User talk:Ttonyb1/February 2010 Archives

GHRockerCustoms Request for Speedy Deletion

May I ask why my page has been put up for deletion? I feel that the content that this site provides is equally important as say a Guitar Hero page. It details to users that there are opportunities to better the experience of the users, which the Site that my page is about clearly does. The Guitar Hero page details how to get songs to enhance a users' experience, and so does mine. My site shows how to better the experience of a Tap Tap Revenge User. Please consider removing my site from speedy deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GHRockerTaps09 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

As stated in the tag, "This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion as an article about a web site, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. See CSD A7." Simply put, the article fails to meet the notability criteria in WP:WEB. ttonyb (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything I can do to prevent it from deletion? I feel that it does show importance to the users of the Tap Tap Revenge community, and should remain live. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GHRockerTaps09 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, provide evidence it meets WP:WEB. ttonyb (talk) 01:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I can't seem to find anything in there, but I still feel that it does show some sign of significance and importance. I have nothing left to prove. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GHRockerTaps09 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "real-world" notability does not equal Wikipedia based notability. Without establishing Wikipedia notability, it will most likely be deleted. ttonyb (talk) 02:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

TRIPHIBIAN GUARD

SUBJECT: OBJECTION TO PROPOSED DELETTION OF "TRIPHIBIAN GUARD" ARTICLE. THE TITTLE SHOULD BE: "TRIPHIBIAN GUARD" NOT TRIPHIAN GUARD IT IS AS RELEVANT AS THE NEAREST COMPETITOR WHICH IS "PERSHING RIFLES". THERE WERE ONLY TWO SUCH ROTC COMPETITIVE AND FRATERNAL ROTC ORGANIZATIONS ON SOUTH ORGANGE CAMPUS AT THAT TIME. THE REMOVAL OF TRIPHIBIAN GUARD WOULD BE UNFAIR IF YOU ALLOW THE PERSHING RIFLES TO REMAIN. THE ARTICLE HAS BEEN IMPROVED AND EDITED FOR ANY POSSIBLE OFFENSIVE CONTENT. IT WILL BE DIFFICULT TO GET FURTHER REFERENCES FROM SETON HALL ARCHIVES BUT I NEED TIME TO DO THAT WITH MY CURRENT BUSY SCHEDULE. BUT I WILL. DENNIS A. SOMMESE —Preceding unsigned comment added by SOMMMESE (talk • contribs) 16:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Answered on article talk page. ttonyb (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Football's Next Star

Hi someone has being messing with the Football's Next Star next star article writing You Mom and was of the contestants and other stuff that takes from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerardmurphy1983 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at the article Wikipedia:Vandalism. It is a good guide concerning how to handle vandalism. If you have any questions, please let me know. ttonyb (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Tying Tiffany

Hello Ttonyb1. can you please explane me what is is wrong with the page for tying tiffany? sorry but it's my first article.. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Discodada (talk • contribs) 05:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The article is a close copy of her myspace page. ttonyb (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Kiki Twins

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is The Kiki Twins. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Kiki Twins. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

National Beer Day

Your ref formatting removes any information about what paper said it and when. I liked my refs because they gave some context. I have nothing against fancy ref templates, but please make them identify the paper and the article title and date, rather than just putting in a link. Your ref 3 just looks like HTML spew. Take a look at Template:Cite news. They have examples of news stories cited to the paper, the author, and the story title, and not just a lot of meaningless HTML about some abstract service where the convenience link is found. The convenience link is not the reference; the original newspaper publication is. Thanks. Edison (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not disagree, I started the exercise to remove the embedded link in the ref. (e.g., [1], [2], [3], etc.) I have been running back and forth with other things and have not had a chance to fix item #4. ttonyb (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I made ref 1 into a "cite news" rather than the original form, and strongly encourage you to make the others into similar cite news in=stead of the present cite web, if you can find the time. Thanks. I can hardly wait until New Beer's Eve and National Beer Day. Edison (talk) 05:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I took your advice and I look forward to it as well. My best to you... ttonyb (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Scene queen

Can you give me a response and insight on the discussion for deletion for this entry? I appreciate it. --Joe Ryder, eBusiness coach and web visionary (Vancouver, WA) (talk) 03:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment added to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scene queen. ttonyb (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Golf Association of Philadelphia Page Deletion

I'd like to create a page for the Golf Association of Philadelphia, but it's been tagged for speedy deletion because of copyright infringement. I'm a representative of the organization, and I want to create a GAP page on Wikipedia. It will be unbiased and strictly factual. It will be simply for reference, as Wikipedia is a great vehicle for obtaining information. What do I need to do to prevent it from being deleted? Hoping to move forward with this. Gap Golf (talk) 15:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Tony Regina, Golf Association of Philadelphia

There are a couple of issues, first, Wikipedia discourages create of articles by individuals closely associated with the subject of the article. WP:CONFLICT can give you more information about the reasoning behind this. Secondly, the reason the article was deleted was it was a copy of existing text. This is a violation of Wikipedia guideline and U.S. copyright laws. Getting beyond those two issues, the way to have an article accepted into Wikipedia is to make sure it meets the criteria for inclusion. Specifically, it need to establish notability for the company or organization. This notability is not based on "real-world" notability, but rather on Wikipedia based criteria. Please take a look at the sections above and I will also make sure you have a Welcome message on your talk page that has a number of great links to help create a page. If you have any questions after you read the sections, please let me know. My best to you... ttonyb (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why deletion

check out my note on the page, but also check out Lucidera and QlikTech International wiki pages. Nearly identical in structure. Just want parity and fairness in presentation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradleypeters (talk • contribs) 20:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Addressed in article page changes. ttonyb (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Lauri Kytömaa speedy

