User talk:Nihiltres/Archive-31

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions on Nihiltres' user talk page, as archived on November 4, 2009. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

STAREWELL deletion?[edit]

Hey,

Just wondering why you deleted our band's Wikipedia page? Apparently, we were flagged as 'unnotable', which is probably accurate in Montreal, but we do have two national top 20 rock singles to our credit. I could care less about whether we have a page or not, but the junior high student (fan) that created the page for her school project is certainly crushed. By the way, I am a science student as well at the U of C, I am currently taking my PhD in Neuroscience at the U of C, what's your major?

thanks, Brett

An anonymous user with the IP address 82.81.228.116 nominated the page for deletion via proposed deletion, leaving the rationale I quoted in my deletion summary. Proposed deletion means that if no one contests the deletion within seven days, the page is deleted. That was the case, so I deleted it; proposed deletion is fairly mechanical.
I can undelete the page on request: if someone contests a proposed deletion at any time, even after the page is deleted, the basis for the proposed deletion fails. The page can still be deleted through other processes, usually Articles for deletion.
If you can substantiate the "two national top 20 rock singles", though, you probably meet the music notability guidelines even if you don't meet the general notability guideline. That would greatly help in keeping the article around if/when it is restored or recreated.
I'm studying chemistry. :) {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 11:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey,

By substantiate I presume you mean find an on-line source that verifies that our singles did achieve top 20? I have printed copies (physical) of charting numbers, but the online radio tracking systems that keep record of this sort of thing are only relevant for the year in which the single charts. For example, our two singles in question, "broke and out of money" (2008) and "blurrier" (2006) no longer have a reference to top 20, because it is now 2009. Suggestions?

Brett

An online source would be nice, but the key isn't that, it's verifiability. "Can some random person from the Internet confirm independently the assertions made here?" is the question to be asking. In this case no, your printed copies aren't a good source, sorry. :/ {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 15:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Remember, also, that I can restore the article on request; I'm just suggesting that it would be ideal to have a decent source to add upon undeletion, so that the article could survive any further discussions. It isn't necessary to provide them for undeletion.

Hey,

Yeah, the problem with radio charts is they are only valuable 'right now'! I did find a couple articles that have reference to our charting numbers... this one is from 2006 for "blurrier"

http://talentfilter.blogspot.com/search?q=starewell

And this one is from 2008 before "Broke and out of money" peaked...

http://calmardan.blogspot.com/2008/07/review-starewell-broke-and-out-of-money.html

Does this help strengthen our case?

thanks, Brett

It helps a little, but blogs and other user-generated content aren't the best sources for a Wikipedia article. The best things would be things like newspapers, or other "official" reviews of your work. There's a certain irony in that Wikipedia, a user-generated website, won't take other user-generated content as sources in general, but it's necessary if there's to be any "proof" that something is true. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 16:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey,

Thanks for all your info. You know what, just leave the page down for now. When our next single charts and there are fresh reviews online from non-user generated websites, maybe I'll revist this, or someone else will.

I was more interested in defending a fans efforts than reserecting the page. As you can imagine, you do make enemies in this business and especially with other bands. That would be my guess for who nominated the page in the first place.

Best of luck with your chemistry studies!

cheers, Brett

Why delete the article "Leslie Urdang" ?[edit]

My subject question is rhetorical, for I find it surprising to read the following:

  23:21, 14 September 2009 Nihiltres (talk | contribs) deleted "Leslie Urdang"
  (Expired PROD, concern was: Does not seem to meet WP:CREATIVE.)

As I do not preoccupy myself with Wikipedia, your censure escaped my notice, so I offered no protest - until I discovered the article's deletion just today.

Urdang is the subject of over a hundred articles in the Google news archive. This includes about 10 in "The New York Times", including several in which she is quoted or her biography or person is the subject of detailed scrutiny.

As a producer, a film's business leader, Urdang can never earn an Oscar from the American Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences herself. But in producing films she has worked with many top-tier actors and actresses, including at least 9 who have won or were nominated (sometimes multiple times) for Oscars. This includes Al Pacino, the Hollywood legend whose Wikipedia article writes: "He won the Academy Award for Best Actor in 1992 for his role in Scent of a Woman after receiving seven previous nominations."

