User talk:Sudirclu

Speedy deletion of Ponoka (band)

A tag has been placed on Ponoka (band) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. AngelOfSadness talk 18:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I suggest you have a read of the policy about notability here, and in particular the standards that are required for music-related articles here. As they're a new band, with only one album, I'm afraid that despite the positive reaction of the Dutch press, the article doesn't put forward enough notability for them to be included in Wikipedia at the moment. _GB^T/C 19:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. I checked the standardss, and I think they fulfill a few of these conditions: their single Help is on The Way was on number 1 in the hitlist for a week on the commercial radiostation Kink FM (condition 11), and they have been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works independent from them and reliable (I quote from their MySpace page): "An album that keeps growing, with subtle personal reflections from a man with character and a keen eye for detail. Great pop record! OOR (leading music magazine); The forty minutes of this debut contain no weak spots whatsoever. Musicfrom.NL; Ponoka is among the best that came in from the Netherlands the past months. The record won’t be leaving our cd-player anytime soon. De Morgen (leading Belgian newspaper)". Hope that helps for you (and sorry for the crappy layout of this comment :) ) Sudirclu (talk) 19:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK - but the first thing to bear in mind is that you need to find reliable sources for these quotes - album or band reviews from third party websites are fine, but quotes from Myspace or other pages linked with the band themselves are not. How about this - I'll recreate the page, move it to your userspace so you can work on bringing it up to scratch, then we can move it back when it's on top form and see how it gets on. Does that sound like a plan? _GB^T/C 19:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds just fine to me! Sudirclu (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - it's now here. Have a go at improving it a bit, shout if you've got any questions (or, better still, just leave me a message on my talk page), and when you're done we can move it back. _GB^T/C 19:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rollback

Hello Sudirclu.
I have notice that you revert a lot of vandalism. Have you heard of rollback before? It allows a user to revert vandalism much faster than by undo-ing it. I think you should ask for it. I am not an admin, or I would give it to you myself. I wrote this just to let you know about the existence of rollback because before someone randomly gave it to me, I did not know it existed. If you ask for it, you should have no problem getting it, as you clearly have an excellent grasp of what constitutes vandalism. Good luck, and may the vandals fail... J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 18:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

speed

Hi. I saw that you recently reverted an edit to {edmund rolls}'s biography page (I'm the second commenter in the talk page), although this is a little irrelevant to what I have to say. Basically, I'm wondering how it is possible for you to revert vandalism within literally seconds of it being posted. Are you looking at a continual feed of the most recent edits and fishing out the vandalisms that way? Don't reply on my talk page, as my IP is dynamic. Thanks. 163.1.143.146 (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Well, basically it's just as you said: you can find the page with recent changes here, and all I do is check for edits by anonymous users (much of Wikipedia's vandalism comes from them). It seems there are even faster possibilities to undo vandalism: when you're granted rollback rights, it's just one or two clicks to do it. In addition, there is some software available that can do it even faster, like Huggle. Good luck! Sudirclu (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. I'm genuinely impressed by the way Wikipedia handles vandalism. I've been looking through the people reverting and, although many are bots, there also seem to be a lot of people, albeit people using programs for ease of use. It's almost tempting to vandalise a page just to see how quickly it gets caught by a bot (which I suppose is quite a large factor in why people vandalise in the first place). 163.1.143.112 (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]