, I have a great place for you to invest it!

{{cite book | title = Midi Camargue Waterways Guide 7 | publisher = Editions Du Breil | isbn = 2-913120-04-0 }}

I got it from here: here]. click Our guides and scroll down to number 7. You will need this when you do your sea to see trip on the canal.

It allowed me to name the Toulouse Aqueduct correctly - it is now Herbettes Aqueduct. I found about 30, that's 30, new aqueduct names. It has a good schematic of the water sources for the canal. It really is the best. If you'd like, I'll send you some scanned pages as a sample. I really can't recommend it enough. I'm working on the structures of the canal du midi article. Lots of work, with not too great results. I'll get there though. ..... cheers GloverEpp (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey Glover, thanks the the book info - I've checked it out on Amazon UK and it is out of stock at the moment :( but if you could send me some scans that would be great. I'll ping you a Wikimail so that you have my address. I've been concentrating on more "local" articles lately - the South of France seems so very far away as I sit looking out of my window at seven inches of snow in the garden! The weather has been so bad that we didn't even get to go out on the Thames over the holiday as we usually do. Hope you had a wonderful festive season and all the best for 2010. Kindest, Nancy talk 14:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Nancy: Did you get the two samples? GloverEpp (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Glover thank you. I wrote you an email about it but it's not in my sent items so goodness knows what I did with it! Sorry, I can be a bit dizzy sometimes...... it's probably the excitement of all this snow we have over here - just not used to it - in all my many years I have never known anything like it, but then again I have always lived in or around London so it's no surprise. Anyway, thanks so much, the maps look fabulous and the details is really useful. I'm definitely going to get a copy - will also help next time I'm down there as sometimes it is difficult to find the locks and other features by car as they are not marked on normal maps & our sat-nav doesn't even show the canal! Thanks again, Nancy talk 16:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Miss Pooja

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Miss Pooja. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Pooja (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


I am the copyright holder of our companies information on our website:

Therefore there was permission to host it on the Wikipedia page i created for the 'Waste Management Companies' page.

If the page could be allowed back, that would be fantastic.

Sorry for the miss-understanding. MR.SHANDO (talk) 13:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello MR. SHANDO. I'm afraid it is not quite that simple...... (it never is!).... in order for copyright material to be used on Wikipedia it has to be released under very particular sorts of copyrights.
One simple way to grant permission to copy material already on line is to put that permission explicitly on the site where that material is posted. This is commonly known as a "copyleft" notice. This notice must state that your site (or portions of your site) are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts) or that it is in the public domain. For text, a good statement of release might read, "The text of this website (or page, if you are specifically releasing one section) is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)."
If you would like to allow Wikipedia to use your content, but don't want to put a license statement on the site (note that you still must release it under those free licenses), you can contact See here for an example permissions granting email. For text, after sending the email, place {{OTRS pending}} on the article's discussion page. Someone will reply to your email, indicating whether the content and your license is acceptable and update the page to indicate that the confirmation of the license has been received.
However, there are three things that you should consider first:
  1. Are you happy to release your copyright in such a manner?
  2. Is the released material actually suitable for use on Wikipedia?
  3. Does Speedy Waste meet the general notability requirements for companies?
With regard to the second I would suggest that the tone of the material is unencyclopaedic and would probably be removed as advertising and I also think that the answer to the third is probably no. Further, a general rule of thumb is that you should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability - all edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. If the achievements, etc. of your company, are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about it sooner or later. Kind regards, Nancy talk 13:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of 360'CRM page

Hi Nancy, I understand that Wikipedia is not an advertisement host. However, I felt the article was unbiased and factual. If you could please explain briefly the reasons you found it at fault, it would be much appreciated for the future. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Immops (talkcontribs) 18:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I found the whole article to be written as if it were the "about us" page from a corporate website. Indeed I was so convinced that I took some time searching to see if this was the case - have to say they have a really rubbish website & would probably do much better to use the text from the article to replace that awful yellow blob thing & the contact page. Anyway, that's not really the point as regardless of the language I can't see the article surviving as there is no indication that the company will meet the notability requirements for companies. If you work for 360 then your time would be better spent sorting out your corporate website if you don't work for 360 then I'm sure you can find more worthy candidates for an article to devote your time to - see WP:REQUEST for a seemingly endless list of redlinks which need to be turned blue. Very best of luck which ever you decide, Nancy talk 18:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

UPWA Pro Wrestling page

Can i have a copy of this page emailed to me and how do I go about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kickingitoldschool (talkcontribs) 01:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems like you already have it as UPWA wrestling (now zapped as a recreation of material deleted via a deletion discussion) was strangely identical. I'm happy to help but please don't take me for a fool. Nancy talk 09:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


Hi, Nancy! Not sure if you're watching, but MisterSoup just vandalized SkagitRiverQueen's page yet again. He is clearly a sock bent on harassing this editor, and I think he should be permanently blocked for personal attacks and sockpuppetry. Thanks for your time... Doc9871 (talk) 04:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


Hi Nancy, it looks like you've handled this case of puppetry even as I was filing an investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Samli69. Thanks for the fast work, you might like to close off that report. Marasmusine (talk) 12:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've had Horasis watchlisted for a while keeping an eye on the shenanigans...... I figured that the circumstantial evidence was enough to block the user but it would be good to get CU confirmation. Haven't blocked the IP (although it is registered in Switzerland and would wager it is the Horasis offices) so maybe leave the case open? Nancy talk 12:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Spencer Mckay

I admit that the stuff about him was a joke, but you have to admit its pretty funny. If not, i don't respect you. If you do think it was funny, good, most of it is true, and i was wondering if there was someway to retrieve it because I'd like to keep that article for personal reasons. If there is no way to retrieve it than thank you for your time and sorry to have bothered you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1brownn (talkcontribs) 13:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess it may have been funny if you have the sensibility of a 13 year old. Me? I failed to see humour and instead found an attack page. No you can't have a copy. Nancy talk 13:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ldnpunjab Sockpuppet returns.

Hi Nanacy, please take a look here to see if this is another sockpuppet of the infamous Ldnpunjab. Thanks --Sikh-History 10:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Goodness, you'd think s/he would be bored of this by now. I've indef blocked User:JhassH, not much to be done with the IPs as they are BT & they'll have a new one next time they log on. Nancy talk 10:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmm this person is persistent and I think this is his/her IP being used at the moment. Thanks --Sikh-History 11:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Lost article in Sandbox

Dear Nancy,

The article on is gone now. Are you able to advise how to retrieve it?

