User talk:TexasAndroid/Archive12

If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.

INgrooves speedy deletion - please restore[edit]

Hi - Please restore the article INgrooves that you deleted recently with this summary: (Speedy deleted per CSD A7, was an article about a company or organization that didn't assert the importance or significance of its subject.)

I can't imagine why someone would have tagged it for speedy deletion, INgrooves is a prominent global digital music distribution company, a partner of Universal Music Group and distributor of a variety of high-profile recording artists (ie, Dolly Parton, Thievery Corporation, Spinal Tap, etc), and large indie record labels such as Nettwerk Music Group. There's no question about its notability, the company is routinely mentioned in mainstream news sources, for example, in this article from a few days ago in Business Week that quotes their CEO.

By the way, I noticed in the logs there has been some question about the spelling of the name. According to the company's website,[1] they use the spelling "INgrooves" with the two upper case letters because it is their trade name, based on their corporation name "Isolation Network, Inc."

Thanks for your help with this. --The Neutral Zone (talk) 05:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's back now. Don't be surprised if an AFD follows. The person who tagged it for CSD has already filed AFDs on most of the other pages that were CSD declined from that same batch. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neall Ellis[edit]

http://www.google.com/search?q=Neall+Ellis

Recreating page. I guess stubs are not allowed, so I'll try to do all of the research at once. Faceless Enemy (talk) 06:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-stubs that give no indication of notability, that say practically nothing, are not allowed. You are also expressly not supposed to remove speedy deletion notices from articles that you yourself have created. That all said, the third link that is now in the article looks to be enough to show notability, so it should be good now. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Manson[edit]

Not sure I understand problem. "Living" as opposed to fictional, or living as being currently alive?--Jrm2007 (talk) 12:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Living people as in people currently alive. Wikipedia policy on articles that touch on the subjects of living people is a good bit more stringent than it's policies on other articles, in good part because of the potential harm that misinformation can cause in such articles. Please read WP:BLP for the full policy on such articles. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This guy has been dead for a while. Frankly, this sort of thing makes me less and less likely to contribute in the future. I have had reasonable articles deleted when, as others have pointed out, every South Park episode has its own article.--Jrm2007 (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. My mistake. I've removed the BLP PROD and BLP reference tags from it. There's still the general issues of notability and references. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hideki Shiohira article - please restore[edit]

Please restore an article about Hideki Shiohira. He is a prominent aikido and zen master, who is well known in the aikido community. He is also a head of Pacific Aikido Federation. I believe the reason "CSD A7" is not valid in this case. Other wikipedia articles refer to Shiohira Sensei. Thank you in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorspm (talk • contribs) 15:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only source on the article was a link to the Pacific Aikido Federation web page, which is far from an independent source. If you would please read WP:BIO, it'll describe the kind of sourcing that is needed to establish notability. At this point, being head of an organization that does not even itself have an article is not exactly an indication of notability in my mind. Keep in mind, when I say Notability, I mean Wikipedia's definition of notability, not a definition that you may come up with for him being notable to you. Wikipedia notability means meeting specific criteria, generally having to do with being the subject of multiple Reliable, Independent, Non-Trivial coverage. The WP:BIO link above details all this.

That all said, if you can show me such coverage, or another indication that he may meet the project's notability requirements, I can restore it. If not, then you can always start a wider discussion of my actions at WP:DRV. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the list of websites that mention Hideki Shiohira:

The official Aikido Headquarters list of instructors teaching abroad. As you can see the list is pretty small, which means each person on this list is notable in the aikido community. Please also note that there is an article on wikipedia.org about almost every person from this list.
The list of high ranking aikidokas. As you can see, there are not so many people that hold 7th dan in aikido.
http://www.trivalleyaikido.com/sensei.html
http://www.goletaaikido.net/about.html
http://www.kiaikido.org
http://kiresearchinstitute.org/stateofdojo.pdf
http://umnaikido.wordpress.com/
http://www.healing-wellness.com/aikidocenter.html

There are also at least 2 books that have chapters about Hideki Shiohira sensei:

I hope the above is sufficient for you to reconsider the decision about deleting this article. - Victorspm (talk) 05:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first two are lists, which are considered Trivial mentions. The second is also on another Wiki, which fails the Reliable requirement.

The third link does not work for me, so I cannot judge it.

The forth link, goletaaikido, and fifth link are also Trivial mentions. They mention him in passing. He is not the subject of the pages.

The PDF is similarly Trivial mention. And again for the next two.

The books are an interesting situation. They appear to be published by "Books LLC". A web search of this name shows that they are the company that publishes paper books of Wikipedia content. While there is nothing wrong with doing this, if these are such books, or are publish-on-demand books of some type, then they cannot be used for establishing notability.

You mention that many people at his level have pages. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. The existence of pages on other, similar subjects is not a winning argument in showing that the first page should remain. It may just as easily be an argument that the others should also be deleted. I'm not saying that this is the case here, but just that it's an argument that has been used many, many times before, and is not a convincing one.

Ok. That all said, I still do not see any references that satisfy WP:BIO. All the references you provided are either trivial, or unreliable. I need to go now, but I have more thoughts to type up when I have more time... - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at WP:ATHLETE, I see a possibility. There's not a section on Martial Arts, specifically, but there is one on Sumo wrestlers. This section talks about Sumo being notable if they have reached a specific level in their sport. This appears close to your key argument for Shiohira's notability. How about this as a proposal? I'll restore the article, and immediately file a full WP:AFD deletion. We can each then present our arguments there to a wider audience. This AFD discussion would then serve as a test case for whether the wider Wikipedia community considers Shiohira's specific rank to be enough, by itself, to confer notability. If not, then AFD discussions on others at the same level could follow. Does this sound to you like a reasonable path forward? - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds very reasonable. Thank you for considering this. - Victorspm (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's back. That was the easy part. Properly filing a full deletion discussion, and in particular laying out my arguments for deletion, will take more time than I have right now. I'll plan to do so within 24 hours, likely this evening sometime. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to submit this for AfD, please do so. The martial arts project has been trying to clean up its articles and this is one we thought we'd taken care of. Thank you. By the way, there is a set of criteria for martial arts notability at WP:MANOTE.Papaursa (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sorry for the delay. I did not get back to it, and it slipped my mind that I had not done so. It's now listed. - TexasAndroid (talk) 23:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock[edit]

This is to let you know that I have unblocked Boromadloon (talk · contribs), who you blocked more than four years ago, after what seemed to me a convincing unblock request - let's hope he has had time to grow up. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me. - TexasAndroid (talk) 11:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buty recreation[edit]

Hi, I recreated the Buty page you deleted a few years ago. If there is something to enhance in the article please let me know, e.g. I'll try to find more english references to support the notability and verifiability. Thanks. Prot D (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DOUBLE discography[edit]

Just a pointer, I've restored DOUBLE discography as A9 didn't apply (the artist has an article at Double (singer) and the sales figures clearly demonstrate notability beyond the CSD criteria. Esteffect (talk) 05:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I looked for the artist's page, and only found Double (band), which was obviously not connected. - TexasAndroid (talk) 12:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Romanesque Revival architecture in Connecticut[edit]

Purely out of curiosity, I was trying to figure out what I did here. I definitely left out the "Category:" when I created a link in Fairfield County Courthouse (Bridgeport, Connecticut), but I don't think I took any action to actually create what should have been a red-linked page. Does the history show that I created the page that was properly speedily deleted? Did it contain anything? Mainly I just don't want to repeat an error that I can't see how I did. Thanks. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Doncram did the creation of the "Category as and Article". The entire contents was "[[Category:Architectural styles]]". So the sequence of events, as I see it now, was:

You added the "category" to the article, leaving out the "Category:" prefix.
Doncram (likely using your link) created the "category", but without the prefix (s)he actually created an article.
The "Article" appeared on the short pages reports, where I found out about it.
I CSDed the "Article", which contained only a single category entry, nothing else.
The tool I use for CSDs also removed the "backlinks" at Fairfield County Courthouse (Bridgeport, Connecticut) to the "Article".
Doncram, seeing the backlink removal, restored them, adding in the missing "Category:" prefix at the same time.
Doncram's edit summary on the previous step expressed puzzlement at what was going on, so I gave a simple explanation on his talk page.
Finally, you came here, also puzzled.

:) - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation and for cleaning up our mess. Next time I'll try to pay better attention and not leave evil, misleading redlinks lying around. It actually helps if one looks at the preview, which I forgot to do. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Saxon surnames[edit]

Excuse me but why did you delete the list of Anglo-saxon surnames do you know how long that took me to verify their origin and list them?Davido488 (talk) 12:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of surnames for the deletion discussion where such a previous list was deleted. At it's simplest, this really is not appropriate material for an encyclopedia. A similar list is kept at the much-more appropriate location at Wiktionary, so we maintain a soft redirect to that list. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you delete the Irish Names section, that has a Surname section that isn't needed.Davido488 (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure how to respond. I monitor various Soft Redirects. I saw your edits that moved the page away from being a soft redirect. I investigated the history of that specific page, and saw that the soft redirect was in response to an AFD discussion, and that the new page was going in the exact same direction as what was previously deleted. So I revered to the soft redirect, in line with the AFD result. My actions were about this one page, and the AFD that covered that one page. I do not believe that the AFD covered this other page you mention, so it really has no bearing on my actions. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And once more, why doesn't the list of Scottish Gaelic Surnames not get deleted, doesn't that belong in Wiktionary. It's unfair, I never redirected any article, I just simply verified a list of surnames with Old English origins and listed them with the hope of people improving them, this seems to a degree unfair the Scottish and Irish are allowed to express their diaspora but the English aren't, Don't get me the wrong way I'm not having a go at you, the Scottish or anyone, it's just that there is always an article on how English people all descended from somewhere else which isn't the case, where are the articles of English surnames, Irish people of English ancestry, Scottish people of English ancestry, I type in English surnames and I get redirected to Germanic names, that not fair, I type in Scottish surnames I get Scottish surnames and the same with Irish surnames, It's never vice versa because the English would be blamed for claiming other people like they get blamed for putting Humphrey Davys nationality as English which he was Cornwall is part of England you should check the discussion and amount of Anti-English there, or the article would be deleted if it had something to do with English ancestry in Scotland or Ireland, nothing personal to you if you have Irish or Scottish ancestry, but you get my point.Davido488 (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained why I edited the one article, and only the one article. I edited it because of the old AFD, and that old AFD applied to a specific set of articles that did not include any of the others that you mention. Once I edited that one article, I was done enforcing the AFD. The AFD carries no weight on articles that it did not cover. That's why I edited the one article and only the one article. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bear Hugger[edit]

I was wondering if you could unprotect Bear Hugger, as I am attempting to create an article by that title [it is roughly the same thing as the user BearHugger was making, except with significantly more notability attached]. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page was only ever a link or redirect to his user page, so there's not really anything there worth re-creating. And given the repeated recreation as a vanity page/link, and the lack of any indication of notability, I'm not particularly inclined to unblock without first seeing what kind of article is being proposed to go there. There is a solution. You can create the proposed article in you user-space first, then let me and/or another admin look it over first before we allow it into article-space. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have it on my user space already; User:New Age Retro Hippie/Bear Hugger. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much thanks! :) - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:August 2010 Mogadishu attacks[edit]

Can the move request be removed now from this? It has been almost 2 weeks and the battle has lasted into September. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given how I came into this, in revert conflict with the proposer of the merge/move, I do not think I'm the appropriate one to do this. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recreating Snout_(band)[edit]

Hello TexasAndroid. I noticed that this page was deleted on June 1 because of insufficient notability, so I have spent some time recreating it in my user section, as can be seen here: User:Platform3/Snout_(band)

Please could you review this and let me know whether what I have done is sufficient to be included in the main section? Although I have dabbled with Wikipedia edits to a small scale in the past, this is the first time I have written an article from scratch. I have read a lot of the Help section to try and make sure that I have followed correct procedure.

Thank you.

Platform3 (talk) 23:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting through all those links will take some time. Time I do not have right now. As a possible way to speed this up, could you take a peak at WP:BAND, and tell me exactly which criteria the band meets, and which links show that they meet them. Your page seems heavily sourced, but lots of sources do not necessarily show notability unless they show that one or more of those criteria are met. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's safe to say that an act that has been twice nominated for the Aussy Music Industry Award would probably pass. You can also bet they have probably charted if they've been nominated. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I had already consulted WP:BAND, while putting the article together. The easiest to demonstrate is that they released 3 albums and 8 EPs on Au Go Go Records. Here is the reference cited in the article:

Au Go Go Records. "Discography". Retrieved 2010-009-11.

You can see that this label released records between 1979 and 2000 by many Australian acts, as well as Australian releases of notable bands such as John Spencer Blues Explosion, Camper Van Beethoven, Dinosaur Jnr, 5,6,7,8’s, and Sonic Youth. I believe that this satisfies criterium 5.

Furthermore, two former members of the band have gone on to be nominated for the Australian Music Prize which is similar to the Polaris Prize in Canada, and the Mercury Prize in the UK:

The 6th Australian Music Prize. "2009 Shortlist « The Australian Music Prize". Retrieved 2010-09-11.
Mess and Noise. "Black Cab To Make Brisbane Bow". June 1, 2010.

