User talk:Seraphimblade/archive 9

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Abacchus1974 (talk • contribs)

(moved by: — æk^Talk 09:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC))

If you tell me what article you are talking about, I might be able to help. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello Seraphimblade, I am referring to the Charles Courtier article :

Alex

--Abacchus1974 (talk) 04:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

At this point, I really don't see anything in the article that indicates that the subject is

neutral tone. If such sourcing does not exist, we couldn't support a full biographical article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}

04:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there! I'm a bit confused about the speedy deletion of

The user has requested an unblock to allow them to submit a username change request. Would you agree to this? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Done now, thanks for letting me know! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I wish to say I give up on that article. I thought it would be helpful for people who want to know the basics about ELDAR (which is all there is to know about it), as those information were quite satisfying to me when I found them, but it seems like I was wrong.

I'm very thankful for the tolerance and the seven days (not) given to me to improve my article. I'm also very thankful for the consideration you (didn't) took of my justification at the discussion page of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Munácio (talk • contribs) 04:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your justification there actually added to the deletion reasoning. If the article is "all there is to know about it", then it's not an appropriate article, as articles do require significant third party reliable source coverage. We specifically aim not to be the first to publish regarding something. I certainly appreciate that your intentions were good ones, and I know it can be hard to get the first article you write deleted—the first one I did was too. There are a lot of other bands out there, if that's your interest, I'm sure there's something you can find to work on! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Amen. I can't tell you how much I appreciated this. It's always good to know some people still think the policies are worth going by. Cheers! :-] Fleetflame · whack! whack! · 20:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hy Seraphimblade! You deleted some articles of User:Aleksandar1996 - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republik of Peć. This article seems to be a fake also. Would you like to have a look? Thanks --Otberg (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Got that one as well. Good catch. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, he played the same game just now at the german WP (and is blocked now). Yours --Otberg (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Regarding this image, can you show me an example of unambiguous advertising in a file allowed to stay?--Rockfang (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The file is being used in userspace. Generally, we allow a great deal more latitude in userspace than we do in an article. If the user had simply posted a message that he does this stuff, it wouldn't have been a big deal, and an image or two uploaded by established editors for userspace is generally acceptable under the

userpage policy. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}

22:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

PS Mustafa is cool about it, he's really the mastermind, and it's all about promoting his thing really. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

To Seraphimblade: That is a guideline and not a policy. That being said, if you check in the section named "

What may I not have on my user page?" it specifically lists advertising.
To Alastair Haines: My objection isn't because the image is related to religion.--Rockfang (talk

) 01:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Alistair has explained that he intends the image to show the type of work he does. Since he's not doing something clearly unacceptable (like advertising a full series of such meetings) and is an experienced editor, I'll

presume that the intentions are good ones. Generally speaking, we don't intervene in userspace unless there's a very significant reason to do so (nonfree images, attacks, that type of thing). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}

01:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, number 6 is the point isn't it Rockfang?

"6. Advertising or promotion of a business, organization, or group unrelated to Wikipedia (such as purely commercial sites or referral links)"

the brackets part doesn't apply, since there's no links and it's not commercial

it is unrelated to Wiki (except as background to an editor)

it is advertising (it's a copy of a flier)

it does refer to an event sponsored by an organization, or group (it is a non-profit, but could be broadly classed as a business)

by the letter of the law, I think Seraphim is right, because it advertises an event

by the spirit of the law, I think Seraphim is right, for the several thought-out (and kind) reasons proposed

But, to be honest, I think you're a champ to make me justify myself on this one Rockfang. And thanks for clarifying that you don't find the religiousness of it problematic. People trying to make money off Wiki really stinks, and so does people using it to push any personal political or other agendas. I would like you to become a Christian Rockfang (if you aren't already), but I seriously doubt the flier would move you an inch. ;)

Guys, thanks for this discussion. Come back at me some more Rockfang if you want (maybe on my talk page). Even though I've got Seraphim's support, the two of us could be wrong, maybe a fourth or fifth opinion would be different, and I can still just choose to take it down just to please you personally, Rockfang, mate.

Got some RL work to do, thanks for hosting this discussion Seraphim. Cheers Alastair Haines (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for your responses. I've made a request of you on your talk page Alastair. BTW, I'm an atheist and I don't plan on becoming a Christian any time soon. ;) Rockfang (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well, whatever. Thanks heaps for being our friendly host Seraphimblade. Happy ending with lots of thanks to you. I've decided to remove the image because I respect the hard work Rockfang does for us all, and want to encourage him in it. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

My "Thermawing" article received a proper speedy removal i see for no copyleft permission. First time, my bad. I did not want to include this on the website so I've sent an email to: [email protected] After affirming that we want to publish under CC-BY-SA & GFDL, what else would I need to repost my article? - Thx Bcahalin (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Even if the material were to be relicensed as copyleft, it wouldn't make for an acceptable article. As one would expect for material from the website, it serves to promote the item in question. One would, of course, expect this from one's own website, but we require articles to be strictly

against writing articles on subjects one has a close personal affiliation with. If there are significant independent sources and you could point me to them, I'd be happy to help in writing an article. If there are not, the subject would not be appropriate for an article at this time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}

01:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The article is about a fictional character who is the protagonist of his own eponymous series and has been in a total of two feature films with another film coming out next week. He is most definitely notable.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Seraphimblade has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Seraphimblade's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Seraphimblade! Peace, Rlevse 00:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here .

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see

I am having trouble with the page

It seems that things have settled down for now, and that Wasell has come along to offer a third pair of eyes. It certainly is a good thing that you asked for help rather than engaging in an edit war, though do keep in mind that removal of clear copyvios is not considered edit warring. Hopefully the additional pair of eyes will serve to cool things down, but if the copyright violations continue, I would advise seeking administrative intervention. I would also advise seeking some additional sources, and to clarify in the article what is religious belief and what is known historical fact. From reading the article currently, I can't tell which is which, and that's an important stylistic consideration in articles about religious figures. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This is involves editor

Just dropping a note here to say "Thank You" for reverting the anontalk spam on my Userpage.The Wordsmith^Communicate 07:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I presented matter of fact information on a band. What is the problem?

Stating that someone is "racist" and the like, without any sources to back that, is absolutely a violation of our

notable as determined by a previous deletion discussion, so an article on them would be inappropriate in any case. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}

08:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Are all of the bands on this page necessarily notable? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_death_metal_bands I recall a user or two stating in the talk section that they've never heard of the band, nor do they know anyone who has heard of the band. I doubt they asked many people. It seems like they simply dislike the content of the band, understandable but Wikipedia is all about matter of fact information - no bias. I don't believe all of the bands in 'List of grindcore, death metal, punk rock, etc ' sections are all that noteworthy, yet they remain in that section.