Warm Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. That page has not been deleted - it never existed in the first place! Best, Nancy talk 11:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

MisterSoup and continued harassment

Hi - User:MisterSoup is back to harassing me. Tonight, he/she placed the following on my talk page [1] I have to wonder if this user is the same one who has been harassing me for a couple of months now (maybe more) with blanking my talk page and user page, adding harassing comments, etc. In some cases, the one doing this kind of stuff used an IP only, but there was another user - User:RegisFugit - who was engaging in this behavior on my pages as well. I think it's possible they are all the same user (I would hate to think there's more than one person like this who dislikes me this much ;-). In any case, I hope this latest round of harassment from MisterSoup is enough to get him blocked if not banned. IMO, he/she never should have been let back after it was discovered he/she was a sock. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Pasting a discussion about above mentioned user isn't harassment. I wanted her to be aware of discussion MisterSoup (talk) 06:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You may think it's funny and/or cute to remove Userboxes from an editor's page, and to make abusive comments (as your very first edit!) to this editor. You are clearly a sock with a grudge. Your main contribution to WP (from your first edit) is solely to harass this editor. I see your life expectancy as very, very short. Good luck... Doc9871 (talk) 06:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
PS - "User:MisterSoup", do you think by removing the warning tags on your talk page that you are actually covering up your misdeeds? I regret to inform you that the instant you save any edit on WP, it is automatically saved forever (in perpetuity). See you in the funny pages... Doc9871 (talk) 06:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I've blocked MisterSoup indefinitely. He had clear warning from me and from User:Lar that a resumption of this behaviour would not be tolerated & with no constructive edits in his entire history I'm not feeling he'll be missed. Nancy talk 08:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! Not only was "it" a blatant sock of an as-yet-unidentified editor, but a childish vandal - detestable for two reasons. No point in allowing creatures like that to exist here... Doc9871 (talk) 09:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Following up on discussion at my talk: Given the contribs I support this indef block as appropriate. I see that it's alleged that MS is a returning sock. I was not able to determine who might be the sockmaster, only that MS was themselves running a sock. That doesn't mean they aren't a sock, per  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust ++Lar: t/c 15:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

No, checkuser is not "Magic Pixie Dust" and I never implied nor thought it was. I have now been receiving, however, harassing personal emails from this jerk that have been sent from a personal email address. What's more, I believe this user is actually a sock of someone who is thought of as a respected editor. And now, that very same sock has started vandalizing my talk page again. Thank you, Nancy for taking care of the vandalism and banning this person. I don't know if you realize it, though, but this person is likely to keep coming back over and over again, evading Wikipedia's filters using new IP addresses and anonymous surfing tools. As I suggested to Lar a few days ago (but he blew me off like *I* was "Pixie Dust" for saying it), I would also look into whatever IPs are behind the banned user RegisFugit as well. But...then again, it seems this person lives in Indiana (according to their IP, anyway) and RegisFugit once told another editor he hailed from Richmond, California in the Bay Area. Interestingly enough, at least one of the editors who has been giving me a whole lot of grief in Wikipedia lately also lives in Indiana. Coincidence? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Datchet Bridge review

I have concluded my opening review at Talk:Datchet Bridge/GA1. Please reply to my questions and address the concerns. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

<=You, too, were a pleasure to work with on this GA process. If you take one of your suffragette articles to GAN, nudge me to review it. Binksternet (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Rollback re-request.

I remember from two weeks ago you removed my access of being a rollbacker. I wasn't deliberately abusing it, All that happened was I just found the anti-vandalism program Huggle difficult to use. I use Twinkle to revert vandalism and I find it much easier, and so far I didn't get warned for misuse. The problem I found with Huggle is that you can't see the updated article along with the changed text, and that problem made it harder for me to concentrate.

I'm taking a re-request for rollback rights, as per Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback_privileges. I'm trying my best to assume good faith in all my reverts, and I didn't get warned so far for any revert using Twinkle. Minimac94 (talk) 09:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Minimac. I've done a quick review of your recent reversions/CSD nominations and find them much improved. Well done. My immediate thought is that Twinkle, which seems to suit you well, doesn't need rollback and as you say, the way Huggle works makes it difficult for you to be accurate. Can you explain what you intend to use rollback for as I might be willing to replace your access on the condition that you do not install or use Huggle again? Would you be willing to accept that restriction? Nancy talk 09:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for seeing my contributions. Anyway, I mainly use rollback for reverting vandalism, unexplained removal of content and (sometimes) I remove unreferenced additions by using the Undo tool. Minimac94 (talk) 10:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to answer the main question! I will accept the restriction you make. Minimac94 (talk) 12:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Rollback has been restored per acceptance of the conditions detailed on your talk page. Nancy talk 15:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Delete

Dear Nancy: No, please delete them. Article age means nothing, other than unawareness or laziness on the part of others. These pages are valueless and cost Wikipedia money to maintain. In fact, we need another (yes, there was one a few years ago) major cleanup of this worthless clogging material. Thanx. Handicapper (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi again Handicapper,
  1. The speedy deletion criterion for deleting redirects only applies to "recently recreated". By anyone's measure 2005 is not recent. The requests must therefore go through WP:RFD
  2. Don't worry about performance. Redirects do not cost money and they do not "clog up the system".
  3. The redirects in question are not valueless August Belmont Jr and August Belmont, Jr are both perfectly likely forms for someone to type in the search box.
Kind regards, Nancy talk 06:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Amazing that such.... Handicapper (talk) 06:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The General and the Sargeant

Greetings (and in that order). Thanks for your reply on an article for Mary Sargeant Gove Nichols. I had a look at the General article, and I concur (agree even). A spirited, intelligent and witty woman making a stand with a touch of we might now call the pythonesque to accentuate one or more points. I can think of a sociologist I once knew, with a dog called "Lucky" (which I called "Lucky woof", just to remind that remarkable dog that she was in fact a dog - not that it made much difference...) who would find much inspiration in such biographies.

I too enjoy the bonkers element of real life, which is where all the best pythonesque surreality, is to be found after all, in my opinion. You see a touch of that in Robert Liston, courtesy of Richard Gordon quotes, which are both factually accurate and unbeatable prose for that context.

