Jump to content

User talk:Retired username/Archive12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cyfarthfa High School

[edit]

Hi, sorry but the lead para is a straight lift from the source I gave, the motto is lifted from the website etc TerriersFan 17:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and deleted it. --W.marsh 17:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. TerriersFan 19:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning user

[edit]

Please do not remove {{hangon}} tags, as you did at Raditz. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Power level (Dragon Ball) 19:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Uh it's not considered vandalism. the hangon template is only for objecting to speedy deletions and has no place on the article in question. The article is at AfD now so you need to comment there if you want to avoid deletion of the article. It is considered rude to use template messages to "warn" established users, especially when you're using those messages incorrectly. --W.marsh 19:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calvert High School (Tiffin, Ohio)

[edit]

Hi there, just curious, but what defines "asserts importance"? Honest question - what part of Calvert High School (Tiffin, Ohio) asserts the importance of the article? Just wanted to know so I know what to look for when marking things for speedy delete. Thanks. -Seinfreak37 20:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok, so schools are a special case, it appears. Thanks for the clarification, wasn't sure if a school was considered a "group." So even if a school article is created that does not assert importance, it doesn't qualify for A7? -Seinfreak37 20:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really... although you might ask at WP:SCHOOLS. In the past, deleting schools even at AfD has been controversial, though that has been relaxed a bit. But still, speedy deletion doesn't generally apply, unless it meets another criteria (like being a copyvio or attack page). --W.marsh 20:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comments. I appreciate your not smacking my hand, I'm trying to help keep things relatively clean whenever I can and I'm not trying to overstep any bounds. Cheers. -Seinfreak37 20:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UK BOINC Team deletion

[edit]

Hi,

I entered my first WIKI entry, entitled "UK BOINC Team", which you've deleted citing something such as "it is an article about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or website that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject."

Forgive me.....I am still learning the "in's" and "out's" of this so called all-encompassing "Encyclopedia".

Question: How can a group of 870 odd people from the United Kingdom, who have joined together to assist the BOINC community in a worthwhile cause.... how is that NOT "significant"?

And how can you "object" when the likes of meaningless "celebrities" somehow get pages and pages of utter drivel submitted???

I take no offence at the deletion, but need to understand the why's and how-fores, so I don't waste my time compiling other relevant and worthwhile entries.....only for tehm to be deleted without due cause.

regards

Tim —The preceding unsigned comment was added by UBT - Timbo (talk • contribs) 18:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • Well it needs to assert importance. Also, there needs to be coverage by sources independent of the group, see WP:ORG and WP:N for the relevent guidelines. It's generally advised that you don't write about groups and companies you're personally involved with, see WP:AUTO. --W.marsh 18:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

drv

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Christopher_Lotito. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=TL_Osborn

[edit]

How do I verify I have permission from the copyright holder to release the content. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZboxingNun (talk • contribs)

Irish Hill

[edit]

I would like to discuss why you deleted the Irish Hill saying. It is part of Irish Hill's history and use to hang on signs throughout the neighborhood. Email me at ddettli210@gmail.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.147.152.188 (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • If it's an official motto or something to that effect, it could be included. But that was not the context the article mentioned it in... articles need to mantain a certain formal tone. For example, the article on the US Army wouldn't say "The army will make your kids Army Strong".. it would say that "the army's new slogan is 'We make them Army Strong'". I guess it's a non-obvious point, but it's still important.--W.marsh 17:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated message to bot owners

[edit]

As a result of discussion on the village pump and mailing list, bots are now allowed to edit up to 15 times per minute. The following is the new text regarding bot edit rates from Wikipedia:Bot Policy:

Until new bots are accepted they should wait 30-60 seconds between edits, so as to not clog the recent changes list and user watchlists. After being accepted and a bureaucrat has marked them as a bot, they can edit at a much faster pace. Bots doing non-urgent tasks should edit approximately once every ten seconds, while bots who would benefit from faster editing may edit approximately once every every four seconds.

Also, to eliminate the need to spam the bot talk pages, please add Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard to your watchlist. Future messages which affect bot owners will be posted there. Thank you. --Mets501 05:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blunger

[edit]

Hi, You placed an orphan tag on the article blunger some time ago. I have made two links to it... don't know how many it needs before the tag can be removed? regardsTeapotgeorge 22:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of World Trade Center in film and media. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. I was creator of this subarticle and primary maintainer of the main WTC article, but not notified when this was put up for AFD. See my reasons on the DR page as to why we need this page restored. Regards. --Aude (talk) 08:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Viadeo and Viaduc

[edit]

Hello

You have deleted my articles about Viadeo and Viaduc.

This is getting very tedious - this the fourth time these articles have been deleted.

Once for 'spam', once for not being 'notable' when we have one million members in Europe and 600k in China - we are second only to Linked'in in members Worldwide. Once for 'copyright violation' because I wrote the same text on another site and now you claim this is blatant marketing!!!

I have tried very hard to avoid any marketing statements and the entry is factual! There are no words like 'excellent' 'leading' 'wonderful' 'cheap'.

I honestly fail to see why you class our entry as marketing when the entries of our competitors are left alone:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecademy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XING http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linkedin

I have tried to accomodate the views of your colleagues but this is getting ridiculous.

I am merely trying to define the network (as a social business network - which is very notable), to state how many users we have, what the charging basis is and to state how many members we have! The information in my posts was factual and verifiable! Surely you cannot consider that as marketing!

If you have comments as to how the article should be rewritten (or perhaps you would like to rewrite it!) then please contact me at pcunninghamAT viadeoteam.com!

But this is really getting very annoying!

Kind regards

Peter Cunningham—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.236.135.147 (talk • contribs)

  • As it says at the top of this talk page, I need a direct link to the deleted article to be able to respond. There is no deleted article at Viadeo and Viaduc. Anyway, it's advised you not write about yourself or your own company, precisely because it is highly likely to come off as advertising. --W.marsh 15:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

[edit]

My request for adminship has closed successfully (79/0/1), so it appears that I am now an administrator. Thanks very much for your vote of confidence. If there's anything I can ever do to help, please don't hesitate to let me know. IrishGuy talk 01:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

mayor picture

[edit]

yes, please give me a call - I work in the Mayor's Office - 574-1906

thx,

Scott —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scotika (talk • contribs) 15:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I've submitted the mayor's picture. It's titled: Jerrry_e_abramson_mayor.jpg Can you post this on the mayor's page? thx!

Scott Render

Digital Classicist

[edit]

Hi I happened to come across this page Digital Classicist . My thoughts were, it's an advert. But as a classicist I don't want to be mean to them (though I've never heard of them). You deleted the very similar Digital Medievalist . But I was wondering if you think there's any way 'digital classicist' could be rewritten, to be better? Maybe to discuss the concept rather than the one site or something? Hope you can helpMerkinsmum 20:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the file is currently tagged as copyvio (which issue has been resolved), could we at least remove that rather embarrassing block and work on editing the actual page content, do you think? I'll encourage the community to help with editing and adding citations when the page is visible again. Gabrielbodard 16:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like that's already been done. --W.marsh 22:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Award

[edit]

Wow, thanks so very much. I don't know what to say, other than thank you and it's really nice to be appreciated. I would be interested in becoming an admin eventually, but I have a lot to learn about the various administrative processes and protocols first. Thanks for your faith in me! --Butseriouslyfolks 20:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Laugh AfD review

[edit]

I would like to ask you to take another look at the Evil laugh page and the AfD review. None of the people who voted to keep it indicated any reason to keep it which is in line with any policy that I can see on Wikipedia. Most of them argued that it should be kept because everyone knows what it is. However, the people who voted to delete it did reference several reasons it should go. I would have to say that there was a consensus. Valid reasons to delete + no argument which meets Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines to keep would equal delete consensus in my view. Slavlin 22:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think I generally agree with you, but it's tough to overturn consensus in an AfD. Perhaps I should have here though. Unfortunately it's been over 3 months since the AfD and it really wouldn't be a good idea for me to just delete the article now. So you have two options, taking this to WP:DRV or start a new AfD. I think it would be best just to start a new AfD. Sorry I can't be more helpful at this point. --W.marsh 23:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Allbeury

[edit]

Whoops! I didn't think of that, which was dumb of me.

