User talk:Vivekn999

Vivek Narayanan

A tag has been placed on Vivek Narayanan, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Jmax- 03:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you have asked why your page was deleted, please see the above comment, as well as Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people). -- Jmax- 11:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

response

I have no personal hard feelings against you, I am just following procedures for improving Wikipedia. Your edits have been focused around creating articles regarding non-notable subjects that do not assert the relevance of the subject matter. I recommend you read WP:AGF, WP:NN, and Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jmax- (talk • contribs) 12:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Oh, and as you have contested the speedy deletion notice on AeroFox, please detail your reasoning on that talk page. -- Jmax- 12:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Aeroshot.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Aeroshot.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser

Thank you for your recent application to use AutoWikiBrowser. Regrettably, I have declined your request as you do not have 500 mainspace edits. You are welcome to apply again at a later time. Feel free to contact me with any questions, alphachimp. 16:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Please read Wikipedia:Five pillars. Wikipedia isn't the place to promote your own software. AlistairMcMillan 18:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: comments on my talk page about AeroFox

The biggest issue with the article is that there's no proof of notability as said in the software notability guidelines. Regrettably, the bar of inclusion in Wikipedia is rather high. Showing up as the second Google hit is not enough; if a software package is notable, the first hit is their home page, the second to 50th are reviews on major websites, 50th to 200th are download sites and and the rest of the 12000 websites are blog postings. Just a rhetorical example =) Also note how I say most of the Google hits are unrelated; I get user pages from various websites with name "Aerofox", Firefox theme with that name, etc...

You're probably thinking this sort of proof of widespread use is completely unreasonable for a new browser. That is, regrettably, true. One has to have found demonstrable notability about the subject first, and then you get to have an article about the software package. We only cover really new and unreleased software if it has demonstrably had some impact already. (For example, Firefox alpha version is widely anticipated, so there's a section about it in Firefox article; Duke Nukem Forever is notoriously delayed, so there's an article.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signing

Please sign your posts with "~~~~". Do not add a fake username. AlistairMcMillan 16:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]