Hi, in this talk page edit, you say that a speedy delete was placed on Lauri Kytömaa [2], yet that didn't actually happen. I was going to raise other issues with the article, but a delete might be best. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually it was removed by the author of the article in [3]. I have replaced it. Thanks for the heads up. ttonyb (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Koffee Kate's

What can i do to add more info to Koffee Kate's as they have no website for me to check. i am not contesting the speedy deletion im just trying to see if i can make it better.WiteinkρεβῼTalk/Stalk 02:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind it was already deleted.WiteinkρεβῼTalk/Stalk 02:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

For future reference, you might want to look at WP:COMPANY. ttonyb (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I'll do that.WiteinkρεβῼTalk/Stalk 03:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have also left you a Welcome message on your talk page. It contains some very useful links. If you have any questions, please let me know. ttonyb (talk) 03:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for helping me. i tried getting help from halfshadow but he doesnt like me.WiteinkρεβῼTalk/Stalk 03:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

He/she may just be a bit busy. My best to you... ttonyb (talk) 03:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

he told me to stop writing on his page.WiteinkρεβῼTalk/Stalk 03:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

If you did nothing to deserve it, I would not worry about it. ttonyb (talk) 03:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Josh Sanders

Josh Sanders (deletion): The newly posted article for "Josh Sanders" is 100% accurate and I encourage you to take a second look. CMJ is the college music journal which charts american radio stations weekly. Smile Thru This was not just a local Milwaukee, WI indie band... they had a major national following, national radio airplay and toured nationally extensively. Everything in this article and wikipedia page is 100% accurate. Thank you so much for reconsiderating deleting this page. Not alot of people make it out of Portage, WI and Josh Sanders was one of them. It was be great to list him on the Portage, WI wikipedia page. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Staytheyear (talk • contribs) 05:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The page has already been deleted as a result of it being an article recreated after deletion that resulted from a prior AfD discussion. ttonyb (talk)

Josh Sanders deletion

This page should not have been deleted! All information was correct and accurate. Please check again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Staytheyear (talk • contribs) 05:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I will repeat this for you again, the page has already been deleted as a result of it being an article recreated after deletion that resulted from a prior AfD discussion. I suggest you refrain from adding articles that have been deleted as a result of AfD discussions. ttonyb (talk) 05:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your revert of vandalism on my user talk page.--BaronLarf 05:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure, sorry you had to be a victim of a childish act. My best to you... ttonyb (talk) 06:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Clinton engine

I was overwhelmed with the huge amount of explanation as to why work of mine was deleted. The problem with "too much information" is whereas it may be an attempt to look intelligent, the underlying reality is it is just plain rude. I am not a genius at Wikipedia, (I doubt if many are given the volumes of cut-and-pasted information they are given to read). In my career of 34 years in IT we knew better then to treat clients, people, etc... like that. If you want to be be more successful in whatever you do, don't overload people with tons of text, it's futile. Make it as they say: "short and sweet". You will probably get less shout letters too. Don't bother thanking me for the free advice,(I used to get paid big dollars for it before the financial fallout). I just thought you were a nice guy who would listen beyond the "cut and paste". If I can get a clear definition on how to resubmit my content, I will. Let us consider evolving, it helps everyone, and we need more then ever now! Jack Hallaran —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hallaran (talk • contribs)

<sigh>I will ignore your unwelcome rant and rave that verges on your being uncivil and simply equate the diatribe with your frustration of having an article deleted.</sigh>

First of all, I did not delete your article, I only nominated it for deletion. My nomination was reviewed by an admin and the nomination was apparently deemed as valid, hence the deletion. If you had taken a quick breath and read the notice before sending me a message – please do not leave messages on user pages, please use the talk page instead. – you would have seen the statement, "This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article."

The explanation was shorter than your rant and seems to make perfect sense. I suggest you click on the link (once more here it is) and review it to see if you understand the explanation. If you are still perplexed I am willing to answer any reasonable questions you might have concerning how to avoid deletion. ttonyb (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010

"Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Trusteer, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you...."

I created the page and was in the middle of adding extra information when this obnoxious banner appeared. It would be far more beneficial for you to be adding content to articles instead of defacing them with warning messages. dila (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

One might look at it in another way, if there were verifiable, reliable sources that supported notability there would not be any tags. If you were not aware, the editor that creates the article has the burden of proof concerning any material that is added to an article. The tags are not intended to be obnoxious, but rather are intended to let the editor and any reader know the article needs a attention.

You might also want to remember that all of us in the Wikipedia community are volunteers and we are all here to improve the quality of Wikipedia. My best to you... ttonyb (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi there Joseph Forde

I would lke to know the following please if you could please assist me.

• how do I refernce articles or websites to this page.
• How do I re-write so it's not a bias bsed information page .
• I have witnessed other pages and they do not carry warning notices.
• How do I upload pictures and information tables to input data and career stats?

Regards Josephforde —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.11.238 (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for asking and let me see if I can give you a hand.

• References - The basic format for refs is <ref>details of the citation</ref>, the details of which can be found in WP:REF. Take a look at the Quick summary section.