I'll re-do it sometime. He deserves a mention.


All the best,

Dick

Sparks in Mexico 14:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)== Sparks Mexico material ==[reply]

Melaque

[edit]

Hi

Looks like you deleted one of my additions RE: Melaque, Jalisco ... and possibly San Patricio which is the same community. First of all, that material is from my web site. I'm new here and am unsure how to claim the material as mine. The fotos permission is easy enough but for text material - I must be missing it.

Also it seems the whole 'area' of Melaque and San Patricio seem to have gone away. That's rather harsh for one possible copyright problem.

Anyway ... please delete anything that seems I'm promoting my site ... but hope I can contribute to the areas that I live; Barra de Navidad, Melaque, San Patricio and a few other local communities in our area.

I would have left a link but they seem to have disappeared

http://sparks-mexico.com/

Thanks Scott Parks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sparksmex (talk • contribs) 14:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Sparks Mexico material

[edit]

Hi

Looks like you deleted one of my additions RE: Melaque, Jalisco ... and possibly San Patricio which is the same community. First of all, that material is from my web site. I'm new here and am unsure how to claim the material as mine. The fotos permission is easy enough but for text material - I must be missing it.

Also it seems the whole 'area' of Melaque and San Patricio seem to have gone away. Thats rather harsh for one possible copywrite problem.

Anyway ... please delete anything that seems I'm promoting my site ... but hope I can contribute to the areas that I live; Barra de Navidad, Melaque, San Patricio and a few other local communities in our area.

http://sparks-mexico.com/

Thanks Scott Parks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sparksmex (talk • contribs) 14:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • Well see the notice on your talk page for how to release the copyright. But it's really best to just write articles for Wikipedia in your own words, rather than dump text in from other sites. Format it correctly, add categories, etc. Just find a decent article on a similar town/community and use that as your model. I'm afraid writing a good Wikipedia article takes a bit of time, but it will lead to an article that no one wants to delete. --W.marsh 15:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D vs ProD

[edit]

I was nominating the article (I have actually just done about 8 of them) via speedy criteria #7 (i believe, the one about notability) -- they're all nominated due to non-notable vaporware (unreferenced)... should I go back and sub prod ? if so, what's the best way to be sure i'm using the right deletion method? thanks! /Blaxthos 19:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Honestly, these are somewhat fleshed out articles (some moreso than others) that have been around for a while, and while they might meet the letter of criteria #7, people have put time into these articles and I personally prefer PROD or AfD. But it's up to you... another admin might speedy delete these articles. --W.marsh 19:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, only two remain (the rest were deleted so quickly that I wondered if I had just forgotten to click "submit" after "preview").  ;-) I just don't want to go the wrong way -- people get touchy and territorial regarding deletion requests. It's my opinion, however, that the investment of the editors is less important than the actual inclusion criteria... ie it sucks that a bunch of people worked on an article, however that doesn't trump the fact that it's on a non-notable (non-existant in most cases) subject. Thanks for the help! /Blaxthos 20:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Pollino page deletion

[edit]

I got this


it is an article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject.

Michael Pollino is an important staple to the Austrlian Black Metal community. Could you tell me why it was deleted and what we can do to add to itso it won't be deleted again? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ashrodz (talk • contribs) 19:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • Establish that claim of importance with a reference to something published or a prominent website (like allmusic guide) confirming it. See WP:CITE or just mention the source at the bottom of the article, create a section called "references". --W.marsh 19:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Yurach Artist

[edit]

Hello

I really am not here to complain about you recently deleting an article I had put up Veronica Yurach Artist I am going to put the article back up, but change the title to Veronica Yurach Aboriginal Artist. If you have any other suggestions I would very much appreciate any feed back you can give me or advice.

Uvak38 00:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey Invitation

[edit]

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 01:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)talk to me[reply]

Question

[edit]

Hello!

I just noticed that you deleted my entry for "Preferred Hotel Group". After reading your reasons, I was wondering how companies that are listed on the following page are allowed to have their pages up and running:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hospitality_companies_of_the_United_States


Furthermore I was able to find the following pages, which should be deleted as well for the same reasons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starwood_Hotels_%26_Resorts_Worldwide

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriott_International

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holiday_Inn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outrigger_Hotels_%26_Resorts


I'm looking forward for your reply.

Peter —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peter0211 (talk • contribs) 07:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • Well for starters, the article seems to be copied directly from [1], an official webpage. Even if the copyright was released under the GFDL (which Wikipedia requires) promotional material by definition exists to promote and advertise, and really isn't suitable for Wikipedia. This doesn't mean the topic (the hotel group) can't have an article, it just needs a better article than the one that was created. Try to inform rather than advertise. --W.marsh 07:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfB

[edit]

You do realize, that if you ever get nominated again or request again, that admins will notice that and take that into account when evaluating your ability to become a bureaucrat. This may come back to bite you in the butt if it has not already. Cbrown1023 talk 15:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't leave

[edit]

I just saw your comment in the RFA talk page I'm being stalked by the Essjay fan club. Can I just leave in peace? --W.marsh 16:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC). I understand you are upset over the result of the RFB, but just don't leave the project over it. We already lost Essjay, which is bad enough. Just take a short wikibreak, and do some article writing for a bit. Jaranda wat's sup 16:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't want to leave I just want to leave this drama... the people who are defending Essjay are now antagonizing me in some misguided idea that I'm anti-Essjay or whatever, or that it even matters. I just want to stop that. --W.marsh 16:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Could you possibly take a quick look?

[edit]

At Eliot Tokar. Any attempts to makes the article more neutral and concise are just undone. They are hard to work with I also doubt he is noteworthy. Because these editors are proving impossible to work with, I'm on the verge of nominating it for AfD. It needs someone to have a look, who can be firm with eds who are 'fans' of the subject and possibly even are the subject:) I thought you might be someone who could be firm with them, or you might know someone who can.Merkinsmum 17:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Review of EGullet

[edit]

Wnissen has asked for a deletion review of EGullet. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. I'm not a founder or especially a fan of eGullet.org, but they deserve an entry. Thanks for your consideration. Wnissen 05:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, crap, did I do this wrong? Was I supposed to contact you first before asking for an AfD review? If I was, I'm sorry. I've done a fair amount of editing, but never been involved with anything administrative like a deletion. Wnissen 16:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you aren't required to. And when it's several months in the past there's usually not much I can do anyway... so just recreating the article or doing DRV is the way to go. --W.marsh 16:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart R. Ross/Smurfs

[edit]

It's been brought to my attention that a biographical page on me and my history with the Smurfs is apparently up for deletion. I read the comments and I frankly don't know what to do or how to support the information that appeared in the article without your assistance. I tried to find the article (which no longer appears), but do to my lack of experience as a Wikepedian, I couldn't locate it. Suffice to say there is a multitude of historically verifiable third party information on the undersigned to support the statements that I remember having appeared in the article. Perhaps you can suggest some guidance on this subject.