I put it in the death metal section since the number of bands there were fairly abundant, making it less likely to stick out than if it were placed in the grind core section. That mann (talk) 08:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

If other articles are not notable, then they need to be taken care of as well. That can take time, it requires someone to notice. But

other articles existing is never a justification for an article. Substantial coverage in independent and reliable sourcing is. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}

08:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

http://www.metal-archives.com/band.php?id=19762

How do you determine if a website is good enough for notability? This appeared to be one of the only websites on a different band I think is worth writing an article about. That mann (talk) 08:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

If that's one of the only sources on it, that band would not be an appropriate subject for an article. The source must be

reliable—I don't see any indication that the source you site is. In addition, it provides only trivial coverage, some "basic stats" as it were. In order to be an appropriate subject for an article, the band (or any other subject) must have received significant, in-depth coverage from multiple sources that meet the reliable source guidelines. If that's not the case, we should not have an article on that particular subject at this time. Of course, if coverage increases in the future, we always can reconsider at that point. Finally, no one "deserves" or "doesn't deserve" an article, and it's not some badge of honor—we just have the sources to write it properly, and we do, or else we don't have them and we don't. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}

17:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at this page. Jusdafax 04:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone forgot to sign, it might have been you. - Dank (push to talk) 18:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparently was. Guess I need another cup of coffee, thanks for letting me know though. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Btw, thanks for participating in the survey at

WT:BLP#Signpost Policy Report. - Dank (push to talk

) 19:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you, as requested, userfied my article?
Regards,
Thetictocmonkey 11:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

If you're talking about Fire Fly (band), all you'd have to do is look at an old revision and copy it into a userspace subpage if you'd like it userfied. Redirection does not remove an article's history, and it looks like a merge candidate—that's exactly the reason why I didn't delete it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up and the response to my question. I remember looking through most if not all of those references and not seeing anything too reliable. I did, however, backup from the situation as the page in question is still very much in development. Also, I agree that a suitable reference in one context may be entirely unsuitable in another. Thanks again. Supertouch (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

		The Third Opinion Award
		For diligent and faithful service to the Wikipedia community through your work at WP:3O. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

hey you deleted a page titled anal kitties (band) you said reason was promotional. this was not the intent of the original page and was never the intent to the page being created. other users converted the references to appear that way. this page is a victim of knowledge originals getting changed because people are not enjoying a page. - thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonicsorus (talk • contribs) 18:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I did look back at the old revisions—I never perform a deletion as

reliable sources, it's certainly possible a neutral article could be written about it. If not, it would not be an appropriate subject for an article at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}

07:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate your advice, removal of material which clearly violates the nonfree content policy is not subject to that policy, please see

WP:3RR for details. As this material is used in an article where free content is available, it clearly violates criterion #1, as it is replaceable and indeed replaced by free content. Please note that nonfree content is not a policy subject to override even by consensus. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}

10:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Nor is your personal interpretation of this policy the only valid reading of the policy. NFCC does not say the things you're claiming it says, as I have pointed out on the talk pages. I do not care about these articles per se (I happen to have Cillian Murphy on my watchlist from reviewing it at FAC three years ago, and have no other stake), but what I do care about is you wading in with a fairly extreme interpretation of policy, claiming that your personal interpretation of the policy overrides consensus about 1) how to interpret the policy and 2) the actual wording of the policy and 3) threatening to block people who disagree with your personal opinion. As a bystander who just happens to be watching this unfold I would like to reiterate -- this is inappropriate behavior for an administrator. Please cease the threats to block and the edit warring. --JayHenry (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No replaceable nonfree images is not an extreme interpretation of policy, and is actually in the Foundation requirements. Given the extent of the problem that I've discovered, I'm willing to discuss it so we can get it fixed more thoroughly, but I certainly see nothing wrong done here, and it does ultimately need fixed. The characterization of a "threat" is rather inaccurate—I told one editor that should he continue to reinsert nonfree images (including abuse of rollback to do so), this would result in a block. Once he started talking, no one got blocked—I would much rather explain than block. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

See

I've responded there now. I'm honestly not sure what FA has to do with this, but given the confusion, I'm willing to go to explaining for now. FA does not set or affect nonfree content policies, and no replaceable images is in the Foundation requirements. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The 3RR is now closed, but I took a look at the article to see if I could understand the

Hi -- you recently deleted a couple pages that I created on a Zen Buddhist temple and its Abbot. Before writing the articles I read the other Wikipedia pages on Zen temples/Abbots and tried to structure this one similarly. Having read the explanation for the deletion am not sure what would need to be changed for it to be in keeping with Wikipedia's standards as I'm not sure what was different about this one vs. the ones that have not been of concern. Any specific pointers that you have would be much appreciated. Thanks very much for your time in reviewing the pages and helping me bring them up to Wikipedia standards. As a first time author, although I tried to be informed before creating the post there is obviously room for improvement! If you could reply on my talk page that would be much appreciated. Jmgoldberg (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you please tell me which article you're referring to? I'd be happy to provide some advice on it, but I'd need to know what I'm looking at first. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at your talk page, actually, I believe I see the two that you're talking about. There were two serious problems with those articles. The first, and the one that led to deletion (under

reliable sources independent of the article subjects that have given the organization and/or person significant coverage. If such sources do exist, please point me to them and I'd be happy to help you with getting an appropriate article together. If such source coverage does not exist, those subjects would not be appropriate ones for an article at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}

05:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response and for being willing to help me revise the articles. I don't have the posted/deleted versions saved so can't send that to you, but can send you the Word version that was the basis for the posting if that would be useful. In the article about the Zen temple there were five independent references cited in the article -- four media outlets had coverage about the temple (1 TV show, 3 newspaper articles) and also there was an online newsletter that is independent of the temple that provided coverage. For the article about the Abbot there were less sources (just one newspaper article) so if that's not sufficient I can appreciate the reason for the deletion. Part of my uncertainty is that in looking at other pages about Zen temples and Abbots on Wikipedia they all seemed to be pretty similar to the one I wrote (and some didn't have any citations), so I really appreciate your advice on how to proceed. Happy new year! Jmgoldberg (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any sources cited in either article. There are some general names of media outlets dropped in the temple article, but that's not the same as a

other articles being similar, sometimes things seem similar but really aren't, while other times we just missed something. Could you please point me more specifically to the sources covering the organization? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}

20:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1. “Eshu Martin Interview”. Sweeping Zen. 7 November 2009. Retrieved 14 November 2009 from [14]http://sweepingzen.com/2009/12/23/eshu-martin-interview/[/a]

2. Shaw Cable Victoria: “The Daily” show – Feature on Doshu Lars Rogers. This is available on YouTube at [15]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovaFxFL0p2s&feature=channel[/a]

3. Gibson, Jim. “Taking the path to peace: City’s first Buddhist ordination takes place at UVic on Sunday”. Victoria Times-Colonist, July 16, 2009. This one isn't available online.

