User talk:Andyjsmith/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 →

Contents

Deletion Review for etoro_trading_platform

An editor has asked for a deletion review of etoro_trading_platform. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Scott MacKenzee (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. andy (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Artnoy Dosh

Thanks for your work in editing Wiki. I am a bit of a newbe and am finding the screeds of policy just a bit baffling, so I just gave article writing a shot with something I knew about, hoping to learn as i went along. Having read your comment and the links it provided I think I agree that the article was not quite notable enough by WP policies. Now I just need to figure out how to justify the next one i do. Cheers GSAckerman (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • You're welcome. Thanks for being so polite. andy (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok I read the "getting started" a bit more thoroughly but i'm still not sure how I would justify the notability of an article. How do you do it? GSAckerman (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The key thing is that independent, reputable people have taken notice of the subject, thereby providing objective evidence of notability. If you can find these sources you should refer to them. But the absence of anything strong on a Google search makes me think you'll fail if you want to re-create this particular article. There's a pretty full description of all of this at WP:NN. andy (talk) 00:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so your saying that you need to demonstrate it within the article, rather than there being a special place to justify your article. Fine. My problem, I guess, is that I started WP editing by editing an existing article about a myspace aquaintance, [Christian Möller]. It doesn't seem there is any better evidence of notability for him, but he is adopted by a biography project it seems. Should he be deleted? Having edited the broken links on his page I did a bit of googling on him and started to wonder if he even existed. Anyway, it is artists that may become my interest here so I want to understand the boundaries in this area. GSAckerman (talk) 00:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The Christian Möller article is a mess. The lengthy quotes are probably a breach of copyright and it is generally non-neutral and rather uninformative. You have to ask yourself if it would help a newcomer to understand this artist, to appreciate their importance (if any), and to carry out further research. That's what an encyclopedia article is all about. Apart from that I can't help much - art isn't much of an interest of mine. The best thing to do is probably to go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Visual_arts and ask on the Talk page, and generally to prowl around the arts pages. andy (talk) 10:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Matthias Hinze

It was very notable, and I don't know why you had to delete it. It explained the importance! Please respond on my talk page.Kitty53 21:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and next time any of my hard work is up for deletion, please warn me.Kitty53 21:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I didn't delete it. Someone else did. Someone who agreed with me. andy 23:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


dj proper> yes it seems to be alot of people on wikipedia that try to delete anything related to being Christian or religon...i produced a remix for black eyed peas and have been established as a producer for years....they try to say that its nothing and shoud be deleted...i think alot of "editors" on this are nothing more than people that hate because they dont have anything notable in their lives ...i have 100 of shows done with famous people and done numerous offical projects with my work....still they say "its just some guy"...so my question is why do they care if a established church has a page ...must be they dont believe in the same so they want it not to be there....even if your church has raised money for people and changed 1000's of lives in a positive way.....guess in some people eyes thats not notable....maybe they are not "notable" themselves so they feel they have to try and control information that its obivious people want...like info on the church is important and established that many people outside them want access to..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.240.23 (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

milw0rm

Ah excuse me ? milw0rm is an important group. I want to know what your comment is really about. http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-510664.html Evidence of their significance. I want to know why you are against this page. The content is not out of shape or fashion. Please research before you propose things. Dbmoodb 12:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

  • The article has been deleted more than once. On each occasion an editor thought that it was an inappropriate article and this opinion was confirmed by an administrator who deleted it. There is an appeals process. andy 13:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Cough Cough more information please. Can you link me to the information provided by the administrator ? ...What am I appealing against ...? Dbmoodb 14:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Have a look at this andy 14:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Cough cough- which ? I wanted a specific policy not a link to what I read have seen and read. Which one ? pick one anyone. Dbmoodb (talk) 14:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