Thanks,


Stuart R. Ross —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stuartross1 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • See the note at the top of this page... "If you are here to complain about a deletion (or other action), you must link to the article/action in question. I do not have time to play detective and find out what you're talking about, as it's often not very clear unless you provide a link." Sorry, I need a link to the page you're talking about. --W.marsh 23:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I read and understood the "link" instruction. However, the article has been deleted per the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stuart_R._Ross

This may appear to be a dumb question, but are deleted articles archived? If so, where and how can they be accessed. If not, isn't all this Wikipedian procedure for possible resurrection of the deleted article for not? And should the latter be the case, doesn't this preemptive deletion process cry out for reform? In any event, I trust the above link will help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stuartross1 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • Yes, admins (like me) can view deleted articles and undelete them if needed. I can make it available in your user space (i.e. it wouldn't be an article, but a user subpage of yours). From there you could work on adding sources to move it back into the article namespace. --W.marsh 02:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Template User:Blade Runner

[edit]

Hi, you appear to have blindly closed this nomination without actually reading it. But, I've gone ahead and listed it at WP:TFD as you suggest. Won't surprise me in the least if it gets referred back to WP:AFD. Round and round I must go, it seems. This place is drowning in bureaucracy... – Qxz 04:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart R. Ross/Smurfs/User Page

[edit]

Thanks. That would be a very good first step. Will you create the page or do I have to do something to start the process?

Stuart R. Ross/Smurfs/User Page

[edit]

Tks for posting but didn't need the warning. In any event, I'll start and perhaps even finish what surely must be a blind and torturous process. Pity there aren't specific markers on the content or thresholds for reposting the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stuartross1 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

User Calton

[edit]

Hi W.marsh, thanks for your input and assistance. Fyi, admin changes were reverted. Again. Thanks. Telogen 01:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I protected <courtesy blanked title>. I wrote in my protecction summary that all edits in the last ten days were adding and removing tags, which turns out not to be true, because you made a couple improvements to it in between. Maybe you can talk some sense into these guys. Then again, maybe you don't care. I certainly don't. I added it to WP:LAME. :-) Grandmasterka 01:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't care that much... and if it's even possible to talk sense into the combatants at this point, I'm sure I'm not the one to do it. Amusing WP:LAME description though, and protection was a good idea too. --W.marsh 01:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus, couple of tag removals makes me that unreasonable? Especially considering I (and Telogen) actually used the talk page... Milto LOL pia 02:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

[edit]

I accept your apology but decline the word "admirable" :) I was being a little annoying, you got a little annoyed.... no harm done and no hard feelings. —Celithemis 02:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

County library cooperatives

[edit]

Re Brandon Library. Nothing personal, but I don't think the county or other small regional cooperatives differ very much. There are so many articles on notable libraries that are needed much more. DGG 00:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Albert Pujols

[edit]

I'd have to disagree with removing the tag. The article is nearly 25KB in length, but it only has 11 references. This is a BLP article, and I think that notice is appropriate in this situation. Besides, if I were to add {{fact}} tags to every unsourced statement, it'd fill up the article. Nishkid64 01:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well you're wrong... 11 references is not an unreferenced article. If there are BLP issues (claims you think are untrue), point them out and I will try to fix them. There's no policy that even says an article must have inline citations, let alone more than 11 of them because the article is over 25k. But if there are claims you think are dubious, then we can start talking about the need for references. --W.marsh 01:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The note says "This article does not adequately cite its references or sources." I believe that this article does not adequately cite its sources. All the references come from the introduction, the personal and accomplishments section. There are no references whatsoever in the main body of the article. I find that inadequate, and that's why I added the tag. Nishkid64 14:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the time being, I'll try to work on inline citations. Nishkid64 14:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • We don't add references just for the fun of it... we add them because a claim actually needs a citation for whatever reason, e.g. an editor isn't sure if a claim is true, or would like to know where it came from for further reading. That is what not being adequately referenced means... you haven't indicated you have a problem with any of the claims, you just want more references for appearances sake. Just saying "uhh add more references to this article, even though I don't need them for any particular reason" isn't very helpful. I appreciate any help to actually improve the article though. --W.marsh 14:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • There's a lot of parts of the article I can easily say I have a problem with. Whatever, I'm not going to push it anymore, so I'll just help with the references, and hopefully we can work together on bringing this to GA for the time being. Nishkid64 21:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD/6°Bacon

[edit]

You probably want to edit your comment here to begin with “Keep.” —SlamDiego 13:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twelve angry editors

[edit]

Another thought: Let's say that we have an editor who has presumed that an article should be deleted, making a cursory reading of some other comments, each of which supports his or her presumption. Without a “Keep” to grab his attention, he or she might just throw in a “Yeah, this article should go.” But a lone “Keep” might get him or her to read, and be presuaded by the argument; and the surprise might cause him to apply similar reasoning to other articles in future. —SlamDiego 04:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hitachi Foundation article

[edit]

A while back, you nominated a page I created on The Hitachi Foundation for deletion, citing that it did not cite its sources and was copy and pasted from The Hitachi Foundation's website. You suggested recreating it from scratch. I have done that and included numerous outside sources, and will be posting for DRV soon. As I am working with a mentor to get the hang of this Wikipedia thing, I posted it on a sub page first for people to look at and review. I would really like for you to take a minute and look it over and see what you think of the new article. Your insights would be very valuable. Thanks so much! I hope you see that I was creating this article in good faith. Julieatrci 20:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It looks fine, except you might consider using the standard reference system as explained at WP:FN#How_to_use. You don't really need to go to DRV, you can just move the article back into the main namespace, using the "move" tab. --W.marsh 20:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NGOSS page

[edit]

I'm inquiring to understand why the NGOSS page was deleted. I edited the page that was originally posted to correct and enhance the material. My company is a member of the TeleManagement Forum (www.tmforum.org) and an active participant in their NGOSS initiative. I can certainly check with the TMF and receive assurance from them that posting a page on wikipedia explaining NGOSS is ok.

Regards, Cliff

Copyvio deletion

[edit]

Hey man, thanks for taking care of the copyvio problem at William H. Hardy, however I had a non-copyvio version under the William H. Hardy/Temp location, per the copyvio template. Is there any way to recover the non-copyvio version and use it as the main article? /Blaxthos 16:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Ratscrew

[edit]

Could you explain how the infomation you put back into this article is not a big violation of WP:NOTfor instruction manuals? Examples: "If a jack is played, followed by a seven then it may be slapped." "The way that you can do this is whenever you pick up the cards after a win pause and look at the card below the joker (unsuspectingly and brief of course). If you weren't the one who won the hand then try to sneak a peek at the card below the joker before the other player places their cards at the bottom of their deck." In fact, pick whichever of the unsourced statements you want and explain to me how this is not part of an instruction manual / game guide, because I don't see it.Fram 12:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well WP:NOT refers to video game guides, but anyway, your blanking was very haphazard. I'm not saying every line of the article is perfect, but blanking it is not a good idea either. The basic, common strategies of a game should be mentioned, similar to saying in football some teams use this kind of offense, others use that kind. That's encyclopedic. But just deleting most of an article is not a good idea... if you'd you'd just parred down the strategy section to something more encyclopedic I probably wouldn't have reverted. --W.marsh 12:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin query

[edit]

Thanks for the query, W.marsh—it's really not my cup of tea, though. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit article

[edit]

I saw that you have read about my concerns about the article's FA and the potential of its removal. I have also noticed who is the primary user (in this case Thomas Paine1776) who is causing the problems that I had raised. I left a message with him explaining my position, but he seems to ignore it and again tries to espouse on the positives on Detroit while actively downplaying the city's negatives (which there are still a lot of today) in both the talk page and the article.