4. Weighton, Lisa. “First Zen monk ordained in Victoria”. Victoria News, June 30, 2009. Retrieved 14 November 2009 from [16]http://www.bclocalnews.com/vancouver_island_south/victorianews/community/49547577.html[/a]

5. Stevens, Darshan. “Life after death: The making of a Zen monk”. Monday Magazine, July 15, 2009. Retrieved 14 November 2009 from [17]http://mondaymag.com/articles/entry/life-after-death[/a]

There were also additional media references suggested as further reading (but not citations for specific statements in the article):

• “A gathering of faiths”. Victoria Times-Colonist, 20 January 2007. Retrieved 14 November 2009 from [18]http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/life/story.html?id=d392bad6-b9ce-4647-9b72-17a9f5f14455&k=52028&p=1[/a]

• Lundgren, Vanessa (2007). “Prayers and potlucks: Higher spirituality with higher education”. The Martlet, 60(2). Retrieved 14 November 2009 from [19]http://martlet.ca/index.php?iid=9546[/a]

• Villett, Michelle (2009). “Master mind: How do you handle stress?”. Elle Canada. Retrieved 14 November 2009 from [20]http://www.ellecanada.com/living/health/master-mind-how-do-you-handle-stress/a/27693/4</a>

Thanks very much for your help with this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmgoldberg (talk • contribs) 03:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi -- haven't heard anything further since posting the above on Jan 2. Am sure you're busy and if you just need more time to evaluate it that's fine, but I wanted to check to see if you need any further info from me. Jmgoldberg (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Seraphimblade, Could I please be provided a copy of the Tracy Emblem (first letter in caps) article I created and was rapid deleted? My email is [email protected]. Also, would you be so kind as to take a moment and look at what I composed and PLEASE provide input as to how what I wrote could be improved to meet your standards. Thanks, Arleen

PS. I was referred to you by the user message below:

I'm not an admin, so I can't provide a copy. The admin who actually deleted the article is User:Seraphimblade, so you might want to send that admin a message. As for improving the article, the bigger problem that you are going to have is that Tracy does not yet meet Wikipedia's notability standards for biographies, particularly those for political candidates. Even though she is running for a Congressional seat, she has not progressed past the party stage yet. Candidates who do not meet our notability standards for other reasons are not generally considered notable at this level of office until they win their party's nomination. That's going to be a tough hurdle to overcome, unless you can show how Tracy has met the standard in other ways. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC) ArleenGH (talk) 08:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, Realkyhick is right. I'm a bit uncomfortable emailing it, as it seems we may be seeing it back again. At this time, it does not seem that Emblem is

reliability, are independent of the subject, and provide substantial, in-depth coverage of Emblem as opposed to something related to her) then I can help you write an appropriate article. If such sourcing doesn't exist, the answer is "We can't have that article at this time at all". If I do email you the article, do you intend to continue posting it regardless of this? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}

06:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. Back in 2006, you participated in an AfD for this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Draconity. The article has been recreated, and I have re-nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Draconity (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

You visited my page last time and nominated it for speedy deletion :-) ... I need a favor from you. You see, after you've unblocked my username (and I've managed to get my username changed too, thanks), I've actually re-written my article in the style I hoped would be of Wikipedia standard. Can you actually go to my page and check to see if my article is ok to go live? Appreciate your help on this matter. Thanks. Nadine Azz (talk) 09:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

At this point, I still don't see any

reliable sources apart from the organization cited that cover it in depth. That really is required, and if those sources don't exist, we really can't have the article at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}

08:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, so looking, I do see one in your userspace draft. That's a start at least, though it's a bit thin (it basically looks like a reprinted press release). Multiple sources would be necessary. Also, the marketese ("sustainable, long-term economic development", "enhance the multiplier effect", "benefit to be felt across Malaysia", etc.), would absolutely need to go, regardless. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback Seraphimblade. I still have no idea where to get these reliable sources from, because the only information I have of them is from their website and news coverages. They are a new organisation so they don't have much of a history and/or references. And I can't cite their website in here for fear of being speedily deleted again. Any ideas? BTW I take note of your advice on the market terms and amend them. In the meantime, any kind of help is highly appreciated. Thank you so much. Nadine Azz (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey there Seraphimblade! I have finished my amendments, and I've also added in some new info based on the latest developments. Hopefully this version is okay and I can go live soon. Please take a look and advise. Thanks. Nadine Azz (talk) 07:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you contributed to Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC and have not participated at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC or been directly informed this RfC has opened. Please accept my apologies if you have been informed of and/or participated in the RfC already.

This RfC has opened and your comments are welcome and encouraged. Please visit Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, you may remember responding in December to this issue in which yours truly was described by an earnest editor in disagreement as "toxic and biased against the party". I don't have any problem with that correspondence, least of all with your sane reply. However, you may now wish to bring yourself up to date with what may really have been happening there, by looking at this correspondence. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 13:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

http://www.laaudiofile.com/images/denon_avr5308ci_back.jpg Denon AVR-5308CI Daniel Christensen (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

We are having trouble with the article

You started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julie Stoffer in the past, a discussion where you noted that the subject had requested deletion. The article is now listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 12#Julie Stoffer. Cunard (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not revert edits such as this — it's a file description page for a file on Commons, and exactly the case for which F2 was designed. Nyttend (talk) 12:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I suspect Sfan was using the second part of the F2 reasoning, rather than a corrupt image reasoning: "or a file description page for a file on Commons". My understanding is that images on Commons shouldn't be put into local categories, except on rare occasions such as local Featured Pictures; so if the only local content is a category, it can be speedily deleted. If you look at your recent deleted contributions, you'll see that another admin has quite happily deleted some of these files on this basis, as have I (a couple of weeks ago, when in the mood for some CSD patrol) and others. Regards,

You are quite correct, and I've self-reverted. I didn't see the newer addition to that tag, so I was looking at the first bit. Thanks for letting me know though. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I expect a measured apology.