Of course the pythonesqueness of The General doesn't rely on prose to illustrate a point. She created a legacy whereby the most dry description could not possibly miss the point and be accurate at the same time. I hypothesise that was foresight, not accident. But foresight or accident, it is good stuff indeed, of which more could be said. The General and the Sargeant may yet prove to be a nice complement (collect the complete set!). Wotnow (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


Hi, Nancy! I need to ask about a sock I suspect, who has recently been editing an article I've watched and contributed to for a long time. While this sock doesn't seem to be overtly disruptive, the fact that he/she is a sock has really never been defended against my accusation, and rather sort of acknowledged with weak excuses. The very brief edit history, combined with the focus and obvious knowledge of WP, lead me to believe that this is a "sock with an agenda". How can I e-mail you in order to further ask your opinion without naming anyone unduly? I need a CU done - can you help me? Thanks :> Doc9871 (talk) 09:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello again Doc. By all means email me using Special:EmailUser/Nancy and I will gladly take a look however I can only give you a second opinion based on the behavioural evidence as I am not a checkuser, for that you'd need to file an WP:SPI or contact a CU. Best, Nancy talk 09:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I've checked out the contributions and I can't see anything to cause concern and/or justify a CU. As you say, it is clear that they had some prior knowledge of WP but were fairly clueless at anything other than a surface level, e.g. they did not know that article moves shouldn't be done by cut and paste. All in all I think it highly probable that it is true that s/he previously edited as an IP for a time, which in itself is not a problem - it's how most people start after all. If however you have a suspicion that this is a sock of current or blocked user then pls let me know and I will look afresh. Kindest, Nancy talk 10:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into that for me, and please forgive the lateness of my reply! I think it's most probably a sock of a current user, but so unobtrusive so that no CU is warranted; thank you for helping me understand that! I knew that since he was clearly not a vandal, or even disruptive, that an SPI would be shaky because of these facts. I actually didn't know CU was such a limited resource earlier, naïvely thinking all admins had it as a tool(!) I feel it's a sock, which is against the spirit of WP; but he/she's certainly not a problem, as you generously confirmed. Thanks again, Nancy! :> Doc9871 (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


Hi, Nancy. Would it be worth a CU on this user to flush out sleepers? AFI-PUNK is pretty prolific. --RrburkeekrubrR 16:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd happily not come across this one before - I was alerted by the username at first but then I saw the edits saying "AFI PUNK is back" & thought I'd better dig a bit deeper. The account was only created moments before it started editing which doesn't suggest there are sleepers although obviously doesn't rule it out either. However... looking at the cases listed at USer:AFI-PUNK it doesn't appear that a CU has been run for quite a long time so perhaps a request to identify the underlying IP & see if it is fixed (ie appropriate for blocking) may be in order. Best, Nancy talk 17:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


Hello Nancy! I think wayyyyyy wayyyyy back you and I came in contact once, but to be honest I don't know. I was just curious if you could take a look at this and possibly provide your feedback? I would greatly appreciate your comments and I look forward to talking with you soon :) DustiSPEAK!! 01:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sons of User:Gigsons

Hi, I know you've been dealing with User:Gigsons - I'm apparently in an edit war with the user's IP addresses in Raúl González. The problem is that the user is operating from dynamic IPs, all in the range, so there's no way to leave messages. Can a whole range of dynamic IPs be blocked for sockpuppetry, or do I just have to deal with it? Thanks. --Mosmof (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll look in to the practicality of a range block although I doubt it will be feasible. In the meantime I have semi-protected Raúl González. Let me know if he pops up elsewhere. Nancy talk 15:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
The range is pretty big. According to whois it covers -> which is nearly 65,000 addresses. I've seen him on and just in the past couple of hours so we'd have to block the lot & I'm concerned about collateral damage even if it is Latvia. Let's see if we can deal with it via semi-protection for now. Kindest regards, Nancy talk 15:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I understand why you wouldn't want to block an entire ISP's range of IP addresses. FWIW, I believe the user is now editing as Vananen (talk · contribs). --Mosmof (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I've indef blocked as a suspected sock. If any more pop up (and they probably will for a while given the seemingly unlimited access to "fresh" IPs) please do let me know and I'll deal with them as appropriate. Nancy talk 19:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Good catch on Wolf Bickel

I'm ashamed of myself for forgetting to check for previous AfD/VfD discussions. I can only plead sloppy work due to having to check so many prods so quickly. RayTalk 16:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. It's sensible to always check history and talk pages though. Best, Nancy talk 17:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Phaxanation & The Dust Kickers

Hi Nancy, I created the page for "Phaxanation & The Dust Kickers" as a band however it was deleted due to a a lack of significance or importance on the subject. I also created the page for the band "Darker My Love" a few years ago, which is in my opinion is an identical situation to this one, and the Darker My Love page has flourished, received factual updates as the band progressed and gained popularity. I believe the page I most recently created for Phaxanation & The Dust Kickers shows it's importance and significance as a band/musician and has the potential to grow and evolve just as the Darker My Love page did. If you could please let me know if I added any incorrect criteria or failed to do something I had done previous, I would be highly appreciative. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess the most useful thing for me to do would be to point you towards the notability criteria for music. Can't really comment on old pages except to say that things were much more lax then, goodness in the old days you didn't even need to cite reliable sources! Best of luck, Nancy talk 11:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Tournesol.png Nice to see some admins concerned about what is going on. I am really glad you participated at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people, which will delete the vast majority of 50,000 articles created by 17,400 editors, mostly new editors. best wishes Ikip 05:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)







YOURS FAITHFULLY, C C K C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by C C K C (talkcontribs) 18:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi CCKC, Rudyard Kiplings nationality was British. He was also a British citizen. His gene pool may or may not have made him "Anglo-Indian" but Anglo-Indian != Indian and anyway Anglo-Indian is a racial characteristic & not an indicator of either nationality or citizenship. Hope this helps to explain & please don't change the nationality in List of Nobel laureates in Literature again. Best, Nancy talk 18:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
p.s. Typing in ALL CAPS is considered "shouting" and some people may find it rude (as it happens I don't but I've a thicker skin than most) so yo might do well to take your caps-lock off. Nancy talk 18:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok Madam,

Thanks For The Reply...!

But I wanted to know that if any person born in a country then automatically that person is considered as the citizen of that born country.