If this continues, I believe the only way to deal with him (I suspect he has already dug his heels in and is unwilling to take anyone else's opinion aside from his own) is through mediation or arbitration (something I don't want, but from the way things are going I don't see any other choice). Hence, could you or someone you know be able to suggest a course of action on this? And if it does come to mediation or arbitration to advise on the proper procedures? Thanks. PentawingTalk 13:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Geeze I wouldn't be a good mediator. But I agree with your assessment of the situation. TP1776 seems to really be a Detroit fan, and that's perfectly okay, most people like the topics they edit, but he doesn't seem to balance that with making neutral edits to articles. I would honestly think it's getting close to time for a user conduct RFC for POV pushing on the article. The problem is that no one really seems to be challenging him on the actual article, a lot of his changes just go unchallenged. Personally, as a non-Detroiter it's a bit intimidating to actually make serous content edits to that article, but I'm still guilty here for kind of just watching. Anyway... an RFC would (I think) help to establish a consensus that he's letting his fiercely pro-Detroit POV degrade the quality of the article, or something similar to that, and would be helpful in eventual mediation efforts to show it's pretty clear what he's been doing. You might warn him that an RFC is near, and I can help out with drafting it. Sorry for the slow reply by the way... I was exhausted yesterday. --W.marsh 14:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of article: Dolorean

[edit]

Hi, you recently deleted my article Dolorean, citing a lack of notability. I have added a note to the talk page Talk:Dolorean, where I assert that it does satisfy the necessary criteria. Thanks.

Liquoricewhip 19:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

For fixing what I messed up on Danny's RfA... those numbered lists always confuse me :) Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 20:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem... the whole format is indeed rather finicky. --W.marsh 20:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tags

[edit]

Can you please make a page for us to know what type of tags to use when, ex. linking an article. I didn't know that puttin [[]] around something would make it link to that page.

About a deletion

[edit]

Dear W. Marsh, I would like to clarify that the information uploaded about the organization/think tank Instituto Liberdade, that I wrote at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Instituto_Liberdade&action=submit 

was not an advertising, on the contrary, it is an elaboration for viewers to

understand what is the institute about.

This information is to give readers of the Think Tank page at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_tank#Brazilian_think_tanks more details about the Brazilian organization.

The organization is also cited at the Think Tank Directory of the Atlas Economic Research Foundation (http://www.atlasusa.org/V2/main/acc.php?page_id=0) and also at the Public Policy Experts Directory from Heritage Foundation. It published books in Portuguese like Atlas Shrugged, Beyond Politics,The Ethics of Redistribution,Free Market Environmentalism, The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible,What has government done to our money? Trashing the Planet,Progressive Environmentalism,Ideas and Consequences.

Also the organization worked in partnership with International Policy network from London and contributed with published article at the Civil Society Report on Intellectual Property, Innovation and Health at: http://www.policynetwork.net/main/content.php?content_id=47

Is there anything that I missed in order to clarify for you about the Instituto Liberdade? Ir should I write in a different way to explain about the institute? Sincerely Yours, Margaret Tse - CEO of Instituto LiberdadeMtse 20:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article was a copy and paste of your mission statement and other material from your webpage... that stuff is written to promote your organization, and we don't allow articles that exist only to promote some group. Write an article from scratch that explains the history of your group, using published articles as sources rather than your own personal knowledge, and informs us about your group rather than promotes it... and it probably won't get deleted. --W.marsh 20:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

understood about the deletion

[edit]

Thank you for the information W. Marsh! I will write from the scratch the history of the institute. all the best, Margaret Mtse 20:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Very Funny?

[edit]

What have you done to large print Wikipedia? It was a project mainly to help the elderly. At least where I come from many of these people have poor vision and usually do not have a computer so they must go somewhere else like the local library. Many of the Web Browsers in these places do not have the text-zoom feature. It took a long time to get the project started and rewrite two articles and write instructions for writing a large print article. Neither this comment or Large print Wikipedia were written as jokes. Thank You.P2me 15:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KY route browsing

[edit]

I reverted your edits to KY 67 and KY 180 because we are including all routes in Kentucky in the browse, not just primary routes. There is no difference between primary and secondary routes except for legislative purposes, so it makes sense to include all routes in the browse. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Image Problem

[edit]

The reason why they're all redlinks is because we haven't uploaded the new shields yet. We will upload them very soon. Filling in for TMF,  V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions 00:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks

[edit]

(re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomorrow) I don't know why I didn't think of that; I think it's because I saw the last attempt at a dab page there, and the horrible mess it was now in, and was blinkered by it. Sometimes bold action is really what's needed so thanks for stepping up and doing it. --kingboyk 22:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • No problem, sometimes it's hard to see the forest for the trees, in Wikipedia and real life. I will watch the page and see if I can help keep it clean. I dunno why, but sometimes people are just determined to make dab pages all cutesy, I recall Zzz as an example. --W.marsh 22:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nappy Haired Ho

[edit]

How come you deleted my talk comment, I just wanted to know what happened to that Nappy Haired Ho in the picture. Like what is she doing now? Is she paying back all the tax payer money she spent? She'll have to do a lot of crack dealing to pay that off. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ANiceRedTruck (talk • contribs) 19:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Endorsements

[edit]

Brilliant! Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haroon Sheikh

[edit]

This is regarding Haroon Sheikh. I am sorry for adding to that article but I don't know why my friend's name was in Wikipedia but I thought that it was a joke so wrote something in it to make it funny. - - Soleado

The above post was written by me several (years?) ago. It is incorrectly signed as I was unaware of the correct procedure to do so. I have correctly signed below.
-- Sun NY (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Politics

[edit]

Do not send me any more messages or i will cite you for harashment

And do not mess with the kentucky article 2008 senate election- i live in ky. write back

Danish Coronation Carpet

[edit]

I just noticed your article about the Danish Coronation Carpet. Thank you for creating it, but unfortunately, I can't make the details match with the information I've been able to dig up regarding it. A recent press announcement by Rosenborg Castle, relating to a public display of the carpet, gives a very different story. (http://www.rosenborgslot.dk/pdf/Pressemeddelelse%20kroningst%E6pper.pdf, October 2006). According to the press release, the carpet is woven of silk and gold, and created in Isfahan around 1650. It was presented as a gift to Queen Sophie Amalie in 1665 by the Dutch East Indian Company. Rosenborg Castle describes it as the best preserved Persian carpet in the world, but I presume they must mean the best preserved specimen from this period. The release states that the coronation carpet was first used at a coronation in 1700. Interestingly, it states that the royal family owns several other Persian carpets, and that some of these were also used for coronations: (quote) "The 'chenille' carpets are also considered part of the coronation carpets; these are carpets embroidered with fleecy/shaggy thread. A total of nine such Oriental carpets are known to exist worldwide with the five best being owned by Rosenborg Castle. All of these date from the 17th century." [4] Did your book contain information about any more royal carpets? Unfortunately, I can't find a photo of the carpet as it is normally under lock and key. It is extremely unlikely that anybody would ever have allowed this carpet to leave Denmark, so perhaps the carpet you described was simply one of the secondary carpets.

The website of one of Denmark's leading companies trading in Persian carpets agrees with the story I wrote above although the years differ slightly. They describe it as measuring 310x528 cm, consisting of cotton and with a pattern consisting of twelve different colours of silk thread. The pattern's "background" is gold thread and the rim is silver thread. [5] I'm not sure, but it might be the one illustrated on this painting.