More than once, when her films went into DVD release, they were in the top 50 rentals throughout the United States for months on end. Mo, she has never produced a blockbuster like the US box-office leader "Titanic" ($600 million), but "A Midsummer Night's Dream" took in a very respectable $16 million.

Urdang's current film, "Adam" - whose Wikipedia article you have not seen fit to assert merits elimination - won the Alfred P. Sloan Prize at the famed Sundance Film Festival, which only screened 118 films from an overwhelming 3,661 submissions this year.

Her impact on Broadway has been even more impressive. Two of her plays have won Tony awards, among others. With two partners, she created the acclaimed play (and film) incubator, the "New York Stage and Film" company in 1985. While its annual budget was "only" a half million dollars by 2001 (source: New York Times) its Powerhouse Summer Theater Program - which this leading paper of America's theater capital calls "the living symbol of a nurturing place for serious theater artists" has attracted, it reports, "Meryl Streep, Sam Waterston, Steve Martin, Jules Feiffer, Christine Lahti and Christopher Durang, among starry others..." In 2004 the same paper stated that the program had grown to "55 apprentices and more than 200 actors, in contrast with 16 and 10 in 1985."

Urdang is far more than just a wheeler-dealer and manager, for she seems to be respected in the artistic community. Says Acadeny-Award nominee Amy Irving about her part in the new film "Adam" - "To tell the truth, I took the role because Leslie (Urdang, one of Adam's producers) was Joan Micklin Silver's assistant on Crossing Delancey." (Source: Huffington Post)

Urdang is am important player in America's theater and film industry, with credential many colleagues would envy. What more would you ask of ANY film and Broadway producer to merit an article in "Wikipedia"?

I plan to repost the article and will defend it against critics. I hope I have now persuaded you of the merits of the posting, and that you will support this reposting against any new potential critic. Thanks for your kind consideration.

While I must caution you against using such an effusive tone when you edit the article (so as to satisfy Wikipedia's policy of neutral point of view), the article was deleted by proposed deletion and so your protest of the deletion means that the page can be undeleted (I've done so). Please remember that I did not advocate deletion of the article: I merely carried out the deletion once the proposed deletion period was complete. You suggest that a number of references are available; I would appreciate if you'd integrate them into the now-undeleted article. There's a guide on how to footnote sources available. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 16:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the article after reading my protest. I am confused: if you did not advocate deletion of the article, who did?

Please understand that in lodging a protest against an attack on Urdang as unworthy of an article, I was put in the position of an advocate, not a jurist. At the same time, you'll note my argument above was QUANTITATIVE (I'm am applied physics PhD) and not merely a matter of unsubstantiated opinion. And is it really my doing if "The Old Grey Lady" (The New York Times), one of the most respected (Noam Chomsky notwithstanding) journals in the world, uses an "effusive tone" in describing Urdang's accomplishments? I'm just quoting - not spinning.

I do plead guilty to calling Al Pacino (N.B. not Urdang) a legend - I'd do that for any actor/actress with eight Academy Award nominations. Thespians whose names are known by most theater fans during their careers not infrequently go without even a single nomination, much less a win like Pacino enjoyed.

The article I submitted has many citations, but I can add more as I find the time. Do you agree it is useful for me to copy the advocacy I stated above into the "discussion" section of the page itself? Thanks.

Clubmarx proposed the deletion of the article, as you can see in the history of the now-undeleted article. As for the tone of the article: even if the New York Times is effusive in its praise of someone, it doesn't mean Wikipedia should be. Wikipedia can, however, describe such an authoritative source as having been so enthusiastic, and give relevant quotes, so long as the purpose of those quotes is not to slant the article but to objectively describe the fact that people tend to like that person. It's a tricky balancing act. :) Yes, go ahead and copy that material to the talk page if you like: it has potential to be integrated into the article, with a few adjustments. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 16:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Creating a wiki page[edit]

hello i am creating a wiki page of reference for Ian Cattell of The Australian Pink Floyd Show. i understand that The Australian Pink Floyd Show already has a page. the page i would like to create is based on ian cattell as a member as well as other references and facts similar to what you would see on Lars Ulrich's wiki page. I am so lost though on how to start to create a page in my sandbox and how to set it up. is there a format page where you just edit and go from there? (Tapfs fan (talk) 00:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC))

