User talk:Oakshade/Archive 2

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

Contents

Scorpions redirect[edit]

Scorpion is the general term, and that goes direct to the arthropod, as it should. Every single existing link (dozens of them) to Scorpions means the German band. Every article writer who linked to Scorpions thought they were linking to an article about the band. Not a single writer about any other type of scorpion was presented with a problem by this redirect. Colonies Chris 16:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It is long standing Wikipedia precedent that plural versions of terms that have a Wikipedia article or disambiguation pages be re-directed to the primary term page. Besides, the frist 2 pages (19 listings) of Google search results for "scorpions" brings up 13 related to the arthropod and 6 are related to the German band. "Scorpions" is just as much of a general term with multiple meanings as "scorpion." [1] --Oakshade 17:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Etuvluk River[edit]

Hi Oakshade,

I just wanted to let you know that I replied to your message at the above, and I'm genuinely keen to learn whether you think my interpretation is reasonable. It looks like the consensus is to keep the article, but I think this is worth discussing nevertheless. Best wishes, Jakew 21:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I responded there too. --Oakshade 22:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:CLIN-226SA.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:CLIN-226SA.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Caitlin Upton[edit]

Hi there; I have no more to say about this article or its deletion review. But I will just point out, as I have done on the review page, that it was not I who ultimately deleted the article, althoughj I was the penultimate person to do so. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Since the discussion was archived and the result was keep, I see your point in the deletion review of Caitlin Upton. However, my reasoning was from a previous article on Justin Seay which was merged into the Borat article, for the reasons that the subject had no notability outside of the film. However, I now understand the difference here, as the pageant was only part of the reason Caitlin Upton became well known. It doesn't really bother me, since I don't have much of a liking as to the place where she's from (I'm also from there). Note that this didn't influence my vote, as someone suggested my comment regarding the "other stuff exists" argument be thrown out as it was "biased and unwanted"; rather, I try to stop the steady flow of insignificant internet memes that seem to pollute Wikipedia. Previously, I'd heard about it on a local radio station, but didn't think much of it since South Carolina radio stations typically report on such news frequently. As of this point, I think Caitlin Upton is becoming forgotten, yet she still gained notoriety before this happened. Zchris87v 08:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

tavia yeung[edit]

Hi there! Sorry to bother you, I've just noticed your message concerning the link tavia.org at tavia yeung, please could you kindly adivse as I would like to add in the link and I don't understand why the other websites can be posted but this one can't. Thank you so much and sorry that i am not used to the wiki rules yet:) (Lissychan 17:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC))

I think a link to a fan site is fine as long as its sole purpose is e-commerce (ie selling stuff). --Oakshade 21:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Upton[edit]

Hi,

You may write a new reliably-sourced draft on the talk page. My hands are tied by the ArbCom's decision in the Badlydrawnjeff case, which stated that BLP concerns needed to be kept from public view unless there was a clear consensus that all edits complied with that policy. The resulting procedure for AfDs reflects much compromise, and has been implemented before. One has five days to write a better draft for the AfD. Best wishes, Xoloz 02:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curzon Street[edit]

Can you please revisit this discussion. I have done some digging and have found that the street has a very prestigious history, which I have added to the article, including several references. I believe the page is now of a quality whereby it should be kept. -- Roleplayer 22:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NFL_on_Fox_logo.gif[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:NFL_on_Fox_logo.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ~ Wikihermit 02:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Cork Street deletion review[edit]

Hi, just wanted to give you the heads up that I have listed Cork Street for deletion review, based on the fact that no consensus was reached in the deletion discussion. I am writing this message to all contributors of the discussion, whether they voted keep or delete. -- Roleplayer 23:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Tony Pierce[edit]

And the "GNAA" ref is supposed to tell me what, exactly?

In any case, if you want to waste the time, I've made a new nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Pierce (actor).

Being an actor in Dances with Wolves and The Bodyguard is an assertion of notability.