I was using F2 as per the revised template, to flag-up 'local' description pages where the image was on Commons. This was after REPEATED notes (including from other admins) that I should use F2 rather than G6 (which I had been using previously precisely because of this issue.) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I reverted myself after realizing I was incorrect, and didn't realize the new criterion for F2. If you want something more than that, consider yourself to have it. Sorry for the error. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, my name is Maxim Behar, a Bulgarian businessman, journalist, PR expert & diplomat. My profile surprisingly was deleted by you. I do declare - it was just a bio and nothing else it was no advertising or whatever else. Today my webmaster in the company tried to load a picture on my profile and most probably did something wrong or put a wrong picture.

If it happened like that, I do apologize.

Therefore, I kindly ask to restore my profile. If there was anything wrong, pls make a note and I will correct it immediately. - - Thank you in advance.

- Maxim Behar Chief Executive

M3 Communications Group, Inc. A Hill & Knowlton Associate www.m3bg.com

60, Bulgaria Blvd. 1680 Sofia, Bulgaria Phone +359 2 818 70 10 Fax +359 2 818 70 11 Mobile +359 888 50 31 13 e-mail: [email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxbehar (talk • contribs) 19:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It had nothing to do with the picture. The biography did not cite any sources unaffiliated with its subject, and also was very similar (or basically equivalent) to a resume/CV. Advertising of anyone or anything, including an individual, is not acceptable here. Are there any sources that are not affiliated with you or your company, and meet our standards for

you or someone affiliated with you write or edit it. If such sourcing does not exist, a biography would not be appropriate at all. Hope that helps to clear things up? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}

05:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention, I am currently working on citations etc. that can underpin the importance of the page under creation. Since you are more involved in the whole wikipedia creation process I would like to make a suggestion that you could take forth.

I suggest wikipedia creates a userspace sandbox visible only to contributors and invited editors, where one in peace could work on a number of articles, and then have said articles crawled by automated bots checking for different standard issues. This way it could be pointed out that for instance external sources were needed, bio info should be in a bio info box, an image should be included, etc. This way contributors could deliver better work to the site saving you guys from obliterating the most obvious junk from orbit

E petersen (talk) 21:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)e_petersen

Hello. I'm new to the creation/editing side of Wikipedia but I 'think' you recently deleted a page for South Yorkshires Data Observatory, LASOS. Is this right? if so, can you be a bit more specific about the reasons (I gather you think the page was advertising)? and advise how we should go about putting up a new page for the system (what should/shouldn't be included and who should write it). also, why is something like this [[21]] ok but our page was not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeeEmSee (talk • contribs) 12:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a clarification -- I didn't say BoogaLouie's IP was associated with RevolutionExpert's; I said the IP that made that nasty edit was associated with (and is probably the same person as) RevolutionExpert. So it still does boil down to the connection between BL and RE, which I guess someone is convinced of. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

In view of the uncertainty and unclarity, I accepted BoogaLouie's latest request and unblocked him. If I am being credulous, which is surely possible, a bit more rope won't hurt too much. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I found a pretty distinctive "signature" between the two (both BoogaLouie and RevolutionExpert write "THE ASSOCIATED PRESS" in all caps in references), so I'm pretty convinced they're the same person, especially since that's the only thing they seem to capitalize that way in refs. But hopefully no more incidents, in any case. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The Page I created for Dave Hedgepeth is not an advertisement, but truly of wikipedia worthiness. He is a political candidate and there are only so many articles published about him thus far. What else do you need? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonsmandel (talk • contribs) 18:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The initial article about him was advertising him. The second one had less of an ad tone and at least thin sourcing, so it was not eligible for

reliable sources unaffiliated with the article subject. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}

18:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks, i was not aware of that. Will find the proper sources, there are thousands. If anything wrong, pls contact me back. have a great day

Best,

Maxim

.

Were you aware that this editor had a previous account? The name was the same at the now-deleted page they created. (Can't remember the name, but I remember the article and the user name were identical.) 69.181.249.92 (talk) 06:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Luckman Associates and User:LuckmanAssociates are not registered (the name of the article was Luckman Associates). Regardless, most spammers like that take off after they figure out they're not going to be allowed to continue. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I guess I'm wrong, but I could have sworn I'd seen that page in the last day or two. Sorry to bother you. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 06:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I need to ask you a question. I left Wiki in 2007 and, I'M BACK lolI do not have the same email and I forgot my pw. How can I regain my user page? It's ok to leave responce on my page...or how ever you want. --  Planetary Chaos  Talk to me  63.3.3.2 (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Forgive my spelling. I just arrived back in Phx after a 3 day greyhound bus ride. --  Planetary Chaos  Talk to me  63.3.3.2 (talk) 14:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you regain access to the email account you were using at that time? I think that would probably be the simplest way to do it, unless you have some guess as to what the password on the account may be—can't hurt to try. I don't know of any way to recover a password other than having it emailed to you, and even if there were you'd have to prove who you are. I don't see an identity commit on that account, so that might not be too easy in itself. Trying to get access to that email account back (or if you know and trust the current owner of the email, recovering it, having them send it to you, and then immediately changing it) would really be your best bet. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I tried that. I was just looking for ideas. Thanks. --  Planetary Chaos  Talk to me  63.3.3.2 (talk) 03:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm working with the author to get this page up to scratch (by helping him find 3rd party resources). I appreciate your help, and with luck we'll have another Wikipedian! Techhead7890 (talk) 08:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I see some references are getting added, so you're certainly going in the right direction. However, for the school to be

notable, there must be substantial third-party sources that cover the school, not its alumni. I'd probably focus on those before worrying about alumni. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}

08:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

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

- Dank (push to talk) 15:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite by accident, I learned the ATI page had issues over the weekend. It would have been helpful to be notified. I tried to correct these issues, but the more I tried (adding citations, more info, etc.), the worse things seemed to get. I think it started with one Wikipedia issue and the last time it had four. The whole process was very frustrating.

On the talk page, prior to deletion, one of the editors wrote something to the effect, If ATI can be shown to be the first company to provide an interactive tv in a hospital setting then it might meet the notable criteria. Since this occurred 15+ years ago, I couldn't find an independent source confirming the statement. ATI's Founder was on vacation and I could not reach him over the weekend. I got the email below from him this morning:

 * ATI was the first company to provide interactive TV in healthcare I will look for some stuff .  We also sent the first E-mail to the patient bedside.

Is there any chance of getting the page re-instated or am I wasting my time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.77.195.190 (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If you could email me at (email redacted) it would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.77.195.190 (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Please note above regarding communication by email rather than talk page, but I'll be happy to discuss it with you here. The article was deleted because it didn't assert

reliable sources

not affiliated with the subject. If there is significant coverage of this company in reliable sources, it's appropriate for us to have an article on it. If there's not, it's not appropriate for one. The distinction is very simple.

