User talk:Bradv/Archives

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Bradv's Talk Page
Please leave me a message.
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

My reason for asking again

The reason that I asked again is because you flat-out ignored me when I asked how many telenovelas would be filming in Florida. Ericthebrainiac (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Making articles to my liking

You can make articles about Grupo Ashta and things like that to my wanting if you want to.

Thank you for your permission, but I do not know anything about soap operas. Also, please stop linking random words in your posts. —BradV 03:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Ignore this guy. He's a troll. --Ouzo (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Template X9

Part of the sandbox...I see...whoops. Thanks for letting me know. RedZionX 17:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. RedZionX 17:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Old Testament template

Hi, I had deliberately parked the OT template lower down the page on Book of Zechariah, to avoid having it side-by-side with the Tanakh one. Otherwise, people with small or low-res monitors can't see much of the article. Also, you duplicated it within the article Ezekiel here; I'll leave it to you to take one out. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I fixed the Ezekiel page. —BradV 18:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey!

Sorry for that vandalism on [Meet the Spartans]. It is awful, though.

You liked that line, didn't you? "deleted" Anyhow, I would like to apologize. I agree Wikipedia has no need for that spam.

However, that movie is extremely awful. It doesn't justify vandalism, but it is just... Vomit-inducing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.54.183 (talk) 04:20, February 14, 2008 (UTC)

You're right, that spam does not belong on Wikipedia. Please refer to some of the links above for some advice on how to use Wikipedia constructively. —BradV 04:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Attack

Friend Brad, I didn't attack you. Don't try to play that game with me. I pointed out that you have made suggestions worthy of a high school student. That is not a personal attack. It is a statement of fact. Read the original sources of Aquinas, and it should be noticed that these have not been copied, but only summarized, as required by the Wikipedia standards. You still haven't answered my question: What is the point of making an article about the thought of Aquinas concerning the sacraments, while significantly re-writing his original words? I am open to any suggestions you might like to make. So far as I am aware, there are no copyright violations, here. ~~ A. E. Francis —Preceding unsigned comment added by A E Francis (talk • contribs) 04:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Friend Brad: I am open to any suggestions you or anyone else wants to make concerning the article "Aquinas and the Sacraments" or any other article I have written. As you will notice, there have been several revisions to it by other writers. I am somewhat at a loss how someone hiding behind a pseudonym and completely anonymous to the public, and to me, can be the victim of a "personal attack". That said, I am willing to work with you on this article and will listen to whatever you may suggest. A.E. Francis —Preceding unsigned comment added by A E Francis (talk • contribs) 20:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for moving my page. I had to wait for my account to be four days old before I could move it and was happy to see it was already done before that date. Thank you again Mooney 06 (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Albina Molodozhan

The speedy template said:

"It was previously deleted as a result of an articles for deletion (or another XfD) discussion, and is substantially identical to the version of the page that was deleted. (CSD G4)"

It was never deleted as a result of an xFD, therefore this reasoning is not possible. Being a recreation of speedied material is not in itself a speedyable criteria, since the previous speedy could have been done in error, etc. --Golbez (talk) 03:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Justin Chadwick

Your unexplained edits to this page are unwarranted. Clearly you have not read my comments on the discussion page. Please stop asking for citations that are not needed. Thank you. MovieMadness (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Narhallamarsch false positive

The tune is not notable because it has no lyrics, it is notable because it is *THE* signature tune of the Mainz carnival! —Onomatopoeia (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Freetime (Spyro Gyra album)

I have removed your speedy tag from this article. You indicated that it did not "indicate the importance or significance of the subject." However, the article concerned an album by a notable band (Spyro Gyra, winner of multiple Grammy awards), and it also included an additional assertion of notability (that the album in question had reached #1 on the relevant Billboard chart). As such, your tag was plainly inappropriate. Please try to be more careful in the future. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hashem Abd al-Rahman

Looking back through your recent contributions, I noticed that you re-applied a {{prod}} tag to this article. Per WP:PROD: "If anyone, including the article's creator, removes Template:Prod from an article for any reason, do not put it back, except if the removal was clearly not an objection to deletion (such as blanking the entire article, or removing the tag along with inserting blatant nonsense). If the edit is not obviously vandalism, do not restore tag, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. If you still believe the article needs to be deleted, list it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion." As such, please to not re-tag articles in this manner in the future, even if the person removing the tag does not make the changes you want to the article. If you feel that it should be deleted after a tag has been removed, AFD is always an option. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Bees in Paradise

I don't think this meets the criteria for deletion. Bees in Paradise is a classic comedy film mentioned in all film encyclopedias. See the International Movie Data Base reference in External Links. Colin4C (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion requests

Thanks for being positive about my feedback. I've responded to your question about Harrison family on my talk page.