As Floydian mentioned, they were nominated twice for Australian Record Industry Association Awards:

ARIA Awards website, History: Winners by Year. "11th Annual ARIA Awards". Retrieved 2010-09-11.
ARIA Awards website, History: Winners by Year. "12th Annual ARIA Awards". Retrieved 2010-09-11.

I would think that this would meet criteria 6 and 8

Thanks Platform3 (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Moved to article space. - TexasAndroid (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've just now submitted the article to Did You Know. It just seemed like a good one for it. - TexasAndroid (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TexasAndroid,thanks for your time dealing with this. Platform3 (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category talk:Murderers of children[edit]

Hi - you started this category. I'm having an IP who wants to add this category to the article of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi. I responded by clarifying what I think is the purpose of this category, but it would be helpful if you would comment on this. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this stage I do not expressly remember creating this category, given it was four years ago. From the Edit Summary, my best guess at this point was that I encountered it on one of the lists of red-linked categories, and simply built it out in response. I did a lot of that. So, given that my likely original motivation for creating it was likely just to have one less red-linked category, I'm really not going to be able to be of much assistance in the current debate. Sorry. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage[edit]

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Snout (band)[edit]

On 25 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Snout (band), which you recently nominated. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William Hill Irish Sports Book of the year[edit]

Hi Texas Android,

Is it okay to create a page for this sports literary prize.

All the best

Tony —Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamhillonline (talk • contribs) 21:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea if it would be considered notable to Wikipedia's standards or not. You may want to read WP:NOTE, and see if you can come up with references to show that one or more of the WP:NOTE criteria are met. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Kevan[edit]

Just created a page for Tim Kevan, author of the Baby Barista series of books. I think his recent work makes him noteworthy enough for a page despite the old page being deleted; hope you agree. Asteuartw (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've undeleted the history from the older version of the page. Please see my comments on the article's tak page for my reasoning for doing this. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the Lee MacDougall wiki[edit]

Greetings, You have just deleted a page I just created. I'm new to this and therefore might not have done something right. Could you please restore the page and allow me to finish and then decide? Lee MacDougall is relevant and significant. He is a musician, songwriter and singer from London that will be touring in the States next year. I await your decision. Much thanks, Rosefamily68 (talk) 00:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Shannon Rose rosefamily68[reply]

Umm. I deleted a version of that page back in September of '08. The most recent version was deleted by User:Stephen. You'll need to talk to him about the recent deletion. But you need to be aware of Wikipedia's notability criteria. Please read WP:MUSIC. If you cannot say exacly which criteria on that link your subject meets, and be ready to provide sourcing to verify that he meets them, then you are highly likely fighting a losing battle here. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Munson[edit]

Sorry I had to blank that re-direct page, but I couldn't find an option to delete the re-direct page. Can you delete the re-direct page in the proper fashion? The main page was deleted because the subject (me) is non-notable. There is no point in keeping a re-direct page. The page is causing me some headaches, so I appreciate this. Chuck0 (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you the link in my edit summary. WP:RFD. If you want the link gone, then you need to start a deletion discussion there and persuade others there that it should be deleted. I cannot do it for you, sorry. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore Cetotheriidae[edit]

Could you please restore the Cetotheriidae article you speedied earlier. As you saw when you went through and removed the links to the page there were a number of articles that linked to it. And I have been going through and adding more where there should be links in genus level articles. Yes at this point Family level articles for extinct taxa are a bit stubby bit they do fall within the guidelines for the WP:Tree of Life, WP:Mammals, WP:Paleontology, and WP:Cetaceans. It will be expanded at some point when one of the paleo editors get a chance to work on it. --Kev min § 21:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to write at least a decent stub, please feel free to do so. What was there was a template. Only a template. No useful information whatsoever. INHO there's really nothing to restore, because there really was nothing there in the first place. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Were there any references associated with the (I'm assuming) taxobox? What information was in the template?. --Kev min § 23:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was a call to {{automatic taxobox}}, and nothing else. - TexasAndroid (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steelite[edit]

I was just watching a program about tugboats, and it was noted on there that the tow ropes were made of Steelite, a material as strong as steel but that floats. Looking it up on here I noted that you deleted the page "Steelite" in 2008. Doing a little research I found this reference to Steelite being a name given by a company named Bridon to cables made out of a material called Dyneema. This apparently is an ultra high molecular weight polymer as mentioned on the Wikipedia page Ultra-high-molecular-weight_polyethylene.

I suspect that the original Steelite page was referring to a different use of the word given that it was related to "Reformed Presbytery in North America". I doubt that in the polymer context it would merit its own page, but would it be worth adding a redirect from Steelite to Ultra-high-molecular-weight_polyethylene and a passing mention of the brand name in the article? I'd do it myself but I don't know how to make redirects and I wouldn't want to redo anything that would be against deletion policy.

Magma (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was to a company of that same name. I do not *think* is has any connection to the material, but I have not looked into the question in detail. Anyway, I went ahead and created your redirect. Make a reference to the product name in the target article, and it all should be good to go. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting Colonial Heights High School & Technical Center[edit]

This is a duplicate article of the article written for the High School. It really should be deleted, as there is very little on this page. If speedy deletion is not the way to go with it, then please suggest another method. A redirect would not fit here, since the technical center is not part of the school's name. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 00:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a duplicate, the simplest solution is to redirect to the better article. Redirecting will let both names end up at the same place. I can do that for you. What's the other article?

As for speedy deletion, it is for very narrow specific circumstances, which this did not fit. For future reference the slower, but broader deletion mechanisms are WP:PROD and WP:AFD. PROD is simple, but *anyone* can decline it by simply removing the notice. The idea of PROD is for totally non-controversial deletions. AFD is for starting full discussions on the merits of an article. It's the broadest of the deletion mechanisms, but also the slowest, and you need to be able to persuade others that the article should go.

But for the current one, a redirect should, I think, take care of the situation quite well. - TexasAndroid (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could do the redirect, though I am also going to run it through AfD as well, as I do not think the redirect is necessary. There is nothing to show that this is necessary. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 00:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creative_COW please restore[edit]

Hi, not sure why you deleted the Creative COW page. It's a well established print magazine and online forum serving media and video production professionals. I have no connection with the organisation but created the page to fix a broken link, as there are at least 15 or 20 Wikipedia pages that refer to it.

24ten (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:WEB. You need to show which of the listed criteria your site meets, and provide links/references that show that the criteria are met. Press releases, and sites responding to press releases are not enough to show notability. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a web site. It's a trade magazine with a monthly circulation of more than 40,000 printed copies (included in List of trade magazines for example), plus an online edition and associated user forums. It's also not my site. Never mind though, the page seems to have gone now and I can't be bothered to recreate it as I no longer have a copy. 24ten (talk) 19:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the site for which you created an article, and which you are arguing to have restored. That's the only sense in which it is "your" site, as you are advocating for it to have a page on the project.

That said, in your earlier comment your mention of "online forum" was overshadowing your mention of it being an print magazine. But you've made the latter much clearer to me in your latest comment. And ultimately, that actually makes a difference. Not (necessarily) a difference in notability, but a difference in appropriate deletion methods. The page was deleted via the web-site A7 CSD. Speedy deletions are for specific, narrow, situations, and the print magazine appears to take the article out of the A7 range. I've thus reversed myself, and restored the page. I'm still far from convinced of it's notability, but that's an issue for WP:AFD, not WP:CSD. - TexasAndroid (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malawi Voice[edit]

I understand that it's an online news site, rather than printed. But there were several references to it from several other pages on this site. How can it be used as a reference by several pages, but not be notable enough to deserve its own article page? The reasons I believed it should be kept: On facebook it has about 1700 followers. it's referenced by several wp pages. it's listed as a newspaper on Nyasa Times. It's also referenced on 1,000s of pages on the 'net!

I hope it won't be too much of a hassle to add back the links to the page from the pages which reference it.

I think there needs to be extra care taken when speedily deleting pages about Developing World topics, as often there is very little online about whole countries. Malawi is such a place. Less than 2% of the population are regularly online. The Malawi Voice seems to be a popular site. How many people need to use it or know about it before it becomes notable? What sort of online references would be needed to make it notable? Are these likely for such a site in the developing world? If not, is there a risk that the policies are biased against developing world topics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionfish0 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:WEB. There are specific criteria for when a web site does or does not qualify to have a page on Wikipedia. I'm sorry, but the reasons you give are not among the project's criteria. As for the internal links, it is quite possible for something to be a reliable source, but not to be notable enough to itself have a page. The two situations use totally independent criteria for determination, and there is no link between meeting one to meeting the other. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see your points. I was wondering how I could get hold of the original page, so I could copy it to Special:MyPage/Malawi Voice? I've not added much to wp so am a bit new to it all. Also I've struggled with getting notability for developing world topics. Also I think Malawi Voice might be quite new so I guess it might become notable in a year or two - if it continues. Btw, do you think a list of malawi newspapers would be a valid wp page? Lionfish0 (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been userified at User:Lionfish0/Malawi Voice. As for the list you mention, that's outside my area of expertise, but my gut instinct is that such a list would not only be notable, but quite useful. But keep in mind that I'm no expert in that (lists, or developing countries). - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help! I must try not to get frustrated by the deletion process, as it does make sense! Thanks for keeping wp a bit organised :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionfish0 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability Question: Master's Commission[edit]

I have a question as to how I can make this article more notable in Wikipedia terms. The group is part of several wiki pages, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasilla_Assembly_of_God, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Bakker, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lori_Bakker but there is no wiki page on the subject. Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.237.151 (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOTE and in particular WP:ORG. It may very well be that you cannot make the *article* more notable. In general, it is the organization that is notable of not, not the article. And if the organization is not notable, then there is generally no way to make an article about them meet notability requirements. In general, read the WP:ORG page, and see what of the criteria there the organization meets. If it meets one or more, then see about gathering sources that show that the criteria is met. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK[edit]

I restored AFAIK as I found it, which means it is still tagged as CSD. Assuming you disagree, I'll let you take the next steps.--SPhilbrick T 19:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read much?[edit]

You know, you might want to actually check for the presence of categories. The article had been moved to the mainspace five minutes before you spammed the uncat tag into it, and there were four cats commented out immediately above the template you added. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. But that's a rather rude response on your part. I responded to your CSD request to delete the redirect. As I generally do for articles newly moved out of user space, I gave the article itself a peak. It looked pretty good. But I scanned down and saw no categories in the area that categories go on. So I clicked a couple of buttons on a tool to drop the tag on the article. At no time did I actually see the source of the article. The tool took care of that. So sorry, but no. An article with commented out categories has no categories, as far as the project is concerned.

The maintenance tags are to let you (or others) know that there is an issue that needs addressing. commented out/invisible tags or no tags, the issue needed addressing. And the tag got the issue addressed. So it served it's purpose. I'm sorry that doing so upset you, but I responded to what I saw/didn't see with the tools at my disposal.

As for your comment/suggestion that I should have checked the source, I think it's safe to say that, in the hundreds of times I have added that tag to the article, this is the first time that there have already been commented out/invisible categories on the article. Given the time needed to check for something that will not be there 99.99% of the time, I think I'll use that time on things that are likely to actually find something most of the time. It's not a lot of time on each individual article, but on many articles, the time to look for things that are most likely not there would quickly add up. Having to do so also defeats the whole purpose of time saving tools like the one I use to place tags. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that you were unable to see the plainly visible text two lines above the template you added. Would you like me to ask the folks at Twinkle about fixing their script so that it doesn't lead you into errors? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me where in this version you see those categories. Not in the source of that version, but in the actual displayed version. That's the point. I never saw the source. What is plain in the source is invisible in the processed text. That's kinda the whole point of a comment. As for telling Twinkle, please, feel free to do so. I could use a laugh here as you try to ask for invisible comments to somehow be shown on processed pages. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Members of the pre-1801 Parliament of Ireland[edit]

Category:Members of the pre-1801 Parliament of Ireland, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 04:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Love your work![edit]

I have just read through all of your recent talk page (from 3-July-2010). Congratulations on maintaining a calm and measured attitude and for taking the time to provide valuable and relevant guidance to all who have crossed paths with you ... It is a thankless task! But it is paritcularly pleasing to see how many have seen the true light as consequence of their interaction with you. It's a credit to you, to all editors, and of course to Wikipedia, the principles on which it is founded, and on the way it constantly defines, redefines, and articulates the rules by which it runs. Love your work TexasAndroid. Love your work Wikipedia. --Dtayls (talk) 04:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You say that just as I'm having a snark-filled back and forth just 2 sections above. So I do not always stay as calm as I probably should. Sigh. Anyway, thanks. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had committed to posting my comment to you well before I got to the final section titled "Read much?" (or at least that is what it was when I started writing my note). I am sure that some may see my comment as a direct response to WhatamIdoing, but it truly did come from my overall reaction to the last six months of discussions on your talk page.

