User talk:Nancy/Archive 7

FYI

Fixed your formatting here (and then the ironic twist....). Cheers, —Giggy 11:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL, thanks. nancy ^(talk) 11:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Trinitron Meets the Mars People.

please remove the speedy deletion tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arpodyssey (talk • contribs) 18:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I deleted Triniton meets the mars people this morning because it was a redirect to a non-existant page and there was no other history to revert to. Speedy deletion tags are only removed if they have been applied incorrectly (& this one was perfectly in order) and in any case the article has been deleted now. I would usually offer to userfy the deleted content but as it was a single edit & was a bad redirect there is not much point, sorry about that. Kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 19:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Critical Intervention Services

I request undeletion of Critical Intervention Services; there has been a lot of news coverage about this organization and it is an important example of a private police-like force. It should at least go to AfD, in my opinion. Thanks, Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

CIS was deleted because no notability was asserted - the article discussed a local firm with a small client base. However, I have userfied the article for you - you can find it at User:Aldrich Hanssen/Sandbox so that you can work on it, particularly with regard to notability and reliable sources - the only references quoted in the article were from the CIS web site, granted they purport to be text from newspaper articles but who knows how genuine they are? Good luck! Kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 18:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

i don't know what i'm doing wrong

I work for the Italian American Network. I made the entry. Its not copywrited information or plagerism, because i wrote it. i'm having a hard time understand why everyone I named was also deleted. Please explain. edco0o. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edco0o (talk • contribs) 18:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh gosh. Where to start?

• as an employee of I.A.N. you have a massive conflict of interest and should avoid editing article related to this topic as it is very difficult for you to remain neutral. If I.A.N. is truely notable enough to be on Wikipedia then likely someone with a more objective view will be along and will create an article soon enough.
• I also noticed that the article was almost entirely self-referenced - ie. the references were all published by I.A.N. and therefore not considered to be reliable sources in Wikipedia terms.
• regardless of whether you wrote the original text or not, it is currently published on the internet and marked as Copyright © 2008 Italian American Network. All rights reserved. so Wikipedia cannot accept it. This is also the (main) reason why your biographical articles were removed.
• there are problems with the tone of the article being very promotional and unencyclopaedic as well as being of uncertain notability

I would really recommend that you click through some of the links and read through the pages as then you will ahve a clearer idea of what Wikipedia is (and is not!) and the bar you have to meet when creating articles. The help page Your first article might also be worth a few moments of your time. Kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 19:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Danny Smythe

Could you send me a copy of Danny Smythe (AfD)? Thanks, Rdbrewster♪♫♪ 20:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I've dumped it in your sandbox. please don;t keep it hanging around if you are not going to work on it though - I'll check back in a week or so. Kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 20:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

re: Lisa Haley deleted info

Hi Nancy:

Please tell me how I can get my page back up for Lisa Haley. I deleted all the AllMusic.com text. I substituted our band biography, which I wrote myself. I'm new to Wikipedia so I don't know where to look to see if you've responded to my request.

Please note: the AllMusic.com text was only edited in the first place because the info on the band members is 10 years old (we have all different sidemen now,) and it doesn't mention our GRAMMY Nominated CD. We have been trying to get AllMusic.com to update our text for several years, with no response as yet.

I'm including the replacement text below FYI. _{{now removed nancy ^(talk) 06:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)}} I'm sorry for misunderstanding your guidelines.

Kindest Regards, Andy Anders AndyAnders (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Andy Anders
Category:Zydeco_musicians,Category:Cajun

Andy. If you haven't already I would suggest a read of WP:MUSIC which sets out the notability criteria for bands/musicians. Once you are sure that Lisa Haley makes the grade then the next thing to do is to gather some good reliable, secondary sources to support the facts in the article. Finally you need to pull everything together in to a WP:NPOV and non-promotional article; it is probably worth using an existing good article about a band as as a template - Loose Fur for example. I note that you are personally connected with the band, whilst this does not exclude you form writing about them you need to be extra careful that you are remaining neutral and that you don't let any original research creep in. You should also consider that if Lisa Haley is truely notable then likely someone unconnected will be along and create an article soon enough - and if not, then well may be she isn't that notable. good luck & kind regards nancy ^(talk) 14:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Boa Vista redirect