That aside, it appears a strong likelihood that you work for the company. We

very strongly discourage editors from editing articles on subjects they are closely affiliated with—friends, family members, and, yes, employers. If you would like, however, please feel free to suggest any sources that exist, and I'll be happy to take a look at them. If an appropriate article can be written from them, I can certainly help you do that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}

05:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Why you deleted the CTVAA article ? Can I learn the problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.182.64.189 (talk) 06:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I provide some further clarifications of deletion reasons here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

‘chaitanya-mangala’ shune yadi pashandi, yavana seha maha-vaishnava haya tatakshana If even a great atheist hears Shri Chaitanya-mangala (previous name for Shri Chaitanya-bhagavata), he immediately becomes a great devotee.

Nope, sorry, I'm still an atheist. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey man, you have a bad destination. So, here is some for you to wake up: "Anyone who does not float in this inundation is most condemned. Such a person cannot be delivered for millions of kalpas. PURPORT The kalpa is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā (8.17): sahasra-yuga-paryantam ahar yad brahmaṇo viduḥ. One day of Brahmā is called a kalpa. A yuga, or mahā-yuga, consists of 4,320,000 years, and one thousand such mahā-yugas constitute one kalpa. The author of Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta says that if one does not take advantage of the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, he cannot be delivered for millions of such kalpas." And this is after that I moved the only tables I made to new article, you removed that!!! How could you... Do you know that demons/asuras/atheists/materialists are killed by Vishnu Himself or sent to hell??? Yes, see here cosmology with numbers - this might be convincing: [22]

I haven't removed any tables from any articles, but if you need help with one, I'll try to help you. You'll have to be more specific though. If you're interested in a theological debate, I do those too, but you'll have to make some type of sense first. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe you are not so bad, because there is picture of Einstein on your page and you use some angelic picture. But anyway, if you call yourself atheist - that is nonsense. Einstein was theist, and accepted Vedas, read Bhagavad-Gita. But in any case you should not delete theism articles as that is dangeour not only for you but so many people related to you - your relatives, friends etc. However, usually sinner suffers for his own sins only. So you must at least put vakc that page which disappeared:

[23] If you say it was not you who deleted it - wikipedia recorded your name, so I guess it was not a technical mistake.

Yes, I deleted that page. If that's what you're referring to, article space is not an appropriate place for portal tables, they'd need to go on the portal page itself. If you'd like them restored to your userspace in order to do that, I can do that for you. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

‘chaitanya-mangala’ shune yadi pashandi, yavana seha maha-vaishnava haya tatakshana If even a great atheist hears Shri Chaitanya-mangala (previous name for Shri Chaitanya-bhagavata), he immediately becomes a great devotee.

Nope, sorry, I'm still an atheist. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey man, you have a bad destinarion. So, here is some for you to wake up: "Anyone who does not float in this inundation is most condemned. Such a person cannot be delivered for millions of kalpas. PURPORT The kalpa is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā (8.17): sahasra-yuga-paryantam ahar yad brahmaṇo viduḥ. One day of Brahmā is called a kalpa. A yuga, or mahā-yuga, consists of 4,320,000 years, and one thousand such mahā-yugas constitute one kalpa. The author of Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta says that if one does not take advantage of the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, he cannot be delivered for millions of such kalpas." And this is after that I moved the only tables I made to new article, you removed that!!! How could you... Do you know that demons/asuras/atheists/materialists are killed by Vishnu Himself or sent to hell??? Yes, see here cosmology with numbers - this might be convincing: [24] And read about thousands of planets in hell - there you may go if you like, but why? You are eternal soul, why you have to suffer. So Krishna consciosuness is solution. But anyway read about hells, A Description of the Hellish Planets: [[25]]. "If a person deviates from the path of the Vedas in the absence of an emergency, the servants of Yamarāja put him into the hell called Asi-patravana, where they beat him with whips. When he runs hither and thither, fleeing from the extreme pain, on all sides he runs into palm trees with leaves like sharpened swords. Thus injured all over his body and fainting at every step, he cries out, "Oh, what shall I do now! How shall I be saved!" This is how one suffers who deviates from the accepted religious principles." in the province of Yamarāja there are hundreds and thousands of hellish planets. The impious people I have mentioned — and also those I have not mentioned — must all enter these various planets according to the degree of their impiety. Those who are pious, however, enter other planetary systems, namely the planets of the demigods. Nevertheless, both the pious and impious are again brought to earth after the results of their pious or impious acts are exhausted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qualities108 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This is totally bad to delete Krishna consciousness articles, as Krishna is Supreme Personality of Godhead. So what you did is described here in wiki humor: [26]

Adminitis is a state of mind in which some Wikipedians find themselves at times. Though generally confined to administrators, the condition has been observed in some non-administrators. Although the exact causes are unknown, there is thought to be some correlation towards extensive and prolonged anti-vandalism activity.Contents [show]

[edit] Symptoms Strongly believes that all users are equal but admins are more equal than others Assumes bad faith frequently TLAitis (see WP:WOTTA) Stops editing articles, but continuously pontificates about "writing the encyclopedia" Impatience Exhibits immediatism Hangs out in project namespace Has no time for featured articles Frequently refreshes pages to catch the latest change that (of course) needs to be reverted Believes that he or she is always right (sorry, EVula...) Believes anyone who uses the word 'vote' for 'express a view in a straw poll' should be banned for life Originally hailed as the nicest person on the wiki, now reviled as the most hated troll Prevents pages from being edited in encyclopedic fashion for policy reasons Seems to enjoy biting new users General BOFHness Strict adherence to "Wikipedia policy" while not using common sense or conversely, Strict adherence to ignore all rules, as a strict rule... while not using common sense Self-denial. "This page cannot possibly apply to me" Humor breakdown. "This page is not funny" Sudden spike in use of specific admin tools, or use of admin tools in areas where he hadn't been using them before Requires less and less evidence to be convinced of sock puppetry until confidently asserting that all new users are the same person Spends hours writing sarcastic pages about admin behavior Believes he is the only real claimant to the "Defender of the Wiki" barnstar Exhibits signs of MPOV Thinks people are attacking them when they're only trying to be nice Has a habit of removing criticism while pretending it's a personal attack Indulges in biting delicious newcomers [edit] Diagnosis