Yes, everyone remembers his groundbreaking roles as "Corporal Spivey" and "Dan". Wikipedia not being the Directory of Actors Who Probably Haven't Quit Their Day Jobs, this should have been speedied in the first place. --Calton | Talk 03:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The GNAA ref was just for background information about the previous Tony Pierce AfDs. Nothing imperative. --Oakshade 03:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:1989 07.jpg)[edit]

Nuvola apps important blue.svg Thanks for uploading Image:1989 07.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


Lost Boys of Polygamy[edit]

Thanks for working on the Lost Boys of Polygamy article. I started it a LONG time ago, and somebody just sent me a link to add to the article. I notice that it's already added. Greenw47 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenw47 (talkcontribs) 16:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:German WWII Frieght Train.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Thanks for uploading Image:German WWII Frieght Train.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Searles Valley Minerals Inc.[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

A tag has been placed on Searles Valley Minerals Inc., requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD a7.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. TheBressman 04:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagreed with the speedy deletion tag placed on the article, so I removed it. From the content that's there so far, the company appears to have some notability and coverage in external sources. There might be room in the article to make more of a case for notability, but it seems like some people are quick on the draw to place speedy deletion tags. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
As per messages received in regards to suspicious speedy deletion tagging, I apologise for said actions and will read and review Wikipedia's speedy deletion policy more closely for future patrolling of new pages. Thank you for the clarification --TheBressman 07:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Brian Barish[edit]

Hi there. This article, which you created, has been nominated for speedy deletion, and such nomination has been contested. I suggest that you add more cites, and add information in the summary to assert the subject's notability, in order to rescue the article. Bearian 20:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not put the tag there. I was just trolling the CAT page and noticed that an experienced user, you, had worked on it. I'll place rescue tags on it. Bearian 21:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I think you are getting into ownership issues. :-) Anybody else can edit it now. Bearian 21:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:A nice cup of tea and a sit down. Bearian 21:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Nah, only focused on getting an inappropriate speedy tag removed. As for editing, I'm certainly not going to stand in the way of improvements. --Oakshade 21:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:NFL on Fox logo.gif)[edit]

Nuvola apps important blue.svg Thanks for uploading Image:NFL on Fox logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD close[edit]

... yes, of course, because "REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THE AFD" is nowhere clear or conspicuous enough.  :-) Thanks for fixing my boo-boo. — Coren (talk) 04:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the CSD removal[edit]

Thanks for the CSD removal on the Thomas M. Jacobs. I greatly appreciate it. Chris 21:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

  • No prob. The speedy tag was inappropriate. --Oakshade 22:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Phillip Torres[edit]

Circle-style-warning.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Phillip Torres, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phillip Torres. Thank you. Anarchia 04:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of compositions by Franz Liszt (S.1 - S.350)[edit]

Oakshade, first, AGF. Second, I'm neither a troll, nor out to make a point. I know who Liszt is, and I agree he' famous. (DISCLOSURE: I'm a classically trained pianist :) ) I'm asking for that list to be deleted because it's a list only, not an article, and per WP:NOT#DIR it states:

Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote.

The page of Lizst is just that, a page of loosely associated topics, which is expressly forbidden by Wiki. The page, the way it stands now, meets this definition, and because of this, cannot remain as such. That simple. No trolling or WP:POINT. Thanks KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 18:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Please become familiar with the following statement from WP:NOT#DIR:
Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List.
And this isn't at all a list of "loosely associated topics", but multiple compositions very specifically associated with the list topic of a famous composer. If you're a trained classical pianist as you say are, you would know that. As stated in the AfD, if you'd like to change WP:NOT#DIR to eliminate all lists, you have to make your case at the WP:NOT talk page, not on specific articles as you are only wasting time of editors (notice that you're the only one in this AfD who wants to delete this article?) as you efforts are looking more like an example of WP:POINT or trolling. --Oakshade 21:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help[edit]

Thanks for your help in saving the Thomas M. Jacobs article from deletion. I greatly appreciate it. Chris 12:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

AfDs[edit]

Hi. RE: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westbourne Studios, I can assure you that I do not have an article, and I am not notable....at all. If you were to take a look at my prior comments on AfD's, you will notice that I am very tough in support of the policy "COI" and even possible COI's. I didn't post this on the AFD because I this whole conversation probably should have happened off-record of that AFD. Make sense? - Rjd0060 21:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

North River[edit]

Oakshade,

I saw your comment in the discussion section of North Fork River:
Just because the article doesn't have sources in it yet, doesn't magically make it not notable. Again Kosh, you're misunderstanding notability guidelines and simply cherrypicking a sentence from one of the guideline pages. The notability tag was removed and if you really feel the Potomac tributary is non-notable, send it to AfD. --Oakshade 16:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:North_River_%28South_Fork_Shenandoah_River%29"
I'm hardly cherry picking, per notability guidelines:


... Oakshade's note, KoshVorlon simply repeats quotes from various notabilty guidelines that we already know, but uses an obnoxious amount of space and boldface to do so. Reduced here so editors don't get a headache by reading my talk page. It's in the history for the curious.... --Oakshade 18:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


I placed a notability tag - which you so kindly removed, to give the author a change to correct the problem.
BTW - I do agree that unreferenced does not always equal not notable!
At this point, I'm replacing the notable tag on the page. I hope you don't go back and change it, as you can see this page fails the notability guideline all the way through. AGF and stop referring to me as "troll", by the way, my edits (except the ones you disagree with!) show otherwise. Thanks KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..."