I appreciate the work that you're doing on new page patrol, but I want to make sure that you're giving an appropriate degree of consideration to the merits of articles before nominating them for deletion. For example, it's relatively easy to verify that Velika Braina is a real town, and there's a long-standing community consensus here on EN that all verifiable towns are inherently notable. Even if the version here is just a stub at present, there are larger versions on French Wikipedia and Serbian Wikipedia, both of which include referenced information that could be incorporated into the English article here (a task that the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Serbia or Wikipedia:Translation would probably be glad to help with, if you can't read the language yourself). Remember, when you advocate deletion for an article, you're saying that the problems with it are fundamentally un-fixable. With great power comes great responsibility. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

CSD A7 (speedy)

Please be aware, db-band cannot be used for songs or albums. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Justin Chadwick

There is a dispute about citations yet again. I have formally requested the matter to be mediated by a third party. I also asked the creator of the page to refrain from changing the page until the dispute can be resolved. Thought you might want to know. A little mollusk (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

re:Gogol

Sorry, I thought you were trying to get them deleted or combined into one article I will put the tags back. Sorry about that. Ostap 02:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

On footnotes

Hi. I would like to mention that per Wikipedia:Citing_sources#How_to_cite_sources, footnotes are not mandatory. I would suggest you don't post footnotes request on top of articles unless there is a clear need for that, such as in controversal articles. Thanks. You can reply here if you have comments. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Jan van der Crabben

Hi,

You recently added a "notability" tag to the article Jan van der Crabben. Could you explain your rationale behind adding the tag? Though the article has only a few references, they (particularly the 2nd and 3rd) would seem to satisfy the requirement for non-trivial coverage in reliable sources.

Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 20:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You are right. I have removed the tag. —BradV 20:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Black Falcon (Talk) 20:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

maniaTV listing

--ManiaTV (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Am not trying to violate policy. Will be reviewing other (similar content) type of listings to ensure this remains up. So in other words our intent is good and want to follow good policy. Will be working on fixing this listing over the next few weeks. Thanks

Prods

Hi Brad, just wanted to let you know I've contested several of your proposed deletions. On a number of articles you have proposed deletion, citing the lack of assertions of notability, when an assertion of notability is fairly clear. For example, on Alfredo Salazar Southwell, "celebrated as a national hero" is an assertion of notability. Also note that the fact that, on its own, the fact that an article does not currently cite sources is generally not considered a sufficient reason for deletion (with some exceptions in the case of biographies of living persons). For such articles, as an alternative to proposing deletion on sight, please consider adding {{unreferenced}} and {{notability}} tags. If the article remains unimproved despite the tags (for at least a few months, say), then that is the time to propose deletion or take the article to AfD. That's the generally accepted practice around here, anyway. Yours, Jfire (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me put this another way

Over the last couple of days, you've received messages from four different administrators (me, Black Falcon, Orangemike, and Golbez) saying that there are problems with the way you've been tagging articles for deletion, along with similar comments from several other productive editors in good standing. That didn't just happen by chance. Please, take a minute and listen to what people are trying to tell you. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 05:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have removed prod tags from a bunch of articles I had tagged earlier. I will re-evaluate those when I have time. —BradV 05:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Some of 'em probably should be deleted; I know that I looked at a few and agreed with you. I just want to see whether we can cut down on the rate of false positives. BTW, if I was kind of sharp with you yesterday, I'm sorry. If I disagree with you about something, I should be able to express that without being impolite. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Linking to categories

If you want to link to categories (or imgages, too) without adding them to the page in question, just add a colon inside the first set of brackets, right before the file name. For Category:Ancient Roman diplomats, for example, you'd type [[:Category:Ancient Roman diplomats]]. It took me at least six months to figure out how to do that (d'oh!), so I figured you might appreciate the tip. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 05:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. It's better you aren't in that category anyway, it could get you blocked. —BradV 05:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that was pretty crazy. People here fly off the handle about the dumbest things sometimes, like the Userbox war, or the ArbCom case over Certified.Gangsta's fake "you've got messages" banner. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You have some explaining to do