Hi Nancy... I strongly disagree with your deletion of the Boa Vista redirect to Boa Vista, Roraima. The other Boa Vista articles are much less significant than the state capitol city. The redirect as it stood was in line with other Brazilian state capital articles. Why the change? This did not fall under since it was an undo of a recent edit and certainly not non-controversial. Please reconsider. (Side note: If you leave it as is, there is a lot of cleanup to do to fix all the links.) -Macuxi (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually your move of an established DAB page was the controversial part of all this - I merely reversed your unilateral move which a) had no consensus behind it and b) had no justification in policy. As was explained to you on the talk page of the article, it is not up to you (or any of us) to decree that any one article has a more or less significant subject than any other - that is simply not how it works. I am sorry that you have a lot of "cleaning up" to do - perhaps if you had discussed the move a little more you would have saved yourself the trouble of changing the links in the first place only now to have to change them all back. Kind regards. nancy ^(talk) 15:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll be less bold next time. I was careful to provide justification though, so you misrepresented me on that point. I still maintain that your CSD:G6 justification was inappropriate and misrepresented the situation, but I guess one good turn deserves another, per your logic. -Macuxi (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC) 16:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD

Thank you for the corrections. It is not easy to find one's way in this procedure...
Concering your vote in the AfD. I just want to point out that it is not because there are numerous references in an article that this is not a wp:or.
You can see from the books I own on the topic and from the 5 FA in French and 1 FA in English I wrote that I know this topic very well.
There have been expulsions of Arab Israelis and leveling of villages between 1949 and 1956 but nothing such as a Palestinian exodus. I have been trying for 2 weeks to discuss with the editor and I have moved the article to Expulsion of Palestinians in Israël between 1949 and 1956 but she reveted this.
Nothing can be done with her and this article is definitely a wp:or, without only one WP:RS source corroborating the topic ! Ceedjee (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Tips

How did you find the source of Image:Bianca_Gascoigne1.jpg? That's amazing. mboverload@ 08:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm flattered but have to say it is not that amazing :) - just searched for her on Google images and it was in the first few hits. Probably exactly what Classic70 did. Kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 08:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

lol. Thanks for patrolling the Wikipedia waters with me! mboverload@ 08:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: Fiona Dolman Speedy request

Hello, thank you for bringing this to my attention. I didnt even think about providing a reason at the time due to me being tired and late at night, although now I realise one must be given, and have done so in the edit summary. My ignorance comes from that being the first time I have ever PROD'ed or AFD'd, so I am very new. Many thanks, yours. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 10:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

My questionnaire

Hello Nancy, the questionnaire is completed. Link:

evaluation questionnaire

thanks for doing this questionnaire, and I hope that you will feel interested about this. :)

JnW^talk 04:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, just remind you to complete the questionnaire.

My thesis's oral defense is on next Wednesday. So please complete it as early as you can. I believe it would just take you 5 miniutes. Thanks a lot. :)

JnW^talk 08:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Tactical Recognition Flash

Thanks very much for your input on this and particularly the tidy into columns. I'm afraid Police,Mad,Jack seems to do this to any page I create and has to be put right by one admin or another. Thanks again Blackshod (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I dont. You constantly hound and cyber bully and cyber stalk me, with your IP adress. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 15:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I have tried several times to talk to you about this Blackshod, but to no avail. You seem unwilling to enter a civil relationship, I am by no means the only editor to notice this. Just take a look at Archangels post to your talkpage. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 15:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Police, Mad, Jack. From what I can see it is you who are doing the stalking & looking at your contribution history for today you appear to be making pointy CSD nominations & adding uncalled for tags on perfectly good articles that, just happen, to have been created by Blackshod. Please can you desist from this behaviour as all it achieves is to upset people unnecessarily and to cause extra work for the rest of us. nancy ^(talk) 16:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Page.

i made a page for a band called Gunna Vahm and a couple weeks later you deleted it because it "Doesn't indicate importance or significance". i disagree. i put links at the bottom of the page to many websites that wrote things about the band, a website that tracks all the shows this band plays, a link to the record label's page where you can buy this bands records... what more is needed for this band to be considered "Significant"?