I also checked the Great Danish Encyclopedia, which describes it as a so-called "Polish carpet" of the Safavid period, created between 1650 and 1665. I'm not familiar with the correct terminology, but the description continues that it has "a base embroidered with gold and silver threads. The centre field features flower motifs and the "sky bands" are made of silk. If you know the correct terminology, I'd really appreciate it if you could update this article. Regards. Valentinian T / C 18:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The references I used were several articles in "The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin", not a book... I cited the key one, the others just contained duplicate or minor information. They were available over JSTOR. Perhaps this was another coronation carpet, I am not an expert on this topic, but the journal articles I was looking at seemed to be talking about the same Coronation Carpet that was mentioned in Encyclopedia Brittanica. Britannica gives the same dimensions used in the article right now, "12 feet, 2 inches by 17 feet, 1 inch". I'm not sure if this clears anything up, but maybe it points us in the right direction. --W.marsh 18:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I'll try to see if I can dig up some more information about this carpet. Happy editing. Valentinian T / C 19:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Endorsements

[edit]

It's not a real WikiProject, so {{inactive}} is hardly appropriate, and the deletion was put to WP:ANI. I don't mind being reverted, but I just wondered if you were aware of that debate? Consensus seems to be that it was funny but RIP. --kingboyk 01:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have, thanks :) Sorry, we were obviously both active at the same time. Any further comments can go to AN/I but basically I've done my bit :) Cheers. --kingboyk 02:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

W. marsh i had a quick question. i know we are off to a bad start, but if you could tell me how to add a source, i would apprecate thta.-Politics rule 7:00 EST

Thank you very much--Politics rule-April 16-8:34am est

Help Please

[edit]

I am being harassed by someone who said i edited an article i know nothing about. How do i cite him for harrassment, and yes i've already chated with him.Politics rule- 9:34pm.est- 4/16/2007

Sprotected/2

[edit]

Hey. I recognise that {{sprotected}} is ugly. I am a firm hater of {{sprotected2}}, because when it was first proposed everyone were reassuring that it would only be used on pretty much permanently protected articles, like George W Bush. There's been a recent trend towards using it everywhere, just because it's discreet and has a pretty lock icon. I was just trying to remind people that {{sprotected2}} isn't meant to be used liberally. - Mark 05:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review

[edit]

I hope I'm not picking on you individually -- it certainly isn't my intention to make editors and especially admins angry! I only try to use the policies I know to help me. I also like to question people when I'm unsure of what they think or are trying to express... For some reason I've been seeing a tendency for fellow editors to take my comments personally, not too long ago an admin said i was trolling after asking a question about his use of his talk page. So, sorry for any problems I might have caused. MrMacMan Talk 16:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well don't treat me differently in this case just because I'm an admin... I was just expressing an opinion, same as anybody. But anyway, no hard feelings. I just felt like my comment was valid to the point that whoever closes the DRV should take it fully into account. It's a review of how the AFD was closed, and I felt like there were several problems with the close. --W.marsh 16:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I suspected the deletion review was coming just because it was linked too by digg... and if I can be sarcastic for a second -- 'the reason I should care about you being an admin is because you know about WP:HAR!'. haha. I know what adminiship means and how its members should be viewed related to reg. editors. P.S. should the article have some sort of notice on it that its undergoing a deletion review? I don't know if theres a tag... (and if there is one should it be on main page like AFD or on talk page like deletion log) MrMacMan Talk 16:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: protection

[edit]

Sure thing, I understand what you mean. Thanks mate! gaillimhConas tá tú? 05:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Criticism of Linux

[edit]

Please do not accuse me of 'owning' an article without evidence. Removing information based on the fact that they are a competitor with the product so are a biased source, and asking for a third party source for it is not unreasonable. Microsoft could claim many things, but we can't just report that - we have to report it via someone else - for example Arstechnica or similar have covered this issue. This allows for a more NPOV article to be created. As it stands, the article is highly POV as it does not adequately have counters to any of the claims made against Linux - which our policy regarding NPOV requires.-Localzuk(talk) 17:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I don't see criticism of Linux as being important I am not going to go out and search for those sources, although many exist which reported on MS's campaign.
Also, I am all for criticism being added to the Linux article - so long as it is well sourced and not in a single section, instead placing the criticism where it is applicable.-Localzuk(talk) 17:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frazier Museum updates

[edit]

Hi. I just noticed that somebody from the Frazier International History Museum just made major changes to the article. As editing it might conflict with my trying to build connections to Louisville's history community, I am alerting you to it with the hope that you (or somebody else) could give it a run-through and give it an un-biased cleanup. Thanks for your time. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Man... it looks like a problem from the start. The images are unlicensed, the text doesn't seem neutral in places, overall it seems a bit overly promotional. I am going to revert and suggest they contact me... if they can devote some time to this we can probably get the images licensed and generally improve the article. --W.marsh 18:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have integrated their changes in a neutral tone... the images still need to be addressed by the uploader/photographer though. Thanks for letting me know about this. --W.marsh 18:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


      • The images that were placed on the Frazier informational page are licensed by the museum. There were problems when I went back to try and license the images for I could not find the options to attach the licenses. Please see the comment below for the reason for the updates due to our new name and trying to let the public know that we are more than just "guns". Thank you! FrazierMuseum 15:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)The Frazier MuseumFrazierMuseum 15:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frazier Museum information

[edit]

Hi there! I got your message about the recent edits. The museum recently changed it's name to better reflect our mission and themes and as I was changing any reference to the museum's old name in the Frazier entry, I had added more information about the museum. My apologies if it seems to be promotional. I really wasn't trying to make it sound promotional at all. We are just trying to let people know that the museum is more than just the guns that we happen to have on display in specific galleries. If you would like to discuss this more in-depth with me, please feel free to contact me at 412.2263.


Thanks so much!

Lynnelle Claypool

Frazier Marketing Assistant

FrazierMuseum 15:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I tried to integrate your edits into the article, just toning down some of the language. I think I got all the facts from your edit into the article, but feel free to improve beyond that. As for the images, they're great except they need to be released under a free license... this is somewhat complicated so I think I'll just give you a phone call. However the page to read here is Wikipedia:Image use policy. --W.marsh 17:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manhatten

[edit]

Please review WP:A and WP:CIVIL. Epbr123 20:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You review them and quote me anything I've said in violation of them. There's nothing that says every paragraph needs a citation. It must be based on reliable sources but it doesn't actually have to cite them unless the claim is challenged. And there's nothing that says it's incivil to ask a question or make an argument, which is all I've done. --W.marsh 20:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be accompanied by a clear and precise citation" Epbr123 21:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which is why I originally asked what material you thought was challenged or likely to be challenged... there's nothing saying GA's need an inline citation on every paragraph just for the sake of it. --W.marsh 21:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Find one paragraph which isn't likely to be challenged. Epbr123 21:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Find one paragraph that is challenged, that's all I asked. "likely to be challenged" doesn't mean "could theoretically be challenged", it means you know why or have a good idea why it could specifically be challenged. It's not a general qualification, but one requiring a specific example. Any paragraph on Wikipedia could potentially be challenged. I either wrote or strongly supported this language being added to WP:V years ago so I should know! --W.marsh 21:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Then you wrote or strongly supported a very subjective guideline. Epbr123 21:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Whatever, you're the one who cited it. There's nothing supporting your original claim that there should be a citation per paragraph... not in the GA criteria and not even the FA criteria. Challenged claims should be cited, yes. A good critique of an article mentions those claims which need citations, rather than just requests more for appearances sake. --W.marsh 21:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Find one paragraph that is "likely to be challenged" and explain why it isn't just "could theoretically be challenged". Epbr123 21:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh..... so you noticed