If you were writing an article about the San Francisco Bay Bridge and were referring to the crack found on the bridge, the code would look like this.

Upon inspection workers found a 2 inch crack in the bridge.<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/05/BALL19J81O.DTL&tsp=1</ref>

The resulting text would look like this:

Upon inspection workers found a 2 inch crack in the bridge.^[1]

The ref would look like

1. ^ http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/05/BALL19J81O.DTL&tsp=1

• Autobiography - Wikipedia discourages writing articles about yourself. See [[4]] and WP:AUTO. The tag on the article that states it is an autobiographical article is there to indicate to readers that the article was extensively edited by the subject of the article. It is not necessarily a bad thing, but it serves as an informational warning to the reader.
• Maintenance tags removal - generally when the issues are resolved the tags are removed. Until then they serve to advise the author/editor/read that the article has some work that needs to be accomplished before it is considered as complete.

• Images - See WP:IMAGES for information on how to upload images.

My best to you and if you have any specific questions about the sections I have referred you to, please let me know. Thanks... ttonyb (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Richard C. Longworth

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Richard C. Longworth. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard C. Longworth. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hirt's Gardens question

Some of what you're cutting is footnoted to notable, reliable sources. Other than footnotes to proven sources, is there something else I should do to establish reliability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by OliverSorge (talk • contribs) 03:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand this may be a bit frustrating, but because something is in the form of a footnote does not mean it is a reliable sources. I urge you to read notability, WP:V, and WP:RS for help in establishing notability by using verifable, reliable sources. I will also check your talk page to confirm there is a welcome message on it. I suggest you read the links that describe your first article and how to create a great article. My best to you ttonyb (talk) 03:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

new article Alexander Ivashkin is not seen on internet

--Mus01ai 19:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)New article' Alexander Ivashkin' ( which I have created) still exists in Wikipedia archives ( I can see it when I log in, and the system doesn't allow me to create the page with same name), but it was removed from Internet ( can't find it when google it ) today for some reasons. Can you help, please? Yours Astel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mus01ai (talk • contribs) 19:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The reason you are unable to create the article is it already exists on Wikipedia. See Alexander Ivashkin. The article has not removed from Wikipedia. It appears the article has not been indexed by Google. ttonyb (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of James and Blackburn

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is James and Blackburn. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James and Blackburn. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

hey - User:Nickmarley4

hey, i dunno y but i got a vandilism notice and at the bottom it said ur name i dunno whats going on —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickmarley4 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

There is not vandalism notice on your talk page. There is a notice your article has been nominated for deletion. ttonyb (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Dallas Darling

Even though Dallas Darling has only self-authored three books, his writing has appeared on numerous websites like www.middle-east-online.com, aljazeera.com, commondreams.org, peoplesweeklyworld.org, ncr.org, truthout.org, antiwar.org, and hundreds of other sites which in their entirety reach several million people.

He is also a Correspondent and writer for www.worldnews.com and write a weekly column for Iran's Javan Daily Newspaper.

Finally, Dallas Darling offers a unique view, especailly since he once pastored, served in the military and experienced the U.S. invasion of Panama, worked in a Guatemala Refugee Camp and embraced Liberation Theologies, became a conscientious objecter, and now teaches.

Very few writers have such an interesting background that combines "real-world" experiences with theology, philosophy and religion.

Does this not make him an interesting and suitable addition to Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.175.225.217 (talk) 03:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Suitability for inclusion is based on meeting Wikipedia criteria for notability. Specifically, it is the criteria in WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. Please take a look at those sections and let me know if you have any questions.. ttonyb (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Dean E. Hallmark

Both times you say you've deleted the link to his official Facebook fanpage the link still remains (not because of me) yet all the content I added under Early Years, Military Years, The Doolittle Raid and Imprisonment and Execution along with all the citations disappears. Glitch in the system? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AUfanatic79 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no glitch in the system, the material has been removed because it is a copy of text in [5]. This is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines and U.S. copyright laws. ttonyb (talk) 04:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's not an exact copy. How about I just get rid of the link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AUfanatic79 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It does not have to be an exact copy. Slight reformulation does not resolve the copyright issue. Getting rid of the facebook link does nothing to absolve fact the text exists somewhere else as a copyright material. Even if you were to delete the facebook page, it only does just that, it deletes the page, it would not "uncopyright" any material. ttonyb (talk) 04:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, I understand. Kind of frustrating considering I authored what's over there, too. But, I get it. Just got to figure out how to re-word it, I guess. I wasn't trying to challenge your edits, btw. I originally thought there was some issue with posting a link to facebook which left me wondering "well, why doesn't he get rid of the Doolittle link, too?" At any rate, I'll throw something back up again... probably not tonight, though. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AUfanatic79 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. The article is not in danger of deletion and might be picked up by someone to rewrite the text. Good luck and if there is anything I can do to help you out please let me know. ttonyb (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, well that's cool. I'll work on it some more when I get home from work tomorrow if someone hasn't done so before I get a chance. When it comes to photos that I'd like to add later... same rule as the link? (please say no) They've all been passed down through my family to me and I personally have the originals plus negatives, minus the ones taken by the military during WWII. --AUfanatic79 (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Same thing applies for images; however, for unpublished photos (i.e., uncopyrighted), see donating copyrighted material for some possible help. You might want to see [6] for some help with copyrights. ttonyb (talk) 05:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Dallas Darling

