User talk:Blanchardb/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents

Larkin Step

Herro, senor Blanchardb!

It's come to my attention-and I'd just like to mention-thatI object somewhat, or maybe thoroughly to your proposal to delete Larkin Step from Wikipedia. I feel that it holds the same significance as Badger Badger Badger or Star Wars Kid, and as such, deserves to stay. Thanks for your time/consideration/dedication/race relations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert Mond (talk • contribs) 22:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The article, as is currently written, does not assert that in any way. Please expand your article and provide independent, verifiable sources. Thank you. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 22:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Orkay. Sounds like a plan.

cbaldwinbuck

Hello. I am not sure if I am doing this right as I am relatively inexperienced here. It appears you placed a deletion request on an submission I am trying to write about Spiritual Activism. Why? If I can make the submission better, I would very much welcome your input. Regards, Cbaldwinbuck (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbaldwinbuck (talk • contribs) 22:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately, the only way an article will flourish on Wikipedia is if its subject has been addressed by reliable sources outside Wikipedia that establish enough notability to be interesting to a significant enough portion of the community. The article, as it stands, only has references of the "See Also" kind, with no indication that the term Spiritual Activism is used even within the groups these sites describe. Note: I wrote the term and not the concept. It could very well be that Wikipedia already has an article about this concept, under another name. I haven't checked.
Note also that I put a PROD tag, and not an AfD tag because I believe the article can be salvaged. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 22:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Nukus Museum of Art

Thanks for moving the article. This is my first experience with Wikipedia, and I have a question: why only the first paragraph of the article I submitted is visible, and not the rest? When I press "edit", the whole article is there, but not after I click on "save"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlankina (talk • contribs) 03:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

That's because of inappropriate syntax. You marked <ref> (begin reference) what you should have marked </ref> (end reference). Whatever is between these two tags is shown where you put the template {{reflist}}. I'll fix it, then you can look at the changes by clicking history then Compare selected versions.--Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 03:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
You can look at the fix at this page. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 04:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Farkeld

How is there no log of the incident regarding the IP? Click on the history of the article mentioned "Sherman's March to the Sea". Click on history. You'll see the the vandalism was edited out, and under that the IP Address which added it in in the first place? What else is needed? A dead body? :) Farkeld (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but that happened over a month ago so it is too late to do anything about it, as the perpetrator's ISP probably reassigned another IP number to him, as most ISPs periodically do. For an incident any more than a day old, the best course of action is to just revert the offensive edits and then forget about the whole matter. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 21:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Cupertino effect

I have given a reference to an article in New Scientist, a very reliable source.--Bedivere (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, this is a well-known phenomenon, but is the term Cupertino effect generally accepted to refer to it? Sometimes, even reputable magazines make up neologisms for the sake of one article, and, in such cases, the term cannot be described in a separate article in an encyclopedia. So please tread carefully. Note, also, that I did not mark your article for deletion, just for cleanup. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 22:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Point taken; I have added more references.--Bedivere (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Nukus Museum of Art Article

Thank you very much for fixing the problem with my article, and pointing out the end reference issue. I appreciate it very much!--Rlankina (talk) 02:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

OpenKM article

Hello Blanchardb,

About OpenKM article I was inspired on other articles on the same way presents on wikipedia at [Document_management_system]. I'm really ofuscated intending to write like you say a neutral article, because I can found found great diferences beetween article what I've writen and the other like I used as a content base like Alfresco_(software), Documentum, KnowledgeTree.

Tell me what I must change, because comparing with this I think I'm on the same way.

Thanks.

Actually, the article on OpenKM is written pretty much the same way as Alfresco (software), except for the Awards part which is what saves Alfresco from deletion as it establishes the product's notability. When notability is the issue, that means the real question is, should you even bother to write an article on this subject?
Anyway, what makes in fact both articles look like ads right now is the fact the features section is too detailled and written in such a way that it sounds like this software is better than the other one. Just stick with the main features and write the section as prose, not as a list. Also, the license section should be deleted altogether.
But most important, the OpenKM article currently suffers from a fatal flaw: it has no third-party reliable sources. All of the external links are from the developpers of OpenKM themselves, and, as such, do not establish the software's notability. You must find reviews of this software in reputable publications. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 12:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD discussion of Crispus Attucks Communication and Writing Magnet School