[edit]

the picture. I've been doing a lot of photoshopping out of power lines in my pictures recently, so when I ran into your picture in the cemetery I just figured, "What the heck" and went at it. I would have contacted you but didn't find a link for it. I did have to do so reconstruction on the angel on top and some of the roof, but if I go slow enough it's okay. I think it looks fine or I would not have posted the end result. I have that page on my watchlist because the Smyser monument is my picture - they are in my geneological tree somewhere, and the documents posted there are also from my carpcives (or eeeekives), but I have stopped doing that sort of thing because of the original research and opinion chatter. Anyway, thanks for the note. Carptrash 20:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent cleanup of Kentucky

[edit]

Thanks for your recent efforts in cleaning up the Kentucky article. At one time, I had been trying to get it to at least GA status, but was unable to get sufficient help. Then came a couple of edit wars between people in the Golden Triangle who basically tried to disavow any connection between Kentucky and the South, and others who recognize the connection for good or for ill. Basically, I gave up. If you want to give it another shot, I'm in. Just let me know where you think we should start. Maybe a new peer review would be helpful. Let me know. Acdixon 14:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. Peer reviews can be helpful... I've had one great one and one where people just said "remove the trivia" and gave no useful feedback on the overall article. It's hard to say where the Kentucky article is exactly... honestly some sections look alright to me, but some parts have this feeling of being a hodgepodge of trivia and tourism info turned into prose that don't really describe the state so much as collect interesting tidbits that may or may not be all that helpful. Then like you say there's the people dwelling on the "Southern state" thing. I do intend to get a bit more serious about this article... it's been on my watchlist for a long time but all I've done is revert vandalism. I'd like to work on the article a bit before taking it to peer review... I'd like to get this article going somewhere, too. --W.marsh 14:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds like we're on the same page, then. Which sections do you think need the most help? Recently, I've been doing some work on Kentucky governors, so maybe I should start with the government section. You might take a look at Minnesota. Last I checked (admittedly a few months ago) it was the only featured article about a state. Acdixon 13:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apparently, Cool Blue beat us to the punch. He's got an active peer review going already. I've talked to him, and he's willing to help with a cleanup. Let's see what we can get done. Acdixon 13:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV request

[edit]

Hi :),

Since I happen to see you active at the moment, I'll draft you in a friendly, non-compulsory way. :) There are three requests in the DRV log for April 20 that need closing, on which I commented. I'd appreciate it (ie., want a barnstar?) if you could close them. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll do what I can... no barnstar necessary. Closed one but I'm heading out to lunch shortly. Hopefully will get to all 3 before too long but no promises. I'll let you know if I can't close either of them for whatever reason. --W.marsh 15:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well-earned

[edit]
The Working Man's Barnstar
For heroic efforts in service to Wikipedia, including the sacrifice of his own nourishment to the encyclopedia's cause, W. Marsh is awarded this Working Man's Barnstar. Xoloz 15:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]



GRBerry and Trialsanderrors had taken over for me at the end of last year. When I heard that T&E was stepping away to pursue his "real life" a few weeks ago, I got back in the habit. Now, those two comment regularly, and I usually close. I don't envision "burning out" again for at least another month or two; still, anytime you see something open in the log that needs closing, jump right in! :) Best wishes, Xoloz 15:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Graham Brown

[edit]
Updated DYK query On 1 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article James Graham Brown, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 21:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky

[edit]

I was doing some referencing work on Kentucky, when I came across an extremely odd section (that reads culture), just below the references section. Furthermore, when you go to edit the section, it takes you to edit a different section of the article. When you go to edit the article as a whole, it is not there. Do you have any idea as to why this is happening? Cool Bluetalk to me 00:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

[edit]

Thanks for the compliment, I still don't want to be an admin though. If I change my mind I'll let you and Wizard know. Quadzilla99 17:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make Good Your Escape

[edit]

I didn't understand the reason for a possible speedy delivery. Before I could even edit the page, you deleted it. I didn't have it saved in a word document, so now I have to start all over. You could have at least given me a minute. You deleted it within seconds of when I posted it. I didn't have time to take your warning into account and fix it or add the hangon that you suggested. I copied the format of the Capdown page for Make Good Your Escape, so I thought it was fine. I am NOT a writer and that took me a long time to create. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hollypanda (talk • contribs) 20:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

the jimgi entry.

[edit]

He IS a mentally challeneged individual who writes poetry. If I include his poetry, can we have the entry stay on wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richownsyou (talk • contribs) 20:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

No. --W.marsh 20:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JIMGI is a brutal warrior who has traveled far and wide on viking ships and side by side with christopher columbus. he is legendary. his writing is touching and beautiful. you will be depriving man kind of his wonderful delights.

some forum

[edit]

Well, sorry to bug you then. Just don't expect me to not delete your posts on The HV Scene Board. I mean, I probably won't delete them, but don't be surprised if I do. comment was added by Richownsyou (talk

I am this "Jimgi" fellow and I am adding a comprehensive entry of my musicianship of local famed group "Final Expression" which will be more detailed than simply "we practiced and played my mom's house".

Old Louisville

[edit]

I don't think the article will take too much work to pass FA. Please keep at it as it is a great article.-- Zleitzen(talk) 12:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint

[edit]

W.marsh, don't be ignorant... it was clearly stated that it was the opinion of the people, and not that of my own. Reading glasses cost pennies, buy some.

ironic

[edit]

and here I was trying to fight my innate tendency to try to dominate discussions, about which so many people have complained in the RW.  :), So thanks for the useful commentDGG 19:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well... like I say I go in the opposite direction. Some people find it a bit of a put-off if an AFD is full of threaded discussion and not the generic bulleted comments people are used to. I just do think it's important to check back and answer any questions people have about your comments... some people are just looking to argue and will never change their minds, but some people (I like to think I'm one of them) are just trying to increase their understanding of what's being discussed, hence all the comments. --W.marsh 19:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of NABGO

[edit]

As the author of the NABGO entry, I am surprised that, when questions were raised, no attempt was made to contact the author (me) for clarification. I would have been happy to explain ther reason for lack of updates (for instance, it is an annual event, and the information for 2006 was largely posted - nothing much happens other than scheduling until July of 2007, so there is not a lot to post). I do not understand the comment about Canada and Australia being states. Best I can recall from the article, it indicated the North American (not United States) Big Gun Open was an open event, as well as the National event for Big Gun Model Warship Combat. Also, 2006 was only the second year for this annual event.

I do note that one of the comments was that the author found it interesting as a sport. Keep in mind that the sport is relatively young as are many things having to do with Radio Control, like R/C tank combat. It is also not an insignificant investment. Thus, many events have fewer than 30-40 participants at a time (some as few as 3-4).

However, most people, when they find it, are fascinated to one degree or another. The videos on You Tube and Stage6, and the article in Servo Magazine (December, 2005) have all been very popular.

I am disappointed that Wikipedia has chosen to delete the information without notice or chance for comment, and will, of course, make sure to remove any links pointing to wikipedia.

If you wish to come to report on the event, there is, of course, an entry form available on the nabgo.org web page, and you are welcome to join us.