It is evident that Dallas Darling would be a great contribution to Wikipedia and people doing research. Not only has he marched on Washington DC several times and participated in many popular movements, but he seems to be able to transcend religion and politics. This is shown by writing for numerous websites and Iran's Javan Daily Newspaper. Few authors and writers, which are usually paid by the corporate media, do not achieve this goal. It is obvious too that he has influenced hundreds of thousands of people. He may not be in the mass media, but he is in the peoples popular imagination. Therefore, Wikipedia should add Dallas Darling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.68.153.97 (talk) 14:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

None of this satisfies the Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. See the comment above. ttonyb (talk) 15:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

But if one criteria of notability is how many people are impacted, then Dallas Darling does meet the partial criteria. He might not be well-known in elite academic or political circles, but he is well-known among progressives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.68.153.97 (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing in WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR that talks about the number of people that are impacted by him. None of this satisfies the Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. ttonyb (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with toynb. Dallas Darling does merit notability due to his life history and his articles published on the world-wide web and read by thousands. There are numerous references and other resources, some which I have tried to add, but which have been deleted. Why not contact him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.68.153.97 (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Once more...none of this satisfies the Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. Why would I want to contact him? It would have no bearing on his Wikipedia based notability. As far as the "references" you are referring to, they were just lists of his articles that failed to meet the criteria in reliable sources. They did not support anything in the article and were not really references. ttonyb (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

ttonyb1 in regards to Dallas Darling article, Whether you add or delete Dallas Darling-in previous messages I have tried to explain why he should be added-I want to thank you for quickly responding to my messages. This experience has been interesting, and I have learned more about Wikipedia. I wish you the best! Sincerely, RM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.68.153.97 (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Grand Prince Karl Magnus Leopold Franz I

if i may interject here. this page should not be deleted an why? there is a few reasons, for one its on a real-person, sure not alot of people know about him an hes stayed out of the public view for awhile. Also i do have sources such as www.ancestry.com to name one of many. now of course i'm new here an is having trouble with references an getting the hyperlinks to work. But there is nothing wrong with this page an is purely there for anyone to see. so please remove your "hoax" statement if you well. thank you for reading this, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl-Franz I (talk • contribs) 01:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You certainly may interject; however, the article appears to be a hoax and until it is proven not to be, the CSD shall remain in place. Even if the article was proven not to be a hoax, it would fail WP:BIO. My best to you... ttonyb (talk) 02:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright i've looked threw the article an have listed references an removed other information deemed not needed an conflicting with terms that i seem to have forgotten. Again it is not a hoax. the only problem i see is that my hyperlinks are not working. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl-Franz I (talk • contribs) 02:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Robert A. Lawton

Why would you nominate "Robert A Lawton" page for deletion? The reason the page was created was because Lawton had been referenced on another wikipedia page (Charles de Lauzirika). Separately, he has been quoted in print & online financial sites....co-written a recent feature film...etc. Rather than try to delete it, help improve it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.86.236 (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The article was nominated for deletion because it appears to fail to establish notability via the criteria in either WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE. Being quoted in print is not substantial coverage nor is writing a "feature" film. Let me point you to two section that you should also read. The first is sockpuppets. Please note that sockpupperty is against Wikipedia guidelines and will get you banned from editing or creating articles in Wikipedia. The second is burden of evidence, this section indicates the creator has the responsibility to insure the article meets Wikipedia criteria. My best to you ... ttonyb (talk) 06:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I read sockpuppets & burden of evidence. Neither seems relevant. re; sockpuppet...Not relevant. If you're insinuating I'M Robert Lawton? I'm not. Nor is the creator of the original article, DaniWolfe.

re; Burden...The subject/article meets the burden as evidenced by 5 attributions to reliable, published sources. Thoughts? Thanks Kylestafford (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Since you are not a sockpuppet you have nothing to worry about. The comment about burden of proof relates to your comment that I should work to save the article - as a volunteer, I have the luxury of picking the articles I wish to work on, the creator does not. The references for the article were inadequate as evidenced by its deletion. ttonyb (talk) 05:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

hi, thanks for your help, but i need some explanation about you expressions

so thank you very much for your edits in the Cassadee Pope article, but tell me, what do you wanted to say with "magazine type fluff"? really, i'm not being sarcastic, i don't know what you wanted to say... thank you my friend —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beckfan1 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The text was not encyclopedic in nature. It was the type of material you might see in People or another fan type magazine and did nothing to improve the quality of the article. My best to you. ttonyb (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Route 66 Days

I merged this instead of deleting it. Bearian (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I just saw that. Thanks, I think that is a good solution. ttonyb (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Teekay Qadah

hello i didnt remove the delete i wrote hangon and i posted a comment on the talk page but no one answered :S —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamanicoooool (talk • contribs) 05:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually you did remove the tags as indicted here, here, and here. ttonyb (talk) 05:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

hello ? can you please answer me? thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamanicoooool (talk • contribs) 05:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You need to insure the article meets the criteria in WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 05:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, sure. can please tell me what exactly i have to do and i will do it. should i send his interviews? sorry if im bothering you but step by step everything will be alright :) thanks {Hamanicoooool (talk) 05:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)}

Have you read the article I pointed you to? ttonyb (talk) 05:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

yes sir, i did. and what i'm going to write has nothing wrong and it meets it.