Hotheadharry (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi there Harry. The criteria for a band to be considered significant, also refered to aher as notable, are laid out in on the page WP:MUSIC. I would recommend that you take a look at the list, and if you feel that Gunna Vahm passes the test then the next thing to do it to support this by referencing independent and reliable sources. If you should like a copy of the deleted text for you to work on in your user name just let me know and I will copy it over. Good luck and kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 07:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi,

I just wanted to ask if the article `Dallmeier´ you proposed to delete (May 6, 2008) was about the German company `Dallmeier electronic´.

Thank you very much!

Regards LWH —Preceding unsigned comment added by Longwayhome (talk • contribs) 13:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Possibly - it was certainly a German company but was not referred to as Dallmeir Electronic. They were in the CCTV field - is this the same one? Kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 14:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply from Andy Anders re: Lisa Haley

Hi Nancy:

We actually went to all the Zydeco musicians' pages we could find on Wikipedia and studied them before submitting our original article.

We have over 20 reviews of our new GRAMMY Nominated CD "King Cake," plus the AllMusic Guide artice (which as I mentioned is 10 years out of date on band member lineup.) Could we use those?

Question: How can I incorporate the "current" portion of the AllMusic Guide article, plus statements made in our reviews, into a Wiki article without copyright infringement? In our promo, we simply put it in quotes and name the author (KebMo', L.A. Times, Sir George Martin, for instance.)

Please advise.

Regards, Andy Anders --AndyAnders (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Andy, as a general rule we avoid incorporating wholesale text from other sources even if they are copyright free - it is much better to write the article in your own words citing the source to back up the statements made. Wikipedia does however make limited use of quotations - defined as the use of three or more consecutive words from a source - and you can find a short essay about this at WP:QUOTE. With regards to copyright, Wikipedia is a little different than yur own promo as by default all text on Wikipedia is released in to the public domain via GFDL so this means that in the case of AllMusic assent must be gained from the original copyright holder that they agree to publish under a free license - there is a page which explains how to gain such permission at WP:PERMISSION. When you have read this you will probably conclude that writing it in your own words is a far easier option! Hope this helps, kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 07:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU, Status, and you!

As you may know, the StatusBot responsible for maintaining the status of the Highly Active Users was taken offline. We now have a replacement in the Qui status system. This semi-automatic system will allow you to easily update your status page found at Special:Mypage/Status which the HAU page code is now designed to read from. If you are already using Qui (or a compatible system) - great! - no action is needed (other than remembering to update your status as necessary). If not, consider installing Qui. You can also manually update this status by changing the page text to online, offline, or busy. While it is not mandatory, the nature of HAU is that people are often seeking a quick answer from someone who is online and keeping our statuses up-to-date will assist with this. Note if you were previously using your /Status page as something other than a one-word status indicator, your HAU entry may have been set to "status=n" to correct display issues. Please clear this parameter if you change things to be "HAU compatible". Further questions can be raised at WT:HAU. This message was delivered by xenobot 23:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Kurashiki NET Program

Hi,

I noticed a while back you helped clean up the Kurashiki, Okayama wiki article. It seemed that it was being used as a forum for an edit war between a couple of different people.

It seems that anothe page has been created about the Kurashiki NET Program at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurashiki_NET_Program.

Is a program like this really deserving of it's own Wikipedia article? This just pages just seems to be there for self promotion and recruitment reasons and has to real relevance to anyone outside of the Kurashiki Board of Education. You probably could write a similar fluff piece about the education programs of any city in Japan. Kurashiki's program is certainly no more relevant then those of any other city.

Also,as you can see from it's history, it already is being turned into an edit-war battle ground, that will only get as worse as the one that took place on the Kurashiki main page.

I think this page should be deleted but I am not sure how to go about it. Since you know a little bit this from what when down before, I thought perhaps you would know how to go about getting it deleted from Wikipedia. Thanks Cityhallnemesis (talk) 07:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

GFDL contributions and merged articles

Hi there. I just undeleted List of sustainability topics (Q), as User:Yamakiri had merged that to List of sustainability topics without crediting User:Granitethighs. To preserve the GFDL and allow correct attribution, I undeleted. It was all a bit of a mess, and different admins treated the various speedy and PROD requests differently. I've been tidying up to make things consistent. Please don't take offence, but could you possibly check things out a bit more before deleting in future? Thanks. Any problems, please ask. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sustainability topics (0-9) and here. Carcharoth (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I apologise for what I just said. It seems that List of sustainability topics (Q) had no content! But still, the separate lists were not content forks, but started off as separate lists that were merged into one, so the other redirects still needed preservation. Sorry about that - it has been a lot to tidy up, and I should have checked things out a bit more myself. Hope that's all OK. Carcharoth (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem :) Cheers, nancy ^(talk) 19:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

unjustifiable deletions (university of piraeus)