Sincerely,

Wreno S. Wynne —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.6.66.128 (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • I think you overestimate how much thought Wikipedia put into deleting this article... about a dozen that look like this one are created every hour. So add that up and it's tens of thousands per year, and hundreds are deleted every day, dozens of them by me, so there's no personal element here. For an article to survive, it needs to cite multiple independent, published sources that wrote an article with meaningful information on the topic. This is what our inclusion criteria is based on. If these sources exist, great, I'll undelete. But they have to be shown to exist first, and it helps to add them to the article. --W.marsh 21:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the prod on Lionel Edward Sackville-West, 3rd Baron Sackville

[edit]

I removed the prod on Lionel Edward Sackville-West, 3rd Baron Sackville and added references to the article. There is no evidence that the article is a hoax. Since he had a seat in the House of Lords because he was a peer, he is automatically notable as a member of a national parliament. --Eastmain 04:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's fine, and I don't doubt the notability if the claims are true, it's just that based on the name and the lack of references it was hard to tell if this was a legitimate article or someone with a 7th grader's sense of humor trying to make a joke. --W.marsh 04:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA thanks

[edit]

Thank you, Retired username, for your constructive comments in my recent RFA, which passed with 86 support, 8 oppose, and 5 neutral !votes. I will keep in mind all your suggestions and/or concerns, and will try to live up to your standards. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page, and I will respond as soon as I possibly can, without frying my brain, of course.
Thank you once more,
· AndonicO Talk

I think I need a little more time

[edit]

Thanks very much for the offer to nominate me for adminship. I'm honored and very appreciative, and I would like to be able to help out at that level eventually. However, I just started getting involved in image policy issues and there are a few other areas I want to explore before I feel I'm ready. If you could check back with me in a month or two, I should be ready then. Thanks again, very much. --Butseriouslyfolks 00:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Louisville neighborhoods template

[edit]

Any thoughts about creating a template for Louisville neighborhoods? Angry Aspie 15:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think one would be a good idea... but I'm not really good at templates. I was hoping to maybe create one once I made a PD/GFDL map of the neighborhoods, but I'm not good at that kinda stuff either. I will get around to it one day, but if anyone wants to get the ball rolling I'll certainly help out. --W.marsh 16:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who would be good to ask about making a template? I would also like to create one for every PBS and NPR affiliate in the state. Angry Aspie 20:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The best way is to just copy from a city that already has such templates and they look okay... you just have to look around and find one to copy. I wish there was a better place to look for help but that's the best I know of. --W.marsh 20:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nima Adhami

[edit]

Hi W.marsh, I noticed you deleted Nima Adhami about a week ago and it has since gone through several more deletions. It is back again and I'm finding it difficult keeping a speedy deletion tag on it, yet I am reluctant to bring it to AfD or prod as I feel it is such a blatantly inappropriate page and likely not much different than the other versions that were speedily deleted. I feel the appropriate solution would be to delete and protect the page, or would you recommend another course of action? Thanks for your time. -SpuriousQ (talk) 03:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I deleted it as vandalism... and protected it against recreation. If by some miracle this thing is for real, I will undelete if someone can show me a reliable source. --W.marsh 04:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

e-mail

[edit]

Hi, I've sent you an e-mail. Cheers Khukri 19:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: adminship

[edit]

Hi, thanks a lot for your trust and your proposition. I must admit that I am starting to toy with that idea since a few days and now reading AN and AN/I to keep myself in the loop. I know that some backlogs are growing, and I think that well, now might be a good time to start helping on these. Let me think a bit more, I'll try to contact the couple people that proposed to nominate me some time ago, and some users whose judgment I trust to have their input before requesting adminship. -- lucasbfr talk 12:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're still interested, Khukri wrote a first draft here. Thanks a lot, first of all for your review, and maybe for your nomination ;) -- lucasbfr talk 00:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like doing co-nominations personally but I will be first in line (or as close as possible) to support when you accept. Which you should do already :-) --W.marsh 00:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough ;). I will wait a bit to see if Husond still wants to co nominate me. I have started writing a draft on my computer, I will answer the questions for real and list the case tomorrow. Thanks again, I must admit I am a bit frightened by the process. -- lucasbfr talk 01:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wish RFA wasn't such a pain... my generic advice is to be honest and not challenge opposers. If they get something factually incorrect, correct them... but just trying to convince them to change their opinion is usually ineffective or backfires. And good luck! --W.marsh 01:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfB

[edit]

What can't you participate? -- Y not? 21:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was change a # to a *. Is it really that big of a deal? You were the only one that had used the # so you were 1. even though you should have been something like 10 or 11. If you want, I can change it back. John Reaves (talk) 00:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And it would get "fixed" by someone else. I don't feel like edit warring over this but I'm not going to comment in the RfB if the bulletted format is going to be used. --W.marsh 00:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what the big deal is, it's a pretty petty issue. John Reaves (talk) 01:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So ignore it if it's so petty. --W.marsh 01:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to see if I understand -- is your concern that the bulleted form unnecessarily prevents users from seeing a numerical view of the supports and opposes? Mike Christie (talk) 09:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The closer will still count the supports and opposes and divide them to generate a percent... bulleting is just one of many ways of obscuring that to give people a false sense that the numbers don't matter. It's just obfuscation and I want no part of it. --W.marsh 13:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your rule of thumb

[edit]
"my old rule of thumb... if the opposes would apparently not have been made if the edit counter had screwed up and put a 0 on the end of some of his counts, then there's no reason not to support."

That's a very interesting rule, actually, and gives me food for thought. -- nae'blis 15:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Android Mouse Bot

[edit]

The infoboxneeded tags were originally supposed to be on the article talk pages but it was decided by others that they are more effective on the article itself. When on the talk page, most are ignored for several months at a time. --Android Mouse 19:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you say this I find this discussion and see what you mean, I had not read this when I responded to the bot request. I'm going to continue on anyways though, quiting now and leaving half and half would be even more disruptive. If worse comes to worse I can always make a few trivial modifications that will reverse the moves. --Android Mouse 19:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daylight saving time image placement in references section

[edit]

Thanks for your quick comment in the Featured Article review for Daylight saving time. Another editor, JRG, suggested placing the images in a different way and I have done so. Can you please check again for problems when viewing the the article's references with your browser, when you have the time? And if you have any other suggestions for improvements please let me know. Thanks. Eubulides 03:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subdivisions of Martinique

[edit]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Subdivisions of Martinique, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Kiwipete 08:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Marsha Shandur

[edit]

Not arguing with you - after all, I was the one who proposed it - but do you think it was OK to close this AfD as a delete with only one !vote? I think the article's indefensible, but closing with so little discussion seems to be practically inviting a DRV — iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not really... you made a strong nom, that actually counts for a lot. There's no quorum at AFD, the only real requirement is that there be enough discussion for the closer to feel the decision is clear, and I thought that was the case here. Why relist when it's pretty obvious she doesn't meet WP:N? Anyone who had a strong argument for overturning would have new evidence, and I'd undelete in that case without a DRV, and anyone can come to me at any time with new evidence. A DRV with the argument "not enough votes" wouldn't go anywhere, there'd have to be new evidence. --W.marsh 21:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disc golf

[edit]

High five for reverting vandalism on the disc golf page. I really don't have any barnstars or anything to give you because i don't know what they are completely, and I'm certain I don't have the authority. Nevertheless, it's good to know that there's someone else out there who watches the disc golf article closesly. Perhaps you could help me with adding in some stuff about women's disc golf? Discgolfrules 01:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I still play 5-10 times a year at a local course... we used to go all over the region and know all the courses, but nowadays don't take it so seriously. Still, it's a good way to spend a Saturday afternoon. What do you need to know about adding info on women's disc golf? If you have a good source or two, just create a new section in the article and summarize the sources. I can help with citing them. --W.marsh 04:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upper Peninsula War

[edit]

is it possible to make an archived page of the Upper Peninsula war article. I think such a masterful hoax should be archived somewhere on wikiipedia. It would be helpful to have it as a reference to show how elaborate a a wikipedia oax can be. --Hanger65| 10:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Pandiyakula Kshatriya Nadars

[edit]

Hi Marsh

My Name is Karthik, and i have been contributing to the above title as im from that clan. I wish to record about the customs and practises of my clan to the reading and educated world. Im just wondering regarding the reason of this deletion. Is there any specific reason for its deletion? I would be thankful it this title is restored.