(Hamanicoooool (talk) 06:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC))

plz dont delete it

Hi tony,

Please don't delete my page its not a hoax why are you saying its a hoax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackHollystory (talk • contribs) 21:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Dora u have the map don't ask me

Hi, I posted this as a reply to what you put on my talk page, but thought I'd stick it here too in case you missed it.... Please accept my apologies. I did not actually create the page (Dora u have the map don't ask me). I noticed in the Recent Changes page that the page had had the speedy deletion template added to it, and thought that I'd try using the quick-add categories to add 'Speedy Deletion'. This was a mistake because the page had already been deleted, thus persuading Wikipedia that I'd created the page! I enjoy using and editing wikipedia, and wouldn't create nonsense like this. Sorry for the confusion. gaidheal1 ^{(talk♫contribs)} 03:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. My best to you... ttonyb (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Trotline Theory page

Trotline Theory is a legitimate dating philosophy that is under discussion in academic settings across the midwest. The fact that it hasn't been posted to Wikipedia before now was surprising to me. For instance, I heard it being discussed by people I've never met, who called it Trotline Theory, as they were eating lunch here in Rolla, Missouri. I first heard of Trotline Theory in Maryville, Missouri (Five hours away) a couple of years ago. I think this alone shows that the term is becoming more popular, and as stated in the article, has gone for years without name. If deleted from Wiki, the name will grow independently until someone else picks it up and popularizes it in a television show or movie. The term IS legitimate, and Wiki users need to know of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misternothingman (talk • contribs) 14:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Dallas Darling Article

ttonyb...please help...what exactly needs to be done to keep this article on Wikipedia?

Would other resources help from other writers that have used Dallas Darling's articles?

Would a list of sites aid that carry his articles?

What exactly do you mean by resources?

I also thought that notability was somewhat subjective.

Please explain what needs to be done.

Thank you.

RC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.68.153.97 (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"Removed individual not internationally known"

Hi, could you please explain the reverts you made ([7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] ...)? Did you check all of those individuals and decided they're not notable enough? What was the criteria? Flying Saucer (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did check all the names of the individuals I removed – you will see that not all of the edits were reversed. The criteria used to establish if an individual is notable enough to be included is used is WP:RY. You might want to add those names to the "Deaths in Year XXXX" articles. My best to you. ttonyb (talk) 23:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, now I understand the WP:RY-thing. I got misleaded because of the fact that there are no "Deaths in Year XXXX" articles for 90s, 80s... I thought all the deaths with an article should be in a list. Flying Saucer (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Kerry Shirts

Thank you for making the appropriate editing to assure the "Kerry Shirts" page meets Wikipedia's guidelines for proper citations. I would recommend the page not be deleted, particularly regarding the major attention Kerry Shirts is receiving in the scholarly community at the moment concerning biblical and Mormon scholarship. Kolipoki09 (talk) 04:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not see significant changes to the article. It may not be deleted as a Speedy Candidate; however, I would then propose it for AfD. I do not believe the article meets the Wikipedia notability requirements as defined in WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. ttonyb (talk) 04:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

DJ Supersmooth‎

Technically, I didn't remove the template. I just added to it, so it wouldn't work.--Waterflame Scientist (talk) 05:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Technically you removed it from the displaying on the page, so therefore the warning message. ttonyb (talk) 05:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Richard C. Longworth

Copyright? http://www.public.iastate.edu/~ceah/longworth.htm (You forgot to delete the other stuff sourced from there) http://glueconference2009.wordpress.com/speaker-bios/richard-longworth/ http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/chicago_council_staff_details.php?staff_id=60 http://www.wiu.edu/newsrelease.sphp?release_id=7141 http://www.jsonline.com/entertainment/arts/29447339.html etc. To be honest if a journalist is that precious that he copyrights his biographical information and then makes extensive use of it in the public domain for self-promotion, it doesn't say very much for his commitment to the idea of freedom of information. If that's his idea of journalism it suggests I was wrong in imagining that his journalism was the substance of his claim to notability. Opbeith (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The Beatles Wit

I've received the deletion recommendation message saying that The Beatles' Wit contained original research. I disagree with this; the basis of the article comes from a comment by George Harrison and the article largely pulls together cited comments by The Beatles' members, George Martin and well-known Beatle commentators - principally Mark Lewisohn and Philip Norman. The creation of the article has also been discussed in some depth on The Beatles discussion page and considered a worthwhile exercise there. Apepper (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Dallas Darling

1tonyb, How long (time period) of a discussion do you allow before final deletion on a given article or bio? I was just curious. RC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.68.153.97 (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The typical duration of an AfD is 7 days. ttonyb (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This devastated fan

In truth, I agree that it's speediable — but since it was AFDd in good faith by a user who simply didn't fully understand the process, I felt it more appropriate to repair their nomination instead (if only on the principle of not biting the newbies). So I've fixed everything so that the page shows up properly in the logs, though I certainly won't object if there's a speedy on WP:SNOW grounds. Bearcat (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll add my 2 cents to the AfD. ttonyb (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Bethel Lutheran Church (Manassas, VA)

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Bethel_Lutheran_Church_(Manassas,_VA) has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Bethel_Lutheran_Church_(Manassas,_VA) and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, K1goalie (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC).