You'd want to start the article at User:Tapfs fan/Ian Cattell. I'm not aware of a default formatting page, sorry. Just start writing… or if you like you can take a look at what other articles have to get an idea of where to start. Add a copy of {{Infobox musical artist}} ( using the documentation at that link) and bold the first instance of Mr. Cattell's name using '''a pair of three apostrophes, like this'''. Separate the article into a lead section and subsections according to suymmary style, and properly footnote it where applicable. I recommend, if you haven't already, to enable the beta features using the link at the top of the page—the beta toolbar has a fold-out "Help" section with all the basic syntax. If there's anything else I can help you with, don't hesitate to ask! {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 16:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

great thank you so much for your help =) (Tapfs fan (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC))

Skyscraper Project[edit]

Hiya.

You deleted Skyscraper Project previously, following my PROD; it's been recreated, and was PROD again, but I've changed that to AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skyscraper Project.

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  18:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't particularly mind either way, but I might delete the article at the end of the AfD period, based on how the discussion is going so far… {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 16:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Macroprosopus article[edit]

I'm late to this, I know... If you've not done so already, you might want to check the former Macroprosopus article against the existing Zeir Anpin article, since their content was much the same.

Propose it for deletion, then! I'm not going to delete a page out of process just because it is similar to another, sorry. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 16:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Why Antiopic got deleted[edit]

Why http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiopic got deleted, which can be accessed via http://wapedia.mobi/en/Antiopic

Antiopic is an independent record label located in Chicago, Illinois. It was started in New York City in 2002 by David Daniell and James Elliott.

The independent record label publishes many notable musicians, the AFD should have been strictly rejected. instead WP:CORP WP:MUSIC applies to the article.

I am objecting deletion. I wasn't around in wikipedia, not aware of the AFD nomination. Why even there is such a nomination for deletion for an independent record label. Is there any link for AFD page. Kasaalan (talk) 11:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Also if you provide me the source codes of the article, I will try to add more references for it. Kasaalan (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
The article wasn't sent to Articles for deletion (AfD), it was deleted via proposed deletion (PROD). There's no deletion page, since PROD just uses a straightforward nomination–deletion scheme on the article page, where if no one objects within 7 days (168 hours) the article automatically qualifies for deletion. Now, if someone objects after the fact, the article can be undeleted, so I've done so. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 16:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Independent record labels don't have much coverage in popular media. Yet the article contains valuable info for music enthusiasts. Does proposed deletion is a new process, I didn't know such a process in wikipedia. Kasaalan (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Proposed deletion has been around since early 2006; it's a relatively quiet, straightforward way to delete pages that don't qualify for speedy deletion but would be uncontroversial deletions at AfD. The PROD process is much simpler than AfD, so it helps reduce backlog there. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 15:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of "Skullfunked"[edit]

You deleted this article?? This is a legitimate band, that tours around New England. Please re-list this article.

I've undeleted ("re-listed") the article. Since the article was deleted via proposed deletion, it's quite reasonable for it to be restored on request. :) {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 16:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Email[edit]

Hi there. I just sent you an email. Amsaim (talk) 11:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I've replied by email. It looks like the issue's already resolved. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 15:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
thanks very much for your assistance. Amsaim (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: respelling[edit]

Truth be told, I'm just going through all the element articles adding them. Glad you like it though. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

How are you?[edit]

Haven't seen you (or an edit of yours) for a long time.

Perhaps you can clean up those 2 blemishes on Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates? Debresser (talk) 20:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been busy offline. Not as fun as Wikipedia, perhaps, but more necessary. :/ {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 16:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC) (iPod edit)
Ok. Nice to know all is well. I've been very busy here, working of Category:Items to be merged, Category:Deprecated templates, Category:Pages using deprecated templates, and now with Tfd templates. Unfortunately, I don't have a real-life job. Debresser (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Request[edit]

Hello, saw you recently A7'ed Dorothy Allen. Can you please restore it based on this writeup, which should make her notability clear? Thanks Chubbles (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Paul Traub Page[edit]

It was agreed this fellow, a notorious lawyer who worked with Marc Dreier was notable. i would appreciate you resurrecting the page as it was so new facts may be included. thanx.