  • North Fork...again

Oakshade, I saw your note the wikiuser space I occupy: If you truly feel this river is non-notble, send it to AfD as your added notability tag has been repeatedly removed. I am well aware of the notability guidelines. Perhaps you are unaware that WP:NOTE provides for common sense exceptions, like for towns or geographical features. WP:OUTCOMES are examples of those. As WP:NOTABILITY states, "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. " You're failing to understand this. --Oakshade 18:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It fails the Notability guideline, it states no notability therefore, it's not notable. As far as using common sense, I hear you. I've seen article with reference (usually schools) and if they assert notability (famous people attended, it's been around since 18xxx or 17xxx , or something like that, I leave it alone, because that is a no-brainer.) IN this article, no such thing is stated. Again, per guidlines and common sense, it shows no notabilty. And again, I don't have a need to AFD this article, only advise the editor. BTW - the notability guideline doesn't display the exception you stated, it give the guildelines for notability, and although you didn't address this, this article fails those guidelines. Obivously, I'm not going to change the tag back, that would be 3RR on my part! See you around KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 18:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Paul Rodgers[edit]

No problem those comments don't add anything to the discussion and it's an easy thing to do. Operating 01:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:TheLovedOneDVD.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:TheLovedOneDVD.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Loriga's article[edit]

Hi. The user that took Loriga's coat of arms away is doing the same in the Portuguese, Spanish and Turkish wikipedias. He's known best for the vandalism on the same article (and others) in the PT Wikipedia. He keeps doing this because it's not worthy to block an IP. By the way, that is Loriga’s coat of arms as you can see here:

  • [2] – Loriga’s Firefighter company flag
  • [3] – Town administration document

Thanks for keeping an eye on this. Septrya 23:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:German WWII Frieght Train.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:German WWII Frieght Train.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:Manchester Airport[edit]

True, I will also invite many of the people whom have voted in the AFD to decide on whether this huge list should be allowed to clutter up an article giving nothing to it. and-rewtalk 17:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I want to ensure that a wider range of editors can participate in a debate other than the opinion pushing Airport project. and-rewtalk 17:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:TheLovedOneDVD.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:TheLovedOneDVD.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

FranDan AfD[edit]

I just changed by vote on the FranDan AfD to "weak keep". I think the Maxim article is just barely enough to push it over the hump into the realm of encyclopedic and noteworthy, but I think better citations need to be nested in the article as a whole. However I found a controversial item that might warrant inclusion because unlike the "uses other people's costume" controversy, this one can be properly cited from a reliable news source. See the talk page on the article. --Kensuke Aida (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Just an interesting thought to ponder...[edit]

If a generally reliable newspaper decided to publish a series of articles titled "Random Person of the Month", in which they detailed the life of someone completely non-notable, would that be sufficient to justify an article on that person on Wikipedia? —gorgan_almighty (talk) 10:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:German WWII Frieght Train.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:German WWII Frieght Train.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:German WWII Frieght Train.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:German WWII Frieght Train.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 00:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

john edwards endorments[edit]

The reasons for the removal are:

A bright blue box looks out of place
the other articles for candidents do not have lists of endorsments so it makes the article seam abit biased
its a list
it messes up the top box

and it would have been nice to give an explanation of your disagreement on the talk page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.151.180 (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

1. A blue box for collapsed text is standard in Wikipedia articles. 2. The other candidates articles DO have lists of endorsements. See them at Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 and Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. 3. Lists are permitted and even have guidelines; WP:LISTS. 4. If you feel it "messes up the top box", that's a reason for clean-up, not deleting content. --Oakshade (talk) 01:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

A bit of help with some vandalism please[edit]