From what I can see everything you did and said in relation to WhatamIdoing's issue were perfectly reasonable and I applaud you for it. Her personal attacks on the other hand are most inappropriate.

Keep up the good work Dtayls (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of the key attributes of being an admin on the project is having thick skin. Performing normal admin duties is is a sure-fire way to get people upset at you, and they often come in here guns blazing. Now, I was not in admin mode in the actions that set off the Read Much thread, but the point still stands. I've been called much worse than that, and it normally does not bother me. Not too sure why I've let that current discussion get to me. Oh well. - TexasAndroid (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't talk it down! Having a thick skin may help at times, but staying calm and responding with constructive comments - as you have done again and again, from what I have seen - is something entirely different. If I could give you a gold star, I would. Thanks again for your efforts and generosity. The world is indeed a better place because of people like you. Dtayls (talk) 05:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... and then I thought, "How did I get here in the first place?"

It seems that I was looking up Java Management Extensions; I followed a broken link (ie. to jManage which you apparently deleted due to it being "On PROD for five or more days. Notability."); and then ended up reading through your talk page.

Nothing happens without reason. It's sometimes nice to know why things happen as they do ...

Thanks again TexasAndroid. Love your work! — Dtayls (talk) 10:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking for one, really, really, really. But for future reference, the "Gold Star" you mention is WP:BARNSTAR. Those are informal "atta-boy" awards that any Wikipedian can give to any other as thanks. And please, at this point, don't give me one. I would feel crass to accept one right after pointing them out to you. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Dendroolithus[edit]

Please restore Dendroolithus, there's a template error in the ootaxobox and I can't move the article to a sandbox because the template draws from the page name. Abyssal (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you planning to have more than just a template call there within a fairly short period of time? The page has only the single template call, and that's not enough to be a valid article. If you are going to expand it into at least a minimal stub, and do so within the next day or so, I'll restore it. Not that there is really anything to restore other than the one template call. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The main factor affecting how long it will remain contentless is how long it is before I receive some assistance from Bob the Wikipedian about the failure of the template to display ootaxa of a higher order than oofamily. Don't worry, everything should be resolved soon. Abyssal (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent reverts on MMR controversy categories[edit]

I reverted a couple of your additions to the MMR vaccine controversy categories. David Kirby and Mark Geier are known pretty much exclusively for their role in the Thiomersal controversy, a distinct vaccine controversy from the MMR controversy; I therefore reverted their addition to it. Yobol (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I'm not an expert on the different controversies, and am making judgments as best as I can looking through articles as to which belong in there and which do not. I had not been thinking about there being multiple different Autism/vaccine controversies. But now that you mention it, I see that to be the case. Thank you for cleaning up after my mistakes. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

scorio speedy deletion - please restore[edit]

Please restore the article about the scorio online scorewriter describing www.scorio.com.

scorio has a unique approach in that it is the only online note editor that uses only HTML and therefore can be used on devices not supporting Adobe Flash (such as iPad). To my knowledge, it is also the only online note editor with a Lilypond backend. Pedagogically and socially, scorio is an important web-site, because it offers a free low-threshold access to music notation in good print quality to people who can't afford professional programs like Finale or Sibelius and who might not even own a computer where they can install free software.

The article about scorio has been rated as relevant in the German wikipedia, and both versions were linked.

If you still think, that scorio is not relevant to Wikipedia, please give us specific reasons why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorgle (talk • contribs) 16:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The different language projects have different inclusion requirements. So the fact that something meets those requirements on one project has really no bearing on whether it meets them here. On the English Wikipedia the requirements for web sites are detailed at WP:WEB. When I have a chance, I'll go through the links that were on the page more precisely, but if you are able to look at WP:WEB and say exactly which of those criteria are met by the site, that would make things simpler. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The scorio article is written from a neutral point of view: On the one hand, it points out, why the site is unique (as summarized in the second paragraph of my above post, except for the social aspect which should be added); on the other hand it lists the restrictions such as missing support for polyphony in one line.

Independent references:

scorio has been accepted into the list of MusicXML readers on the official MusicXML site (http://www.recordare.com/musicxml/community/software; if the link is not in the article, it should be added after restoration). Entering this list is non-trivial, since it involves acceptance by the creator of MusicXML, Michael Good.
delamar published an independent and critical review about scorio (http://www.delamar.de/pressemitteilung/scorio-kostenloser-musiknoteneditor-musiknoten-8843/).
scorio is reviewed as to it's use for guitar players in a review of music editors by classicalguitarblog.org: http://www.classicalguitarblog.net/2010/11/music-notation-software/ (although unlike the review claims, scorio does support point and click) - Scorgle (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored it. I'm far from convinced that it's notable, but you've raised enough doubt that I'm also no longer convinced that Speedy Deletion was proper. I may start a full deletion debate on it within the next few days, at which point you'll have seven days to plead your case for whether it should remain. But I'm not certain yet whether I'll do that. But for now, it's back. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for restoring the page, TexasAndroid. - Scorgle (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scorio. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:2008 Baton Rouge Pro Tennis Classic[edit]

Category:2008 Baton Rouge Pro Tennis Classic, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caterpillar Club[edit]

You are in Edit history as an editor on this article. It has been multiply tagged for improvement as an alternative to being recommended for deletion. This is a request for editorial intervention to improve this article. Please help if possible.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

redirects[edit]

Hi, could you explain to me the use of the {{R from xxxx}} template? I've read at least four different guidelines and help pages on the use of redirects and {{R from xxxx}} templates but I'm none the wiser, and I can't figure out what I'm doing wrong by using it. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not the {{R from xxxx}} template, but the issue of what does or does not make a valid, working redirect. The redirect statement needs to be the first thing on the first line of the "article" for it to be a functional redirect. You've been placing your {{R from xxxx}} template as the new first line, moving the redirect statement to the second line. This breaks the redirect. It's really not important whether the {{R from xxxx}} template is on the first line after the redirect statement, or on it's own second line. But it cannot be before the redirect statement without breaking the redirect. Does that make sense? - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick reply TA. I knew this, but by putting the {{R from xxxx}} above or before the redirect, it forces the reader to pass first through the redirect page itself and see the message that the {{R from xxxx}} template produces. The redirect link is still a working link to continue on to the destination page. Naturally not all redirects need a {{R from xxxx}} template, but in the case of schools, I considered it to be useful for the reader, or especially the original creator, to understand why the page had been blanked and redirected, and it's only one mouse click more to get to the page. I've not come across any policy that states this should not be done, but I'll stand corrected if I have missed something. --Kudpung (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is mostly my personal POV on the subject then, but once you break the auto-redirect functionality of a redirect, then it's no longer a redirect, it's... something else. A See Also page that has a forward link, or something like that. It's the auto-redirect that makes a redirect a redirect. And putting anything before the redirect statement breaks the auto-redirect.

Similarly, how I'm finding these is that they are showing up on the Short Pages reports. These reports are specifically designed to ignore redirects. but once redirects are broken they are no longer considered redirects by these reports, and start showing up as short pages that need attention. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with it being your POV - plenty of policy and guidelines are so ambiguous as to require personal interpretation. As for what I've been doing for the school redirects, which although technically no longer makes the R page a redirect, it does serve an arguably legitimate purpose, otherwise what would be the use of those messages they generate? What should we do next to get some clarification? Bring it up at WT:REDIRECT? Discussions over there have a habit of going on for ages, getting out of control, and petering out without a close. Kudpung (talk) 06:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Tributyltin azide[edit]

Give me a couple days to improve the content. Shoefly (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering we've both been here well over 5 years, the fact that you've been here 6 months longer is minor, and really has no bearing on whether you or I know what qualifies as a speedyable article. As for Rude and Rogue, to me it's Rude and Rogue to create articles that do not meet the minimum requirements for being a valid article. And an article that has no prose text on it, no description, no context at all, does not meet such minimum requirements. Sorry.

That all said, if you are fully intending to bring it up to minimum standards, and I have no reason to doubt you on that intent, there's an easy way to do so. I've userified the article at User:Shoefly/Tributyltin azide. You can work on it there, and when it is at least a viable stub, you are welcome to move it back to article space. This way you get the "couple of days" to work on it that you say you need, and the encyclopedia gets a good article when it's ready.

In the future, if you are inclined to create sub-stubs again, please start them in your user space, and hold onto them there until they are actually ready for article space. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will do. Good idea about using the user space first. I will do that in future page development. Shoefly (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A side/historical note, to anyone who reads this down the road. Shoefly originally posted a longer, and much more snarky initial comment in this section. It can be seen here. It is to this comment that my above snarky reply is directed. He has since replaced it with the much shorter comment now seen above. I'm not going to undo the replacement, but it does leave my own response totally without context. So for anyone wanting to see the original context of my above response, use the link I gave just above. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Speedy deletion" apparently meant virtual on the spot deletion of a newly created info box page with good content. Such quick administrator deletions a page contributor can't undo. The effort put into an ongoing page development seems to be lost, which can be aggravating and upsetting. Your suggestion to use one's user page for new page content in development is good. Everything else is less instructive or constructive for the next reader, but it is up to you what to keep. Overall, I appreciate the efforts of Wikipedia administrators like yourself in policing this mostly voluntary undertaking.

Quoting from the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion "....administrators should avoid deleting a page that appears incomplete too soon after its creation." Criteria A3 ....Similarly, this criterion doesn't cover a page with an infobox with non-trivial information." Criteria A1 and A3 "....Caution is needed when using this tag on newly created articles." Shoefly (talk) 04:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like to keep everything. If you wanted to withdraw your original comment, fine. But I do not generally withdraw my own comments. And with yours replaced, and mine staying, it looks like I launched into a snark filled response to... nothing, when in reality I replied with snark to snark. I'm not trying to be instructive or constructive, but rather to avoid them looking at my response to your highly modified opening, and having them wonder what the heck I'm responding to. Your change left my response lacking context, I was trying to restore the context. Nothing more.

As to the rest, I think we would be best letting it rest. We appear to have bad feelings going both directions here. But the original situation is resolved, and continuing to hash at each other over the origins of a resolved situation serves no useful purpose that I can see. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FSCnom/init[edit]

This deletion was in error: this is a pre-load template used on WP:FSC, and deleting it breaks that process. I can see no way that T3 applies, and can only presume you deleted it in error.

Likewise Template:FSCnom/intro

To speed things up, I've asked for it to be undeleted here.

I presume you confused them with Template:FPCnom/init, however, sounds use a very specific template with unusual syntax. An FPC nom will NOT use that template or syntax. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wierd. In the TW drop down list I get "T3: Templates that are not employed in any useful fashion". That's about what I deleted it for. In the deletion description, however, TW placed "Speedy deleted per CSD T3, was a template which was a duplicate of, hard-coded instance of, or an inferior alternative to a other template. using TW", which has nothing to do with my reason. Looking at it's "What links Here" list, I still do not see it as being in use. That said, I'll take your word that it's actually used somewhere/somehow. - 02:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It's used, I assure you. FSC refers to Featured Sound Candidates, and those two templates are used in the nominating process for featured sounds. Go to Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates, then down a little bit to the line "Step 1 - Create subpage" and the big text entry bar ending in the "Create new nomination" button. Enter some dummy text after the backslash in the big text entry bar (if you leave it as "Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/" it won't proceed), and click the button. That's where you'll see those two pages at work. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia software has an "inputbox" function, which let's you set things up so someone can easily create a page, and have instructions for how to use it above the editbox, and some pre-prepared formatting set up in the edit box. It tends to be used only in things like Featured content processes, articles for deletion, and such, so it's kind of obscure, but as Sven says, you can see it in use by following those instructions. =)

The really annoying thing is you can't mark it as a preloader template, because, if you do, the text appears above or in the editbox when it's used for its intended function. Making accidental deletion of it... a really easy mistake =). Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize. I regularly encounter a similar situation with Soft Redirects. If these are looked at as articles, they generally qualify for A3 CSD deletion. A while back I added to the page for Soft Redirects that they should be subject to Redirect deletion criteria and methods, not Article criteria and methods. This gives me something to point to when admins every-so-often A3 delete them. I generally go to them, politely point them to WP:SOFTREDIRECT, and ask them to revert themselves. To date, every single one has done so. But the fact that I have to regularly ask is a continuing mild annoyance. I can see this having similarities to your situation here. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, the obscurer parts of Wikipedia procedure very easily cause problems like that, since most people will never work with them. It's annoying, but the actions are so obviously in good faith that there's no point getting upset (at the person, anyway; I will admit to some mild grumbling that noone else noticed, because FSC got lots of new people since January. =) I pretty much did all the work in creating the modern featured soudns process myself, so I'm a little protective of it =) ). Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edugeek speedy deletion - please restore[edit]

I am new to this, and i am trying to create a detailed article called Edugeek. I hadnt got far at all and it was removed. Exactly why please? I did put a hold on marker on the page. I am very disapointed in this, it would be nice if users had time to create a quality article.