Thanks Karthik —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.86.219.183 (talk) 04:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Paul is dead

[edit]

argh - you've sent all those individual-album articles back to the Paul is dead article! argh argh argh - it took ages to get them OUT of there so we could have a readable article about the intriguing pop phenomenon, without five thousand passers-by littering it with "I heard that this picture means that" comments.

Please MERGE them then, figuring out which of the infinite clue to keep, if you think it's important - not just redirect them. Otherwise, undo the redirects - you've currently created six pointless loops. - DavidWBrooks 22:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops - we just edit-conflicted. I have undone all the redirects, since somebody else has already stumbled across the loops. People who want to merge them are welcome to; I think the separate articles are fine as they are. Keep the piffle away. - DavidWBrooks 22:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well that works... everyone wants to demand a merge but no one wants to put in the time for what often ends up being a complex task. --W.marsh 22:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Goebel

[edit]

The article on William Goebel that I spent a couple of months overhauling is getting hammered in FAR. It's my first-ever FAR, and I'm getting overwhelmed. Tony1 suggests "fresh eyes are required" to fix a purported multitude of problems in the prose. I know you have a strong record of reviewing FAs. Could you look over the article and see if you can identify and/or correct problem areas? Thanks. Acdixon 13:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleting Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/PHP_Data_Objects

[edit]

you closed the afd, saying that the consensus was to delete, but the article is still there. i assume it's just an oversight on your part, but i figured that there was no harm to reminding you. thx Misterdiscreet 15:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hamtramck Government Extreme Detail

[edit]

Why the insistence on keeping the extreme detail on the Hamtramck Political section? If we keep that up the page will be ridiculously long in a few short years. --User:Dr_Cherry 15 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Not sure what you mean unless it's this edit, I was making multiple changes there, removing "Phillip Kwik" from the timeline as it was unclear who that was or why it was important. At any rate, maybe the other stuff is a bit too detailed... if that's what you're referring to, you can remove it. --W.marsh 17:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whoever added the Phillip Kwik birth date is being cute to the point of defacement. The revert just put back my edit, no big deal. There's over 80 years of Hamtramck Governmental history and focusing on the last few months seems ridiculous. I'll work on a more fitting government section and insert it. --User:Dr_Cherry 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't the Hamtramck City Council updated? The entry has not been correct for a couple of months, now. The two vacancies that happened on the Council have both been filled: the Cedar vacancy by Alan Shulgon, and the Nowakowski vacancy by William Hood, Jr.

Cohousing Association of The United States

[edit]

A colleague of mine created a page at Cohousing_Association_of_the_United_States which you deleted. My sense is that this organization is worthy of a wikipedia page. I'm not sure what it said before it was deleted that made it blatant advertising but I'd be happy to help rewrite it to be wikipedia appropriate (but it would help to know what it said so I dont repeat the mistake). User:tonysirna 22 May 2007

  • The article I deleted was just a copy and paste of official material from their webpage... that stuff is for promotional purposes, so dumping it onto Wikipedia is pretty basic blatant promotion. If nothing else it violates copyright. Even if the copyright could be released, it's best to write articles in your own words, but drawing information from published sources, not your own personal knowledge. If published sources (books, newspaper articles, magazine pieces) don't exist, then a topic isn't notable enough for an encyclopedia article. --W.marsh 16:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing a great job!!!!! (That's sarcasm btw)

I need some help with the Shaykh Nazim al-Qubrusi deletion

[edit]

Hey, I dont really understand wikipedia that well, but I've come to right a wrong that has occured. Recently you deleted the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaykh_Nazim_al-Qubrusi due to a deletion review located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shaykh_Nazim_al-Qubrusi_%282nd_nomination%29 .

Shaykh Nazim al-Qubrusi is a spiritual leader of the Naqshbandi Golden chain which has its headquarters in cyprus. The naqshbandi are a spiritual form of islam. There are many other forms of islam which dislike and bare grudges to the naqshbandi golden chain and seem to spend a lot of time on wikipedia deleting and vandalising their articles. It seems that they fooled you into deleting the article.

If you have the time i would be very appreciative to take a look into the deletion you made and see if the article can be restored. If you search for Shaykh Nazim on the internet you get 80,000 hits + so im sure he is notable to deserve a page.

Here is the origional deletion review which decided that the article should not be deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shaykh_Nazim_al-Qubrusi

Sorry If i am not going through the correct process to resotre this page but I dont really udnerstand wikipedia that well.

Thanks very much, Louis.

  • Well, it looks like people in the second AFD didn't believe that there were reliable, indepednent sources that have written about this topic. Can you cite any? They're crucial to writing a Wikipedia article. --W.marsh 19:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK Next update

[edit]

Thanks for helping with the DYK Next update. In the future, please don't forget to add the article credit so that we know who to notify. Example:

Thanks! howcheng {chat} 17:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you X 100

[edit]
Thank you very much for supporting my RfA, which closed successfully yesterday... W00t! I hope to be a great admin (and editor) and I'm sure you can tell that my use of a large, boldfaced, capital "T" and a big checkmark image in this generic "thank you" template that I swiped from some other user's Talk Page that I totally mean business! If you need anything in the future or if you see that I've done something incorrectly, please come to my Talk Page and let me know. So now I've got a bunch of reading to do.... see you around! - eo 13:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lava lamp

[edit]

Please don't revert that information back in. The article was blanked and protected for a good reason. The page is the result of an OTRS legal queue complaint. Since you don't have access to the information, which is confidential anyway, I'm asking you to leave it be while we work this out with the opposing attorneys. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 16:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • So in what year can we expect an article there? 2008? 2009? This is silly and pathetic. Just create a useful stub... it's not that hard. A 2-line description is not a trademark infringement... --W.marsh 16:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Winter indeed

[edit]

But the green plants make the pictures look so much nicer, sometimes anyway. IvoShandor 14:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

UKNova

[edit]

Why was this deleted ?

It is prominent enough to be listed on the Template:BitTorrent as a prominent site (It is now the *only* one without it's own page) and Listed in Category:BitTorrent websites where a large number of the pages are minor unremarkable sites ?

It has been mentioned is a couple of newspapers (Cites were on the page...) and not just in passing the article specifically mentioned the site and gave details about it and the community

If it does not meet the critera for it's own page would a BitTorrent websites page, that lists the best known websites would be more appropriate than a redirect to BitTorrent tracker ??

lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ 16:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well if there is a list of BT websites, feel free to point the redirect the article there and cover UKNova in that article, you can do that without an AFD. But I explained my rationale for this AFD further up on my talk page. --W.marsh 17:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to have a look at Empornium it is less notable that [[UKNova] and has *no* References at all ...

Paul C. Barth

[edit]
Updated DYK query On 29 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Paul C. Barth, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
--howcheng {chat} 17:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Retired_username/Archive12&oldid=1139332266"