So,I need the clarification... —Preceding unsigned comment added by C C K C (talkcontribs) 18:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a complex question which as I understand it varies between jurisdictions. Our article on Nationality law might be a good place to start. The specifics of Indian nationality are covered at Indian nationality law which would suggest that as Kipling was born before 26 January 1950 he was not automatically a citizen just by virtue of his birthplace. Nancy talk 18:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks For The Reply MADAM...I Will Discuss And I Will ReVerify The Issue And Write To You As Early As Possible... —Preceding unsigned comment added by C C K C (talkcontribs) 19:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Burn after rolling

Hi Nancy,

The author subsequently added a lead section which identified the subject, but I've renominated it as a non-notable album. ThanksCatfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You can only nominate an musical recording for speedy via criterion A9 if the artist does not have a Wikipedia article i.e. it must have no credible assertion of importance and the artist must not have a wiki page. I've slapped a WP:PROD on it. Nancy talk 18:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for clarifying that! Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Björn ibsen

Hi Nancy, you deleted my article about björn Ibsen, well i have copied the summary of my own doctoral thesis... under which conditions does wikipedia the fact that the author copies and pastes his own articles I simply do not feel like I have the time / the patience of paraphrasing myself...

thanks for your work anyway I guess that in general it is certainly usefull but in this particular case its just a pain.

L.Reisner —Preceding unsigned comment added by BReisnerS (talkcontribs) 21:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello BReiserS. I'm afraid it is not quite that simple...... (it never is!).... in order for previously published material to be used on Wikipedia it has to be released under very particular sorts of copyrights.
One simple way to grant permission to copy material already on line is to put that permission explicitly on the site where that material is posted. This is commonly known as a "copyleft" notice. This notice must state that your site (or portions of your site) are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts) or that it is in the public domain. For text, a good statement of release might read, "The text of this website (or page, if you are specifically releasing one section) is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)."
If you would like to allow Wikipedia to use your content, but don't want to put a license statement on the site (note that you still must release it under those free licenses), you can contact See here for an example permissions granting email. For text, after sending the email, place {{OTRS pending}} on the article's discussion page. Someone will reply to your email, indicating whether the content and your license is acceptable and update the page to indicate that the confirmation of the license has been received.
However, there are some things that you should consider first:
  1. Are you happy to release your copyright in such a manner?
  2. Is the released material actually suitable for use on Wikipedia?
With regard to the latter you need to be confident that it would not contravene our original research prohibition (which I know was already discussed briefly prior to deletion) but more so whether the dissertation is neutral and encyclopaedic in tone. To be honest given the copyright hoops and other concerns it would be quicker and easier to write a new short neutral article on Ibsen with reference to multiple independent WP:RS. I would not recommend "paraphrasing" as you mention above as this would likely also be treated as if it were a straight copyright violation.
However as you suggest you do not have the time for anything but a cut and paste then perhaps it's best to leave him as a red link for now. Someone prepared to dedicate the time to him will surely be along soon enough and write a qualifying article. Kind regards, Nancy talk 10:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Re user:Towaru

Please see WT:CSD#Possible attack pages, there are subpages of the page you deleted which I had tagged. Mjroots (talk) 09:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

All gone! Best, Nancy talk 10:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Mjroots (talk) 10:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


Hi. I was about to create an article on this disease, to find it has previously existed but was deleted by you (probably rightly so, this isn't an accusation). I was wondering if I could request the previous content of the article to see whether or not it contained any useful information. If so, could you paste it into this page? Thanks for your time. For the record, I'm creating a new stub but it will be referenced properly this time. Thanks again. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  19:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I can with some confidence assert that there is no useful comntent in the deleted article - consisting as it did of the following five words - "please i want review of tympanosclerosis". I won't bother copying it over! LOL. All best, Nancy talk 19:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Haha, very well then. Thanks for your time, I'm sure I can create something more substantive than that ;) Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  19:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Done! Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  21:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Wow! That was quick. That would have taken me at least a day. Please tell me you had all those refs lined up already. Kindest regards, Nancy talk 22:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Haha unfortunately yes, I did scowl through for references earlier that day from a few reviews! I don't know what kind of articles you edit, if at all, but we should collaborate on something. It'll be 'fun', maybe. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  10:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Yes, I think it would be fun although we might struggle to find a common topic - have you ever been tempted away from ailments? My efforts can be found at User:Nancy/Created. Nancy talk 18:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm very true, geography is very different to medicine :) Well if I ever find a disease specific to one location which I need help with, I'll come ask you. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  21:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Richard Baker (Businessman)

Hi Nancy, thanks for that!

I've looked at the Richard Baker (businessman) article. I would say that it would do a disservice to Richard Baker (Businessman) if he were renamed to fit around the prior article. Perhaps rename one Richard Baker (US businessman) and the other Richard Baker (UK businessman) with a disambiguation link to them both? Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Good plan. Done. Nancy talk 19:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion invitation

British Royalty Hi Nancy/Archive 14, I would like to invite you and anyone watching who shares an interest in moving forward constructively to a discussion about Biographies of Living People

New editors' lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes has resulted in thousands of BLPs being created over the last few years that do not meet BLP requirements. We are currently seeking constructive proposals on how to help newcomers better understand what is expected, and how to improve some 48,000 articles about living people as created by those 17,500 editors, through our proper cleanup, expansion, and sourcing.

These constructive proposals might then be considered by the community as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people.

Please help us:

Ikip 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(refactored) Ikip 03:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reverting the vandalism in my talk. Apologies for not getting here sooner...I have no excuse. Just lazy. --Defender of torch (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for defending my user page from some disgruntled vandals. Keep fighting the good fight! Cheers, Kaisershatner (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Jessica Puente-Bradshaw page deleted, why?

Hi! I'm new to Wikipedia and have never posted anything. That said, I recently posted a page about Jessica Puente-Bradshaw, who is currently running for the US House of Representatives (Texas District 27). The incumbent, Solomon Ortiz, has a page on Wikipedia, so it seems only reasonable that a competitor candidate can also have a page. The page I posted was very clear in highlighting her candidacy and did so in the first sentence. The reason given for deletion was relevancy. I guess Wikipedia feels competitor candidates are irrelevant? I don't agree with this perspective. I hope it was an error on Wikipedia's part. If so, please re-add Jessica Puente-Bradshaw's page.

Please note, if there are other 'errors' regarding the page, I can't tell what they are based on other pages I've seen and the posting guidance provided. Feel free to notify me of required changes and I'll make them.

JB 04:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)04:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradsha (talkcontribs)

Hi Jessica. Writing a page about yourself is seldom a good idea, and is strongly discouraged. The full content guideline on this situation can be found at WP:AUTO. With regard to the deletion, this was done because there was no indication within the article that you meet either the general notability guidelines or the specific notability guidelines for politicians, Ortiz has a page because he hold elected national office, you however are only a candidate. Obviously the situation will be reassessed if/when you are elected but even should that happen please leave it to a neutral third-party editors to create & maintain the article. Kind regards, Nancy talk 06:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I've reviewed the text again this morning and noticed that it is in large parts a copyright violation of various sources including Facebook. I'm afraid that this would have caused the text to be removed regardless of any notability issues. Nancy talk 06:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I have a couple comments, please review them and let me know your thoughts. Ultimate, I would like to see the page (or similar) that I posted allowed to stay up.