Please can you let me know when you have replied on my talk page

thanks

--Boeing747-412 (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Step 1 for you. Read WP:WEB, and then tell me exactly which of the given criteria is met by the site that is the subject of the article. If the answer is "None", then you are likely fighting a losing battle trying to write an article on that subject here, sorry. Topics on Wikipedia need to meet specific criteria of Notability in order to have an article remain. For web sites, WP:WEB gives those criteria. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing747-412, see also WP:VRS. Chzz ► 15:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Just a passing comment[reply]

Edugeek has featured in multiple national publications such as The Register, The TES and a few others (currently finding them). Your speedy deletion didn't give the person who was editing the article time in which to actually get the references into the page!

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/10/edugeek_fasthosts/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/30/sophos_versus_edugeeks/

http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=2434526

http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6042430

Plus many more, as and when they are located.

So, rather than simply wiping the page, it may have been more useful to speak to the editor in question, rather than attempting to alienate them by using your deletion tools. -Localzuk^(talk) 13:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More, if you're still not sold.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/resource/top-tips

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2006/mar/07/elearning.technology

http://www.guardian.co.uk/resource/freebies-bett-2010

http://www.naace.co.uk/1059

http://www.bcs.org/content/conWebDoc/37370

http://www.sec-ed.co.uk/cgi-bin/go.pl/article/article.html?uid=79032;type_uid=2;section=Features

http://blogs.scholastic.com/royaltreatment/2010/07/edugeek-invades-us-education-it.html

So, please restore and let people work on it.-Localzuk^(talk) 15:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's now back. I did not go through all the provided links, but the first two were enough to give at least a hint at possible notability. And to invalidate speedy deletion, that's enough. Two full articles in the Register about goings on there is (at least) a hint of possible notability. It still might not survive a full deletion debate if someone starts one, and some of these sources above should be added ASAP. But for now, it's back. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Ashen[edit]

I have deleted Stuart Ashen, and added my own advice and warning to the user's page, along with yours. We will have to see if it has any effect. You suggest restoring the redirect to That Guy with the Glasses, but that article currently does not mention Stuart Ashen, so I have not done that. I will leave it to you if you want to do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. After providing the old copy to the user, and having that backfire on me, I mostly want to walk away from this one. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James M. Cushing, DSC[edit]

Thank you very much for doing that! I was just about to ask for help. Didn't know how to get the total history in one place. Can you believe this article was tagged for "not notable"? The man is still a hero in Cebu. Thanks again, Tex! --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that, once a cut&paste move is performed, it takes admin tools to fix it right. Anyone can Move a page from one name to another, but there is a step in fixing C&P moves that requires briefly deleting one of the two articles. Only admins can delete/restore files, so only admins can fix C&P moves. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, next time, I'll use Move instead of cut & paste. OK. (But don't blame me; blame the bonehead who got his middle initial wrong in the first place!) Thanks, again. --Kenatipo ^speak! 19:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Cut&Paste moves are a very, very, very common mistake around here. If I got upset at them, I'd be upset a lot more than would be healthy. So when I find them, I generally just fix them and move on to find something else to fix. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Ivanovich Nikitin[edit]

Re the redirect blanking. This was not about vandalism or intentional blanking. This was part of a failed attempt to put right an inappropriate page-move of the article by an editor - I was attempting to put the article back onto this page where it originally was, but the system would not let me do it. I have left a message asking for help on User:Materialscientist's talkpage here. However if you know how to put right the inappropriate page-move, please let me know. Thanks.--Storye book (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At this point it takes Admin tools. I could technically do it, but I do not know myself whether the move was improper or not. Likely your best path forward then is WP:RM. That's a place to get more information on dealing with moving pages. You'll likely need to explain why the initial move was in your opinion inappropriate. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll wait for Materialscientist's response first, though.--Storye book (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: This is just to let you know that I have now received Materialscientist's input on his talkpage (fairly neutral); and also the input of Greyhood on the Viktor Nikitin talkpage (happy to revert "Viktor" to "Victor"); and the private email input of some Russian and American editors of some of the Alexandrov Ensemble pages (they want the "Viktor Nikitin" article name to revert to the original "Victor Ivanovich Nikitin").

In response to this feedback, I'm going to attempt a cut-and-paste move back to the original article name. Please accept my apologies in advance for any inconvenience caused. I am aware that this is against normal Wiki policy, but I don't know how else to put the move-error right.--Storye book (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: I confirm that this has now been done, and all redirects have been reinstated as they were before. If you wish to help with this, the history still needs to be reinstated in the right place at Victor Ivanovich Nikitin and Talk:Victor Ivanovich Nikitin. Thank you for your kind patience in this matter.--Storye book (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cut&Paste moves are against policy for good reason. They break the history trail, which is a requirement of GFDL liscenced material. Thus they are technically a violation of copyright, which is very much not a good thing. I'm quite annoyed at you right now. I gave you a link to the proper place to go to get it fixed. WP:RM. Instead, you chose to knowingly violate project rules and pick about the worst course of action you could pick short of edit warring over things. I'll fix the cut&paste move for you, but I am far, far from happy with you at this point. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your kind help, and please accept my apologies for inconvenience caused.--Storye book (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Femininity[edit]

Feb 21, 2011 Being interested in anthropology I have at times followed the development of this article. A year or so ago it seemed to be taking different POV into account. Now it has given way to an ideological approach, reducing "femininity" to simple physical "femaleness". This is blatantly one-sided, not worthy of an encyclopedia. Femininity, for most people, still suggests distinctive traits of character, ways of behaving, reaction towards others, etc. etc. that go deeper than what is merely physical. This idea is not an outdated cultural or religious prejudice that deserves little notice (here it gets none). It is an idea that has been present over the ages, permeating art and culture. In modern times it was defended by Sigmund Freud, Margaret Mead, Virginia Woolfe, etc. not in the name of the Bible, etc. but in that of an objective understanding of the richness of having two distinctive human modes of expressing humanity: the masculine and the feminine. To ignore that viewpoint is the make a totally one-sided and prejudiced presentation. I would suggest a presentation that gives both A) the more 'traditional' view of femininity; and B) the more recent views that react from this concept and tend to reduce the term to a simple difference in body parts. I can write some of the first; and even outline aspects of the second (where I think I could do a better job than what is represented in the current article), and leave the completion of that to others. [Since this is a feeler, so as to see what people think, let me single out just two concrete points in the present article which reveal a narrowness of approach, verging on the ridiculous. 1) large breast size and cleavage are presented as a main parameter of femininity. But this is to talk about femaleness, not femininity. Audrey Hepburn is a classical example of a woman considered very feminine - even though her breasts were small and she had little cleavage. 2) Female body shape and Corset... Here the emphasis on femaleness is again clear. To highlight 'corset', etc. in an article on femininity, is indeed to corset the scope of an encyclopedia article.]Unimpeder (talk) 06:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Feb 27, 2011 From the discussion page about ‘Femininity’, you seem to be one of those who have taken most part in developing this article. A week ago I posted the above on my talk-page, in the hope it might begin a discussion. I would be glad to have your reaction to my proposal, as I think the present article is one-sided and simply not worthy of Wikipedia. However, I see no point in working at a more comprehensive presentation of the theme - if someone is going to revert it each time. So I would like to talk first. A year ago, the article opened in a fairly balanced way: “Distinct from femaleness, which is a biological and physiological classification concerned with the reproductive system, femininity principally refers to secondary sex characteristics and other behaviors and features generally regarded as being more prevalent and better suited to women, whether inborn or socialized. In traditional Western culture, such features include gentleness, patience, sensitivity and kindness.[citation needed]. Nursing certainly calls for such traits, which may well explain the fact that women are generally considered to make better nurses.” The last sentence about nursing was added by me at that time. I see now that this was removed by Uschick in April 2010, after someone had observed “In my experience this [that women are generally considered to make better nurses] is not necessarily true, and nothing this specific should be stated without any supporting sources.” If you want commonsense support of my statement, go out and ask the first ten men and women you meet. I think that the whole paragraph should be restored in the rewriting of the article; one supporting reference might be the following: ‘According to the U.S. Dept. Of Labor. “Women comprised 92.1 percent of RNs in 2003" (http://www.dol.gov/wb/factsheets/qf-nursing.htm).’ The 92.1% says something to the point. [Might someone take this figure as indicating discrimination against women? Perhaps; but he would need good arguments and plenty of [non-biased] ‘supporting sources’] Looking forward to hearing what you think.Unimpeder (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Not sure how/why you got my name linked to the subject, but I have no interest in jumping into the discussion. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

why have you deleted Camlas trading?[edit]

Can you explain why this dreadful incident occured? (deletion of Camlas Trading page). Mary, a member of staff and mother of 2, has been working day and night in order to achieve an encyclopia type page for the company. Our staff have woked hard to become a successful online enterprise in the UK and now youve shattered their dreams. I hope your happy (I'm not).

Regards, Camlas Stock Monotoring and Refunding Section B.1. Staff No. 936 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slippyfish1091 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CORP. You need to be able to show why your company meets the notability criteria listed therein. If your company does not meet any of the criteria, then it is very unlikely to be able to keep a page on the project. And there was nothing in the article that was any kind of indication that the company might meet the criteria. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jingle Bells[edit]

[2] Hi! There is a place for single article about Basshunter, not redirect. You can ask someone to do this article? I can not do it well. This article is on pl and sk Wikipedia. Very please. Eurohunter (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You want to use WP:RA to request that someone write an article. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Love Sick novel[edit]

You mentioned in your edit summary that this book was a school project and should be allowed to grow when you removed the prod. Can you expand on that?--RadioFan (talk) 03:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive678#Something strange going on here, and various links from there, for the gritty details of how this all went round on Friday. My personal opinion at this point is to give these a week, maybe two, to get shaped up. If any seem NN still at that point, it can be AFD time. But, in general, if a teacher is given out assignments to write and/or improve a WP page on a specific book, that is IMHO a good likelihood that it will turn out to be notable. Check out Ask Me No Questions (novel), for instance, one of the books from the same school project. It started out just as bare, but a little investigation from a literary minded editor revealed that it is a multiple award winning book, definitely notable. Will all the rest turn out to be like that? I have no idea. But rather than stomping on the class project, I'm willing to give them a little leeway. For a short period of time, at least. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's all a part of this project. The due date is March 14, which is when all the edits should be done. I will work on making sure some of these novels get some secondary source notability soon. But this week is our secondary sources week, so currently some of the pages look bare and non-notable. Thanks for your help on my project page, by the way. Roseclearfield (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tire Pressure Indicator[edit]

Hi, you put the "advert"-tag on the page. I tried to rewrite it - can you take a look at it and help me? Or remove the tag when you think it is an appropriate page now? Thanks a lot. And you are of course welcome to answer on my page. --Slagnäs (talk) 10:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

tb[edit]

Hello, TexasAndroid. You have new messages at Talk:Doctor of Acupuncture & Oriental Medicine.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Replied there. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies[edit]

Hi TexasAndroid, sorry to have caused you the hassle with the Moselle Viaduct article, first by forgetting to redirect, then by apparently moving it in an incorrect way. With this message I just wanted to let you know your help here did not go past me unnoticed and I'd like to thank you for it. I thought that would be in good order. (The Moseltalbrücke page itself was not created by me, but translating it from de:Moseltalbrücke is on my to-do list to get it fixed.)

You see, I once moved a page by this cut&paste manner and a bot correctly identified it as a move, so unaware there is another (more proper) way to do so I figured that was how it was done. I have recently moved several other pages in Category:Road bridges in Germany, Category:Railway bridges in Germany and Bob Marley & The Wailers in good faith. I will make sure to read WP:MOVE before I move a page again.