Hello, as AfD nominator of this article I wanted to let you know that there have been several changes to the article since you nominated it. Recent comments left seem to indicate that there is wide acceptance for keeping it based on the new version of the article. Would you please take a moment to review the article and the AfD and determine if you think it would be aappropriate for you to retract your nomination? If you do decide to do so, just strikethrough your original text, and add a message about retracting nomination and briefly why (like: "New context clearly passes WP:N") This might make it easier for the closing admin to determine concensus, and may also possibly allow an early close under snowy conditions. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 04:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Lucky I was online when you wrote this message. :-) --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 04:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank-you very much. JERRY talk contribs 04:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Etruscan coins

An article that you have been involved in editing, Etruscan coins, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Etruscan coins. Thank you. Mbisanz (talk) 13:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


Replay Baseball also is not a "real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content", which are the only things to which A7 applies. PROD and Articles for Deletion are always available. Dsmdgold (talk) 16:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

This speedy tagging

Errr, did you take the time to read the wording of A7? This is definitely not a person ;) Bring it to AfD if you wish. -- lucasbfr talk 16:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that I don't necessarily disagree with xoloz, but his deletion is not supported by policy. A7 is to be taken to the letter, because AFD generates much less drama :) -- lucasbfr talk 17:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Cephus Weatherspoon

Just wanted to let you know that I've declined to speedy Cephus Weatherspoon for a lack of assertion of notability: it claims that he was an NFL player, automatically making him notable if it's true. If you dispute something about this, such as whether this guy really existed or played, please take it to AFD. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 04:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy

Oh dear, my mistake entirely. I apologize. I went ahead and replaced the page with a indefblock notice. I hope this is ok with you. Let me know if there is anything else I can do. --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Strider Phoenix

I was unable to undo his changes when he completely copied the Oscar Gutierrez page into his as a way to avoid having the page deleted. I was glad when one of the bots was able to delete it. I had nominated the page for speedy deletion as soon as it was posted, but he removed that, at which point, I added it to the AfD. I hope that it gets deleted very very soon. Is it possible to have him banned? I went through his history and undid vandalism that he put onto some other wrestling pages that had not yet been caught. Mh29255 (talk) 04:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually there are plenty of warning templates you can use on his talk page. See WP:WARN for a complete list. Start with a level 1 or 2 warning depending on the severity of the situation. (You may go directly to level 3 or 4 if the person has a history of disruptive edits.) And when the person ignores a level 4 warning, report him at WP:AIV and watch him as he gets blocked within the next 5 minutes. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 04:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Impersonation

Thanks. How did you ever find out that was my user and talk page that had been copied? --Stéphane Charette (talk) 08:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the alleged contributions, knowing that this person's account was only a couple of hours old. I went to those pages and checked "What links here." There was your user page. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 11:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD Replay Publishing

Hello Blanchardb. I'd like to ask you to take a second look at the Replay Publishing page, which was nominated for AfD. I've added a number of references to the page, as well as beefing up the article text and links. Any further constructive criticism you could give would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Kezzran (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Trojan Suit

I am improving the page. Please give me some time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Talking Mac (talk • contribs) 18:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy tags

Yeah.. I was just looking up the website tag, and went back to the page to re-edit only to discover you already corrected it. Thanks a lot :) EuroSong talk 13:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Motorola Modding

Heh, I just noticed that we both tagged it for deletion. I did a prod; you did AfD. It's excessive to leave both on, but I think the page is weak enough that prod would be sufficient. What do you think? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that the PROD had been added in the time it took for me to complete my AfD.
As a personal policy, I never prod a newly created article: those tend to be contested by their authors. The AfD is already being discussed (two comments already), so I think the PROD, at this point, is redundant. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 15:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, that was another article I also AfD'd. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 15:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael Babula

OK, sorry for the confusion. Did you mean to post on the talk page of my recall process page? If you did intend to request my recall, that's fine, I was just a little confused. Could you clarify, please? Thanks, Keilana(recall) 23:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I did not notice that the recall on your signature was for the talk page of recall. I posted there thinking it was your regular talk page. I think you should change it, otherwise many of your "regular" messages will be posted there, regardless of their relevance to the recall process. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 23:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. I've changed it, is it better now? Is it alright with you if I delete the recall talk page, as you are not making a request for recall? Keilanatalk(recall) 23:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Technically, you are not able to delete that page unless you are an admin. :-) Blanking it is okay, though. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 23:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Considering [1], I'll take the deletion route. :) Keilanatalk(recall) 23:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"Gordon Rollings"

Thanks! I've replied on my talk page. —SMALLJIM  17:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you please explain more fully?

