User talk:Cdyson37

Talk to me. It'll make my day.

The issue with the

An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to VFD instead. For details, see Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles.

Note that articles about not notabile people are nevertheless not speedyable if the article makes an assertion of notability. If you believe the subject of this article is not notable enough to warrant inclusion, I would suggest that you submit this article to

Please stop marking messages that do not fulfil an SD criterion for speedy deletion, it is not helpful. --fvw* 13:47, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your assesment . Do you know how the "deletion process" works. In fact it was me who included the note "This should, rather be included into Kapp Putsch, in non-pov and standard language."

Str1977 13:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay maybe it's not a quickie (in fact looking at the criteria it isn't - I'm sorry), however I do strongly believe it should be deleted. The original article was a one liner and totally incoherent, and subsequent edits are antisemitic. Perhaps the Kapp Putch page should have something about Bavarian reaction on it, but not this - there's virtually no content and no reason to suspect any degree of accuracy. -- Cdyson37 14:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's more than one tool in the box. Why not merge the content that's there and turn it into a redirect, or if you see nothing salvagable, take it to

WP:VfD. --fvw*

14:37, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Hey Cool Cat, we had this discussion on IRC some time back. Edison didn't invent the light bulb (though he did try pretty hard), and you said you'd change you page! (That said, there's no obligation for your user page to be accurate I suppose) Cheers, Cdyson37 | (Talk) 23:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right. Ill fix it --Cool Cat ^Talk 01:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, no problem. We are all learning. In fact, I should apologize for being too lazy to provide a link to

I agree with you about the stamp placement and caption, though I'm not sure about your description of the external link. I've never heard wikipedia described as a Florida based encyclopedia, so I don't think the nationality of the editor of that site is particularly relevent (and indeed the web site may well be hosted elsewhere). Perhaps "Unofficial fan website" would be more appropriate? Cheers, Cdyson37 | (Talk) 21:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While countries aren't really important, the site lacks a distinctive title. If we added another fansite for Fields, then they'd likely both be called "Dorothy Fields, fansite". Technically, I think anything with a country code must be hosted in that country. Also, Wikipedia is never referred to by location because it has authors worldwide; this site likely only has one or two British authors. -- user:zanimum

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:User cdyson37.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Dethomas 22:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You added some content to Southwell, which has since been moved to Southwell, Nottinghamshire. I think that what you wrote is incorrect. If you disagree, please comment on [[Talk:Southwell, Nottinghamshire. TomViza 16:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current