So my apologies once more, and thank you for showing me how it is done. Good job! Best regards, Eddyspeeder (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cut&paste moves are a problem because they break the history trail for the article. Since a proper history trail is part of the GFDL license requirements, cut&paste moves are technically in violation of the license, and thus technically copyright violations. I say "technically", because no one is going to get in huge trouble over doing cut&paste moves, but still... There is a nice Move button at the top of each page, and that is what should be used to perform moves. Fixing cut&paste moves actually requires admin abilities, since one of the repair steps requires briefly deleting one of the two articles. Usually, when I detect a cut&paste move, I just fix it and move on. Shrug. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:2008 XL Bermuda Open[edit]

Category:2008 XL Bermuda Open, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 06:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Jamal Read[edit]

Was looking at the shortpages list, apparently at the same time as you, and don't you think Brian Jamal Read is a rather blatant hoax (let alone a gross blp violation), likely perpetrated by Plymouth-Canton Educational Park students to make fun of one of their teachers? 66.57.71.63 (talk) 04:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A deletion discussion is now underway, and that should handle it. - TexasAndroid (talk) 12:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Roglaski page move[edit]

Deleting Joe Roglaski may also delete User:Hlm87 20's talk page that had been moved to this article's name. Talk page should be moved back to User talk:Hlm87 20. Onthegogo (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should User:Hlm87 20 have been deleted too? Maybe it would have been better to just undo the redirect. Onthegogo (talk)

That was the NN page about the Ice Hockey player which was moved into article space. There was nothing left but the redirect, which cannot generally be left pointing to article space. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thx[edit]

Thanks for correcting my inadvertently broken redirect (Sappe). AshLin (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Schneider et Cie[edit]

Can you restore Schneider et Cie to my user page. I want to work on the article. Please leave a note at my page, thank! --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Schneider et Cie[edit]

Perfect, a redirect is just what was needed. The old company name had about a dozen incoming links that became red when it was deleted. Thanks. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Blockade of Wonsan[edit]

Hello! I reviewed your submission of Blockade of Wonsan at the Did You Know nominations page and I rated it No problems, ready for DYK. I did not want to hold up the nomination with minor details or my personal preferences but I think the article would be stronger if you used a few more cites from new sources, simply because it appears right now too much like you're relying very very heavily on one source (history.navy.mil). I would just go to google and find any reasonable source that mentions the blockade, then insert a cite into your article - so we know that sources other than the navy itself think this is noteworthy. Also, you have to be VERY interested in this topic to read every detail in the sections 'Escalation of War' and 'Height of Fighting', are you sure they aren't too long? (I'm thinking edited to about half their current size or less would be ideal). These are just my personal opinions, of course! Great pictures! Overall, a fine article. Leidseplein (talk) 06:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed you were the one who nominated this article and that another editor really did lots of work on it, so I will put this on User talk:$1LENCE D00600D if you haven't already, sorry.Leidseplein (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I'm a Wikignome, not an article writer. But every now and then I come across one that looks like it deserves a DYK nomination. I think in my years here that this is only my third nomination. Oh well. - TexasAndroid (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Top Billing redirect[edit]

I am going to redirect Top Billing to Top Billing (SA TV series).I dont understand your request to "please do not just blank things". Please clarify if my redirecting deletion was a bad move. Thanx. Please reply on User:Tholoana23 —Preceding undated comment added 07:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Your original edit resulted in a blank file. You simply removed the redirect, and left nothing else behind. Please read WP:BLANK for why blanking things is generally a bad idea. There are ways on the project to handle bad content. And with only a couple of exceptions, blanking things is not the right way to do so. BLP problems and copyright violations are about the only regular exceptions where blanking or something like it is a proper solution. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of aircraft (P-Q)[edit]

You have reverted some edits on this page citing (CSD G7). (TW)). I did not request these edits so would expect you to return the particular parts of this article to how I left them. Whilst the entries were of low importance I feel that you should be informed that you editted under false pretencesPetebutt (talk) 10:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC) page[reply]

I'm not totally certain if you are complaining about my handling of the list page, the sub-page redirects, or both.

For the list page itself, you are welcome to put the red links back in. When linked pages are deleted, the tool that I use automatically delinks the deleted articles. 99% of the time that's the right action. A few times it is not. So if someone reverts the delinking, that's fine.

As for the sub articles themselves, you created them as redirects on 10-31-09, and then you replaced the redirects with the text "Poor re-direct. Not actually a variant of the Pitts Special" on 3/15/11. While not explicitly a request for deletion, it was pretty obvious that you did not want the redirects to remain. Since you created them, and you did not appear to want them to remain, I went ahead and deleted them. While we cannot have the files remain with the "Poor redirect" text, if you want them back as redirects again, just say so. G7 CSD is easily enough reversed if the creator changes their mind, or as may be the case here, the creator's intentions were misread. So if you want the four redirects back, just let me know.

That all said, I'm a little bothered by your comment of "false pretenses". I've explained above how I came to the conclusion I came to. If I misread your intentions with your "poor redirect" edits, I'm sorry. But there were no "false pretenses". A mistake made, maybe, but not any sort of bad intentions. Please assume good faith on those with whom you interact. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Blockade of Wonsan[edit]

On 10 April 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Blockade of Wonsan, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the Blockade of Wonsan in the Korean War was the longest naval blockade in modern history, lasting 861 days? If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 16:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Cai Li Fo and Jeong Yim[edit]

Hi TexasAndroid, I understand that there has been some concern about copy write infringement regarding these two pages as well as others I have created. I can assure you that it is original prose and there are others who have contributed to these information contained here. We have been working on these pages for 2+ years now and have found that other sites have been copying our content and posting it on their websites and not referencing the source to the wiki pages. Even books have been published.

On the Cai Li Fo site, we have been working and verifying content with one of the Grandmasters of Cai Li Fo, who is considered the "holder" or librarian of the entire Cai Li Fo martial arts style in China, as well as referencing numerous books and articles to clarify the contents. The Jeong Yim site was created to offset a political issue regarding this person's involvement and history in the development of the Cai Li Fo martial arts style and to prevent vandalism to the main Cai Li Fo website. This allowed people who have strong alternative views of Jeong Yim's involvement and revisionist history, to post there.

If you have looked into all of the pages I have authored or have contributed to, you will find many, many wiki articles. Yip Man, Bruce Lee, Huo Yuanjia, Doc Fai Wong, etc. For example, the Bruce Lee wiki was in total disarray with vandalism and non-verifiable references being posted. I cleaned up, re-worded, validated, referenced, and restructured the entire article many months ago and it seems to help negate much of the controversial issues and vandalism. I feel I have been extremely careful in referencing sources and verifying content.

Many of the pages I have worked on have been copied into the numerous martial arts sites and last year books have been published containing word by word information from the wiki pages that I help create.

http://www.amazon.com/Chinese-martial-arts-Neijia-Dragon/dp/1156420164/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1302633095&sr=1-3

and here:

http://www.amazon.com/Chinese-Martial-Artists-Michelle-Doc-Fai/dp/1156827639/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1302633243&sr=1-1

Please be advised that copying is generally the other way around. The history of Chinese martial arts is highly controversial. People are copying information directly from the wiki sites, posting it on their websites, and claiming it as their own. Many of these same people do not like the verified wiki content and references that I have posted, and in response have copied sections to their website and modified sections to conform to their non-verifiable, revisionist views.

This is a new tactic that I and co-authors have seen. First it was vandalism, now it seems they are using our published wiki information against us.

Huo Xin (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have time to dig through all of that right now, but I will do so soon. Note that it is not just me that you need to convince, but that others will be examining these pages based on the reports that I have filed. Note that the two articles that are currently flagged are just part of the problem. There are at least three articles that have been deleted that had significant copyright issues as well. The one that brought me into all this was Lau Gar. This article was written on the project by you just yesterday. And it appears to have been majorly copied from either here, a four year old forum post, or from the 1995 article mentioned in the post. The timing there does not fit in with your above explanations.

I will concede that there is extensive copying the other way. Wikipedia by design is able to be copied. There are many, many Wikipedia mirror sites of your articles that show up in various searches. Sorting through those for the possible source of the material was tricky, and I am far from an expert on WP copyright problems. That's one of the reasons I filed reports in the appropriate places. To get more expert eyes to examine what I found. And if all I found was more mirrors, then I will apologize to you deeply. We shall see. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am seemingly at fault on the Lau Gar page. The exact article wasn't meant to be published on wiki, but a reference to that article. I had difficulties saving the reference tags during the posting time. Someone else was editing the page at the same time I was. For some reason, I thought I had put in a reference at the top, with the information at the bottom, with a short prose stating that I will be working on the wiki page after finding this information regarding the history of Lau Gar. But this is a separate issue has nothing to do with the quality of my prior works. It is much easier to compose for wiki while online rather than offline and copying it to the Wiki. Huo Xin (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if possible, when you do find controversial mirror sites, it would be good to obtain the links to them. Thanks for the help! Huo Xin (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the Wong Fei Hung site, you can see that the work that I've done goes way back to 2009.Huo Xin (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the source code utilized in the Bird Kung Fu site. It may not be sufficient evidence, but it does show a path which has the name /wiki/ in it, which indicates, albeit anecdotal, evidence that it's derived from here. I believe, that the two published books, which I provided Amazon links to, also states that the information published comes from the Wikipedia.Huo Xin (talk) 22:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. I'm really inclined to let someone else perform the final judgment on this situation. But you do look to be providing clues that I may indeed have been caught by reverse copyright violations. There is no problem with copying out of Wikipedia. The project is set up, license-wise, to enable and encourage it. But sites that do so have to follow the rules of the license. And one of the key rules is attribution. As long as they make it clear that the material came from Wikipedia, they are perfectly OK legally and morally to copy for whatever purpose. But the moment they try to hide that Wikipedia is the source, or start slapping incompatible copyright notices on stuff that they take from WP, then they are doing what is generally called around here reverse copyright violations. The copyrights of the original contributors to WP are the ones being violated.

Is that what is happening here? Possibly. You are raising interesting points. We'll see what conclusion is reached by whoever does the more proper investigation.

I'll just say that, at this point, it does not appear out of the question that I will be owing you that apology. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 03:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TexasAndroid for the response. I have found some more evidence which I hope you will include in your investigations, and which will help exonerate the Cai Li Fo page and possibly other wiki pages under question. The Bird Kung Fu site does seem like an "aggregator" site. On the left hand side, if you go to their "Kung Fu Styles" list, most of the information found there has been directly copied from the Chinese martial arts wiki pages. Here is one example. If you go to their Praying Mantis site: http://kungfucertificate.com/Praying_Mantis.html and compare it with the content on the Wikipedia pages for Southern Praying Mantis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Praying_Mantis and Northern Praying Mantis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Praying_Mantis you will see that most of the information on their site is directly copied from the wiki pages. It is possible that those authors may not know about the proper rules of the license when using Wikipedia content. I am hoping that you or someone can try and contact the author of that site to let them know that it is perfectly fine to use Wiki content as long as they mention it as the source. I contemplated doing that personally, but was not sure if that would be the correct thing to do in my situation. Huo Xin (talk) 07:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I forgot to mention this. I don't know how familiar you are with the Chinese Martial Arts, but within this extremely passionate community you will find that you can classify contributors here into basically two groups. One group which I consider myself in, are folks trying to find and investigate facts and references to verify and publish wiki content, and another group which is trying to push unverifiable content for external political reasons or misinformation they were taught as the "truth". At times, not uncommon, this animosity can be very severe with defacement and vandalism occurring not only here, but expanded over to other internet martial arts forums and websites, with lots of misinformation and unverifiable "history" and "facts" being distributed. Language translations and transliteration issues adds fuel to the fire causing tempers and sensitivities to flare up to the point where accusations are thrown at each other with abandon which further exaggerates problems. The only analogy I can think of are hardcore college rivals and the extent and passion in which they commit their "oneupmanship" against each other. Huo Xin (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cailifo Copyright Infringement is Incorrect[edit]

TexasAndroid, you have made a terrible mistake blocking access to the Cailifo wiki page. I have read your earlier response to Hou Xin stating that you don't have the time to check into any controversy. Perhaps you should have checked into the history of the page prior to your premature action. If you had, you would see that the page had finally been entered into the Wiki Martial Arts Project after toiling with it for many, many months. After fighting vandals on an ongoing basis, for you to arbitrarily take the action you did is inexcusable.

If you are the person who used the "Bird Form Kung Fu" link as a citation to the alleged infringement, you should have done your homework there, as well. It is an aggregator site. If you look into what that group teaches, they do not seem to have an attachment to any particular style of martial art. They list all numerous martial arts. Additionally, they have used material that I too helped to research and verify about Cailifo and twisted the information in the final paragraph to illegitimately attempt to establish a theory that has been pushed by a very small group of people regarding a supposed "Jeung Hung Sing" school. They have used no facts to back their claims and have cleverly manipulated existing and established fact to promote their own fictionally based position. Isn't this in part, what the Wiki is supposed to be putting a stop to? Utilizing only verifiable information? The Cailifo page went through that test over months and months under the scrutiny of those very familiar with the martial arts in the Wiki Martial Arts Project and others.

You have with one ignorant and premature response blocked an important part of the martial arts history. Unless you can prove otherwise, I believe you may be a sock-puppet to those perpetrating this fraud.

Do not use the excuse that you are too busy to investigate the situation. You have already made the mistake, you should take the time to correct it and use this as a learning experience to investigate things more thoroughly prior to taking such an action. Clftruthseeking (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith here. I have nothing to do with martial arts. I'm talking to Huo Xin above, and we will work this out. If this is indeed mostly a case of smoke and mirrors caused by reverse copyright infringement, as appears to be possible now, then the worst case scenario is that the two pages in question are basically put on hold for up to a week while others investigate. And I will offer a deep apology to Huo Xin in that case. But the preempting of the two articles is far from permanent. A week at the most, likely less, for others to investigate the situation.

Huo Xin is handling this situation quite calmly and well. To have you come jump in with bad faith accusations, even to the point of linking me to the groups you have had problems with in the past, is not helpful to the situation.