  1. 1: My name is not Jessica and Ms. Puente-Bradshaw is not posting her own information to Wikipedia. As you might expect for someone running for the US House of Representative, Ms. Puente-Bradshaw is extremely busy and I'm sure posting an article to Wikipedia is not high on her personal priority list. That said, Ms. Puente-Bradshaw was personally involved in the original content but I am definitely not her.
  1. 2: It is just my opinion but I think Wikipedia is doing the community a disservice if they only allow incumbent candidates to have pages. Many people come to Wikipedia to find information about various topics and it seems to lack a level of fairness to only allow one side of the debate be heard. This is especially true when Wikipedia allows pages like this,_2010_%E2%80%93_complete_list to exist. Allowing these types of pages implies that Wikipedia is a fair/equal source of information when in fact it is not. I think the incumbents must be required to take their pages down or the competitor candidates should have the ability to post.
  1. 3: The original content about Ms. Puente-Bradshaw was added to Wikipedia before ever being added to Facebook. As such, at the time, there were no issues with Facebook. Given that Facebook allowed Ms. Puente-Bradshaw's team to create a page and post information, we may have to modify the Wikipedia content to avoid any issues. (Assuming we even get a green light to post Ms. Puente-Bradshaw's information.)

Based on the points above, I think you should reconsider allowing Ms. Puente-Bradshaw's post. If it needs to be changed to allow for posting, please let me know what must be done to make the post 'stick.'

Thanks! JB 05:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Bradsha, you really should look further into WP:AUTO, WP:COI, and WP:WAX. This admin has clearly not acted in error at all regarding any WP policy, and the burden is on you... Doc9871 (talk) 05:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment Doc. Not sure if you saw the original post but it isn't an autobiography. It is a high-level background of the candidate, similar to what many of the incumbents have. There is also no conflict of interest (i.e., this is no different from when someone posts about an incumbent). That said, I understand why Wikipedia is sensitive to this issue but the 'policy' of allowing an incumbent to have a page but not competitor candidates is questionable. My point here is more about the underlying obligation Wikipedia has to society and has very little, if anything, to do with Ms. Puente-Bradshaw's page. I'll wait for a response just to see what they have to say. I recognize I am only voicing my opinion as to what I see as Wikipedia's social responsibility. If they don't share my opinion, that is their decision.

JB 06:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradsha (talkcontribs)

I'm aware of no "'policy' of allowing an incumbent to have a page but not competitor candidates." There's no such policy. WP's "underlying obligation" to society is certainly debatable, but not on this editor's talk page. This belongs on the appropriate talk page... Doc9871 (talk) 06:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Doc9871 is right. The fundamental problem here is that this is an encyclopaedia not MySpace; we have content policies and guidelines within which we work and unfortunately, as should be clear to you if you read it, Jessica does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements for politicians. If you disagree with the criteria of that requirement then the place to attempt to reach a consensus for change is at the talk page of the notability guideline, not here. Nancy talk 08:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright material

Good Evening, Lady

I would like to inform you that the material I used to creat the page were totally authorized. I am a member of the association, and the information provided in the links:


were actually provided by us to those website; they are second-hand sources of the information I already provided on the article. I truly admire your alertness and it is really praiseworthy, but I would like to know how to introduce this Association to the world if I cannot use the terms and phrases it uses to advertise itself. Our Association is completely non-profitable and is a member of ATA (ATA - American Translators Association), and we would love to be on Wikipedia. Please inform me with whatever I need to do so as to publish this article. Will it be ebough, for instance, if I sent you an email from , the official website of the association to give the article credibility?

Please reply ASAP.

Yours, Eman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eman.A.H (talkcontribs) 18:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

One simple way to grant permission to copy material already on line is to put that permission explicitly on the site where that material is posted. This is commonly known as a "copyleft" notice. This notice must state that your site (or portions of your site) are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts) or that it is in the public domain. For text, a good statement of release might read, "The text of this website (or page, if you are specifically releasing one section) is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)."
If you would like to allow Wikipedia to use your content, but don't want to put a license statement on the site (note that you still must release it under those free licenses), you can contact See here for an example permissions granting email. For text, after sending the email, place {{OTRS pending}} on the article's discussion page. Someone will reply to your email, indicating whether the content and your license is acceptable and update the page to indicate that the confirmation of the license has been received.
However, there are three things that you should consider first:
  1. Are you happy to release your copyright in such a manner?
  2. Is the released material actually suitable for use on Wikipedia?
  3. Does your organisation meet the general notability requirements for companies?
With regard to the second I would suggest that the tone of the material is unencyclopaedic and would probably be removed as advertising. Further, a general rule of thumb is that you should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability - all edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. If the achievements, etc. of your company, are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about it sooner or later. Kind regards, Nancy talk 18:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Happy adminship anniversary!

Happy Adminship from the Birthday Committee
Admin mop.PNG

Wishing Nancy/Archive 14 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!

Declining redirects


You seem to be removing speedy tags from articles which have been accidentally created with a trailing comma. I see no point to these articles - is there a reason why you are declining them? DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Any that I have declined have been 2+ years old & thus by anyone's definition not "recently created". Their usefulness is doubtful but it is a matter for WP:RFD not speedy deletion. Best, Nancy talk 18:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
That's applying the criteria way too strictly. Unless you can see an actual purpose to these articles, which I can't, I would delete them anyway. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, here's a deal. I won't decline any more & you then can delete them if you want :) Best, Nancy talk 18:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
You've got a deal. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Speedy delete takes less time then RFD. I double checked every redirect for exceptions and I will take care within few days of any wikilink via bot. (FrescoBot 2) -- Basilicofresco (msg) 18:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you are thanking me Basilicofresco. Please do not assume that I condone either the tagging or the deletions as I absolutely do not. I think both are wrong. I disagree that CSD R3 applies to these redirects & I was merely indicating that I was backing off from the declines - plenty of other work to keep me busy. Nancy talk 15:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
And I am not backing off, see User talk:DJ Clayworth#Old comma redirects. DES (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Redirects with trailing commas. Please feel free to contribute. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Threats and Swearing On My Talk Page