Would you have a quick loook at Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow's article - you'll see what I believe to be some vandalism. If you are willing, I'd be grateful if you would revert it. ~--James.lebinski (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It was vandalism and I gave the user a warning. A vandalism report will be made if the user (or a sock) does it again. --Oakshade (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Please see the edit to Gladys' discussion page. This is so ridiculous! Can you discern the wood from the trees here? Or does mankind's finest enterprise in assembling human knowledge since the library of Alexandria and Britannica, have to be dragged through the dirt, such seeds of destruction such as Gladys being protected by WP:Political Correctness with its myriad rules and regulations, until there is nothing left except just another example of the great American freak show? Monosig (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and I might add that User:James.lebinski has contributed nothing to Wikipedia to date except endless edits and lobbying entries for Gladys and a semi-fictitious article called Business Technology Management in September 2006. I'm not saying that he should be doing anything, but it is clear that Gladys is his sole raison d'etre as a Wiki user and that his requesting "protection" from "vandalism" is an abuse of the real spirit of Wikipedia (as distinct from its much-later-developed labyrinth of rules). Anyway, if you guys do let this decline continue, at least some of us have the non-English versions of Wikipedia to retreat to. In my case, the highly-qualitative Hebrew version. Gladys would never be tolerated there! Monosig (talk) 13:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

External map service links[edit]

Hello. You have been identified as having added or removed direct external map service links in articles[4]. There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:External links#Issues with inclusion or exclusion of map service links about which should be done, and some more opinions would be good to find community consensus. --Para (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability of non-playing footballers (AfD:Paul Rodgers (footballer))[edit]

Hello! You contributed to AfD:Paul Rodgers by voting to keep him. As you may know, WP:FOOTY is currently working to finalize a Notability criteria. One of the points of the current suggestion that are still being debated is more or less a translation of AfD:Paul Rodgers. I'm now trying to come up with a suggestion that summarizes this AfD, and would like you to comment on my interpretation of your arguments, and perhaps even discuss a suggestion. Thank you! Sebisthlm (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Leilani31.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Leilani31.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lapa Church[edit]

I posted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lapa Church only after searching for and not finding reference for the article. As you know the Portuguese Wikipedia article as it is a wiki is not a valid reference so it would not be appropriate to add to the article. If you beleive that the other link you mentioned qualifies as a WP:RS for the article Lapa Church would you add it? I am not familiar with the publication or the language so would not be able to make that judgment. Jeepday (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Fowlers Hollow Run[edit]

Howdy there. It's not that I run around trying to delete every article in sight that might not meet the threshold, but that when an article is created it might be a good idea to create it in such a way there notability is asserted. Someone can create an article on a sub-userpage so that someone won't tag it for deletion which is probably a safer idea than it being "in the wild" where it will be edited mercilessly. Anyhow, I am sorry for the speed in which I nominated it. I will not be as quick in the future when it's such a new article. Bstone (talk) 04:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Source of the river of Svijaga[edit]

I have commented on the points of view expressed in this AfD on the above page, and explained my actions. Whilst the nominations were made in good faith, they were not necessarily made with sufficient understanding. As I have read more and more policies, my over-zealousness has decreased and I am looking more to article improvement from Recent Changes than deletion. My apologies for this AfD, which I am trying to have withdrawn. Any other comments you might have, please comment on my talk page. best wishes - Fritzpoll (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Leilani31.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading Image:Leilani31.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Your comment at DRV[edit]

Hi OS, you appear to be addressing the wrong person (here), WJB laid out reasons to overturn the deletion. Just thought I'd give you a heads up in case you wanted to fix it. R. Baley (talk) 23:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. It can get quite confusing with all the indentations. --Oakshade (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Mill Garden[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

An editor has nominated The Mill Garden, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. 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 "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 by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mill Garden and 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. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Greater Slovenia[edit]

Take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greater Slovenia (2nd nomination). Slovenians try to delete the article Greater Slovenia as if the concept never existed. Please participate in the discussion, the article has been thoroughly sourced. -- Imbris (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for Mediation?[edit]