Furtive admirer (talk) 00:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Since the page was deleted by proposed deletion, sure, I've undeleted it. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 03:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It feels strange being deleted . . .[edit]

Nihiltres --

Saw you deleted the Craig Dezern entry. That's me. I don't really know who created it, though I do have my suspicions and am certain my niece's husband added the fact that my first name is Stanley, which I don't use.

Anyway, there's no need to add me back in the mix, but I do wonder how long a deleted Wikipedia entry will show up as one of the top three hits when my name is googled. (Which is not as vain as it may sound. I am in PR and do need to check where I've been quoted.) It's a little humbling to have that as a top hit.

Best,

Craig Dezern

I'm pretty sure that your entry should disappear from Google within a day or two; that's their (Google's) system entirely so I'm not familiar with the update schedule. Since the page was deleted by proposed deletion, you can always request that it be undeleted, too; I'd be perfectly willing to restore the page (something many people asking about proposed deletions seem not to realize is that I merely quote the concern given, not write it myself). If you need any other Wikipedia-related help (short of PR business, naturally :) ) please don't hesitate to ask. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 04:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

why was the Loose Logic page deleted?[edit]

i am the artist loose logic.. and did not create the page.. i happened to stumble upon it a few years ago via google.. and today i came on to see it gone? i dont understand why.. please let me know.. and if possible put it back.

thanks - Loose Logic

Pentadecimal proposed it for deletion. Proposed deletion is a process whereby a page's deletion is justified if no one objects to the deletion after 7 days (168 hours). Once that time was up, no one had visibly objected to the proposition, so I deleted the page. I'll undelete the page—proposed deletions can be overturned on request—but I'm honestly not sure that you or your music are notable enough for inclusion, and I think it might be good to delete the article again.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against you or your music: I'm merely unsure if there are, in fact, enough reliable sources independent of you which make non-trivial mention of you for there to eventually exist a decent Wikipedia article about you. Wikipedia "notability" is all about being able to find sources, as laid out in the general notability guideline. If you don't pass the general notability guideline, there's always a chance that you might pass the music-specific notability guideline, which would override that.
I'll start a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Loose Logic. Feel free to weigh in there. It would be particularly helpful if you could point people to reviews of your work, news articles about you, or examples of charting songs. Cheers, {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 14:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


okay.. i added some links .. i dunno if thats what u were looking for.. please let me know

Those links look like a good start. I've been pretty busy lately, but I'll try to get around to integrating some of those into the text and noting them at the deletion discussion. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 02:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Deviates thread[edit]

Hi, Looks like you've removed a Wiki page for the band Deviates. Strange choice, they were signed to the large independant label Epitaph, and although they weren't around for a massive amount of time, they released two albums and had a fairly big following.

That one's a while back, I had to search for it! The page Deviates (band) was nominated for deletion by Nouse4aname using the proposed deletion process. I quoted their deletion reason in the deletion summary. Essentially, proposed deletion is used for uncontroversial deletions: if the proposed deletion notice doesn't attract any opposition within 7 days*, the page is deleted without further discussion. (*This was changed a while ago from 5 days; the Deviates page had 5 days notice.) Since the page had had its time without any objections, I deleted it: that simple. I don't particularly mind either way whether the article exists.
If you like, I can restore the article—articles deleted via proposed deletion can be restored on request. I can't guarantee that it won't be deleted again, however: the best assurance against deletion would be some cited sources, e.g. of reviews or news items about the band. Wikipedia is very specific about what counts about "notability": a "big following" alone isn't enough, mentions in reliable media are what's important. This is laid out in the general notability guideline and the music-specific notability guideline.
Cheers, {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 23:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of SAO Clan Wikipedia Aricle[edit]

Hi there.

I see our clan's wikipedia article has been deleted due to "non-notable" gaming clan, which I find an absolute joke. Could we please have this re-instated please? It's strange that someone can just "request it for deletion" and unless i object, it gets deleted. How am i supposed to know if it IS getting deleted? i never received any emails informing me it was going to be deleted, its not an article I myself would read again and again every day and therefore come back to check to see if its still there.

Either way, i'd appreciate this very much if you could reinstate our page please, it will be updated in the future (it was up to date) as it reflects the notable growth that SAO has achieved and is achieving all the time. Especially now that we are entering semi pro competitions.