Hi Nancy, would you mind looking into these threats and swearing here on my talk page. It maybe Ldnpunjab, but I could be wrong. Thanks --Sikh-History 15:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It is a BT IP address so it could well be our friend back again - the standard of written English is similar. Anyway, I have given him a last warning for personal attacks. If he does it again I will block him. Nancy talk 15:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks --Sikh-History 19:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmm I guess he does not like me as per his comment here. --Sikh-History 19:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Birkerød Sports College‎‎

Before you removed my speedy deletion tag on Birkerød Sports College‎‎ did you read my note on the Talk page pointing out that it isn't a "school" in the sense contemplated by the guidelines? I think it's reasonable to assume that that principle about schools isn't meant to apply to every sports camp, karate class, driver training school, and dog obedience school. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I did read it & I also put the article text through google translate but I thought it was a bit borderline and best to err on the side of caution. I'm not particularly trigger happy with the delete button and with speedies my general rule is "if in doubt, decline". No harm done I hope. All best, Nancy talk 17:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
No problem, thanks for the explanation. By the way, I like the appearance of your talk page. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 :) Nancy talk 19:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


You gave me a warning for putting the word "fartknocker" into the page Beavis and reverted my edit. You should probably be more attentive next time because "fartknocker," along with "buttknocker" is one of Butt-heads nicknames for him and actually appears elsewhere in the article. (talk) 12:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The word "fartknocker" does not appear anywhere in the article. It used to but was removed as the cite does not support its inclusion. Nancy talk 12:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Machiavelli and The Mayflower

Nancy: I placed a box to say that I contested the position on my article and it is others who have come to take it off; I only acted to reinstate it. What others have doen to my article is far worse. The notability guideline may be clear, unfortunately I believe all of you are misrepresenting it, and I am shocked by the way I have been ganged up on.--Bgillesp (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC) bgillesp I forgot to add that the book does indeed meet guidelines 3 and 4.--Bgillesp (talk) 14:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC) bgillesp

The {{hangon}} tag keeps being removed because that only applies if the article is up for speedy deletion as has been made clear in edit summaries and in notes to you from other editors. It is not up for speedy although ironically your placing of that tag on it actually causes to appear in the speedy deletion list which is not something that I think you want. The article is however the subject of a deletion discussion (as you know, you have contributed to it). The deletion discussion is the sole place where objections to or endorsements of the deletion should be placed, not on the article talk page, not on your talk page and certainly not on my talk page. Nancy talk 14:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Nancy: I was wondering this evening why this whole process makes me so cross, and I think it is the fault of the process: I am going to try to explain without going public, because what I have to say is hard, it's about the guidelines, and definitely not personal; if I address it to you it is because I think I detect a sense of fair play in what you have done. Here goes: from my perspective, I have opened a page in good faith on a public site I respect and that I used for years to build my work; it was not very Wikified, but it can be improved. In the Wiki community I am new to, I find a window, in itself disparaging, on my page that I have not put there; the page calls into my question my work, and people, who don't know it, state it has no value for Wiki; up to now a difference of opinion. The problem comes in when all of a sudden, not one, but five descend on my site within a day or two to say the same things; this looks like ganging up, and I assume that none of these know anything about this work; so this becomes gang warfare: what is worse, however, is to force me to leave disparaging comment on my site under a written threat to exclude me from Wiki if I don't, and then to attempt to enforce the threat when I try to remove this mark of dishonour. This is where it's going to hurt: the only parallel I can see in a so called democratic society to forcing someone to accept such dishonour and to force him or her to wear it against his or her will is when the Nazis forced the Jews to wear a yellow star.--Bgillesp (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)bgillesp
Just as a follow up, I decided to capitulate this morning; so many seem to want the article deleted, that I did it myself: but the beast is spiteful; the article was instantly reinstated, as if the beast was hungry for a ritual execution; suicide is not tasty enough. It's still Berlin in 1944, isn't it? I don't know if I still have a signature as I'm not continuing as a Wikipedian.--Bgillesp (talk) 09:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Bob, I have deleted the article as per your wishes. We have a policy here that if the only substantial content on a page was contributed by one author then they may request deletion - again I just think that your unfamiliarity with Wikipedia meant that you went about it the "wrong" way. It's all sorted now.
I'm sorry that you have decided to leave but I can understand why you feel that way right now. When I first arrived here I was astonished to find that there was a huge formal structure behind it - rather like you I thought that "the encyclopaedia anyone can edit" meant that anyone could add what they liked. Luckily I worked out that wasn't the case before I actually created my first article..... If you do change your mind about leaving then I would repeat the advice I gave you on your talk page and suggest that you follow through some of the links on the "welcome" message - they should give you a pretty good grounding in the way this place works. Kind regards, Nancy talk 10:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Page Anthony Surace


I Created the Page Anthony Surace, which was deleted on the idea that it was of no notable importance. To Correct that claim, it is known that Anthony Surace is a notable Physicist who specializes in Modern Physics. Though he teaches now in New York, his postulations of the Universe and its physical boundaries are being discussed by his peers and considered into being published. He is a strong believer in many Modern Theories, and his understanding of many areas of physics and its theories and teachings are understood by many of his peers as well as his students. Please clarify why his possible publication which might create a spur in the physics community, his teachings, and his accomplishments are far less important than Négra Lock or Homps Lock...

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manu2192 (talkcontribs) 00:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

All looks a bit crystal ball to me - "considered in to being published", "possible publication", "might create a spur". Best way forward is for you to look at the notability criteria for academics and explain to me which one(s) he passes. Nancy talk 10:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manu2192 (talkcontribs) 16:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

How so? Nancy talk 20:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

One of his many achievements was bringing new academic programs to the school where he teaches at due to his qualifications as well as requests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

How is that a substantial contribution outside academia? I'd just call it being competent at their job (inside academia). I strongly recommend that you reread WP:PROF. Nancy talk 17:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

premature closing of AfD

So the decision to close the AfD in favor of a speedy delete didn't prevent the guy from adding all the deleted material on Culture of Europe.  :( Tb (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

So I saw when he was pulled up for it on his talkpage. Let's hope he's "got it" now. Nancy talk 08:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

My Apologies

Sorry for my inadvertent edit where I reverted your edit.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I'm often doing the same on random pages by accidentally clicking on rollback in my watchlist. Easily done. Nancy talk 10:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Ken O'Keefe