Huo Xin did violate copyright on the recent Lau Gar article (unintended or not, he did so). He also has a much older warning for copyright violations. These together were enough that IMHO his contributions needed scrutiny. And I found what appeared to me to be external sourcing for more of his offerings. So I set investigations in motion, and those will bring in people much more experienced than me at analyzing possible copyright violations. If those "external sources" turn out to be reverse copyvios, then so be it. - TexasAndroid (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TexasAndroid, I can understand Clftruthseeking point of view and his passion regarding this page. He has been one of the most active editors and maintainers of the Cai Li Fo page; and has personally done a great deal of work verifying all the facts presented on the Cai Li Fo wiki - especially doing extensive work by contacting and obtaining permission and verifying facts with those who are directly involved and/or related to the Cai Li Fo martial arts style. His passionate response is mainly caused by the sheer amount of past vandalism and defacement, as well as defending against prior accusations of copyright infringement. He has already personally contacted an internationally recognized Grand Master of Cai Li Fo regarding the validity of the content and for wiki permission. It has been a difficult battle for many of us over the last two years to protect the content integrity of the Cai Li Fo wiki. At one time I have been accused of sockpuppetry and it took Clftruthseeking and I a lot of time and effort to prove to the wikiadmin that we are two different people! Constant attacks and unverifiable revisionism have kept him quite busy since the Cai Li Fo page has been created. So we are both quite sensitive when blocks are applied to the wiki. My unintended error on the Lau Gar article caused this situation to occur. If anything is to blame, then it would be my poor methodology of starting a new wiki page as well as some weird wiki issue stating that their were multiple copies of that page open during my content research and editing. Please, please bring in external people to analyze possible copyright violations on the Cai Li Fo page. They are totally welcome to analyze the content and if their are any problems. Please let us know immediately. In the long run for the active editors, it would be good to know where such problems are so we can reference them and resolve them and learn how to reference content properly. It took a good couple years of work to develop the Cai Li Fo wiki to the point where it is now, and I doubt that any copyright violations will be found. Huo Xin (talk) 06:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My being tactful or not is not the issue here. Proper use of power is. TexasAndroid, please check out this Wiki document and the reference to remote loading about halfway down the page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks. Though "Bird Form Kung Fu" may not be a Remote Loader, the concept of text of articles from the Wiki being reused by others is apparently an issue within the Wiki community. Perhaps another form of template would have been more appropriate for you to use.Clftruthseeking (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More found evidence. TexasAndroid mentions this page http://thefightquest.blogspot.com/2009/10/cai-li-fo.html again it is reverse copyright violations. Just look at the reference numbers within the text of that site. If you click on them, they don't work and is exactly the same as on the wiki. This demonstrates that the information was copied from the wiki pages. Huo Xin (talk) 05:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who died on their birthdays[edit]

I see that you deleted this article in 2008. We have a question on the reference desk about this topic: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Birthday_and_death_day. Could you please recreate this article in my userspace so that it can be referred to on the reference desk? I promise that I won't try to move it to mainspace. I would ask User:WJBscribe, who deleted it the first time, but he hasn't edited in a few days. Thank you! Buddy431 (talk) 03:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, at User:Buddy431/List of people who died on their birthdays. There were two distinct versions in the history. I've included both, one after the other. - TexasAndroid (talk) 03:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You.

RFD 03-26[edit]

So could you explain why the Keep side has a "slightly better" argument? It seems to me that they are simply BS-ing arguments that are based on ridiculous bureaucratic rules, and in the case of Rossami, finding arguments simply to stall me. Neither of them have mentioned anything tangible regarding language/geographic/administrative issues, possibly because they know nothing of such. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 15:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rossami's reasoning is based on the standard way that redirects are handled. I said slightly, as I was not strongly persuaded either way. I was not strongly convinced by his arguments, but neither did I dismiss them as you appear to do. They are very similar arguments to what he/she makes in many other RFD debates, so I do not see them as anything about "stalling". OTOH, I did not find them strong enough to definitively call it a Keep either. But neither did I find yours strong enough to definitively call a Delete. With me weighing the arguments close, even if I am slightly leaned to one side or the other, and with the actual !votes split evenly, I did not see that I could call it anything other than No Consensus. That said, if you disagree with my close, feel free to file a protest at WP:DRV and seek a wider overview of my actions. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFD Closes[edit]

I am very sorry. I was unaware that I had made a deletion, and must have deleted your edit while scrolling through my watchlist. TFD (talk) 11:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking Cai Li Fo and Jeong Yim pages[edit]

Hi TexasAndroid, I was wondering how your investigation on these pages are going and if you found enough evidence of reverse copyright infringement to unblock these pages? Any news or time line? It would surely be appreciated. Huo Xin (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my investigation. I set in motion an investigation, but someone independent of either of us will do the actual investigation. Hopefully someone versed in researching copyright violation allegations on the project. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you run around marking things up based on half-arsed research... aren't you special. Congratulations on being myopically self-absorbed in your mission to use a bazooka to swat flies (nonexistent flies, at that)! I hope you earn a severe reprimand from Wiki Admins for your frivolous copyright infringement violations posting once this is all over. Didi you review the following Wiki policy first?

"When should a CCI be started?"

"A CCI is a serious accusation, and doing so frivolously is a breach of the "no personal attacks" policy. In general, if you have an on-going dispute with another editor, you should avoid filing a CCI case against that editor, and seek larger input at an appropriate forum (such as the administrators noticeboard or the copyright cleanup project) instead.

As a rule of thumb, at least five instances of clear copyvios (copy/pasting of unlicensed third party material; clear derivative works) should be required to file a case."

From what I can tell, you had one occurrence in the "Bird Kung Fu web page" and some issues with Huo Xin. At most two instances; not five. If Huo Xin had been the only contributor to the Cai Li fo page, maybe marking it as a CCI Vio would fly, but not based on the information you have based your actions upon. You should take ownership of your mistake(s) and remove the template. Oh, please don't slap me with a CCIVio for using the policy statement from the Wiki CCI page. Clftruthseeking (talk) 01:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three of the five pages have been deleted over time, and are thus only able to be seen by admins. One was definitely a violation, Admitted to by Huo Xin, though explained as inadvertent. Another was an old PROD deletion for notability that, when I looked at it, had distinct similarities to an existing web page. OTOH, the page it was similar to is one of the two that has since been fingered as possible reverse violations. And he has a final copyvio deletion from early in his time here. I've not looked closely at that one, but it was the last of the five incidents I raised. So, I'm sorry, but I did have five different pages that I found when first looking into this whole thing. Three of those five have since had their external "sources" labeled as possible reverse violations, but at the time that was not the case.

The CCI case has not been accepted. Nor has it been rejected. At this point I do not really expect it to be accepted. But after all this I still think that it, and the individual analysis of the two blanked pages, needs to be handled by someone independent of any of us. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we all know the final outcome and that it has been reinstated. I am still not convinced that your action was thoroughly thought through nor justifiable. We all learn from these events.Clftruthseeking (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re: RfD closure[edit]

I wanted to comment that your closure of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 March 10#Do A Barrel Roll was very well written. Thank you. Rossami (talk) 00:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hattendorf Prize Please restore[edit]

You deleted as noted 16:12, 18 April 2011 TexasAndroid (talk | contribs) deleted "Hattendorf Prize" ‎ (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page (TW)) I blanked the page due to reports of conflicting information. What I wrote earlier has now been verified as correct, so it may be restored. SeaServices (talk) 02:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article Scylla and Charybdis moved manually[edit]

Hi, TexasAndroid. The article Scylla and Charybdis appeared not to have a move option and needed to be moved to Between Scylla and Charybdis so as to distinguish it from treatment of the two mythical figures of that name and so save it from the deletion threatened on the talk page. I've done it manually, and redirected the talk page, which did have that option. You were kind enough to clean up after me when I moved the Giovanni Maria Verdizoti article to that more common spelling and I'd be grateful if you could do the same in this case too. I apologise for being so untechnical. By all means tutor me (on my talk page) on what I ought to have done. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. The history page doesn't seem to have accompanied the move. I don't know how to get it back; do you? Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 10:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look right at the top of any page. Very near the Edit button. There should always be a similar button labeled Move. That is what you *should* use to rename pages. There are a few times when it will not work, but 99.99% of the time it will work. And 100% of the time it is the right way to do a rename.

As for getting the history back in place after you do a cut&paste move, *you* cannot do that. Fixing cut&paste moves requires admin abilities, since one of the steps requires briefly deleting one of the two pages, and only admins can do that. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I figured out why you did not have a Move button. The page was locked so that only admins could move it, because of some old page-move vandalism. As an admin, I do not have the Move button vanish like that, so I did not think to check it's protection history. In the future, if you encounter a situation like this again, the proper action is to go to WP:RM and request an admin to move the page for you. Please, please, please, please do not do cut&paste moves again. They are never, never, never the right way to do things. And you know this from the last time we went through this. Next time, if you cannot figure out the right way to do something, ask someone, instead of doing something you know is the wrong way to handle it. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really very sorry, but no, I didn't know, didn't get a message saying that was wrong. Where was it? Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 00:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I may have mixed you up with someone else I had a very similar conversation with. Let me look back in my history... - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Without actually bothering to look at the user names, I somehow got it into my mind that you were the same guy I was talking to above at User talk:TexasAndroid#Victor Ivanovich Nikitin. Now that I look, I see I was totally off base. Sorry for the misassumption. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's very nice of you, TexasAndroid. Consider yourself my guru in these matters. (Is there an appropriate barnstar?) Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 10:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the barnstars currently in regular use are listed at Wikipedia:Barnstars. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mona (ASCII art)[edit]

Please consider reading the discussion page of an article before reverting the removal of redirects in the future. Thanks! Oh, and since you're admin you should consider deleting the empty article. --78.48.108.88 (talk) 13:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not blank pages. The situations where blanking is the right way to handle bad content are very, very limited. (generally only copyright violations or WP:BLP related issues.) For bad redirects, please see WP:RFD and follow the instructions there to get a discussion going on getting it removed. As for me deleting it, as you suggested on my talk page, sorry. There's nothing wrong with the redirect that would qualify it for speedy deletion at this time. So you will need to start a RFD deletion debate if you want it gone. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I've consulted WP:RFD, but the rules just don't seem to relate to this case. This redirect targets an inexisting node in an article which otherwise contains no in-text reference to the original lemma; that's why I found the redirect irritating. WP:RFD lists neither reasons against nor reasons for removing such a redirect. However I've located a reference to the original lemma in a figure, although it's not entirely clear why that figure is there. I'll change the redirection to target the section where the figure is found. --78.48.108.88 (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough. For future reference, you can technically start an RFD discussion for almost any reason you want. (There *are* limits, but they generally fall into cases where the debates are initiated for disruptive purposes.) Actually persuading others in the debate to agree that the thing should be deleted is a totally different matter. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Journal of Biotechnology[edit]

We were deleted on December 2010, and we don't understand wich one of our contents or published texts infringe the copyrights on unambiguous way, please if you could be more clear, because we have a Copy tranfer agreement document, used with our authors where they give us the copyright of their manuscripts, and we have a Copyright and Creative Commons licence to ensure the correct use of our published material.

There is the text about our deletion: 16:50, 30 December 2010 TexasAndroid (talk | contribs) deleted "Electronic Journal of Biotechnology" ‎ (Speedy deleted per CSD G12, was an unambiguous copyright infringement. using TW)

My best Regards

Italo Costa IT Manager & Art Director http://www.ejbiotechnology.info —Preceding unsigned comment added by Costillar (talk • contribs) 14:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The violation was of the website itself. It sounds like the Journal may be OK, but most of the pages on your website simply say "Copyright © 1997- 2011 by Electronic Journal of Biotechnology". Even the notes that I can find about the CC licensing, such as at the bottom of the home page, appear to be about the licensing of the journal itself, not your web page. So the web page not not appear to, visibly at least, be compatibly licensed. The licensing issue can be cleared up. But looking at the deleted page, there are other issues that would then come into play. The page reads like a press release, and thus will have WP:SPAM problems. It does not appear to have any sourcing independent of the journal itself. And IMHO the biggest problem, there is really no sign that the journal meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. So just be aware. Even if the licensing issues get cleared up, the page could still very easily end up deleted again for one or more of these other problems. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bosworth Hall[edit]

Hi, your recent edits seem to have cancelled the disambiguation page that I had intended to create with a view to proceeding with a new article for the other Bosworth Hall at Husbands Bosworth. Is there any chance of you restoring this for me please? RegardsOrdyg (talk)

As long as there is only one article, then a redirect is the correct thing to have there. Disambiguations are for when we need to navigate between multiple pages on the project. Until there are multiple pages, there is no point to having a disambiguation. As soon as you have written the new article, you are perfectly welcome to put a disambiguation there.