You have deleted some parts from the page of university of piraeus due to "copyvio". Presenting the aims and objectives of each department are not copyright violations, even if you are using material (that are NOT copyrighted and are free to use) from the web site of the university. Dimivas (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Dimivas

Sorry no, you are wrong. The deletion of copyrighted text from that article is completely justified. The University website is very clearly marked "©2003 University of Piraeus" & until that is changed to state that the text thereon has been released under GFDL then it cannot legally be cut and pasted on to Wikipedia. nancy ^(talk) 06:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but you are wrong. We added a section that is presenting the scope of the department of technology education and digital systems from the official site of the department (http://www.ted.unipi.gr/index_en.html -> Scopes) that is NOT copyrighted. Dimivas (talk) 09:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Dimivas

The absence of a copyright notice does not have any bearing on this, the pages uyou refer to still fall under the (copyrighted) unipi.gr site - just as a book does not have a copyright notice on all it's chapters nor does a domain yet the copyright still applies to all pages & even if it was not under the unipi domain then the assumption is always that any text is copyrighted unless otherwise indicated. As I mentioned above if you insist that you wish to copy text from that site (which I would suggest is not a great idea as it is a. a primary source and b. unencyclopaedic in tone and c. would give undue weight to a particular department within the article) then you need to explicitly release it under GFDL. An explanation of how to do this can be found here. Kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 16:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not. Only the pages under the subdomain www are "protected" (You protect a research article, not a text that describes the objectives of a department - There is a big difference). Different subdomain is a "different book". Anyway I will ask the webmaster to add at least a "Terms of use" to make sure that we will not have similar cases in the future. Thank you for your suggestions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.246.137 (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Chemistrygeek

Crossposting to Pedro, this ANI thread, this talkpage, and this talkpage are all related, and will probably be of interest to you. Keeper | 76 | what's in a name? 15:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

sculptor links

hi nancy - thanks for advice re the possible link spam. I'm trying to develop things in good faith but learning too!

Can I ask what you mean about "definitive" - i.e. if an artist has work in public collections like NPG then the rest of his/her oeuvre has some relevance even if there are no secondary web sources for that particular head. It may also be that the article subject has sat for a number of artists in a lifetime.

Note: most of the sitters are featured in a publicly-funded film - but this is difficult to "link" to on the web.

As such "art" is difficult to relate to definitiveness - one either likes it or one doesn't, and one makes ones mind up about the professional intent of the artist involved?

Would it be better legitimised if the images of portraits were lodged on the pages themselves rather than being external links? Or if more biographical information was added from the sculptor concerned such as where or when the sitting took place?

As it is, the information appears to me to contribute to the cultural breadth of each article.

regards/thanksCazimir (talk) 14:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you answered your own question when you said "it may well be that the article subject has sat for a number of artists in a lifetime" which demonstrates that in itself sitting for an artist is not notable and therefore should only be included in the article if the end result was notable - i.e. that the portrait or sculpture has some standalone notability or sometimes that the aritst themselves is especially notable, we are talking of the likes of Lucien Freud, Andy Warhol here. You should also consider that what you are really doing is adding information about the artists not about the subject of the article & in the case of some of the shorter articles a rather trivial bit of tangental information is representing a significant proportion of the whole text. It also has the look of a coatrack existing only to shoehorn in link to the artists website - we discussed the issue of link spam earlier. With regard to your proposal on adding images I don't know the copyright status of the works in question but I would be surprised if they were public domain and so I would expect that use of images of them would fall foul of Wikipedia's copyright policy unless the article in question was a critical commentary on the work depicted. I hope that this helps and, if you haven't already a quick skim through Wikipedia's {{WP:5|five pillars]] is a rally good way to get a feel for what we are about. Good luck & kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 08:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Totally not getting old