Hello - you participated in Gavin.collins' Request for Comment, so I am alerting you that we are preparing a Request for Mediation regarding him. BOZ (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am alerting you that we are now considering a Request for Arbitration regarding him as an alternative to mediation, and would like your opinion on the matter. BOZ (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ariane Ascaride[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from pages that you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, then please place {{hangon}} on the page (please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag) and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Erechtheus (talk) 02:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What is improper is the removal of a speedy deletion template by the person who began the article. If you disagree with the use of the template, please feel free to use the hangon template and leave rationale on the talk page. Erechtheus (talk) 02:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm working on a full article, but since you put a Speedy tag on, it's going to be impossible to improve it. --Oakshade (talk) 02:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I see no indication those are wide release films. They're redlinks. This article is indistinguishable from some high school kid who claims to be in four totally made up films (or four actual titled and totally non-notable "films" he uploaded to YouTube). There is no sourcing. That's my rationale for placing the db template. Erechtheus (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
As to it being "impossible" to improve it, that's not true at all. In fact, improving it is the most likely way to make sure it is not deleted. Erechtheus (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't disagree, but when you choose 4 films and they're all redlinks, it arouses my suspicions. With that said, I used the very handy IMDB to verify she is a real actress and have changed the article around a bit. I hope that helps. Erechtheus (talk) 02:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
To follow up, I see you did even more. My intent was never to rush you, btw. I think you'd find that if you are in this situation in the future, the hangon template really will allow you time to work. So will the underconstruction template. In fact, I highly recommend the underconstruction template. I leave articles with that template alone for at least a day. I think most do the same. Erechtheus (talk) 02:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I can see from your user page that this probably isn't the first time you have encountered an editor like me. I want to assure you I wouldn't have been embarrassed if my speedy deletion template were declined. It's a balance between running everything through Google and effectively dealing with the large volume of articles that get started every day. I assure you virtually everybody here is trying to improve the project -- we all just have different talents, interests, and goals. I think and hope we may have both learned from this encounter. Happy editing. Erechtheus (talk) 02:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Even for Wikipedia, I'd submit that there would be nothing to be embarrassed about. This is collaboration at work, warts and all. Personally, I think it's the greatest strength of the project. Erechtheus (talk) 02:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Fact checking and attacks[edit]

Fact checking like this you mean? [5] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 03:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

ps - you may want to check your facts. The crowns of Spain and Portugal were united between the years of 1580-1640. But what's a century between friends? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 03:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
You might want to study your "fifty books" and learn there was a long Portuguese independence war with Spain, known as the Portuguese Restoration War. Wars aren't usually "between friends".--Oakshade (talk) 03:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
You wrote: "Spain did in fact rule Portugal from 1680 to 1740". No, the period you are thinking of was 1580-1640, during the Iberian Union. The Portuguese Restoration War was a war fought between Spain and Portugal after Portugal declared its independence in 1640. I can assure you that you are alone in the world in believing that Spain ruled Portugal from 1680 to 1740. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 03:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
ps, any time you would like to borrow one of my "fifty books", you are welcome to come round. My "fifty books" include several on the Spanish and Portuguese Empires too. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 04:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
You actually just confirmed that Spain ruled the Portugal, so much so that Portugal felt the need to declare its independence. Thanks. --Oakshade (talk) 04:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
So, now you understand the importance of fact checking, and now you have learned something about the Iberian Union, you might want to read this Talk:Spanish_Empire#Reasons_why_the_anachronistic_map_of_the_Spanish_Empire_should_not_show_Portuguese_colonies. You see, I do check my facts, and I don't go off making pretty little maps on the basis of shallow understanding. The situation with Spain/Portugal and their colonies was a lot more complex than "Spain ruled Portugal". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 04:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
You were attacking the validity of of Dutch Wikipedia by attacking a map on Spanish Wikipedia. It was pointless and had nothing to do with the discussion. Yes, the Spain/Portugal histories are very complex and in fact intertwined. But why you choose to discredit Dutch Wikipedia due to a map on Spanish Wikipedia showing Portugal as part of the Spanish Empire, especially since you now admit Portugal was for a time ruled by Spain, is just strange and has wasted a lot of bandwidth.
As far as your attack on the Dutch Wikipedia map allegedly claiming that the Dutch had "vast colonies" in Iran, you were severely mistaken as the map was referring to the Dutch East India company. Further, you were unaware that the VOC had major operations in Iran. Do your reasearch before making claims about something you are not familiar with, despite your claims to the contrary. --Oakshade (talk) 06:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
It's rather difficult holding a rational conversation with you so I shall not attempt to prolong this one any further. Goodbye. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Iran[edit]

You're as bad as that Red4tribe chap. I am not denying, my dear boy, that the VOC had operations in Iran. What I 'am' denying, or at the very least requesting a reputable source for, is that rather large area of coastal Iran that is shaded green. Perhaps you can quote to me, from that source that you have provided, the words which justify that large and exact shading of green? The map on the D.E. page at the Dutch WP is pure original research. I have seen no map from a reputable source that justifies it. Someone has, in their bedroom, been a bit over eager and decided for themselves that the southern coastal portion of Iran was entirely within the theatre of operations of the VOC. Next thing you know, uninformed people like you believe it to be fact. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 03:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