Thanks Bigc90210 (talk) 16:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll undelete the page (as articles deleted by proposed deletion can be undeleted on request), but I'd really appreciate if you'd try to add some sort of sourcing to the article—"notable" on Wikipedia is not as much about some qualitative measure of importance as whether or not there are multiple independent, reliable sources describing the subject. By that measure, I cannot tell that your gaming clan is "notable" at all. Remember, the undeletion doesn't guarantee that the article won't be deleted again. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 15:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Best Way Stone Limited[edit]

Hi there, I was wondering why Best Way Stone was deleted. There are many external sources that reference the company, including: http://www.everestsupply.com/bestway.htm http://homestars.com/companies/197613-best-way-stone-ltd http://www.rockvalleynaturalstone.com/precast.php

as well as others, and many listing services list the company. This company is in no less standing that another company that does have an acceptable Wikipedia page, Rinox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rinox_Pavers). If you could please let me know why they have an acceptable claim to relevance while Best Way Stone does not, that would be much appreciated.

Sincerely, Jeff

Jpacitto (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Jeff Oct 16 2009

Best Way Stone Limited was deleted by proposed deletion, meaning that some other user tagged the page for deletion, thinking it would be relatively uncontroversial. After seven days, there had been no visible objection to the deletion, so I went ahead and deleted the page. This is the normal process. The deletion summary I left includes a truncated version of the deletion rationale given; I noted the truncation with the text […].
The sources that you give here are inadequate for Wikipedia. Wikipedia looks for multiple independent, non-trivial, reliable sources to justify the inclusion of an article—if said sources don't exist or can't be found, a Wikipedia article on the subject can't improve, can't be raised to the standards we'd like—so we tend to delete such articles. Having reviewed the sources you gave, I can say the following:
  • The Everest Supply link is not useful because it is neither independent (Best Way Stone is a supply partner to them) nor non-trivial (the only real information I can get there is that Best Way Stone has been making "concrete products since 1965").
  • The HomeStars link is not useful because it is not a reliable source; also, the independence of the subject from this source is unclear. Can business owners post profiles on HomeStars? If so, it also likely fails the independence criterion.
  • The Rock Valley Natural Stone link is unhelpful similarly to the Everest Supply link: it is neither independent nor non-trivial.
I'm sorry to be shooting you down like this, but those links don't meet Wikipedia's standards.
The Rinox Pavers case is an interesting one, but I should point out that the existence of other, similar articles is not a case for the inclusion of the article in question. I'll review the Rinox page—it may very well be that that page does not meet Wikipedia's standards either, in which case it should be deleted, too.
If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 15:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Note: Having reviewed the Rinox article, I've proposed that it, too, be deleted. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 15:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Rfa invitation[edit]

I was nominated for administrator position and would appreciate your comments here. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 08:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Editnotices[edit]

Hi
Editnotices are already protected by the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist, so there is normally no need to explicitly protect them. I say "normally" because users in the "accountcreator" group are exempt from titleblacklist restrictions, but those are usually somewhat trusted users. If one is being used in a highly visible MediaWiki message, like {{Editnotices/Page/New article name here‎}}, I agree that explicit protection is warranted, but I wasn't quite as careless when transcluding it as it may have looked. :)
Cheers, Amalthea 13:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that's interesting, I didn't know that the title blacklist could be used to apply protection that way. Thanks for letting me know, and be assured that I wasn't thinking that you had been careless or made a mistake—I just noticed that the page wasn't protected and did the usual routine. :) Perhaps it might be a good idea to transclude a notice by default to editnotice templates that they're auto-protected by the software in that way, or simply {{pp-template}}? {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 14:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Good idea, I'll look into building a documentation template for them. Cheers, Amalthea 14:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of 'Labor output and Material output norms / Labor and Material Productivity ' ?[edit]

Hi! I understand that my article was categorized as 'uneencyclopedic', to overcome this I was preparing the detail subject related data bank, which I would have uploaded today but you have deleted the article. I request re-listing of the article so that I can make truly encyclopedic and then you may have another look at it before deleting. Sukh