• Could this get a rush on its speedy deletion? Needs a good dose of salt, too. JuJube (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, been offline and saw this (12 hours) too late but looks like someone else dealt with it quite promptly. nancy ^(talk) 07:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

I don't quite know what you did or why, but you saved my attempt at creating an archive page. Thank You--Buster7 (talk) 19:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem - you had accidently created it in mainspace and it had been nominated for speedy deletion as a test page but rather than delete it I made a guess at your probable intention and moved it to your userspace instead. Glad that was the right thing to do! Kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 08:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I am at wit's end. I am being accussed of trolling etc. and my good faith edit is under attack. Now an administrator has joined the fray and I'm not sure how to proceed...except to defend my reputation. If you could please see Uncylcopedia and its talk page. I would appreciate it.--Buster7 (talk) 12:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Issue is resolved. Thanks.--Buster7 (talk) 05:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Look What You Made Me

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Look What You Made Me. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tom Danson (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Nancy.

Nancy, I do not see your point for deleting my last "disruptive edit". That group of People are notable for their constant, nasty, comments to the stars of Job the Frob Hob, a page you deleted also. You also blocked the account Fredthebobjim without warning. Miaxdude (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You know very well that you have simply been creating vicious attack pages so please do not come here and try to pretend otherwise. For the record it was not me who blocked Fredthebobjim (who I presume is another of your accounts?) however looking at his deleted contributions I completely endorse the block. nancy ^(talk) 19:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing Fun Cup!

Hi "Nancy",

Thanks so much for fixing my fubar with the Fun Cup page. I was just trying to clean things up and get the names correct... and before I got a chance to clean up my mess you had gone back and tidied everything!

Now all I need to do is fix the content, because it's pretty woeful at the moment. :(

Keep up the great work.

Greg.

--Gclough (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Greg Clough (gclough)

Nonny

Hi Nancy,

I noticed that you deleted Nonny, which I had created. I didn't receive the notification of the speedy deletion tag until the article had been deleted. As you cited G10, I'm assuming that the page had been altered since I last saw it. Because I no longer have access to the history of the article, I can't be completely sure of what I had originally created, but it was most likely a redirect to Nonny Hogrogian. I can't see that such a redirect would violate G10. Would you mind recreating it as such?

Thank you,

Neelix (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Neelix. the page had been heavily vandalised today and had been turned in to an attack page about an entirely different Nonny. Apologies that I missed your original "good" edit in the history; I have restored that single edit and left all the nastiness deleted. Many thanks for letting me know. Kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 20:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Dumb question on your recall procedure

Hi Nancy,

Can I ask where you got your idea for having a small subset of all your RfA supporters being able to ask you to resign? Sometime in the last couple of weeks, I ran across someone else doing that, and thought it was a good idea, and just added that to my own procedure. It wasn't you, since you only put yours up today. I can't for the life of me find who it was now, or even remember how or where I ran across it. I know you said yours was based on Pedro's, but his is different, and I'm looking for the specific source of the X of my RfA supporters idea. Did you come up with that wrinkle independently, or did someone give you the idea? This isn't actually that important, except that it's driving me nuts now, trying to figure out where I got the idea; I know I didn't think of it by myself. Thanks. --barneca (talk) 13:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Funny you should ask that as I also was convinced I had seen something similar before - probably about a month ago? - but, despite clicking though everyone's (yes, really everyone's) recall procedures this morning I couldn't find it. If you do happen upon it please do give me a shout as I should like to acknowledge the inspiration, I'll do likewise for you if I find it first. Kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 17:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank God I'm not crazy (or not alone). Yes, about a month ago sounds right, and I too re-read every single procedure this morning and couldn't find it. --barneca (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's OK, even if we did both imagine it, we are not (necessarily) crazy. nancy^talk 09:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't this by any chance? Pedro :  Chat  09:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes yes, YES. That was it. Pedro you genius. Thank you. I knew I couldn't have made it up! nancy ^talk 09:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

:) Pedro :  Chat  09:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I thought I saw it before I went on vacation, but this is the only rational explanation, so yes I think mystery solved for me too. Thanks to you both. --barneca (talk) 11:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I get that often on Wiki - think something happened yonks ago and then find out it was only a few days since. Some wierd distortion of perception of time goes on. nancy ^talk 11:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, Nancy!