...and just to be clear, I am referring to the map that was on the Dutch page an hour ago [6], prior to Red4tribe's placing of a new map there. Ironically, Red4tribe's new (better) map is the result of several days spent relieving him of exactly the same delusions about sources that you seem to be under. You can see the boring history of it at Talk:Dutch Empire. He had used the ridiculous Dutch version of the map as the basis for the creation of a new one at the English version. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 03:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is some info on what the VOC did in Iran, where they were, and it gives some maps and pictures. http://www.nationaalarchief.nl/AMH/map.aspx?lang=en (Red4tribe (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC))
Yes. But look at that map (a series of dots representing factories and forts), and look at the original map on the Dutch site, and the one you tried to put up on the English site [7]. Does the former justify the latter? No, absolutely not. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 03:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
For operations of the Dutch East India company (not Dutch colonies as you claimed the Iran shading was was indicating), this does seem to correspond with the Iran-area shading on that world map, give or take a rough 100 square miles). --Oakshade (talk) 03:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
So, if I moved in next door to you, took out a map of our street, and proceeded to point out what constituted my property by drawing and filling in a large circle around what the title deeds say is my property, encompassing yours and several houses either side. I presume you and your neighbours would object? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 03:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Heather Lisinski[edit]

Check the discussion here for that merge: Merging minor character articles, [Leigh (Jericho character) and Allison Hawkins articles merge].

Especially check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnston Green, where I defended merging against deleting. It seems that there is consensus for deleting or merging all character articles but two. Moreover, I improved one article to avoid merging and/or deleting.

The article you reverted contains no real world information and fails notability guidelines per WP:FICTION. All necessary information fits perfectly in a bigger article called List of Jericho characters, which right now has millions of problems itself.

Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Completely different articles. And besides, you are the only person advocating such moves in those "discussions." Wikipedia works by consensus, not he whims and assumptions of a single user. --Oakshade (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The first merging was proposed by Ckatz. DGG, proposed to merge all characters. There is a consensus for that unless you disagree. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
You can express your opinion here. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Emily Sullivan[edit]

Hi. I had to revert you revert to my edit in Emily Sullivan. After a discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnston Green, all editors suggested deletion or merging/redirecting. I performed the latter and then I replaced the article with a redirect. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

A move like that must be discussed and agreed upon in the actual article's talk page. That AfD you point to actually does not in any manner show consensus for this article's move. The result even ended in Keep. --Oakshade (talk) 06:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Since all information is in List of Jericho characters article can be merged without any problem. If we don't we are having duplicated information around. In the List I copy-pasted the whole article -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Emily Sullivan[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Emily Sullivan, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Sullivan. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Magioladitis (talk) 06:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Good luck. If consensus settles on a merge, I won't argue. --Oakshade (talk) 06:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I am doing this discussion to prove that that there was already a consensus. Moreover, I suggest you to read WP:BOLD. If you read the discussion in the last Afd carefully you ll see that there was no consensus because people couldn't decide to delete or merge the article and that I requested from the nominator to withdraw the Afd in order to merge the articles as I already have started before and none disagreed during the discussion. Friendly,Magioladitis 06:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


Hi. I would like you to assume good faith. Your comment here seems that you believe I made a trick to "vote" twice. Please don't underestimate the administrator who will look up the Afd. Moreover, I just wanted to make clear that I am not proposing a merge anymore as I did the last time. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Reid[edit]

I have since reviewed the guidelines for politicians and now agree that Reid is notable; however, please review WP:Etiquette. --Eustress (talk) 02:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend reading Wikipedia guidelines before placing tags. Besides passing notability guildeines for politicians, this person is notable per WP:N and WP:BIO, even if he didn't pass the guidelines for politicians (which he does). Please review WP:OSTRICH before placing notability tags. --Oakshade (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

vivky iseman[edit]

Regarding Vicky Iseman's DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_May_4. I can see the restored article now, and I see that there was non-trivial coverage to her before the scandal, and that those sources did not appear at the AfDs (or, at least, I didn't see them). Had I just been pointed to one of those sources, I would have dropped my opposition inmediately. Sorry for the long discussion on the DRV, I didn't know about those sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)