It is a near universal truth that sufferers from this illness will reject any diagnosis of the condition by an outside party. With that in mind, it's important for those who have received this diagnosis to conduct a self-test. If more than three of the following apply to you, you may be suffering from this illness: You frequently feel that pages are broken and must be deleted (protection is for wusses!). "Everyone is a vandal or a troll, and must be blocked" is a recurrent thought. "Blocking people is a punishment! (not a tool to get people to cool down and edit the wiki)" is a mantra, not anti-wiki. If you nominate this page for MfD even though it's only 2 minutes since the last revision, you may possibly be suffering from adminitis. Corollary: If you speedy, you are certainly suffering from adminitis. If you accuse the creators of this article of making a WP:POINT, especially if you forget that making a point does not imply disruption (you need to disrupt to make a point, not make a point to disrupt! :-P), you are probably infected. And if you buy the above line of thought, you are definitely infected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qualities108 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Kludge was a popular American webzine. Its writers are professional critics including

Who the founder of something is has no effect on its notability, nor does popularity. Only substantial reliable source coverage impacts notability. The "musicfactory.se" that you sent me to does not even mention the website, let alone cover it in detail. If you have any sources that are

reliable and cover in depth the website, I'll be happy to help you evaluate them. If you do not, the sites are not appropriate article subjects at all, and cannot be until and unless such sources are written. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}

15:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This mention the website and its founder. And the source clearly states that Melodic.net is the Europe's leading webzine for modern rock.--Strawberry Slugs (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey Seraphimblade, could you re-review the article

L Kensington (talk • contribs

) 21:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

When did Kludge become a "magazine" rather than a webzine? Which is it?

Regardless, to reply to both above: To establish notability, you need substantial sources about the article subject, not notability subguidelines (which are just guides as to when sources are likely to exist, passing a subguideline is not a replacement for substantive sources!), not "Someone else mentioned it or said it was leading!" You need in-depth sources about the thing, not that drop its name or praise it briefly. If those do not exist, yes, you are wrong, and we should not have an article. If they do, we should have an article. I don't see any used that meet the criteria, so unless better exist, we shouldn't. Do better, more substantive sources exist, or not? (I don't speak Swedish, so had to use Google's translation of your Swedish source, but the URL "melodic.net" does not even appear within the article. If they're talking in depth about the creator, that may contribute to the notability of the creator, but unless it goes into depth about his creation, not for it.) Regardless, however, the initial speedy on Kludge was declined, so it would need to go to AfD (as presumably a prod would be disputed). I'll hold off nominating it for now, until I get an answer on the source question, but of course anyone else may do so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

On the article appears "Europe's leading site for modern rock - Melodic THE NET (the original states THE MELODIC NET) with about 4000 visitors per day". However, this states "Leading European Modern Rock E-zine www.melodic.net".--Strawberry Slugs (talk) 10:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I ask you to restore this article. We need some more time to finalize the article and to make authors of other Wikipedia put a link to this article. Russian Wikipedia has approved publication of this article because of its real significance I-Jet Media Rero26 (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC) ReRo26

You need to not write about subjects you're affiliated with. If you have appropriate sources for the article, I'll take a look at them, and help you write it if necessary, but from your use of the term "we", you clearly have a

conflict of interest and should not be writing or editing the article. Please also note that the Russian Wikipedia has different policies, practices, and enforcement levels than we do, so something being appropriate there does not mean it would be here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}

06:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• http://eestartup.com/2010/03/24/sales-record-in-russia-for-the-game-happy-farmer/;
• http://www.agentix.org/en/r36/2448.html;

Russian sources:

• http://socialplay.ru/2010/05/04/i-jet_happy_podcast/;
• http://www.forbes.ru/svoi-biznes/predprinimateli/52932-retsept-bystrogo-obogashcheniya;
• http://www.i-jet.ru/about/pressa_o_nas/nadoili_20mln;
• http://www.chaskor.ru/article/istoriya_uspeha_-_7_17742.

Being prominent mass media and blogs, they all include all the information I put in the article. If this is not enought, could you please help write it as you mentioned? Rero26 (talk) 09:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Rero26

Blogs are generally not

notability is not inherited. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}

23:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I notice you deleted this article under A7, and I wanted to let you know it has been re-created. First, I disagree with the speedy deletion (the article indicated it was about a football club playing in Jordan's highlest tier of football). Second, I wanted to ask that if you plan to request deletion again (I've added a reference now which makes the notability claim more concrete), please take it to AfD. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 14:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the highest tier of soccer is the

reliable sources, and this one just cites a directory. Also, please remember to discuss deleted articles before recreating them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}

17:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, you are correct that the Wolrd Cup is the highest level of national team competition in football. However, club football is organized in essentially every country in the world and Jordan is no exception. This club plays in highest level of competition in Jordan and has even participated in a continential competition (2005 AFC Cup) so it is one of the most notable football clubs from the country (and a relatively important club in Asia). I added a cite to RSSSF, which is a reliable source (I can't recall where it was discussed right now), and it verifies the club's participation in the 2005 AFC Cup. Finally, if you read the article history, you'll notice that I didn't re-create the article, and actually notified the deletor (you) of its re-creation. In any case, I still disagree with your A7 deletion of the original article, and would hope you would seek discussion before making similar deletions in the future. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that does make at least a credible assertion of notability, so I've restored the deleted edits. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it might be time to revive this idea in respect to new articles, given the increasing number of unreferenced new articles and the relative success of the BLP prod experiment, and incorporating ideas from that. Sparked by recent thread at ANI about backlogs. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 08:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

How would you propose to do so, without encountering the objections encountered the last time around? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I would start off by pointing out the relative success of the PRODBLP experiment (it has been considered a success, no?), toss in the statistics of articles newly tagged as unreferenced (averaging about 3300 a month per the sidebar at Category:Articles lacking sources), tweaking the wording of the old proposal to bring it more into line with the blp prod policy, and crafting it to apply only to newly created articles, also a mirror of the BLP tactic. It won't directly reduce the backlog, but it will help to keep it from growing at it's current rate. Basically, any new article, no matter how notable the topic, would be subject to deletion if no sources are provided within a week or so.