I am grateful for your confidence: My RfA passed by a count of 64/3/3, so I am now an administrator! Of course, I plan to conduct my adminship in service of the community, so I believe the community has a right to revoke that privilege at any time. Thus, I will be open for recall under reasonable circumstances. If you have any advice, complaints, or concerns for me, please let me know. Thanks again! Okiefromokla questions? 21:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James McDonald (Irish Filmmaker)

Found non-IMDB sources linking McDonald with his film company LAC and showing minor notability and additional awards for his films. If article survives AfD I will add them. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 06:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Timothy Hodge no deletions

i dont see a reason to delete that article, i aks that u do you research first, just because u dont know who the person is right off the back doesnt mean they are not real or not important to millions of people.

--Daisy404 (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)daisy404--Daisy404 (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi there Daisy - thanks for leaving me a message, however the place to leave you opinion where it might actually make a difference is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy Hodge as per the link on your user talk and on the article itself. What will happen is that editors will leave their opinions concerning whether the article should be deleted or should be kept, but the important thing to remember is that any opinions left there need to be backed up by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The ones which are luikely to be important in this debate are WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO plus as always everything in th earitcle needs to be backed up by reliable secondary sources. Just saying "I like it" is unfortunately not enough but if this person really is "important to millions of people" then I am sure that you will be able to give heaps of reliable sources to back that up - I didn't find any when I looked but you might have better luck. Kind regards, nancy ^talk 17:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted page

Hi,

You have deleted my page Graphico.

Please could you forward me the code again to abizar@graphico.com, and give me some pointers as to how I can not get it deleted for advertising again. When creating the page, I took the template from the Lotus Cars page, so please could you let me know what was advertising.

Thanks,

Abizar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.54.239.185 (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the deleted article in to the userspace of the orginal creator (whom I assume to be you when you are logged in). You can find it here: User:Adungarwalla/Sandbox. I would advise that before you spend time on making it less like an advertisement you put your effort in to showing that the company passes Wikipedia's inclusion requirements for companies which you can find at WP:ORG - at the moment it would definitely fail. Once you have shown notability, copyediting to take out the promotional tone should be quite straightforward: a quick and simple test is to look at what you have written and ask yourself "does this sound like what the company would write on their own website?", if the answer is "yes" then it is still probably too much like an advert. Good luck and kind regards, nancy ^talk 17:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Lee Thompson Band deletion

Nancy - You nominated this entry for deletion as you claimed it did not meet the criteria for inclusion (incorrect) but then when I delete it for you, you revert the article to its original content?!

To clarify: The original article is Biographical, unbiased and neutral, it relates to an Artist (Lee Thompson) who is notable as both an up and coming Uk music performer and by virtue of his previous successes in his Native South Africa. His original band "Saint Legend" supported several major artists of the 90's (Foreigner and Indecent obsession to name two) and still receive considerable public aurplay in SA. He is now signed to a recognised UK independent label and has a CD on commercial release, which is again receiving airplay on UK Radio. His career to date therefore generates interest from around the globe and for this reason is in my opinion worthy of an entry.

The article was deleted not because of your request, but because of a number of subsequent comments posted against it under assumed names by a disgruntled ex-drummer of the band, who has been attempting to damage the artists' reputation since being sacked about 6 months ago. It is better to have no entry at all than one which is underwritten by derisory and damaging comments, that should have been vetted and removed immediately.

I could find no "Delete" function so did the next best thing and removed the content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcduggan (talk • contribs) 18:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, Wikipedia works by consensus - one person can't unilaterally decide that they don't like an article and just delete it (or blank the page)! That is why you don't have a delete button and why there is a deletion discussion going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Thompson Band, a debate which I absolutely encourage you to participate in; if you think the article should go then prefix your comment with Delete if you think it should stay then prefix it with Keep. The debate will remain open for a minimum of five days after which time, so long as there is a consensus the article will either be deleted or kept. Kind regards, nancy ^talk 19:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Endeavorplan

Hi

Endeavorplan opposition called Bartercard in Australia which has a wikipedia page. I tried to make a similar page and language that they used on their page for Endeavorplan that fit into wikipedia's editorial control.

Just would like to know the reason why they would have a page but ours is deleted.

Am I putting the wrong info on the page?

Look forward to your reply.