For future reference, if you need to rename a page for any reason, please use the Move button, in order to avoid breaking the history trail of the article. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK and thanks. I have now created the article for the other Bosworth HallOrdyg (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yung Suk Kim[edit]

As a courtesy, I should like to inform you that I have declined the Prod for the reason given in the edit summary. TerriersFan (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lakandula - Thanks[edit]

Hi. Sorry the blanking was an error, and I thought I'd undone it already, but apparently not. Thanks for catching it. Hm, and since I'm here, I might as well also ask, I've been trying to figure out why I can't reverse the redirect and move Rajah Lakan Dula to Lakandula. Any advice? Thanks. - Alternativity (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too many edits in the history of the target. It's going to take an admin to sort that all out. Take a peak at WP:RM to request that one do the work. A quick glance at it shows it as being more complicated that I at least want to mess with at this point. WP:RM has admins who specialize in complicated moves. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I'll do one last check of all my sources first, and then bring it up there. :D - Alternativity (talk) 10:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

swords of answering[edit]

Hi, I was wondering why my page was deleted. I read over the "Why was my page deleted?" and couldn't find any answers as to what I did wrong. Thanks. The deletion occurred at 03:50 on 1 May 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teamwrong (talk • contribs) 01:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The entire contents of the article was "[[/Swords of Answering]]". There was simply nothing useful there. That's why it was deleted. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taekwondo redirect[edit]

Is there a specific reason why you redirected the taekwondo at the 2011 Pan American Games articles again? Intoronto1125 TalkContributions 15:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Because blanking of articles, or redirects, should (almost) never be done. Blank articles cause multiple problem. I don't really care if you redirect them somewhere else, write a new article there, get them properly deleted at WP:RFD, etc. But they should not be left blank. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't have an issue with it, but another editor did express concern about just leaving at as a redirect. Intoronto1125 TalkContributions 21:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to create article about David Rothenberg, an author mentioned in the NYT[edit]

I notice you previously deleted an article by that name. I heard about this author/musician/professor in this NYT blog: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/sax-and-cicadas-an-interspecies-jam/

He and his YouTube performance with Magicicada tredecassini] interested me because I have been writing a bunch of articles about periodical cicadas. DR has written a couple of books about animal sound-making, published by good presses. He also performed insect-related music at a recent scientific conference see page xiii. I believe he meets our standard of WP:NOTABLE.

If you have issues with the new article, please let me know. Complicating matters, there is also a different David Rothenberg, a child burn victim whose sad story has an article here. Sharktopus^talk 03:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recreating "Jorge Plasencia" Article[edit]

Hi TexasAndroid,

I'm attempting to create an article on Jorge Plasencia (prominent figure in the Miami, FL business community and national public relations field). I saw that on October 17, 2008 you marked a previous article written by someone else for speedy deletion on the grounds of blatant advertising (G11: Blatant advertising). I think Jorge Plasencia is a person that's worth writing about, but I'd like to make sure this does not happen again. Could you possibly provide me with the first article so I can ensure a neutral and worthy article, or if not give me some of the key points that made the article unfit?

Thanks! Romypr (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It can now be found at User:Romypr/Jorge Plasencia. That old version was quite possibly autobiographical, and read like a resume or a press release, not like an encyclopedia article. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thanks for the speedy reply. Romypr (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect[edit]

Hello, TexasAndroid. You have new messages at Headbomb's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Zhone[edit]

Hi there! A while ago, you deleted an article that was written about Zhone Technologies. I created a new version of this article (currently as a private page here - User:Jeff Song/Zhone) because I think it is as notable as some of its competitors who have pages of their own with similar content (e.g: Adtran, Calix). I wanted to run it by you before I move the page to the main article space, to see if you agree, or if you have suggestions for improving what I have written to better establish notability. Jeff Song (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Amanda Hatcher[edit]

The article Amanda Hatcher has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

May not meet notability requirements.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 20:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. Since the creator is actively editing it, as we speak, I doubt that the PROD will stick. He already removed a BLP PROD with a (IMHO) marginal new source. I'm personally giving it a little time, but I suspect this'll need to either be CSD-A7 or sent to AFD before this is done. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Russia Global Business Meeting[edit]

Hi please restore this page to its former full detail page and remove the -redirect- to Horasis.

The 'undo' you complain about was history -- as a 'move' had copied Russia Global Business Meeting(two) onto this once-empty page following a bot discussions requested by myself (look at its 'talk'). Your change upsets a clear & good edit. Bye Johnbkidd (talk) 07:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC) johnbkidd[reply]

Note my request (from an Admiistrators' move) that was acted upon ... >>> COPY FOLLOWS

Global Russia Business Meeting (two) → Global Russia Business Meeting –

When I created a page 'Global Russia Business Meeting' I did not know the page title already existed (and on looking found it empty). So I added (two) to my title.

I would like my 'Global Russia Business Meeting(two)' to be moved into the empty older page and simply called 'Global Russia Business Meeting' - as per the older page title.

This ought to be uncontroversial. Johnbkidd (talk) 10:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)johnbkidd

>>>> END COPY

Therefore please unblock and retore the Global Russia Business Meeting that YOU messed up - in contradiction to your Text in you main page :) Thanks Johnbkidd (talk) 07:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)johnbkidd[reply]

Actually, either the original redirect or your blanking of it was enough to block the target page from allowing regular users to to move articles over it. In general, if a target has anything in it's history beyond a redirect created by an earlier page move, then it cannot be moved over by non-admins. So my actions did not create a block, it was already blocked.

And, in general blanking of pages like you did is (almost) never the correct way to do things on the project. So you blanked a page, and I undid the blanking. That was all there was to that.

Once a page is blocked like that, it requires admin powers to "fix" the situation. I have done this. As far as I can tell, the contents are now at the location you wanted them at. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Internet television series[edit]

Category:Internet television series, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Characters in written fiction[edit]

Category:Characters in written fiction, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Characters in written fiction by work[edit]

Category:Characters in written fiction by work, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 00:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American skeptics[edit]

Hi there,

I've temporarily reverted your hotcatting of American Skeptics to Murray Gell-Mann. Can you give me some more information on this category please, is it climate related, religeon? I've had a quick look round and cannot see what it alludes to, and starting to categorise people into positions I would think would need to be covered by some good refs, as we could end up with BLP issues. Let me know and we can have a look at how to approach this. Cheers ^Khukri 18:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the people I have added today have been because they are listed as Fellows of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. CSI is an organization for skeptical thought of a number of different sorts. My idea was that, if they are a Fellow of such a prominent skeptic organization, then they would fit into the Category:Skeptics tree somewhere.

As for the type of skepticism involved, according to the CSI page, it's predominantly Scientific skepticism. But as I have worked through the CSI Fellows, I have seen all sorts of different specific areas of skepticism.

One other thing to check out about this would be Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive717#Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia off-wiki project. I saw that thread, looked into the reported off-wiki links, and saw one specific suggestion there that I felt I was uniquely qualified for. I consider myself a category focused Wikignome, so figuring out more people to help populate the Skeptics categories seemed like a good short-term project for me. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problems at all and I'm glad there are people who look after the bulk tasks :) I have a little concern that the category itself isn't specific enough as the skepticism 'du jour' is climate and scientist get quite twitchy when they find their names on lists or categories, especially someone of Gell-Man's renowned. I had a quick look through the previous CSD discussions and I think we should maybe look to moving alot of these people specifically into a scientific skepticism category as skepticism on its own or by nationality seems to broad to me, what do you think? Cheers ^Khukri 19:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my thought was that, if they had accepted the Fellow position with CSI, they were effectively self-declaring as skeptics.

It's an interesting thought as to whether these categories should be organized by the person's specific flavor of skepticism, or their nationality. So many bio category trees on-wiki are organized by nationality, but I know that there is a dislike of this type of intersection among some. But trying to organize by flavor of skepticism, OTOH, may end up being a major PITA. What would the general divisions be? Religious skepticism, Scientific, Alt-med, what else? Climate-change? And what about the people who overlap? Hmmm.... Maybe just do away with the Nationality sub-structure, and merge to the Skeptics cat. There's at most 2-3 hundred bios down the nationality sub-tree. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we can just put at the top of the category a {{Cat main}} and link it to scientific skepticism or the general skepticism article? Cheers ^Khukri 19:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good minimum step. Your confusion shows that the category is not well defined. I'll go add that ~~like~~ link to the various nationality sub-pages. We can have separate discussions as to whether or not those nationalty pages should even exist. And if we reach a decision that they should go, then it would be off to ~~WP:CSD~~ WP:CFD. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK sounds good, I'll catmain them if you wish. I'm not sure what's to be gained from an encyclopedic point of view of the categories at a national level but that's my PoV maybe, as I have a dislike of seeing categories like south african jewish rugby players for example. There's already an an article about people who are skeptical of climate change and they are generally catted to environmental skepticism. Not sure if you are salvating at the prospect of all the re-catting that may need to be done, or smashing your head of the keyboard. Cheers ^Khukri 20:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sry I've had a pretty hectic day in the office today, so never got a chance to do anything last night. I'll have a look again in the morning. Cheers ^Khukri 20:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! So this is what a Admin's page looks like? How intimidating, I suppose you know what all those charts are for, kinda like looking at a jet pilots panel. Yikes! Anyway, thanks for giving me a heads up on this discussion. I love categories and lists and think improving them makes other people's jobs easier. I think of the skeptic category as a great big to-do list for new editors to learn from. Nearly every page on that site needs some kind of improvement, expansion, spelling/grammar ect...

I have been a little concerned that these category pages were limiting, why is there a English and a British one? Seems like they should be combined. Also would like to see a larger page that sums up ALL the skeptics on one page, but people can click on the names in a national list. Personally I don't like the national idea, where someone is born or a citizen of really has little to do with skepticism. Karen Stollznow is a citizen of Australia, but is now working in America. James Randi was born in Canada but now a citizen of America, yet his name is still on the Canadian skeptic page. See what I'm saying, confusing.

As far as what "branch" of skepticism these people come from, don't even attempt to go there, what a mess. Lots of overlapping! I do use the category skeptic lists all the time and think they are really helpful. Anything to make it more simple is a plus. My wish list would be as I stated above, a giant category of skeptics (world-wide) and then if editors insist then break them down by nationality. Thanks Sgerbic (talk) 01:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the talk page for an admin that has been only semi-active lately, but who has not archived in over a year. ^_^;;

Also note that, in this matter, I'm really not in any way acting as an admin. I'm just another editor, but one who happens to have done a lot of category work over the years.

I'll respond with more substance tomorrow. I was just doing a drive-by check this evening. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 02:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments about where people are born/reside having little to do with their skepticism goes to the core of the arguments that get put forth for removing this type of nationality-based sub-catting. It relates to the word "intersection" I used earlier. An intersection category is one that combines two different subjects, and is used on things/people who meet both subjects. The key is, are the two subject actually related in some way, or are the just a semi-random intersection of two subjects? In the case of many nationality biographical sub-trees, they really are just a random intersection.

IMHO, there are times when this is actually useful. Some bio categories, if not broken down by nationality, would end up with thousands and thousands of articles. This becomes very unwieldy. If there is no better way to sub-categorize such large bio-trees, then IMHO the nationality sub-trees serve a useful purpose, if only to break up what would otherwise be an overlarge single category. But this really does not apply to the Skeptics category, where we have (at most) 200-300 articles currently in the Nationality sub-cats.

As for Categories vs lists, take a peek at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. This describes where these mechanisms intersect, and where they diverge. If there is not already a List of skeptics article, you might want to think about creating one.

For categories and nationality, we either have nationality or we do not. In this type of situation we do not categorize someone both in the root parent category, and down in a sub-category. If we want to get rid of the nationality ones, we can start a deletion debate on them easy enough, and it'll take about a week for that debate to run its course. Once the debate completes, assuming the outcome is to delete the sub-tree, a bot would be put into action to do the actual work of up-merging all the articles back to the root Skeptics category. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for why there is both an English and a British sub-cat, I'm not a good one to ask. I do know that there is a good bit of sensitivity over the question of whether a person or thing is English or British. They are not exactly synonyms. But being an American, I am far from understanding exactly what the difference actually is. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Qur'an[edit]

Category:Qur'an, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

why to delete Sakthimicro system[edit]

HI SIR HAVE A NICE DAY

why to delete SAKTHIMICRO SYSTEM

how to recover that article

advance thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.135.9.212 (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of four admins who have deleted it over the past year or so. At the time I deleted it, the entire contents of the page was the two words "computer education". Not exactly an encyclopedia article, sorry. You'll need to talk to the other deleting admins for their reasons for deletion. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

creating english version page for: http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponos_Ratkajevih[edit]

would like to create an English version of the following page: http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponos_Ratkajevih

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ponos_Ratkajevih&action=edit&redlink=1 A page with this title has previously been deleted. If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below. 15:58, 21 March 2008 TexasAndroid (talk | contribs) deleted "Ponos Ratkajevih" ‎ (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page: content before blanking was: '{{telenovela| title = Ponos Ratkajevih| image = 250px| country = Croatia| network = [[Hrvatska Ra)

unsure how to go about it? thanks Lukamakson (talk) 10:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored and userified the old article at User:Lukamakson/Ponos Ratkajevih for you. You can work on it there to get it into good shape before moving it back into place in the main article space. The original was created and then blanked by a user who made no other edits. Once he/she blanked it, it was then deleted. It's not all that well sourced, but should serve as a good starting point for a new article. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for helping me move an article! Michaelphillipr (talk) 06:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Navy Ensign[edit]

The flag being used to represent the Texas Navy on the pages for each ship of the navy, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texan_sloop-of-war_Austin, is incorrect. Image Texas 2nd Naval Ensign.svg is tagged as the second naval ensign of the Republic of Texas used from 1838 to 1846. However, the last two sentences of this article from the official website of the Texas Navy Association http://www.texasnavy.com/A%20History%20of%20the%20Texas%20Navy%20Flag.pdf states that that version was only created in the past several years and ONLY for ceremonial purposes. It might be necessary to propose re-naming that image. The Wikipedia website http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Navy correctly identifies the two flags used during the tenure of the Texas Navy, so there are lots of corrections that need to be done. Can you advise as to how to proceed? --Gunner99 (talk) 01:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adrienne Kress[edit]