This is why so much of Wikipedia is incomplete. Enjoy!Mkpumphrey (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You also removed O'Keefe's picture because, according to you, he was not mentioned in the "Human shield action to Iraq" article. You may want to bone up on the Find Feature.
"The paranoia that rose up around Hashimi's announcement and the reports that the buses were leaving Iraq slowed the influx of activists into Iraq, and caused some of those already there to leave Iraq, believing they had lost credibility through Hashimi's actions. The Iraqi authorities, on the other hand, saw Kenneth O'Keefe, Sloan, and other organisers as constantly challenging Hashimi's authority and being deliberately disruptive, and that some would-be shields were taking too long to deploy to sites. Five of the 'trouble makers' were then asked to leave the country."
From what I read above, there is no point in disputing your deletions. Bye Nancy.Mkpumphrey (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
(ec)Actually I did use "Find" - in Firefox, search term "Ken". Don't know why that instance it didn't come up when I clicked "next" - it just stuck on the image caption, odd. Still not sure what that image adds to the understanding of the topic though - how about you? Does justify the redir though - I'll undelete. Thanks for the heads up. Best, Nancy talk 17:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
p.s. no need to be so, well, rude. Really not necessary. If you bother to look at my contributions you will see that I decline an awful lot of deletion requests, to the chagrin of others as three of the threads on this very page illustrate - in fact they outnumber the threads complaining about articles I did delete. Nancy talk 17:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Please allow me to be clear. In my opinion, if anyone is being rude it is you. I do not normally edit what I consider "modern" topics like Ken O'Keefe. One of the reasons I stay away from more up-to-date topics is that many of the Wikipedia articles that cover recent history tend to be extremely one sided. I have been amazed at some of the "editing wars" that go on. If you do not believe me, look at the "history section" for any article having to do with a recent Gaza Strip-related event.
As I tried to indicate when the Ken O'Keefe article was first challenged, I have no particular position on this gentleman. But I do remember that -- back around 2003 -- he was on the news almost nightly. If anything, he had his "fifteen minutes of fame" and I was adding on a "Whatever Happened To" article,
If you must remove the Ken O'Keefe article, please do. But please do not imply that it did not meet some logically thought out requirement. If you remove the Ken O'Keefe article, just do it because you can. If you find me rude, fine. If I find you rude, that is fine too.Mkpumphrey (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

-- Swarm(Talk) 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Dollface deleted

Hi I just want to know why Dollface at wiki got deleted today? It is a well established band in Sweden with two record releases and they are included in soundtracks, movies and VA-albums. Thank you for replying. Br Kristian —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The article as deleted did not indicate the importance or significance of the band, and, for the record it did not even contain the claims you make above re. soundtracks etc. For future reference Wikipedia's notability requirement for bands can be found at WP:MUSIC. Kind regards, Nancy talk 08:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Final word, Dollface out, Sex Gang Children in.Mkpumphrey (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
What's an eighties goth band got to do with this? Am I missing something? Nancy talk
Wikipedia is all about a level connectivity never possible before. Adrian Portas was a member of both Dollface and Sex Gang Children. Somebody who is interested in Mr. Portas may click the Sex Gang Children link to obtain more information on that band. However, if someone is interested in Mr. Portas' contibution to Dollface, they are just out of luck.Mkpumphrey (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────That's true but not through any action of mine. the article I deleted was not the same Dollface. Not the same at all. The deleted article was a Swedish bedroom band formed in 2005 - ten whole years after Portas's Dollface were extant. Nancy talk 17:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Portas' and not Portas's.Mkpumphrey (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
It would appear that that is a matter of debate and personal preference. With your stated predilection for historical topics I would not have expected you to champion the "modern" usage. :) Nancy talk 19:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Here is the "thing" about Dollface: Before today, I never heard of a band called Dollface. If it were not for Wikipedia, I may have ended my life never having heard of Dollface. That there are two bands called Dollface is total news to me. That you know one Dollface band from the other and can smugly point this out is because you have an unfair advantage. You deleted the only article in Wikipedia that would have provided some information to me, a Dollface novice.
I am not attempting to get the Dollface article back and I am not attempting to get the Ken O'Keefe artice (or photograph) back either. You deleted them. They are gone. Done. Again, bye Nancy.Mkpumphrey (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
And here was me thinking that you might apologise for suggesting I had incorrectly applied CSDA7 to the Dollface (Swedish band) article, but never mind I will just revel in the delicious irony that had I not deleted Dollface (Swedish band) & prompted this thread you would still never have heard of either of them. Nancy talk 22:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea what you find ironic and I can only imagine what you might think irony means. I am not much for apologies. But, in this case, an apology may be in order. I remain ready to receive your apology when you are ready to offer it. Enjoy!Mkpumphrey (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Speedy deletion declined: The Quigley

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Nancy. You have new messages at Parent5446's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


You deleted everything.Mkpumphrey (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
More accurately I archived it & you had already replied to the "talkback" post. Nancy talk 17:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
p.s. you were not quite right re your Dollface accusation. See above. Nancy talk 17:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

delete request

I saw your name among those admin who will retrieve deleted material.

I started an article on Sharona Alperin. I am a little surprised that it was speedily deleted. Normal AFD, I can see but for a person who has had mention in reliable sources over 20 years (not a burst of coverage then nothing), speedy is surprising. What's your opinion? I though speedy delete was best for articles such as AAA Plumbing of Halifax Nova Scotia.

Will you retrieve the references from the article for me? This will allow me to reconsider whether an article can be written or if the references can be used in another article. Thank you. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I have moved the deleted article to your userspace, you can find it at User:Suomi Finland 2009/Sandbox. Keep it there and lick it in to shape before moving it back in to mainspace otherwise you may find it nominated for deletion again. My advice is to concentrate on more The Knack/My Sharona aspect as that is where any notability may lie and less on the post-Knack estate agency. Best of luck, Nancy talk 16:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Persistent Vandalism of Diet In Sikhism

Hi Nancy, can you help here, with this anonymous IP, who seems hell bent on deleting this article? Thanks --Sikh-History 17:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The IP was blocked a few moments ago by another admin :) Nancy talk 17:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I have a further concern. The anonymous IP swore and used very racist language (in Punjabi) in his commentary. Much of it is threats, and my feeling is the IP should be reported back to the University of Washington from where it originates. Thanks--Sikh-History 09:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Sol Campbell

Hi - thanks for the note. You're quite right, of course, so I'll leave the Campbell article alone, although it seems to me that User:Mosmof has a particular axe to grind and is using this article to make a point. Hey, ho. I'll go back to what I enjoy most and do the best: writing articles about footballers from the 19th century. Those guys are far more fascinating than the over-paid under-talented primadonnas of today. Sorry once again. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Albert Bridge, London

Can you please explain in further detail why the second version of the amendment was undone? The wording was significantly changed to describe what is happening to the bridge, and whilst followed a similar vein to the source website, used different words.