I have tried to respond to the request for mediation, but there is no article at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Bethel_Lutheran_Church_(Manassas,_VA) to respond to. Found it at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/ Bethel Lutheran Church (Manassas, VA)

So everyone is clear, I will not agreed to a mediation. Mediation is an important process to eliminate discourse in Wikipedia, but it should be used only after nominal discussion has been accomplished as defined in WP:DR and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests. To date the initiator of the mediation has only voiced disagreement with Wikipedia guidelines that were presented on the article's talk page - this is far from the level of discussion I believe to be enough to warrant formal mediation. As indicated the guidelines were were presented on the article's talk, with an attempt to explain them; however, this appeared to be ignored. To move this to a formal mediation is not only a waste of resources that could be used for more deserving formal mediation, but it would circumvent a process of dispute resolution that seems to have worked well with other editors.

The issues associate with the article are twofold; first, the article was deleted because it failed to provide notability per WP:ORG. I nominated the article and the nomination was confirmed by Admin. (Perhaps this should be approached via a deletion review.) Second, the article originally contained material that was prior published material. The material failed to have a license compatible with Wikipedia; it was not marked as copyrighted, but it was published after this requirement was eliminated when the United States adhered to the Berne Convention on March 1, 1989; and, the material was not donated to Wikipedia for its use. In addition, there was no attempt to rewrite the material prior to replacing the it in the article. (Perhaps this issue is a candidate for a third-party opinion or WP:RFC.)

As indicated, these items were pointed out to the editor on the talk page, as well as an offer to help the editor. I welcome further discussion on these issues. My best to all. ttonyb (talk) 03:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I am in a catch 22 here. There is notability but before I could get the history worked out the delete was executed. I did ask you for help on the talk page for the article but the article got deleted before you could respond. Now I need the history to make the article notable but I don't have an article to put it on so when I go to the DRV It won't have history to support it, but I can't put the history on because its deleted..... see my problem here. I think this is a consequence of such a quick mark to delete. 8 minutes after creation. I am all ears as to how to proceed here as the admin hasn't responded to requests for help on where to go yet. K1goalie (talk) 14:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The solution is relatively simple. First create a sandbox such as User/sandbox – if you have any problems creating this let me know. You will then need donate the text from [18] to Wikipedia or I would highly suggest go the much simpler route of rewriting the text so it no longer resembles the original – please note that slight reformulation of the original text will not suffice as rewriting. When this is done, copy the rewritten history of the church in to the sandbox. Write the article in the sandbox. When you think it is complete ask me or another editor for assistance in looking over the article. At that point you can recreate it in the mainspace. I would also suggest you review the links in the Welcome message in your talk page for some great information concerning the creation of articles, specifically Your first article and How to write a great article would be good place to start. ttonyb (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

After the source is under the wiki license do I go to a DRV or do I just resubmit. K1goalie (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion reviews are for articles in the format they were deleted. Again, I urge you to rewrite the history text rather than donating it. Rewriting it is a much simpler process that does not impact your claim on the original text. Please note you will have to show you are the rightful owner of the text, because it is Church owned/authored this may prove to be a little convoluted.

I again also suggest you create a User/sandbox to work in and ask for help prior to moving it to the mainspace. Please also make sure you comply with the Wikipedia defined notability criteria. ttonyb (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

what the hell is sockpuppetry?

me and my friends are trying to get a page started for this guy. What is sockpuppetry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxiejack (talk • contribs) 15:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:SOCK. ttonyb (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

he is important Patrick Gibney

hey, first of all, jack, you need to sign you posts. second, this guy isn't all over the internet, he's gathered a cult following. I was in the crowd when he did his lightsaber fight in new york, in fact. me and my friends were in the computer lab all night working on papers, so we figure'd we'd try and give him some publicity. If you insist on taking the article down, what do we need for it to be considered legitimate? Itisnti (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all, my name is not Jack, secondly there are no posts to this article or AfD that have not been signed. Thirdly, Wikipedia is not a venue to create publicity, the individual fails to meet the criteria to establish notability. ttonyb (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I was talking to my friend in the post above, sorry for the confusion. But yeah, I see what you mean. Ok, do what you must. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itisnti (talk • contribs) 00:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey Ttonyb1, Thanks for helping me improve the Chris Bartkowicz article. I really appreciate it.Ubuntu12z (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem, it still has a way to go. I'll try to get back to it on and off. ttonyb (talk)

Water On The Table

Tony, thanks for your swift attention to this new page. I'm hunting up additional references and adding them as I can. If you have any feedback on where specifically you think more references or citations are needed, that would be great - both for the quality of the article and my own education. Thanks again! VickiZ (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Tony, how have I done so far with respect to references for this article? Thanks in advance! VickiZ (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

CSD for Bible baptist school, pennsylvania: SD criteria A7 doesn't apply to schools?