Could you please explain yourself?

You changed an article I just started to a redirect, without any explanation or discussion.

In the interests of consensus, and openness, and complying with WP:NOT#wikipedia is not a battleground may I suggest you consider getting in the habit of making a greater effort to explain yourself? Geo Swan (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The article as it exists now would be more appropriate for Wikisource than Wikipedia. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 21:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I saw you applied a {{mergeto}} tag.
Perhaps you are not familiar with the use of tags? Some tags, when instantiated, tell readers to look to the talk page for a discussion of why the tag was placed. The {{mergeto}} tag is one of those tags.
I write on controversial topics. Consequently my contributions attract a lot of trolls, vandals and wikistalkers. One of the favourite disruptive tactics of those wikistalkers has been to place bogus, inappropriate wikitags on articles they don't want to be on the wikipedia, for their own POV reasons.
I asked, on WP:AN/I what to do when someone places a tag that obliges them to add a further explanation to the appropriate talk page, and then fail to do so. I was told I didn't have to give them a heads-up. I didn't have to give them a week or so to respond to that heads-up. I was told that I could remove undefended tags, without any advance warning, after 24 hours.
I think that advice was too extreme. So, I am giving you a heads-up.
Would you please consider being careful when you apply tags, and if they tell readers to look to a talk page for the discussion, would you please start that discussion?
The rest of us aren't mindreaders. We can't know why you placed the tag, if you don't take the time to explain yourself. Geo Swan (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The Three Bishes

How long will I be banned? User:Supercheesebwoi (the guy who wrote The Three Bishes)

Not up to me. Could be anywhere between three days and permanent. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 02:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Psyché (play) v. Psyché (opera)

Looks like you caught me in mid-edit. The original Psyché article specifically stated that the play and the opera were often confused and then proceded to discuss both. As there was a lot of information about both pieces in the article, I was in the process of breaking them them into two articles when you added your redirect. I have replaced your redirect with the information about the Psyché (play). The Psyché article is now solely about the opera, and there are links back and forth on each page. Thanks.

(The reason why I chose to keep the opera at the Psyché page was that it already contained the opera categories. There were no play categories, so I put those on the new article. Portia1780 (talk) 03:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I was merely acting on a CorenSearchBot notice. Your intentions were unclear. But keep going now. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 03:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Kill Bill characters

Just so you know, I responded on the character list talkpage. -- Mike (Kicking222) 04:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Notability on Wander Pires

I understand what you mean, but I only translated the article from Portuguese. You can do whatever you want with the article, but I guess that the article of Portuguese should also be nominated for deletion, for it even does not cite a source. Please respond on my talk page. Regards, --  Idontknow610  (WANNA SIGN??) 14:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page per your request. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 14:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What does encyclopedia-notable as an interpreter mean? --  Idontknow610  (WANNA SIGN??) 14:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry... :-( The article says the subject is an interpreter. By "encyclopedia-notable", I meant, worthy of consideration for an entry in an encyclopedia. (See Wikipedia:Notability.) I meant to say that, as far as I can tell, no one has become famous for working as an interpreter. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 14:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh :-) --  Idontknow610  (WANNA SIGN??) 14:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Chocolate Thai

hi, as you participated 3 weeks ago in the first AfD, you may be interested in this one Pundit|utter 15:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Bardeep2

Just a quickie note - It is up to the user what goes on their page. If they add an insult, just blank it. Infuriating as this editor is, it is their right. However, I suspect it won't be long before he gets himself blocked StephenBuxton (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK: Lavigueur family

Updated DYK query On 6 January 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lavigueur family, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--PFHLai (talk) 05:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Trophymanager