All the information you need is on that link. andy (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Andy, is is polite to our contributors to supply a more extended analysis than that, to help them write more acceptable articles. Dbmmodb, if you still need help, ask me to try to interpret. DGG (talk) 08:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
This is a reasonably experienced and proficient user but one who likes to clown around. He knows full well why the article was speedied (three times). That link tells him about appeals, which is a route he should follow unless he decides to start acting like a grownup. I don't need lessons in politeness. andy (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I like you Andysmith. You said i am a grown up "That link tells him about appeals, which is a route he should follow unless he decides to start acting like a grownup". However, i would like to know the reason before i but an appeal in. Dbmoodb (talk) 13:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Stop wasting my time. andy (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • stop reverting articles that I have corrected their grammar and spelling. Thank you. Dbmoodb (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but "Notably, Moriah differs from its more liberal equivalent in Sydney's north, Masada College, who struggle for numbers due to higher competition, Moriah does not accept students who are not Jewish." isn't proper English. For example "Moriah differs from" and "Masada College, who struggle" don't agree in number. And by introducing the verb "differs" you've changed the meaning of the sentence, creating a bizarre non sequitur in the final phrase. The sentence originally said, in effect, that Moriah is notable for not accepting non-Jews and that it differs from Masada in this respect. Now it says that Moria is notable for differing from Masada College for an unspecified reason, and there is then a disconnected phrase that points out that Moriah doesn't accept non-Jews. I suspect from reading various edits that you've made that English is not your first language, so please take it from me that the original text, although a bit clumsy, was much better both grammatically and semantically. andy (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
On second thoughts I've cleaned it up anyway. andy (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I call this a personal attack. You have been warned. I suggest you in future do not attack people personally. Dbmoodb (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Thank you. Dbmoodb (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Reporting Possible Copyright Problems

Hi. When tagging a page with {{copyvio}}, as per WP:CP, you should blank the page and add the copyvio template. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 14:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC) Thanks. andy (talk) 14:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

W. Dan Hausel

Hi. I removed the PROD from W. Dan Hausel that you proposed for deletion. It isn't a hoax, as the article is about a real person even though it may be puffed up. I've outlined more detail in talk:W. Dan Hausel. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 03:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Not supportive

Your re not supportive of new editors. Please consider that I am new, and stop discorigin us or if not we won't help at all. FranK (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm supportive - but you don't listen. Many of the articles you have created have been deleted by different editors, usually for the same reason. There's plenty of info on your Talk page about why this has happened so please pay attention to it. andy (talk) 08:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Retagging csd

Hello, please do not retag articles that have been previously tagged and untagged by editors other than the article creators. Please give a read over WP:CSD. Your concerns may certainly indeed be valid, so I would encourage you to refer them to WP:AFD. JERRY talk contribs 16:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Sorry, didn't see the tag. andy (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    • You retagged DWRD. Please check history before tagging. JERRY talk contribs 01:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I got the point already. andy (talk) 09:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
OK it didn't look to me like you did:
01:04, 23 December 2007 Andyjsmith (Talk | contribs | block) (700 bytes) (delete as NN) (undo)
JERRY talk contribs 02:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Why?

Why did you put my Kazumi Tanaka article up for deletion? I made it notable, but you put it up for deletion! You're ruining my Christmas here!Kitty53 (talk) 02:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Interpretation Act 1978

I declined the speedy deletion request on Interpretation Act 1978 on the grounds that Crown copyright does not prohibit reproduction of full texts of Acts of Parliament. Official guidance from the Office of Public Sector Information says the following.

"Legislation from official sources is reproducible freely under waiver of copyright. [...] Waiver means that the Crown is not seeking to exercise its legal right to license formally, restrict usage or charge for the reproduction of the Material. [...] By way of illustration, users may undertake any of the following activities in relation to the Material: a) reproducing and publishing the Material in any medium; b) making multiple copies of the Material for distribution and sale; c) reproducing the Material in any medium for the purposes of news reporting; d) reproducing the Material on free and subscription web sites which are accessible via the Internet" etc etc. (link)

It is required that the Act be properly attributed, but that can be easily managed with a footnote and is perfectly in line with GFDL.

Your point, however, about a lack of useful content, is duly noted. You may want to take this to AfD instead.

Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear 00:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Fair enough. I've prodded it. andy (talk) 10:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

about Wolkonsky

Hi Andy! Please be a little more patient: the article about Wolkonsky is in progress. Let me to finish this my work and then you may judge about. Don't you think that the unnfinished baby isn't a baby yet, do you? ;-) So, I'm not a native English, and I came in this Wiki only a day before --Mart071 (talk) 11:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

  • If the subject is notable I would expect that to be the basis of the article. It's like writing an article about Neil Armstrong based entirely on his academic career. Who is this guy and why should we care? andy (talk) 15:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do hope that now you can see what a person is Prince Serge Wolkonsky. And the article is still unfinished ;-)--Mart071 (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a lot better! All the best :) andy (talk) 10:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. --Mart071 (talk) 12:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand why on your talk page and not on mine? We discuss my article, don't we, so IMHO it's more suitable to download all pro and contra on my talk page. Thanks for help.--Mart071 (talk) 12:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Conversations usually take place on the page where they began. The person who begins the conversation can watch the talk page for a possible reply. andy (talk) 12:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, thank you, Andy. So, I may answer you on mine?--Mart071 (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Pizza deliverer

Hi, while I agree that the other redirects like pizza lady, pizza guy and pizza ladies were uneccessary redirects, I'm not sure about pizza deliverer. I personally think that this one may be searched for, and is certainly a commonly used term where I come from. I have removed the DB for now, but feel free to discuss the issue with me if you're not happy about it. Regards, SGGH speak! 11:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

  • You're probably right about that. I'll mark up the other ones more carefully. andy (talk) 11:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

"Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to A Bird in the Head. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you."

Excuse me, but I wrote the articles for A Bird in the Head and Monkey Businessmen — in their entirety. I recently reviewed both articles, and realized there was an occasional spelling mistake, missing refence, or general cleaning up that was needed. How dare you accuse me of vandalizing my own article, when I am actually cleaning it up — something most contributors rarely do. I spend a great deal of time cleaning up sloppy articles that people hastily add without giving a thought of proofing their. I will redo my edits in order to make sure the article is clean, thank you. Oanabay04 (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - I'm using an automated vandalism checker and it looks like something went wrong (or I pressed the wrong button). andy (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

wtf

why did you revert my edit for on Incest in popular culture?SCB '92 (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Because it made no sense. You said the couple were "half-brother and sister and even cousins". Two people can't be simultaneously related in the first degree and also the second degree. andy (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

well read the article: Rhys Ashworth and Beth Clement, under the subheading "The Shocking Truth"! do you watch Hollyoaks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SCB '92 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

it says: Beth's father, Noel Ashworth, died in Autumn 2007, and a wake was held at The Dog In The Pond pub. Here, she learnt of her father's extended family, and was introduced to his illegitimate son. She was horrified to find that this son was Rhys, thus making them half siblings and also her cousin as her father had a liaison with her Aunt Susan (Rhys' mother). Although both were shocked, Rhys believed that Beth had known they were related before they met, telling her, "whenever I look at you, I feel sick". He then told her that he never wanted to see her again. And I didn't write that in the article! SCB '92 (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"half-brother and sister and even cousins" is not an accurate summary of this. Anyway it's fiction, so who cares? andy (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: RightGot

I'm having trouble finding RightGot's entry on the AN/I. Can you point me to the archive page it's on? -- RoninBK T C 09:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

  • No, I can't find it either. The page was archived and it seems to have disappeared. I'm not an admin so maybe you could raise it on ANI? Let me know the outcome, please. andy (talk) 09:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not an admin either, I was just trying to follow up to see what happened. In any case, AN/I isn't technically part of the WP:DR process anyways, so if you want to open up a WP:RFC on RightGot, I'd certainly participate. -- RoninBK T C 10:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Incest

watever, ok I'll stop putting that in, let's just forget this SCB '92 (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

I am a nephew of Bernice Fisher. I think I maintained objectivity when submitting the information about Bernice Fisher, and used information for which I have listed sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fisher, Frank (talk • contribs) 12:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Maybe so. Please read WP:COI. andy (talk) 12:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Wykagyl

Hiya, I know there was some trouble a couple weeks ago with a SPA pushing articles about the Wykagyl Golf Club. I've looked into the situation though, and it seems that there really is something notable enough for an article, as long as we're careful about how we write it. I've created a subpage at Talk:Wykagyl Golf Club/Temp. Do you concur that it meets standards, or would you like to see any other changes before I implement it? --Elonka 20:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Well it looks fine to me. :) andy (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I went ahead and moved it into article-space. I'll keep an eye on it to make sure that no further spam gets worked in, but overall I think it's a good addition to Wikipedia.  :) --Elonka 22:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.