Hi Tony, I was looking over the CSD list and saw you'd tagged this article for speedy deletion criteria A7. I agree with the sentiment, but I see that the template specifically says that A7 doesn't apply to schools, so I wonder whether some other category or a prod might be more appropriate? Cheers, Doonhamer (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Duh...You are absolutely right and I keep forgetting it. I have changed it to a PROD. Thanks for the backup. ttonyb (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested Article Deletion

The author has submitted a G7 request for speedy deletion (a self-nominated request as it was the main contributor of content), and according to the protocol, deletion of the content along with posting of G7 could be used as a request for speedy deletion. The author misunderstands what it had done wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.213.246.201 (talk) 04:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Once other editors have been involved in the article it cannot be deleted at the request of the author. The CSD will run its course and it will be deleted then. ttonyb (talk) 04:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. However, I do not understand since the edits that other users have made to the page are either insubstantial or vandalism themselves. How long will it be before this speedy deletion finally occurs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.213.246.201 (talk) 04:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

They are usually deleted within a couple of days. ttonyb (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Your Johnnie Bassett CSD nomination

I've asked Orangemike to comment at their talk page on where the unambiguous copyvio was on that article, you might want to comment there. I can email you a copy of the deleted text if you wish. Franamax (talk) 04:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I added my 2 cents on Orangemike's page. I do remember the page, so no need to e-mail me a copy. My best to you... ttonyb (talk) 05:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: SCARED! (Urban Explorers)

Hello Ttonyb1. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of SCARED! (Urban Explorers), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not about a group or club - it's about a TV show, invalid CSD crtieria. Thank you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...my mistake. ttonyb (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Peterborough Green-Up

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Peterborough Green-Up. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peterborough Green-Up. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Ange Maya

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

The prod tag has been removed twice now. If you wish to delete the article, take it to WP:AfD where it belongs. The second removal was my contesting it. Do not reinstate it a third time. B.Wind (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:EWIS. These edits do not fit the criteria for a {{3rr}}. Specifically, this is not a "...confrontational, combative, non-productive use of editing and reverting to try to win, manipulate, or stall a discussion, or coerce a given stance on a page without regard to collaborative approaches." I also suggest you not be so quick to use such a tag and instead you should consider discussing this directly with the editor you believe is in error.

If you had taken the time to look at the reasons for the edits, including my last removal, you would have noticed the reason for reinstatement was valid and although maybe not exactly following Wikipedia procedures, it has a valid reason for be followed. Let me reiterate, the reason the PROD was originally removed was due to a lack of understanding by the editor. The editor that originally removed the PROD would like the article to be removed, there is no reason to force this to go to a AfD. A PROD is easier, simpler process than a AfD. There is really no need to complicate the process. Please confirm you understand my comments by reinstating the PROD. Thanks... ttonyb (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:PROD. A second application of it to an article is a violation. Applying it a fourth time is not only violating it but is also a violation of WP:3RR. I'm not going further into this - I'll simply leave it to an admin to "referee" it. But since I've contested the application of the prod, the more WP:CIVIL thing to do is to take it to WP:AfD... and the most appropriate thing to do, too. B.Wind (talk)

<sigh>Now you are evoking WP:CIVIL?</sigh> You really should go back and read what the tags/articles mean before using them out of context. With regards to Warring, my actions were not, "confrontational, combative, non-productive use of editing and reverting to try to win, manipulate, or stall a discussion, or coerce a given stance on a page without regard to collaborative approaches." This if you have not noticed is the definition of warring.

I tried to explain the reasoning for the reapplication of the tag in spite of limits of the PROD definition, but if you insist, I'll provide you with an article that you should read and take to heart. Remember it is acceptable to use common sense when applying the rules, and therefore, it is acceptable "if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, to ignore it." ttonyb (talk) 04:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Homerjay90 has a mysterious sockpuppet

Hi, there is a blocked user (Homerjay90) has a sockpuppet named User:HomerHomerHomerHomer. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HomerHomerHomerHomer.

Could this be a part of sockpuppet account into the blocked user's account? ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 06:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Illya Konstantin article

I saw the notice on the Illya Konstantin article considered for deletion. I don't understand why. There is more information here than on many pages that are not so listed. (HelenG173.34.13.35 (talk) 03:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC))

The article fails to meet the notability requirements as defined in WP:ACTOR. ttonyb (talk) 04:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Og ron c deletion

I understand that but I am just piecing this together from various sources.. Yes I work for the company but I am NOT close to the man OG RON C.. If I rewrite the article can it stay?!Chopnotslop (talk) 1:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

If you remove the copyright issues and demonstrate notability per Wikipedia criteria, no one will delete it. ttonyb (talk) 07:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok I need to know what EXACTLY is the copyright issue as far as the myspace.com/ogroncfanpage is concerned Chopnotslop (talk) 1:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind lmao I see it now.. I have already demonstrated notability #7 Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability... Like I previously stated OG RON C is KNOWN as helping keep the genre of music ]]DJ Screw]] created alive.. When people want to get an album or mixtape chopped and screwed they go 2 OG RON C...Give me a few mins and tell if it is ok... Thanx Chopnotslop (talk) 1:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help.

This is my first time editing WIkipedia.

I know the page doesn't seem like much, but it will mean a lot for the rest of the club. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.13.29 (talk) 03:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks for the help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UCC-DEBATE (talk • contribs) 03:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Casson Trenor

The page is new. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparkykarmykl (talk • contribs) 06:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Since this was created on 09:40, 16 February 2010 by yourself Sparkykarmykl - over 7 days ago - it is not a new article. ttonyb (talk) 06:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

UCC Debate Club

Hi, I was wondering why Upper Canada College can have pages devoted to their other clubs (ie. Ontario Model Parliament) while the page that is being currently worked on (UCC Debate Club) is not. It is a work in progress, and I will seek to fulfill the WIkipedia terms and regulations as soon as I can. Is it possible to not have it deleted? UCC-DEBATE (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I have not looked at the article you mentioned, each article must stand on its own merits. As indicated on the talk page yesterday, the article fails to meet the criteria for notability. I have only nominated it for deletion, an Admin will review the nomination and, if appropriate, delete it.