I noticed you placed a speedydeletion tag on Trophymanager. I feel that it is notable. It has over 100,000 members from at least 139 countries. I'd say that makes it notable. Smartyllama (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The article says somewhere between 100 and 1000. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 13:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
That's just because google translator is terrible. It means "101,000 teams". And if you go to trophymanager's website, you'll see that that's correct. I shall change the mistranslation right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartyllama (talk • contribs) 13:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

normal courtesy

I wrote, on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Qaida facilitator that your nomination [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FAl_Qaida_facilitator&diff=182789594&oldid=182424305 does not in the tradition of good-faith nominations.] Geo Swan (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

bible links

Blanchardb, culling the links is a good thing, and I agree with the activity. A lot of people get defensive over which links should be on a page. However, the link I provided actually makes almost all other links redundant, itself being of more useful in allowing comparisons between the many versions. It has many versions of the bible on one site. Did you explore the link before removing it? If anything, links to other specific versions should be removed in favor of the unbound.com site. Check it out and let me know what you think. We can continue this conversation on the talk page if you feel there is merit. --Fcsuper (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this discussion should be only between the two of us, so I transferred it to Talk:Bible. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 23:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

In future could you please give articles 10 minutes? My second edit to the page Peters (bakery) was interupted by your slamming on the tag a mere minute after I began to write it.--Him and a dog 21:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this cannot be done. The New Pages page only gives me the latest 50 pages. You can insert the {{hangon}} tag if you feel you need a few minutes. I follow up on my tags, and sometimes I remove some of my own. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 21:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Isotx -- I see its gone now. I feel that it's a pretty notable company, it's been talked about in many magazines, it's won notable awards for its mod, and its producing pretty innovative combinations of genre. It could have been expanded a lot, but not deleted. InterfaceLeader23 (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)InterfaceLeadr23

The speedy deletion criterion by which your article was deleted was Significance not asserted, that is, one could not have determined, from the article, that it won major awards. This is an important thing to state for the sake of people not familiar with the company. And those who know about the company would like to know that too. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 23:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you...

For adding under construction to Anti-Executable. Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs) 14:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The Global Standard Deity Deletion

I was wondering whether moving the GSD page to a place called "Global Standard Deity in the Thursday Next Novels" would save it. That means that it's obvious that it's not a religion. I have also made clear references to the novel's notability in contemporary fiction. Bonovoxpop (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You can (and should) state your case in the AfD discussion. Personally, I do not think it will make much of a difference, as we are talking about what is pretty much an in-universe concept. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 15:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

City Opera of Vancouver

Thanks for taking an interest in this article. I would be MOST grateful were you able to 'wikifi' the piece with appropriate references to www.cityoperavancouver.com, the Globe and Mail article cited, and the Categories suggested.

When I contributed two earlier essays, on Marty Paich, and on Alexander Siloti, some while back, it all seemed a good deal easier at that time.

I appreciate any help you might offer to bring this into conformity with current best practises at Wikipedia.

Merci bien, et salut,


Dr Charles Barber (MA, DMA Stanford) City Opera Vancouver —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.215.111 (talk) 07:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Transwiki

You suggested: The article as it exists now would be more appropriate for Wikisource than Wikipedia. Later in the {{afd}} you seemed to be complaining that I ignored your suggestion.

It is true, I did not respond to your suggestion. Frankly your suggestion was vague, seemed like a toss-off, one which didn't seem to merit a serious response because it didn't seem to be a serious suggestion.

If you were offended that I didn't give you a serious reply, let me give one here.

No offense, but my understanding of wikisource is that it is intended to hold whole documents, or single excerpts of longer source documents, that are at least one large paragraph in length. My understanding of the use of wikisource is that single wikisource articles are not intended to hold multiple excerpts from multiple source documents.

Can I ask how much experience you have using wikisource, contributing to wikisource?

I have made close to 700 edits there. I thought I had an idea of what material belonged there, and what belonged here. Frankly, my idea of what to put on the wikisource continues to evolve, as I become more experienced there. But it hasn't come anywhere near your vague suggestion.