You'd best do some explaining, pronto, if you are going to come to my talk page and accuse me of moving pages to nonsensical titles. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Victoria Theatre Halifax

Hi! Just to let you know that I have changed your merge tag to a Speedy delete. The theatre is already mentioned in the Halifax, West Yorkshire article so does not actually require merging. I have updated the information on that page to include the seating capacity. Richard Harvey (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw that, and it's already been declined. This is probably a candidate for a prod. —BradV 20:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I updated the Ceasar and Chuy article

Please refer to Ceasar and Chuy and see the updates. I don't think that article deserves deletion anymore. Please withdraw your nomination. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qreyes (talk • contribs)

Articles for deletion/BattleCry

I've created so many other video game articles - games in MAME - but yet you nominate this one for deletion. I have lost previous battles before, so I don't really care anymore. Delete all my video game articles for all I care. Sandman30s (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Emily Drumm

I removed the {{cleanup}} from this stubs, as it is not really appropriate to tag stubs for style issues. They are just not far enough along to worry about that yet. Please reconsider tagging stubs with this template in the future.--BirgitteSB 16:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The Gathering (film)

I see that you deleted the new Themes section in this article and the reason you gave was a little flip. I have reviewed your activity here on Wikiepdia and I see that you are an ardent deletionist. I have respect for that point of view in most areas of history and fact . However, I feel that it can sometimes be misguided and harmful in the long view when it comes to fleshing out articles on subjects that touch on Folklore and that's where I was heading with the themes section. My interest in the article is as a Folklorist and I would be happy to do the necessary research to make inclusion of a section a section appropriate. The film itself was pretty average but everyone I've spoken to that has seen it is intrigued by the idea of the group and asks me (because of my background) if there really is a legend about witnesses to the Passion. I feel a themes section would be in order.

If you would permit the section to stay in for a week, I would be happy to build it up with numerous inline cites specific to each theme mentioned. As the section was when you deleted it, it linked to very long and detailed articles on Wikipedia with huge reference sections of their own. I did not see an immediate need to duplicate those references in a film article assuming (silly me) than interested readers would click on the wikilinks to the other articles where any and all questions could and would be answered. You also deleted the comparison to the Bradbury story with the rationale that the cited link didn't mention the Gathering. Well.. it didn't have to because it was supporting the contention that Bradbury's story The Crowd was remarkably similar, which it is. The cite described both the Bradbury story and its orgins giving the primary sources for those quotes. If every citation made in an article about a film has to mention the film, we'd have no film articles at all. Please consider letting me add that section back in and leaving it in long enough for a reasonably busy editor to cite all the asserttions and comparisons properly. I'll work on using the primary citations on the page I originally listed as my cite since that would be the proper way to do it.

Of course, now that I'm writing you, I can see better why you chopped that section out as it was! Let me ask you this, could you give me a little time to work the section from where I began or would you prefer that I sandbox it and then represent it to you for your review? Sometimes leaving a section like that in an article draws other interested editors but I would understand if you would prefer me to sandbox it. If you have any suggestions as to what you'd like to see included in such a section or elsewhere in the article, I'm all ears. Few people seem to care about this article and I'd much rather be your ally in improving it! I feel the plot synopsis is overlong myself. Reply when you can. Thank you.LiPollis (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately there isn't much room in an edit summary to give all the reasons for changing something. I probably should have left you a message on why I was deleting that section, so I will try to do that justice here.
First of all I wouldn't categorize myself as a deletionist, but I can understand why someone might call me that. I believe that every article should have the potential to become a good article. If it does, I try to fix it up myself or tag it so someone else can do it later. If it doesn't have that potential, it gets nominated for deletion.
I had just taken on that task with The Gathering (film), as it had been tagged as needing work since August 2006. While work had been done to the article since then, the biggest problem remaining was original research. The claim of a resemblance to Ray Bradbury's work was unsourced and appeared to be original research by an editor. As I could not find any sources for that claim on Google, I removed it. Re-adding that information without a source meant that I would have to restore the old tag.
I encourage you to add the information, but only once it is properly sourced. The point is that you can't draw your own conclusions or ideas and put them in the article, you can only put what has been already covered elsewhere. What you claim about this film may very well be true, but it needs to come from somewhere. Once you have found a source that makes the connection between The Gathering and The Crowd, add the information, together with a source so others can confirm it, and I will endorse it. And by all means, if you want help with that, feel free to post a draft in your sandbox and I will help. —BradV 01:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Now that we've communicated, I agree with you that unless I can find an outside source making those comparisons, the entire section would just be OR. There is something to be said for taking an issue such as this to an article's talk page before acting unilaterally. By bringing up an issue and asking for input, other editors can then help with sourcing or support your case for deletion. I'm just saying... you could avoid some of the above unpleasantness by doing a little consensus building before acting. And, If you find that an edit summary doesn't give you a enough room to explain why you are making an edit, that's usally a good indicator that such an edit should be proposed on the talk page and discussed first. I see from other users posts here that you tend to act quickly and unilaterally as an editor and from your contributions that you are either a very new editor or an editor who has quite recently changed user names. If you are new, these are issues most new editors face. If you are not new and justing using a new name, then you already know all of this. Thanks again. Hopefully I'll have something for you to look at soon.LiPollis (talk) 02:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