In case it does get deleted, I have moved a copy of the article to your user page. ttonyb (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Back to School Backpacks, Inc.

I have been trying to make the article acceptable. Anything that you see that needs to be fix right away? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexGreer13 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Cockle Law Brief Printing Company

Hello Ttonyb1. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Cockle Law Brief Printing Company, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I have moved it to an AfD. ttonyb (talk) 02:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

User:UCC-DEBATE

Hey. Are you good with tables? Can you help me with something on my page? UCC-DEBATE (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

What is the problem you are having? ttonyb (talk) 02:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

On my user page, I am making a table of the team results at debate tournaments for our school.On the slot for queens 2010, in the finalists section, Kaleem Hawa and Caleb Guthrie get more space than Scott Kilian-Clark and Ali Jutha.Is there a way to divide the space in that cell evenly? UCC-DEBATE (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue is you would like to span 1/2 of a row. I believe you can only span in whole numbers. (i.e., 2,3,4,5, etc.) If there were 4 rows in the table you could span 2 each, but by forcing one of the rows (of a 3 row table) to span 2 you leave only 1 for the other. The only thing I can think of would be to build the table in HTML and use a nested table. But that might create other issues with alignment and spacing. It would be a lot of work for a very minor cosmetic change. Sorry... ttonyb (talk) 03:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Re Nat Christian Page

Hi Ttonyb1,

I'm new with WIkipedia. Sorry for adding after you removed some items. I wasn't aware that we were working at the exact same time. If you can, please be patient as I am new at this. i would like to include some reference material and/or links only because I thought that Wikipedia wanted that. I f I don;t really need to do any more, that would be fine. FYI - Nat Christian has directed four features (wrote two of them) with very recognizable talent. The features have been distributed. he has acted on some notable soaps and is an award winner. He has several projects in development, etc (I didn't add this last line). If I can do anything to make things easier, please let me know at your convenience. I can only imagine how busy you must be, so I'm sorry for the mixup.

Thanks a bunch,

Cary Moreno (ArtistReport) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtistReport (talk • contribs) 06:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

TONY - I just looked at the WIKIPEDIA "HELP" page and added "references" the way I think that Wikipedia wants it formatted. Please let me know if this is incorrect. I also formatted the whole page the way other Wikipedia pages seem to be formatted. I hope that this helps. Please let me know if I need to do anything else.

Thanks again, Cary —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtistReport (talk • contribs) 06:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Poodet

I have deleted this as pure vandalism and as an offense to the memory of Field Marshall Rommel. Dlohcierekim 21:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Cockle Law Brief Printing Company

I added this reference to Cockle Law Brief Printing Company. You may wish to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cockle Law Brief Printing Company. When a company's name includes the word "company", you may get better search results when you search for the company's name without company or corporation, which is what I did with this search. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Baby G Music

You recently have flagged the Baby G Music page for deletion, andI was wondering why? I'm new to this wikipedia stuff, but I seriously don't know what I did wrong. I work for Baby G Music, and the text was taken directly from their bio which I have permission to use. Please respond thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ATripp3 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

There are a couple of issues, first, Wikipedia discourages create of articles by individuals closely associated with the subject of the article. WP:CONFLICT can give you more information about the reasoning behind this. Secondly, the reason the article was marked for deletion was it was a copy of existing text. This is a violation of Wikipedia guideline and U.S. copyright laws. The text can be donated for use by Wikipeda or rewritten for use. Getting beyond those two issues, the way to have an article accepted into Wikipedia is to make sure it meets the criteria for inclusion. Specifically, it need to establish notability for the company or organization. This notability is not based on "real-world" notability, but rather on Wikipedia based criteria. Please take a look at the sections above and I will also make sure you have a Welcome message on your talk page that has a number of great links to help create a page. If you have any questions after you read the sections, please let me know. My best to you... ttonyb (talk) 06:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok so basically if I rewrite the article with my own words and remain neutral about the company, then it can be posted back up? How long would it take to get the notice for deletion removed after I make the changes? BTW thanks for being as detailed as possible I really appreciate it.comment added by ATripp3 —Preceding undated comment added 20:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC).

Osman Rashid, Kakai, Babur Habib

Hello Ttonyb1,

I edited some pages today that you have highlighted correctly as 'close connection'. I have tried my best to keep them informative or remove personal information about myself. I also did them under my username so that it is clear who made the edits. I also made a page for my co-founder, Babur Habib. Please let me know if you see any issues. It would be appreciated if you can remove the citations so that they don't get removed - thanks in advance.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osmanrashid (talk • contribs) 06:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Orlando Barone

Hey, i was creating and traslating the page when you asked for deletion. Let me know if I've done something wrong. --Andres arg (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

At the time I marked it for deletion, the article had no content. It appears there is now some content. Please read WP:BIO and make sure the article establishes Wikipedia based notability. Thanks and good luck... ttonyb (talk) 00:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Kim Il-sung centenary

Ironically, while examining one of your other deletions[19], I found out more about this event (completion of Ryungyong Hotel). Mporter (talk) 03:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Housing Finance Agencies

Quasi-government agencies, it was better to stubbify than to delete. Bearian (talk) 06:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that and I agree. Thanks and my best to you... ttonyb (talk) 06:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)