If you think you have a specific suggestion as to how to fit that material on the wikisource, by all means spell it out. 700 edits there makes me a relative newbie. Maybe I have something to learn from your suggestion. Geo Swan (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, my suggestion goes hand-in-hand with a comment I just saw in the AfD:

Comment: Forgive me if this sounds like nitpicking, but your style of commenting makes the reading of this discussion more difficult and confusing than it needs to be. Using a bullet point for each and every statement is unnecessary and, frankly, distracting. AfD discussions normally have bullets only for major points, i.e. “Delete,” “Keep,” “Comment,” etc., so your extra bullets only serve to make your comments more difficult to follow and understand. Respectfully, —Travistalk 15:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe this perceived problem with your writing style is at the root of all the problems with your article as well. The article looks like it has been taken directly out of a CIA internal report, hence my suggestion to transwiki.
You do not need to repeat, for every entry, The Summary of Evidence memo (...) alleged or The detainee was identified as... To make it look like an encyclopedia article, or a list for that matter, all you need to say is something like, "Bensayah Belkacem is believed to be the primary al Qaida facilitator in Bosnia (ref)." That's it. Nothing else. Anything you add in the lines of what's in the article right now will only make it harder to read. Any other information can be found in the article about the individual detainee.
Moved to a list or not, you should definitely write an introduction stating what the article is about. Such an introduction cannot constitute original research, as I think you fear, simply because it is not research at all. Remember, the introduction should be intended for people who know little or nothing about the whole matter.
Hope this helps. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 17:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Your suggestion to transwiki, while no doubt honestly intentioned, was poorly advised.
Not giving me a courtesy heads-up, on my talk page, that, instead of replying to my note on Talk:al Qaida faciliator you were going to nominate it for deletion, was the kind of lapse from normal courtesy we should all work to avoid. This kind of lapse from normal courtesy puts an unfair burden on our correspondents, because it calls on them to make the effort to assume good faith in the face of behavior that could easily be interpreted as serious bad faith.
Your comments about my editing style would be a lot easier to appreciate -- if it were offered in the proper venue. My talk page, or Talk:al Qaida facilitator would have been good choices. Comments about editorial choices are simply out of place in an {{afd}}. Because perceptions that some passages in an artilce contain lapses in spelling, grammar, organization, are simply not grounds for deletion. Let me suggest that when you make comments like these in an {{afd}} you are unnecessarily imposing a burden on your correspondents as they try to assume good faith in the face of behavior that could easily be interpreted as serious bad faith.
As I noted in the {{afd}} many of the other particcomments were contrary to policy, or to the excellent advice in WP:ATA. There were some serious comments, which I did my best to address.
WRT the quoted material needs a sentence to set the context -- I receive comments 180 degrees the reverse of yours. I am going to repeat that this editorial comment is not a valid reason to initiate a nomination for deletion.
Candidly,

Ouin

I didn't check! Sorry! Yes it is ineed a bug in Twinkle. (P.S je suis québecois et j'demeure en banlieue de Montréal (à Saint-Lambert) :) --Party (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Song Destinations

Hi, you placed a prod on the article Song Destinations. If you still believe this one should be deleted, you may want to bring it to AfD as the user was contesting a similar prod I put on another of their pages and there does seem to be precedent for keeping such articles. Just wanted to give you a heads up. Cheers! Redfarmer (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Kurdistan Development Corporation

Dear friend, please do tell me which part of the page is wrong, I am a fairly new user and need to know why is my contribution marked for a speedy deletion. It is only the information about the KDC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flavallee (talk • contribs) 00:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Replied on the article's talk page. Basically, contact information should not be included. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 00:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I just removed the Contact Information... is this enough for the page to stay? Flava —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flavallee (talk • contribs) 00:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

On-beat dance roller skating

I removed the nonsense tag from On-beat dance roller skating because it isn't really nonsense, but I did put an afd tag on it for discussion. Corvus cornixtalk 01:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggested userbox :)

try User:Party/Poutine :) --Party (talk) 01:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ummm... actually, no. :-) --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 02:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

American Unions

I had meant to make the redirect page on American Labor Unions, but hadn't realized this until I had already created the page. If you feel American Unions also makes a good redirect page that's even better. -- Yono (talk) 02:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

please, stop marking Vymucany page for deletion

since you are not from Slovakia and don't really know the specifics, stop trying to remove what you suppose is not important (or does not meet criteria).

--dusoft (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Then assert the band's notability in the article. Until you do, I will keep adding the tag. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 21:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I have added few mentions in local media (FYI: Bleskovky is owned by Ringier, German publishing house). I hope you are satisfied now. --dusoft (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Response to Victoria Bridge question

I'm sorry, i don't, but i do know for a fact that on the bridge, there IS a bus service, it's the #55 from Saint-Lambert wich i use daily to go to school. I'M going to put information on it... The bus window is too dirty to get its pic taken. --Party (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Did I do this right?

