User talk:Ridernyc/Archive 2

Quick reminder on placing notices

Hi Ridernyc! I'd like to respectfully remind you when doing Recent Changes patrol, to use the appropriate level of warning, in succession, per policy regarding placement of templates. A user should not be threatened with a block as a first notice, as we are always to assume good faith. Most likely, you already know this, but I noticed you used an "only notice" on a first warning, for an offense that wasn't terribly egregious. [1] The user did go on to get blocked, but the policy is we should still assume good faith, and use escalating warnings, so I thought that might be helpful. Please don't take this as admonishment or criticism, as it is not at all that, it is just (hopefully) a helpful suggestion. Cheers! ^Ariel♥Gold 20:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for reverting my user page! AC Best 21:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repost of List of concept albums

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on List of concept albums, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because List of concept albums was previously deleted as a result of an articles for deletion (or another XfD)

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting List of concept albums, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 00:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

for removing the vandalism on my user page.Sennen goroshi 04:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry about the warning page. I didn't know I wasn't allowed to clear my message page and that counted as vandelism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.179.30 (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First Tuesday

Please see my most recent edit/edit summary. --Dweller 11:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

uSwitch

With respect I'd have to disagree — we've made the content more neutral and user-friendly, including removing some information that was simply inaccurate, as much of the article had been added by competitors.

One of the people who keeps a close eye on the article is User:Jasonfward, who also works in this industry. Can we suggest that we leave the article for a week or so, to see what the community as a whole (including Jasonfward) thinks of its neutrality and then we can revisit the issue if you still have concerns? — USwitch 09:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You removed everything negative, you did not make it netrual, there is plenty of debate about your type business out there. If you want we could take it to WP:COIN, we could also did out how many accounts from your comapny have been editing this article Ridernyc 09:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to this at WP:COIN#uSwitch and Energy switching services in the UK, given you've listed it there. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 10:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you know, I've just replied to your comment at User talk:Ronz#OwenBlacker COI discussion. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 2007

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! Jmlk 1 7 10:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tramadol

Hi Ridernyc

Serious problem, this advertising for online pharma sales. Great that you nipped it so promptly; I'm concerned that this material is contained even in the history. Unsure whether this is the same vandal, but I wonder whether it needs to be brought up at a higher-level forum. Tony (talk) 13:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blog opera

Hi there. The article doesn't qualify for {{a7}} because it is not a person, company, website, band, or organization. It may be deleted as a neologism, but to my knowledge that is not one of the speedy delte criteria. I added the {{prod}} tag instead. - CobaltBlueTony 20:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

looks like some else disagrees with you, since it's been removed twice now.

Ridernyc 20:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is great; I just need to know which tag to use, as {{db-nn}} doesn't seem to cover it. I'm asking the admin who deleted it. Thanks. - CobaltBlueTony 20:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Residents intermission.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Residents intermission.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 12:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hulk

Heavens, yes. Good call on the templates. --Tenebrae 16:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

just kind of stumbled into the comic articles while doing other edits. My god what a mess. Every article way too long, why do the x-men have like 10 different pages. Wow what a mess. Ridernyc 16:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

code monkeys

i know it's small, thats why you get some people to make it bigger, it dosn't have to be deleted yet, i dont have the time ot make it good, so find somebody to, deleting it will jsut waste time, find somebody who can edit i, not jsut put it up for deletion.--Cody6 23:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in the time it took you to curse at me and then re edit your post you could have simply put the hangon template on the page and explained it there, which is the proper way to do it arguing with me here will do nothing. Please learn wikipedia policy. Ridernyc

You can't do this? and i dont look for templates on this, compared to the UD one, theres infinity--Cody6 23:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- again I don't know how to say this any planner, You need to read the notice on the page you made follow the instructions and talk about it there, not here. Talking here will get you nowhere. Ridernyc 23:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What page, and your suppsoed to use ":" not *--Cody6 01:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you might want to learn a bit more about wikipedia before you create pages. The instructions on how to contest a deletion are explained right on the page what you are working read them.Ridernyc 02:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CoovaChilli

Hi - after thinking about it you're quite right, the coovachilli page added no information. I have added the same basic information to the captive portal page and to the chillispot page.