Hi. I noticed back in 2007, you protected Adrienne Kress to stop it being recreated. I'd like to create a basic article on this author, and have reviews from Publishers Weekly, an article in Toro Magazine and a list of awards the books were shortlisted for (verified on Scholastic's site) as starting references. Is there any chance of unprotecting it? Polenth (talk) 08:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry[edit]

How do you add a sockpuppet to an archived case?--1966batfan (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I *think* you either un-archive the case, or start a "new" case on the original location, if you are looking to have the new SP investigated. I would need to dig to find exact instructions, as I have never done that myself. Sorry. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add a new sockpuppet to this case.--1966batfan (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the investigations page, I think that you need to go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations and use the big grey button in the middle of the page. Use the original IP to reopen the original investigation, but add the new information. Buit, as I said, I have not filed one of these before myself, so I'm far from an expert on these procedures. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For all your maintenance over the years, and fixing others' mistakes (including mine) ^_^ ··gracefool ☺ 12:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meta/color[edit]

Hi. You deleted Lord Fusituʻa/meta/color‎ as "meaningless or incomprehensible". I'm not sure whether you're aware of what a meta/color page is, though I do understand your incomprehension at the purpose of the page. Using the what links here feature might have provided you with an answer - and, failing that, it would have been helpful to contact me if you didn't understand, rather than delete it without considering the possible consequences. As I now have the opportunity to explain, though, I'll do so - and perhaps you can tell me if there's a way to do things differently. I created that meta/color for use in this article; look at the section "Election results", then under "2010". If you delete the meta page, it creates a mess. Electoral templates seem (correct me if I'm wrong) to require a party colour so as to express an electoral gain. In the case of nobles' elections in Tonga, there are no political parties; changes are purely between individuals. Thus what's notable is to indicate if there has been a change in the individual representing the constituency - not a change in party. Hence I simply needed a convenience which would make it possible to express that. If you know of a way I can get around the problem, please do tell me. If not, please be aware that meta does actually serve a purpose. Thanks. Aridd (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you are wanting to make a Template. That should go in the Template namespace, rather than the Article namespace. Pieces of articles that are used in building other articles, especially technical ones like this, generally go in the Template namespace. Failing that, if you could point me to previously existing example of what you are trying to accomplish, I may be able to figure out what went wrong. The page showed up on the Short Pages reports, so *something* was out of whack with it. - TexasAndroid (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes; you're right, of course. It's akin to Template:Labour Party (UK)/meta/color. I've now created Template:Lord Fusituʻa/meta/color, and turned Lord Fusituʻa/meta/color into a redirect. The problem is that here, for some reason, the link to create the required template led to Lord Fusituʻa/meta/color, not to a template page. And when you deleted that, it messed up the election box on the constituency article page. I'm not sure what would happen if you deleted it again, now that I've created the template page as such and that I've turned the other into a redirect. Aridd (talk) 09:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was because of this. Fixed now. Template codes belong in template namespace. Chzz ► 13:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With Chzz's change to the template that uses this to pull from Template space instead of article space, the version in Article space, even as a redirect, became obsolete. I've deleted it again, G6 Housekeeping this time. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively for these type of election/constituency pages you can use the template {{Election box gain select color}}, which uses the parameter |color= to select the colour you want, rather than having to create a new one for each candidate each time. Hope that helps, cheers, Zangar (talk) 14:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much to all three of you! Aridd (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, TexasAndroid. You have new messages at WP:HD.
Message added 02:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Chad Patton[edit]

I just wanted to bring to your attention that you placed a cascading protection on Chad Patton back in 2007 and since has been re-created and kept at Chad Patton (referee), with no one able to move it back for some time. — Moe ε 00:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Looking at the new article, I see no sign that it meets notability requirements any more than the original did. I've sent the new version to AFD. Technically, the old AFD is still in force, and this might be CSD deletable as recreated content. But I'll instead give it another chance at a new AFD. If it ends as a KEEP, that'll make it clean and clear of the old AFD, and unlocking the original page name becomes a no-brainer. If it is deleted, then the issue of the lock on the original name is moot. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Scott (Salem) redirect[edit]

You replaced a redirect I removed. This has been a thorny little redirect that I have never quite understood. I guess it is my problem as coordinator of this series of articles: I.e. to try to improve their clarity when others find the so doing unobjectionable. Was there a use for this redirect ? It looks to me as if it was done specifically to cause trouble. We have a template in our task group page that specifically asks for an article be made for this topic. While I am willing not to have such article the redirect seems unduly contrary to the idea of clarity. John5Russell3Finley (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you read my edit notice, you would have seen that my revert had nothing to do with the pros or cons of the redirect itself, but only had to do with the way you went about removing the redirect. WP:BLANKing material is (almost) never the correct way to deal with bad content. In the case of redirects, if you think it should be removed, you need to take it to WP:RFD, as I said in my edit comment. But blanking things is not the correct way to get rid of things around here. - TexasAndroid (talk) 03:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're not willing to help ? If you read my response to your action then perhaps you are aware that I think the redirect akin to if not per-se vandalist. It is always disapointing to have people take this sort of attitude when I am only doing my job...24.101.135.135 (talk) 01:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure just what you want me to do. I cannot just delete it. It does not meet any of the Speedy Deletion criteria. But if you want it gone, I've pointed you to the proper venue for getting it gone (WP:RFD). I cannot file an RFD request for you. You need to be the one to do so, in good part because you need to be the one to write out an explanation for why you think it should be deleted.

My only part in this is letting you know that blanking it is *not* the right way to get it removed. And pointing you towards what *is* the right way. It's up to you whether or not this is important enough for you to take the few minutes to file an RFD on it. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I had wanted you to do was to not interfere, I am sorry that you think you needed to do that, in cooperation with our founder's guidlines I am not doing anything more about this...I don't quite get the point of why we are continuing on with this ....you have won...but I think it was silly of you to meddle there, so that is my reply John5Russell3Finley (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I "meddled" because, and only because, blank pages are bad for the project. I patrol short-length pages, which includes blank pages. Your actions put that page on the short pages reports, so I reverted your blanking, and directed you to the more proper method to get what you wanted. If you decline to follow that method, that is your choice. But that does not make your blanking any less the wrong choice of action in the first place. If you want to consider this issue closed, then that's fine with me. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, I am under the impression that you think this is important enough to make the fuss about, but that I clearly am unable to get you to help me in actually doing the task. My initial response to your actions was to ask you to assist me in removing this redirect. The reason that I want to remove it is that it is contrary to the template request that has been posted at my task group for several years. The redirect appears to have been done in an effort to either prove an unknown point or to actually cause trouble. My initial exploration of this was some time ago. Things having cooled down some I again attempted to do what our template directed. As I have tried to explain I do not have the wikiskills to navigate the NEW process unassisted. You being the expert in the area I attempted to ask you for assistance, and you took this request badly. John5Russell3Finley (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the link to WP:RFD.
Read the first few sections, down to just before the heading "Closing notes".
Formulate your reasons why you want the page deleted. The early sections will help you know what is, and what is not, a likely winning argument.
Read the instructions below the heading "How to list a redirect for discussion".
Follow the two steps listed there.
Wait seven days (or more) for the debate to run it's course. Be prepared to defend your arguments for deletion if people present counter arguments.

And that should do it. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it did not, would you care to comment on the process or am I to assume that this went exactly as you wanted...I think this is bogus and bad process John5Russell3Finley (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said several times above, I really do not care whether it stays or goes. All I cared about, from the start, was that it not be left blank. You cared, which is why you needed to be the one to try to get it deleted. I really could not have done it for you, as I would not have been able to put together an argument for its deletion myself. I'm sorry that you are dissatisfied with the outcome but, for better or worse, the processes that we have are the ones that we have. <Shrug> - TexasAndroid (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been here since 2001 and I think your attitude and accompanying response shows just how little you deserve your position John5Russell3Finley (talk) 18:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is going in circles, and getting nowhere. You do not accept my explanations, and want to make various vague insinuations of other sinister motives on my part. Fine. I give up trying to convince you of my POV on this. If you want to have a final say, a last word on this, go for it. But I'm done with it. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thank you for properly redirecting the Chronicle of Jean de Venette article title to Jean de Venette article. Did not know how to do it correctly. I agree that there is not always a need for a RFD on every direct. That would be too time consuming. They was a suggestion and no response for some time. The article was virtually abandoned until recently. Thanks again.Mugginsx (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability tag[edit]

I added a few more sources to Brown–Kaufman amendment. I was considering removing the tag. Jesanj (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my mind the bar for notability for amendments, especially failed amendments, should be pretty high. I really do not see what makes this one any more notable than the scads of other amendments that have failed over the years. That said, I'm not going to edit war to add the tag back. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

San Antonio meetup[edit]

Hey. I was thinking about it today, San Antonio has never had a Wikipedia meetup. I'm not exactly set on the idea of putting one together, but if I were would you want to participate/help put it together?--v/r - T P 17:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just had another thought. It could be a carpool type thing. Everyone puts in like $2 for gas, we all ride in two or three cars and we drive around and knock out some photos from this list. This is rather spur of the moment if you cant tell.--v/r - T P 17:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A very interesting idea. That list would need to be gone over, as it's not really been updated in a year and a half or so. I was the last one to significantly update it, and that was to add a bunch of new entries. Easy enough to see if any of those have since had photos added, and to look for more places of interest for photography.

We could, on-wiki easily enough, assemble a general map of where most or all of these locations are, and from that get an idea of how to hit a part of town systematically. Maybe at the least organize desired locations by region of town.

I'm not an incredibly social guy, but a working meeting, where the objective is to improve the pedia while doing a bit of social chatter, is a very interesting possibility.

A non-working meet-up is always also a possibility, but is not as much my style.

One very interesting side-note. I've read plenty of stories about public photographers getting hassled by police. If nothing else, we would want to make printouts of our on-wiki planning so that, if by some chance a policeman does question why we are taking pictures of public places, we can show him the thoughts behind our actions. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we could do that. My wife is a photographer so I know we'd have at least two high-quality cameras at our disposal. We'd have to do it on a weekend afternoon so we have light. I also asked User:Kuru. Putting together a map seems like his kind of thing. We could advertise this for two or so months on-wiki and arrange a meeting location somewhere near the airport in the center of town.--v/r - T P 19:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. I'm right now adding some more locations to the list. Once we figure out where we want to go the first time (which part of town), we may want to pick a different meeting location. If for instance, we choose the West side (my side of town), it would make little sense for me to travel to the airport just to carpool back. But that is ultimately logistical details.

The list will be much bigger than one afternoon's efforts. In my mind, we pick a section of the city to do the first time, see how it goes, and we be ready to do it again a month or three later.

One thing I like about the photo-outing idea is that, while there is a bit of on-wiki prep work to figure out the desired locations, the planning for the meetup itself is minimal. Where to meet, what time, and maybe a carpool or two to the meetup spot. We meet, go out photoing, maybe eat somewhere, and that's it. No need to reserve location, or invade someone's house, or any of that. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah probably a good idea to do a corner of town. We'll see what Kuru thinks too and then if the three of us think it's a go, we can create a meetup page and see how many folks are interested.--v/r - T P 20:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Native American tribes in Georgia (U.S. state)[edit]

Category:Native American tribes in Georgia (U.S. state), which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kapferer redirect[edit]

Sorry about that, I'm newish here & didn't know the proper way of dealing with this.TheLongTone (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. You are far from the first to do exactly that, and will be far from the last. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Surya IPS, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Chitra, Tollywood and Rallapalli (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Filmfare Award for Best Actor – Telugu[edit]

Hi, I tried reverting an IP who added dubious stuff at Filmfare Award for Best Actor – Telugu using Huggle. How come it blanked the entire page. Could it be a problem with the software or something else. —Commander _{(Ping me)} 14:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. When I reverted the "blanking" I went back to before the IP as well. And it was obviously a good faith action on your part, so no problem. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Bangladesh Premier League (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Franchises

List of Teamwork Friends episodes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ben Jones

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Social_Coin_Foundation[edit]

Just thought I'd bring your attention to Talk:Social_Coin_Foundation - seems someone is contesting the deletion but doesn't know process and hasn't contacted you directly. Also their language suggests they have WP:COI. P T 20:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks greatly for the heads up. I've responded to him there. Ahh, the hazards of visiting CAT:CSD to do a few deletions. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Data Centers Canada Inc.[edit]

Hi,

I am trying to build up this wikipedia page on Data Centers Canada Inc., but it keeps getting deleted.

I am following the same format as other corporations have used to post their pages on Wikipedia - including external references to the organization.

Your help would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsalvati (talk • contribs) 21:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is "Notability". You need to show that the company meet's Wikipedia's notability requirements. Please read WP:CORP and WP:NOTE for guidance. - TexasAndroid (talk) 03:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]