I've only skimmed the old proposal so I'm not sure how closely my suggestions equates to what's there, but I hope that times have changed enough in the last three years that it will get a better hearing. You probably have a better idea of where to launch such a discussion than I do. Village pump, perhaps? (Not one of the pages I visit with any frequency, my last viewing being months ago, but I'd chime in on this one. Let me know.) 69.181.249.92 (talk) 04:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It can now be deleted. --

Could you userfy this to me for a short time? You deleted it and I had it watch listed but I don't recall why. Hobit (talk) 02:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The full text of the article I deleted was only "Ashley Bell", so I don't think userfication of that one would do you much good. There was an older version that was deleted as spam (and quite correctly so), but if you want to work on that version, I'd be happy to userfy it for you. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That would be great. I expect I'll be coming back to ask for it to be deleted again, but it seems odd this was on my watch list and I'd like to figure out why. I must have thought it had some value at some point (or maybe I was making sure no one recreated it?) Need notes on the watch list feature... Thanks in any case. Hobit (talk) 03:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I've userfied it to User:Hobit/Ashley Bell. To avoid moving a page that might get deleted again, I just copied it and put the edit history on the corresponding talk page. If you actually intend to restore it to mainspace, please let me know, and I can do the appropriate history merge. It looks like you requested the first speedy though, so I'm not sure if you intend to or if you just watched it after you put the speedy tag on. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, I guess I'd nommed it for a speedy and the tool that did that put it on my watch list. Please delete and quite sorry for wasting your time. Hobit (talk) 13:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Not a waste at all, now you know what's going on with it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You deleted this page claiming conflict of interest. I do not work for Harrow Sports and I wasn't advertising the company. I was merely noting who they are and that they are a major player in the sports industry - especially the squash sports world, and I provided references. I took my cue on how to write the article from a couple of their competitors - Warrior Lacrosse and STX and I provided more references than either of them. They just link back to their own website. Therefore I respectfully ask you to restore the page. Dssimmons (talk) 01:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That article cannot be restored, as it is not at all

notability. If you can write such an article, go ahead, but it may in no way promote the subject. If it looks like an ad or brochure, it will be deleted again. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}

03:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to rewrite it but please explain to me how it is any different from the Warrior Lacrosse and STX pages? They don't have any links except to their own websites? Dssimmons (talk) 11:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

neutrality requirements. An article may not promote or advertise for anyone or anything, it must be strictly neutral. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}

22:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You were right, those were pretty bad articles. One had nothing at all worth salvaging, one very little. Articles have to be

neutral in tone. If your article looks like something the company's marketing department would be glad to see, you need to rewrite it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}

16:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Toddst1#User:Binksternet

I as well as others have been the victims of his ego and abuse of power and we would appreciate your ability to put and end to it. thank you.123.243.203.94 (talk) 10:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

As Toddst1 indicated, Binksternet is already blocked. By all means we will help if problems continue to occur after the block expires, but our hope is of course that problems will stop after it. I'm not going to extend the block just on principle. If there is any additional misconduct which occurs after the block expires, however, don't hesitate to ask for help. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi - I am new to Wikipedia (creating articles, I view others all the time). I had a very difficult time creating the above article due to a very confusing set-up, to only find that inputting a biography, that is truly representational of the person, was deleted for reasons I don't understand. Scaramucci is in the world of business, very well known and only becoming more so as he becomes more of a public figure through his media (publishing, broadcasting and film endeavors). I've seen very similar bios over the years and would really appreciate your help in recreating this in a format that is suitable for Wikipedia. I look forward to your response, and if you're unable to assist, I'd appreciate your letting me know who to reach out to for assistance. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishtar123 (talk • contribs) 07:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That article was deleted because it read like an advertisement or puff piece. Articles

reliable sources which are not affiliated with him in any way, he may be an appropriate subject for an article. If you can point me to such sources, I can evaluate them and help write it if they're acceptable. If such sources do not exist, he would not be an appropriate subject for an article at this time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}

18:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Why did you delete the biographical entry for Andrés Cabrero? He is a professional soccer player with years of experience playing for professional teams, and for the Puerto Rican national team. If his entry read like a "blatant advertisement" as you said, you could have at least had the common courtesy to inform people of your intent to delete it, to give people a chance to improve it to the correct standard, instead of just summarily obliterating the thing. Please restore it, and I will make the necessary changes to the page to make it Wiki-appropriate. --JonBroxton (talk) 00:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you have

never acceptable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}

01:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you restore it to your sandbox and let me take a look at it? I can have a go at finding sources from there. --JonBroxton (talk) 01:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I've userfied this for you to User:JonBroxton/Andrés Cabrero. If you do intend to move it back to mainspace, please let me know, since it will need to be history merged. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. It looks like it just needs a bit of basic cleanup and re-wording for it to become a standard soccer article, so I'll see what I can do with it. --JonBroxton (talk) 04:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Making Wikipedia Public Domain Will not affect Wikipedia. Please make Wikipedia Public domain. Public Domain is Helpful to all. I think wikipedians are good-hearted and not selfish. Wikipedians are not Stall-mans to behave rude at licenses like the sucking GPL and LGPL. I don't even use GPL'd software. Please make Wikipedia under Non-Copy left license by accepting new content under a permissive license or public domain. What about making a modified BSD license with advertising clause?

Please help authors. Stop sucking stall-man-ish copy-left. Let's make community useful to all developers to make both open and proprietary things.

I don't want to do anything in fear of stupid selfish stallman-ish copy-left licences.

If this writing is bad, Please report me--This is what on my and some other peoples' mind.

Rishikeshan (talk) 06:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)Rishikeshan

I fail to see how you call copyleft "selfish", but are fine with the idea of totally proprietary licenses. Wouldn't those be even more selfish, then? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Greetings. I would like to report I have been having trouble with user Binksernet.

1. I edited an article about the Wife acceptance factor in which he kept vandalising my edits. I discussed this and explained why it was called a wife acceptance factor.
2. The user abused his privilages and incorrectly marked me for vandalism supposedly this was a mistake.
3. violated a 3rr and engaged in MANY edit wars not just with me but other users
4. I'm not familiar with wiki but enough is enough and I'm taking a stand against this thug. You can see he has a history of abuse and NEEDS to be stopped. Currently he is vandalising my edits on the wife acceptance factor page.
5. has edited out criticisms so they have not been seen.

Interesting links can be found here: Incidents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Binksternet#Wife_acceptance_factor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Binksternet#August_2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Binksternet#Memorex http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Binksternet#WP:AN.2FI_Discussion_Regarding_Your_Recent_Edits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Binksternet#rollback http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Binksternet#Request_for_mediation_rejected http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive633#Behavior_of_Binksternet_towards_IP_user In this link you can see he has removed my contribution completely and thus deleted what I had to say.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive633#Behavior_of_Binksternet_towards_IP_user.