How do you edit so fast?

Hey, I was checking out your contributions (I was trying to figure out how many PROD's you'd nominated and then removed, since I kept running across them and re-PRODding them). Anyway, I noticed that you edit several times a minute, and you keep it up for long periods of time. Do you have any editing tools you can direct me to? Thanks! --Aervanath (talk) 03:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's my script page: User:Bradv15/monobook.js. I highly recommend WP:Twinkle, WP:Friendly, and the script to add Google searches to the sidebar. But I have to warn you, editing that fast can cause problems. I was working on old orphaned pages and old unreferenced pages, but I got accused of being a deletionist. So today I focused on stubs instead. —BradV 06:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that. Same thing happened to me when I placed a PROD. So unless I'm sure it's uncontroversial, I'm just placing {{notability}} and other cleanup tags on them. Or, if I can't de-orphan them, placing a {{do-attempt}} tag. Or all of them. Thanks for the scripts!--Aervanath (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Islamic holy books

I was really hoping that nobody would notice that. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

OK what about Al-kitab (Quran)? It turns out that Talk:Al-kitab redirects to Talk:Al-kitab (Quran) but Al-kitab redirects to Islamic holy books. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. There are two articles in play here. Islamic holy books is the real article. Al-kitab (Quran) (and all its versions) is a POV fork of Qur'an by User:Farrukh38. It should really be deleted but I don't have the heart. —BradV 17:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually...

I don't know if any of my friends (if I have any) are gay or not. I don't think any of them are really open about it if so. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Nevsky Prospekt (story)

Hullo, hullo,

I've seen that you 've added the 'notability' banner atop the article. Could you please explain your rationale? It would seem that Gogol is a universally-known and respected author. Additionally, such short story has been thoroughly commented worlwide, and was a staple of French baccalauréat literature exams for several years. Feel free to leave me a message! Mrbluesky (talk) 13:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I did add that notability tag. For someone who is unfamiliar with Gogol's works the article does nothing to introduce them to the subject. As per the guidelines for fiction, an article should include assertions of notability, complete with references and secondary sources. A plot summary should be part of the article, but it should not be the whole article. In your post to me you gave a perfect example of the type of information that should be in the article: You write that it "has been thoroughly commented [on] worldwide, and was a staple of French baccalauréat literature exams for several years." That is an assertion of notability that should be in the article. —BradV 15:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Awright, then. Mrbluesky (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 11 13 March 2008 About the Signpost
From the editor 
Accusations of financial impropriety receive more coverage Best of WikiWorld: "Five-second rule" 
News and notes: New bureaucrat, Wikimania bids narrowed, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Dispatches: Vintage image restoration WikiProject Report: Professional wrestling 
Tutorial: Summary of policies Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Volume 4, Issue 12 17 March 2008 About the Signpost
Best of WikiWorld: "The Rutles" News and notes: Single-user login, election commission, milestones 
Wikipedia in the News Dispatches: Changes at peer review 
WikiProject Report: Tropical cyclones Tutorial: Editing Monobook, installing scripts 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:AWB