I can't guarantee that the article won't be deleted again, but I've undeleted it for now. Have at it! :) {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 14:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Request to relist "Roanoke Park (Seattle)"[edit]

This was recently deleted, and as I recall had some history of the park, and is now the only park from the "List of parks in Seattle" not to have a wikipedia page.

thanks for your time, Jody Biggs

I've undeleted the article for you. I can't guarantee that it won't be deleted again, but it's up for now. :) Cheers, {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 20:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: chem template won't split at line breaks anymore[edit]

That was an unexpected a nice surprise - to see something fixed even though I did not bother to ask :-) But. There was a revert at one page, which I can dig out if necessary. The argument was that the template puts subscripts and superscripts in chemicals exactly one above another whereas IUPAC "says" they should be shifted. I've looked up IUPAC and they indeed list them shifted as en example, but I'm still unsure if it because they simply couldn't type it vertical in pdf. I can probably help finding back the IUPAC pdf, it was something quickly googled. If serious, this might be worth posting at WP:CHEM Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

If IUPAC standard is to have it shifted, I suppose we ought to change the template. I'd just need to be sure which format is desirable! {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 02:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Good point. I would just keep using the template and if the question reappears, bring it to WP:CHEM, agree on changes and implement them in the template. Materialscientist (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Missing: Internationale in Chinese[edit]

I'm concerned over the deletion of the "Internationale in Chinese" article. Your note indicates that it is not standard procedure to have an article focusing on the translation of a song into other language. However, I think the unique historical evolution and strong influence of the Internationale in communist and non-communist regimes justifies having some articles about the Internationale in other languages. First, the lyrics in Chinese are very different from the British or US lyrics, as noted in the Internationale article. I feel that there is a strong enough history of the Internationale in China to warrant its own page or at least to have the Chinese lyrics included in the main article's page. The lyrics were sung by Mao and his followers in the early years of the Chinese communist movement and protestors at Tiananmen in 1989 used the song as their own rallying cry. There was also a notable Chinese band popular in the 1980s called "Tang Dynasty" that covered the song.

I was really hoping to have access to the pinyin of the Chinese lyrics, but I guess for now I will have to find the information from somewhere other than wikipedia.

I'm not too concerned about the deletion: the concern given is not mine, but that of the nominator, TreasuryTag. My involvement was solely to carry out the actual act of deletion after 7 days passed without a visible objection to deletion. Since proposed deletion (the process by which that page was deleted) should be reversed on request, I've gone ahead and undeleted the page for you. Hopefully that will be satisfactory. :) {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 14:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Request to relist Easy Projects .NET[edit]

I noticed that Easy Projects .NET was deleted because of an expired PROD. I was not aware of the PROD on the article and wish to have it back up so appropriate changes can be made.

I've undeleted the page for you. Go ahead and improve it. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 20:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Nihiltres, I have made the necessary changes to the article, and would appreciate if you could review and provide feedback as I would like to avoid removal in the future and would greatly value your opinion. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xbammy (talkcontribs) 18:30, October 26, 2009 (UTC)
First of all, you've done well by adding some citations. That is an immediate boost to the article's credibility. The citations used, though, seem to be partly blogs—which aren't so useful, and some of the coverage may be interrelated, which lowers their collective worth. In general, adding more citations never hurts, and you might want to double-check the reliable sources guideline.
Second, you should focus on removing or modifying potentially promotional material. For example, the article says that "[some part of the subject] compares favorably with desktop applications such as Microsoft Project" and provides a citation. While the source does indeed say that, as an opinion, it should be attributed: who says that it "compares favourably"? Wikipedia's neutral point of view prevents it from being reasonable to simply repeat the claim. You might also want to consider refactoring the list of features somehow—it comes across as spammy, and reworking it into prose, or simply removing it, might be a good idea.
Overall, your priority should be to ensure neutrality and verifiability in the article. Cheers, {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 01:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Request Reassessment of Phil Tadros[edit]

Hi, Nihiltres. I revised the Phil Tadros article substantially to address your {{advert}} tag, as well as the other notability tag. Could you reassess this article, please? Thank you. Trustcitedonce (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The article now looks good enough that I've removed the tags in question. You could certainly have removed them yourself, but I do appreciate the idea of getting someone else to review one's changes. :) {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 20:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)