Ian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudy11 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The Endeavorplan article as deleted did not show why the website was notable which is a fundamental requirement for any entry on Wikipedia. The criteria for website notability can be found at WP:WEB, in essence it requires that the websites impact or historical significance is verified by multiple independent reliable sources. You raise the question of Bartercard - the difference between the two article is that in the very first sentence, Bartercard asserts its notability "the world's largest barter trading exchange", Endeavourplan does not appear to have any such significance, and indeed much of the article was written in the future tense "Endeavour plan will have..." etc which does rather suggest that much of it doesn;t even exist yet and by definition is therefore unlikely to be able to assert notability! Kind regards, nancy ^talk 12:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA thank-you

Thank-you for your support of me at my recent RFA, which was successful. I have appreciated everyone's comments and encouragement there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Pell Wall Hall

Did you look at the OU material? Was it interesting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hockeyshooter (talk • contribs)

....yes, which is why I put it in to the external links section.... it just was not appropriate for the main body of the article "some MA students went there and took some photographs"... (I'm paraphrasing obviously!!). Cheers, nancy ^talk 15:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Menage a 3 webcomic

You didn't even give me a chance to fix it up. I was working with another user who had identified the deficiencies and I was working on it. But, I go to lunch and then it is gone.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbonaccorso (talk • contribs) 18:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I gave it almost an hour since the last comment on the talk page which is more than generous in the circumstances - there was no indication anywhere that it was going to be worked on. I would of course be happy to provide the text of the deleted article to your userpsace if you should like, however I would caution against spending too much time on it as I think you are going to really struggle to show notability for such new web content. Not sure if you have browsed the notability requirements for web-content yet, if you haven't then please do check it out as it might just save you a heap of unnecessary hassle.

As I said, happy to provide the deleted content, just let me know. Kind regards, nancy ^talk 18:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirect deletions

Yo Nancy, I hope you have a really good rationale for deleting Fetish:Footage:Forum and Fetish: Footage: Forum. Skomorokh 12:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Was clearing out cat:CSD & came across them. They were only speedied so nothing to stop them being recreated if you think they really are plausible search terms. I expect someone will turn them in to an article about the forum at some point. Kind regards, nancy ^talk 15:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

No, someone won't. It's a significant but non-notable plot point from the redirect target Pattern Recognition. Kindly restore them and be a little more careful deleting content on matters you are unfamiliar. I appreciate you are only trying to help, but it makes life difficult for editors trying to build an encyclopaedia. Sincerely, Skomorokh 15:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure your tone is absolutely necessary and I strongly resent the implication that I am somehow not trying to build an encyclopaedia. nancy ^talk 16:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my tone rubs you the wrong way, but this is a waste of both our time. You were editing in good faith trying to help the encyclopaedia, I'm sure, but you made a mistake and I am asking you to reverse it and be a little more careful in future. Sincerely, Skomorokh 16:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You really do need to do something about the manner with which you communicate. I note that you are sorry that I am offended by your tone but not sorry that you used it in the first place. We have a page about that. I agree this is a waste of time and am wondering why you didn't just spend twenty seconds recreating the damn pages like I suggested rather than coming back here to leave more patronising comments. The orange bar is interrupting the new article I am drafting so I will go restore the pages shortly. No need to respond. nancy ^talk 16:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for Deleting

hello, I created an articles about a small in village India, Actually this was my first contribution to Wikipedia and I have not have much experience about writing articles so I put lot of undesirable information, which you already have deleted, honestly the article is now makes much more sense for a general reader. And I am really thankful to you for the wonderful job that you r doing. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perryaustralia (talk • contribs)

No problem. Please drop by if you need any more help and good luck with your future contributions. I'll leave you some helpful links on your talk page. Kind regards, nancy ^talk 16:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