My user talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:123.243.203.94

Any help you can give to solve this situation would be appreciated. Also note I have tried to make peace with the user and concede to his overly PC views but he has not even compromised NOR apologised. The person needs to be stopped. 123.243.203.94 (talk) 10:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The two of you are engaged in a content dispute. While it's true that Binksternet has not maintained an admirable level of civility in the conversation, to be quite blunt about it, neither have you, so if I'm going to block anyone for that I'd have to block the both of you. That being said, the links you cite were dealt with over a week ago, so I really fail to see what harm I'd be preventing by blocking anyone. I'd strongly advise you both to consider engaging in

dispute resolution, and more importantly, to quit calling one another names or speculating as to one another's motives, and focus on the content only, as gotten from reliable sources only. You'd be surprised how often that can bring you to a conclusion all sides can agree to. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}

23:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind taking a bullet so he can take one too. I'm sick of his abuse and constant edit warring. I caved in and let his nonsense through. Can we have the page changed and both be blocked from editing the article. 123.243.203.94 (talk) 23:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not doing that. I already provided my advice, above. You two might certainly be on a course to both wind up blocked if you continue this, but it is very much my hope that will not occur. Take a few days away from the subject, and then look at it again. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that there is any abuse going on here, only that allegations of abuse have been stated by the IP editor. I would like to correct Seraphimblade's assumptions listed in the preceding note: at no time have I been uncivil to the IP editor, nor have I called him or her names. I have never speculated upon his or her motives. It is true that I have not embodied the Welcome Wagon complete with an offering of fresh-baked cookies (I do not generally follow such a course with any new editor), but I have never communicated to the IP editor in any but the most truthful, neutral and direct manner. Binksternet (talk) 00:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I completely concur with your recent use of a soft block on the IP sock that posted on your page; but I noticed that the instructions for {{

I don't think you've got a bad idea there. I'll admit I haven't looked at the instructions for {{

WP:APPEAL would be an acceptable substitute? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}

23:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That would probably be the best choice, though that's a mess now that I look at it; there is no obvious link to e-mail the unblock list. Seems like we need a page that just says:

• 1. Contact the blocking admin, if they don't respond
• 2. E-mail the unblock list here or submit a form to the list by clicking here, if you think you've been treated unfairly by everybody
• 3. File a Request for Arbitration

For further details see

WP:APPEAL

What do you think?--

talk • contribs

) 23:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yow, you're certainly right about APPEAL, I haven't looked at that in a while either. I think a simple subpage could be done easily enough though, and since the template would point to that, it wouldn't matter if the template were subst'ed. I do think the advice of "contact the blocking admin" might be of limited usefulness for something specific to anon blocks, though, since anons can't enable email. We could recommend that the anon attempt posting on their talk page, since I think in practice most admins watchlist the talk page when they block a user, and if that fails or receives no response include instructions on how to use {{unblock}}, contact unblock-en-l, and the like. I'm not even sure we need a full project-space page for that, a subpage of the template might work just fine. I might knock together a draft here if I have time tonight. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That sounds great. I agree that "contact the blocking admin" might not be useful for anons, I was just listing the standard list of course, and pretty hastily at that. Thanks for working it, I'm only on for short spurts right now but I'll try to pitch in.--

talk • contribs

) 05:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Got a start of it going, here. Advice/improvements would be most welcome. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I took a look and it looks very good and has the emphasis on creating an account like it should be. I have a few thoughts I'll try to add or comment on later, not much editing time at this moment. Thanks for working this issue.--

talk • contribs

) 10:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Please restore this article; I had reviewed it while deleting CSDs, and the nominator used rollback (!) to undo my decline of the speedy. I'll go to DRV if you choose not to restore. Nyttend (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I apologize that I did not notice that, and probably would've suggested prod or AfD if I had. I was looking for earlier versions to find a non-promotional version, and couldn't find one, but didn't notice that the speedy template had gone and reappeared. Can you suggest a version that is not promotional to restore? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't see any of them really as being the "exclusively promotional" that qualifies for G11 speedy, so I can't recommend to you any of them over another. Nyttend (talk) 04:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you in assisting me in deleting the useless pages.

I apologize for the WFCR Foundation thing. I made an error in creating a merge request and incorrectly formatted the merge tag. Since your deletion, I was able to correct my mistake so that the proper discussion appears in the right place! NECRAT^{Speak to me} 08:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You're quite welcome, but you don't need to apologize. We've all made erroneous edits and had to fix them in various ways. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It is the largest non voice BPO in india, please revert for the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaxer (talk • contribs) 08:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see the note I left on your talk page as you left this one. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The page was just created minutes ago.I would have added some more information,its not promotional its just a company,a company in India. When you surf the net there is lot of information about shell transource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaxer (talk • contribs) 09:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

"...provides unparalleled solutions to fortune 1000 companies...", "proven track record of catering some of the conventional Indian companies...", "...best-in-class practices." All of these are marketese straight out of a glossy ad brochure, and are in no way a

neutral tone. If you have appropriate sources you can point me to, I can help you write the article, but it cannot sound anything like that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}

16:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi there Seraphimblade, I am really curious about your deletion of Tom Clements (politician). I have the text of the article and it is not promotional in tone or substance. True, it mostly uses his campaign as a source, but that could have been easily rectified by substituting the large number of mainstream sources for the information. Given that the man is a ballot-qualified candidate for the US Senate on a national party, I think your deletion was quite hasty. Please undo your deletion and I will include the large number of outside sources available for the environmentalist and politician.--TM 20:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The article was basically a list of his campaign platforms that would go in a glossy campaign brochure, no different than an ad article for a company. What sources have you that would allow an article to be written on him that's a biography and not a brochure? If you've got them, I'm happy to restore or userfy the article for you, but it couldn't be like it was. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Here are a few sources for the Clements article [37], [38][39][40]. Again, I will ask that you be more hesitant to speedily delete articles like Clements, given his high profile electoral campaign. A simple prod or tag would have been much more effective.--TM 22:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Given that, I might be willing to provisionally userfy, but definitely not restore wholesale—most of this coverage is either local or somewhat partisan, such as Commondreams. Has he been covered by any neutral source outside his local area? Regardless, I stand by the speedy. The article was a campaign brochure, and regardless of other considerations, that is

unacceptable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}

22:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Using local, reliable sources for a state election is perfectly acceptable. As you know

Common Dreams NewsCenter, statedly progressive, is also a reliable source. I think the best option is to fully restore the article and nominate it for AfD. There is a clear assertion of notability and as much as you may think so, it was not simply written as a campaign brochure. If you still disagree, I am fine taking this to deletion review.--TM

22:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That is certainly your option. If you're stating that the article is acceptable as was, I disagree, and am unwilling to restore it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I've listed it at DRV.--TM 23:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Earlier today, I asked "Please undo your deletion and I will include the large number of outside sources available for the environmentalist and politician" and then provided several reliable sources. How is that not explaining how I would expand and improve the article?--TM 23:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You provided a few local and one partisan source. Local coverage, in the case of politicians, is essentially involved and trivial—it almost has to give them some airtime. Especially in the case of third party candidates, who are not often even viable, they need substantial coverage outside their political position and local area. Unaffiliated sourcing is the definition of

notability, and sourcing of the same locality or persuasion as something or someone has a strong affinity to it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}

02:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)