Secondly - speedy deletion meant the page was gone within a few hours. Is that possibly too speedy? Please don't think me rude - I'm no wordsmith. Criggie —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 06:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on CSD:A7

Hi. :) I came across your speedy deletion tag on Triskaidekaphobia (album) and I just wanted to point out to you that {{subst:db-a7}} is specifically for people (individually or grouped) and websites. There is no consensus for speedily deleting other articles types under this criteria. As Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Explanations notes, other articles that fail to assert notability should go through proposed deletion or articles for deletion. Thanks for looking out for Wikipedia. :) --Moonriddengirl 12:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The album article was nominated because the Bands article was also nominated, and it seems pretty clear the band should deleted.15:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Musicworks speedy deletion

I woke up this morning to find that the Musicworks page I created yesterday was removed without so much as a chance to plead my case.

Perhaps I don't understand the politics of Wikipedia. Evidently the page was deleted because it was believed that the magazine was a "company." Calling it a company would be a complete misnomer, especially because the magazine is in fact a publicly-funded not-for-profit institution; does the Smithsonian have a page on Wikipedia?

As for the importance of the magazine, it has been one of the only forums worldwide for the discussion of experimental music for 30 years. It's been run by volunteers for the majority of its life and has contributed significantly to not only the discourse of experimental music but the music itself. In many cases it's been the only place for experimental artists to have their music published, as financially un-viable music has few avenues in our market-driven economy.

If you want proof of its importance, search wikipedia for "musicworks" and see all the pages that reference the magazine.

If the page is lacking in substance, it would have been better to point out what the page is lacking and allow time for improvement rather than deleting it immediately. I can't understand how anything gets done in this place if the knee-jerk policy is deletion.

I'm aware that there's a policy to not write about one's own company. I've already established that it's not a company, and the importance of the magazine's 30-year existence goes far beyond my half-year tenure as editor.

If you believe it was put there for promotional reasons, do some research about the organisation before it's decided that it's not worthy for wikipedia.

--Sintheta 15:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goat rope

Per WP:NOREASON, please provide a reason for your "speedy delete" vote. AfD is not a vote, but a discussion, so just saying "speedy delete" is no good. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you, I thought I was supposed to delete the tag, I misunderstood what it was saying about leaving the tag for five days. I eventually did go to the right page and leave my comments (I think) in the right place and I did not delete anyone else's commments. I deleted part of my own comment and replaced it with a shorter version of the same thing.NancyHeise 21:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signshare

Why do you consider all of my creations vandalism, I just told what I knew about the One Twelve Music Group. If you didn't think it was enough, go out and get the information and make it notable enough. It really hurts my feelings when you delete my work. Honestly, the fact that you mainly pick on me is a form of bullying and harassment. I, once again am sorry for threating you please just forgive and forget. It seems that you always have a problem with the things that I do for the site. People that do things like this make people's contributions feel useless and it makes them say things out of anger. So now you want me blocked for giving you an apology and creating a positive article about a record label that is on the rise. Don't get mad at my qusetion, but were you bullied in school or the youngest child in your family or something because it would explain your controlling attitude. Why can't you try to work with me instead of deleting my work like going behind me and fixing my errors, not wiping them out of existence. Why do you hate me so much when I have tried to make peace, I was wrong for my first note to you, but you still always call me disruptive, when I am just trying to expand the website. I am not a mean person so why are you trying to cause problems I am a peaceful person, and you deleting my work and now trying to block me really hurts my feelings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Signshare (talk • contribs) 22:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop taking erything personally no one is attacking you. Ridernyc 22:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks re: Residents

Thanks for the edit of my info on The Residents - we were just concerned on getting a link back to Obscurantists and didn't have the time to read a hugely long article - we like them, they're OK, but that's all. So the assist is appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WinkJunior (talk • contribs) 21:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AIV reports

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! --D_arkF_alls ^talk 10:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

gptdt

This is not a promotional content - everything listed is free. Please reconsider.

Sure it is, I'm sure you are no way affiliated with the web site and I'm sure you will no way profit from traffic to the website.Ridernyc 11:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Allard

Hi Ridernyc. I've declined the speedy deletion of the above due to (weak) assertions of noatbility. You may want to take this to WP:AFD if you wish. Pedro : Chat 12:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relax a bit, please

I don't want to disparage your work, because by and large it's really helpful. But I think you're being way too aggressive with your use of the vandalism only-warning tag and calls for speedy delete. This definitely doesn't jive with WP:AGF and WP:BITE. If an article is brand new, isn't clearly spam or vandalism, then Wikipedia doesn't suffer if it goes through the standard five-day WP:PROD instead of WP:CSD. Give people a chance to add the information you need instead of yanking the carpet out from under them. Torc2 19:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 19:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]