I don't understand how I might be able to identify what work is happening to the subject in question without actually describing it, other than doing so inaccuratly or using 'fuzzy' language? As far as I am concerned, this is a news event with hard facts as to what is going to happen and I feel that the article benefits from this relevant detail.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digital.Diablo (talkcontribs) 17:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

As per my edit summary, simply reordering phrases does not remove copyright concerns. Any addition you make to any article must be wholly in your own words - direct copying, paraphrasing or rejigging are all problematic as either a straight copyright violation or as plagiarism and such text will continue to be removed. To be honest I don't even think you need to worry about a rewrite though: the article already states that the bridge is close, why and for how long, the minute detail for what is basically routine (if infrequent) maintenance is really not necessary. Kind regards, Nancy talk 18:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope, still don't understand and you really need to spell it out for me for future updates. If writing about something factual, how can one use facts (backed up by references from other sources) without quoting and describing those facts? For example, from an article on the front page of Wikipedia regarding the collapse on a Minaret in Morocco, the article cites various news sources and quotes matching facts and figures and uses similar or the same wording as these news sources. Plagiarism dictates that one attempts to pass work as my own, yet the source was cited in BOTH edits. Whilst I understand that the first edit could be construed as hard and fast copyright, the second edit still quoted the facts and events that are happening without copying the source. However, I do not believe that either edit matches your viewpoint. In this specific context, the material itself I believe is subject to the waiver criteria as specified by the UK Crown, controlled by the Office of Public Sector Information under the reproduction of Government Press Notices ruling which in summary dictates that reproduction of official press notices and releases is allowed within the context that Wikipedia operates. Finally, does the free release of a press-release by an entity which is then referenced by a 3rd party not not construe 'fair-use' according to wikipedia's copyright policy cited originally? I believe it does under categories 3a, 3b, 4 (used on numerous other news sources), 5, 7 and 8 of the FUP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digital.Diablo (talkcontribs) 14:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Albert Bridge The source page is very clearly marked "Copyright © 1998-2010 The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea", can't really argue with that. Our policy on copyrights can be found at WP:COPYRIGHTS. The situation is quite complex as text on Wikipedia must be release under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).
Minaret Collapse If you believe that there are copyright problems in that article, you should report your concerns immediately at the copyright problems page. We take copyright violations very seriously and if your allegations are founded the text will be removed ASAP. Nancy talk 16:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


Hi Nancy - thanks for the nice words. I thought I would match you on Datchet, but now you have jumped ahead again with Cookham! I like the Stanley Spencer in context. Glad you got Thacker - not just a sound information source but also highly entertaining with anecdotes about bargee/lock-keeper disputes. Was on the water for the first time yesterday as well. All the best Motmit (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


Hi Nancy. Could you please take a look at the pages M18_recoilless_rifle and M18_Recoilless_Rifle. The former seems to be a real page concerning the topic, where the later redirects to Recoilless rifle. There is also a link to the later on the M18 page. May I suggest the later is removed and the former renamed to the later's case? Oh, and sail is definitely better than power! Kind Regards LeeRyman (talk) 10:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Lee. I've had a look and for the meantime have simply changed the redirect on M18_Recoilless_Rifle to point to M18_recoilless_rifle. I was unsure making changes to the case of the target article as looking at the contents of Category:Recoilless rifles it seems that lower-case is the current convention - I also checked Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style guide but came away none the wiser! I have however changed the M18 page to bypass the redirect.
Opportunity for sail on the non-tidal Thames is pretty limited but I do wish petrol was a cheap as wind, that's for sure :) Nancy talk 07:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that, and the run-down on what you did. I'm very new to editing Wikipedia, so I appreciate the opportunity to follow your process. Whenever we see a cruiser going past whilst sailing on Port_Stephens, we always joke that it must have a dollar gauge, not a diesel gauge. LeeRyman (talk) 08:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

  1. Proposal to Close This RfC
  2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Could Do With Your Input

Hi Fellow Editor, Could you please have a look at this conversation, it seems to be going a little AWOL. I do not see where I haved mate a WP:Personal Attack and why User:Sinneed is warning me. If I am wrong then I willhold up my hand. --Sikh-History 08:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I have had a look at the conversation. I would not consider anything in there to be an overt personal attack however one should always be careful to always comment on the edits rather than the editor - ironically the edit which is closest to crossing that particular line is the one you made after Sinneed mentioned WP:NPA. When you are interacting with Sinneed you need to take especial care simply because of the history of disagreement between you. I can understand how you might find his communication style frustrating but you should always try not to feed it and to make sure that you word all your posts very carefully so there is no possibility of misinterpretation. Moving forward, if Sinneed continues to template the regulars then the best course of action is to just remove the post from your talk and don't rise to the bait - indeed I wonder if he himself though better of the most recent "warning" as I see he self-reverted. Kind regards, Nancy talk 11:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I think Sinnneed is a brilliant editor and you are correct, my tone was a bit wrong. I will try to be more civil in future. Thanks--Sikh-History 12:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Please review. I template SH as he found non-template cautions to be rude. I am very sorry that you do not find the instruction to learn history to be a violation of wp:NPA. I have restored the template.- Sinneed 15:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
On second thought, no need. I'll consider myself warned for wp:DTTR, and will simply permanently ignore all edit summaries and talk page postings by SH. I will promptly delete without reading or archiving any postings to my talk page by either of you. I am disappointed in you both. Good day.- Sinneed 15:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Nancy please can you have a word with this fellow, he is overstepping the mark and misusing warning templates on my talkpage. Thanks--Sikh-History 18:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Sinneed last posted to your page at 15:21(UTC). Since then he has said in this thread (at 15:37) that he will "permanently ignore all edit summaries and talk page postings by SH" so I don't think anything is to be gained by me or anyone else poking the fire. I think his approach is right - you two don't seem to be able to interact with each other without it turning sour so a policy of ignoring each other is probably the only way forward. I would go further and suggest you completely avoid each other but I don't believe that is going to be possible given your common interests. Nancy talk 18:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The sad thing is I think he is a good editor, but on some subjects I think it is best to ask for expert help. I really feel I can work with him, but I can't when he keeps warning me. Thanks anyway.--Sikh-History 21:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)