thankspam

Thanks to everyone who participated in my RfA, regardless of their !vote. I have withdrawn the nomination as a failure at 19 supports, 45 opposes, and 9 neutral statements. As has been written and sung, you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you get what you need — and what I need is to go back to working on our shared project. Not everyone has to be an admin; there is a role for each of us. After reflection, I feel I don't have the temperament to secure community consensus as an admin at any point, and I will not be applying again in the future — and hey, that's all right, 'cause I stay true to the philosophy that adminship is no big deal: I tried, I failed, and now I'll return to doing what I've always done. I have an extremely strong belief in the consensus process, and the consensus was clear. I will be devoting my energies to volunteering at MedCab and working up a complete series of articles on the short stories of Ernest Hemingway, among lord knows what else. Thanks again to everyone who spared the time to weigh in on this one. It was made in better faith than it probably seemed. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 14:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your very straightforward !vote in support. I wish it had all gone that way, but in the end I guess I didn't do enough to earn everyone's trust. Ultimately, I can still find a lot of ways to help the project, and look forward to collaborating with editors like you in the future. Thanks! Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 14:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the personal note. To be honest I don't think trust or lack thereof was the problem, I think it was that people can get just a teensie weensie bit precious about certain things (with RfA being probably the biggest sacred cow of them all unless you are in the inner circle) and your nom, which was a bit like saying "the Emperor's got no clothes" hit a great big nerve and was thus doomed from the outset. Which is a great big shame. I hope you find it in you to try again sometime as I genuinely think that you will make a fine admin. Kind regards & hope to see you around, nancy ^talk 15:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks!

Thank you... ...for participating in my RfA, which closed with 119 in support, 4 neutral and 5 opposes. I'm honestly overwhelmed at the level of support that I've received from the community, and will do my best to maintain the trust placed in me. I 'm also thankful to those who opposed or expressed a neutral position, for providing clear rationales and superb feedback for me to build on. I've set up a space for you to provide any further feedback or thoughts, should you feel inclined to. However you voted, thanks for taking the time out to contribute to the process, it's much appreciated. Kind regards, Gazimoff 21:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

JediMUD article

Hello. Recently the JediMUD article I posted was flagged for a possible delete, citing a reason of insignificance. The challenge here is proving the significance of something that's over 15 years old and has had most of its online references get phased out along with the creation of the Internet and the death of the newsgroups. Many young Internet users never even heard of newsgroups.

It's simple for me to say that it's one of the longest-running MUDs in existance today (if not the longest), that in its heyday had literally hundreds of people playing it at any given time (which was incredible then) and that it has influenced the lives of many people. Unfortunately, with most of those references gone, I'm forced to rely on today's Internet.

In order to further that goal, I was hoping to get some insight on what you're looking for to prove the article's case. I see that the articles on CircleMUD and even "MUD client" have survived the delete button, yet they both have have signficantly less information contained and virtually no references. I even see in your guidelines where the organization's own site can't be used to prove relevance and yet that's the only site CircleMUD uses. This was confusing.

Now let me be clear. I -do- think that both CircleMUD and MUD client both have a place in the Wikipedia Encyclopedia. They're both very historically relevant, as is JediMUD. It's simply been a challenge to see where this article falls behind them. This is where I'm hoping to understand the Wikipedia perspective and desires a bit more.

Thank you, Dutch B Dutch B (talk) 23:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Dutch B. First to explain what has happened with the article - when it was created it was, as you know, tagged for speedy deletion. This is a very quick and dirty process designed to quickly remove inappropriate (in the widest possible sense) content. In this case the article was tagged as failing to assert notability. As the reviewing administrator I decided that the article did in fact assert notability and therefore declined to delete it. However.... whilst it asserted notability I was not sure whether JediMUD was actually notable and therefore sent it for a deletion debate. This is a community process which lasts five days and gives all editors a chance to pitch in with their opinions and to try to reach as consensus as to whether the article meets Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. I would strongly urge you to participate in the debate which can be found at WP:Articles for deletion/JediMUD. The key focus of the discussion will be around whether the article meets the criteria laid down in WP:WEB which is the specific inclusion/notability guideline for web content. WP:WEB requires JediMUD to have been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works e.g. newspaper articles, documentaries etc etc collectively referred to as reliable sources. In an open project with approaching 3 million articles, try as we may there are always going to be sub-standard entries either that have slipped under the radar or that date from a time when perhaps quantity was valued over quality - someone will get round to them someday, that's for sure, just can't say when! So, regarding the final part of your question, when we are considering article we try to do it on their own merits rather that justifying inclusion by saying X exists so Y ought to as well (or vice versa). Hope this helps a little to explain, and please do hop over to the deltion discussion and add your two penn'th. Kind regards, nancy ^talk 08:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)