Did I do the hangon tag right? I'm kind of new to editing Wikipedia. I added to the article and it has an external link to a copy of the script on Google book search. Thanks, Aggiew (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It would have been right if I had requested a speedy deletion, which is not the case here. The {{hangon}} tag is only for speedy deletions. I take it you contest the proposed deletion, so all you have to do is remove the tag, but be aware that another process, Articles for Deletion may be initiated. I will not initiate it for the time being, to give you some time to edit the article so that the play's notability can be asserted. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 02:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy tags

Try not to tag article too quickly ([2]). Sometimes the authors are still working on them.   jj137 ♠ 02:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

My Country is My Love

I did translate it into English. The reason it was in Estonian was that it was to be the frame of the page where to start the translation and page build-up. Karabinier 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you can remove the translation tag yourself as soon as you're done. I see that that's what you did. I inserted the tag quickly because, as it happens often, people insert pages in foreign languages then simply abandon them. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 01:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Passports

Yes, that is good idea. Once I'm done with what I'm doing right now, I will do the redirects. Thanks for the suggestion. Keep up the good work, (Einstein00 (talk) 01:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC))

Questionable deletion

Hendrix (software) would not fit in Mozilla, but rather into Mozilla Foundation or Mozilla Corporation, as Hendrix is more related to Mozilla's projects.

onekopaka (talk) 04:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That's fine with me. :-) --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 12:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

"Containerart" edit

Hello: I listed ContainerArt and saw it was proposed for deletion as "non notable event". I only put a few esternal links and one pubblication to support it. There are several other external links that mention ContainerArt expecially in Italy. Would adding them resolve the tag? Also: About 90 contemporary artists participated so far. Would a list of these artists resolve the issue? Finally, before proposing it for deletion have you actually reviewed the associated links in order to determine relevancy? I notice you are from Canada, and this is an event that has mostly been held in Italy All the best Borsalino —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borsalino (talk • contribs) 09:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Containerart is listed at Articles for Deletion, so if you want to make your case, that's where you should go. Please note that the final decision is not mine to make.
As far as my opinion goes, you should know that since the article states none of what you said without having to browse through external links, it is as if one were not supposed to know any of this. Just adding external links is not enough to save the article from deletion: you have to write the article in such a way that one would know the essential of what those links say without having to click on them. Who are the most famous among the artists participating? (We don't need to know the names of all 90 of them.)
For more information, you may want to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia guidelines on notability. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 12:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy the Snail

Please review the talk page for this article

  • New Content*

Hey there. Thanks for the polite response and explanation. Also i will take into account your suggestion. Thank you! Weslem27 (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there

Hi there, first I think you are doing a great job patrolling new pages. However as a fellow new page patroller can I offer a couple of suggestions? First, after you patrol a page click "mark as patrolled" so others will know you have patrolled it (Wikipedia:New pages patrol/patrolled pages). Also, a couple of the pages you marked for "notability" I think were really candidates for speedy deletion (e.g. Subkips, freequal) Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Anyway that's just my opinion, have a great day!! laurap414 (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

I'd forgotten what the link to the new template was. I Googled the text and it came back as having belonged to a record company; I threw on that speedy just as a temporary measure. Thanks for letting me know. Regards, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Voodoo

Can you help on this Voodoo page issue? I think a bot has gone into over drive and I am not entirely sure what is necessary to do.

I created a disambiguation page and sort out some links.

Thanks --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

DB-cut-and-paste template

If you think this would save you time and effort, by all means, I'll sign off on it. I can't say that this one comes up frequently in my experience of pages tagged for speedy deletion, but it does come up every couple of days -- and probably the reason why I don't experience it personally more often is that I lazily tend to pick the low-hanging fruit of obvious pages to delete. At any rate, it seems logical, useful and time-saving; I'm for it. If there's something I can do to help you with this process any further, or a specific place for me to register my approval, just let me know. Accounting4Taste:talk 04:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Apology Accepted

I accept your apology and consider this the end of the matter. On the other topic (copyright), I know copyright can be tricky, but the Wiki project does have some fairly decent pages explaining it. Let me know if you want help finding anything. Cbdorsett (talk) 04:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)