I have approved you. Good luck and happy editing! ScarianCall me Pat 22:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Please explain assertions of advertising and conflict of interest on 80plus

Since you tagged the 80plus article as advertising and possible conflict of interest, could you please explain (preferably on the Talk:80plus talk page) what you think could use improvement. I took a look at the history of the page, and it wasn't obvious whom the allegation of conflict of interest applies to. It is also not immediately apparent what would make the page seem like advertising, or that it is lacking in neutral tone. It is hard to improve the page without clear information on what could use improvement. Thanks. Zodon (talk) 02:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I tagged 80 PLUS as advert and COI based on this diff - "moved 80 plus to 80 PLUS: marketing guys decided it". Its not really a problem as long as the article is fully referenced and neutral. Once that's fixed I'm sure all three tags can be removed. —BradV 15:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the clarification. Some of it still needs better citations. Zodon (talk) 03:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Popup problem

The popup ad for FAs blocks the bottom of the page; to read the last entry, I had to click the "Edit" button! --Orange Mike | Talk 15:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've removed it until I can figure out why it didn't work for you. —BradV 15:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Day of Spring!

Happy First Day of Spring!

Al-kitab AFD

Hey. Just thought you might want to know that I nominated Al-kitab for deletion. You can see the AfD here. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Alfred Heckmann

I addressed the copy vio of Alfred Heckmann in this edit, please let me know if you see a problem. Jeepday (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 13 24 March 2008 About the Signpost
Single User Login enabled for administrators Best of WikiWorld: "Clabbers" 
News and notes: $3,000,000 grant, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Dispatches: Banner shells tame talk page clutter WikiProject Report: Video games 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Farrukh38

Bradv15.: have you deleted article Al-kitab(Quran) by saying that it is as islamic book...but you didnot digest truth of Quran which is not same as islamic book ? Farrukh38 (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

what is wikipedea

a place where truth cannot be written about Quran. Truth will be deleted in wikipedea. as deleted Al-kitab(Quran) bradv15 is trying to impose this aritcle as islamic book article, wikipedea must not write about Quran what he will but he must write about Quran as per text of Quran. wikipedea policy for citation is not aplicable for Quran because wikipedea is a place to write falshood about Quran and not truth in the name of citation rule. it was underdiscussuon and instead of replying the article has been deleted.Farrukh38 (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

An archive of the deletion discussion is at WP:Articles for deletion/Al-kitab (Quran). —BradV 17:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

World Trade Centre (Melbourne)‎ - speedy declined

Just to let you know that I have declined the speedy deletion request on this article - it is about a building so an A7 does not apply. If you feel strongly about it suggest you go for WP:PROD or WP:AFD, kind regards, nancy (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've applied a prod template. —BradV 18:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 14 31 March 2008 About the Signpost
Wikimania 2009 to be held in Buenos Aires Sister Projects Interview: Wikisource 
WikiWorld: "Hammerspace" News and notes: 10M articles, $500k donation, milestones 
Dispatches: Featured content overview WikiProject Report: Australia 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

bio request on Rima Morrell

Hi - the problem I see is that the article isn't an encyclopedic article but instead a PR piece. Two or three people are quoted extensively as saying how great she is. Not only are her books listed, but the French translations of those books, which smacks of puffery. It goes on about the content of the book a little much, it seems. I just feel I am too close to the subject to be objective. I also wonder where, if at all, controversy about her work goes. I consider her work to be severely flawed but obviously other people don't. Do we put in a controversy section? Thanks for your help. Makana Chai (talk) 08:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I've moved these comments to the article's talk page. —BradV 15:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

List of cities in the Americas with alternative names

template removed —BradV 16:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

My answer : Talk:List_of_cities_in_the_Americas_with_alternative_names#Unreferenced_? Teofilo talk 16:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Mark Wills

There are still a couple sources left that list his full name; this, this and this to name a few. I added two sources to the article that show that he indeed was born Daryl Mark Williams, even if AMG no longer says so. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. —BradV 22:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, whatever works. I don't like heavy metal, but I created an article on a metal band after one of its albums was up for AfD (the band was a red link) at the time of AfD). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Scientists who believe dinosaurs are alive

What are their names and in what peer-reviewed journals do they publish? Where do they research? At what universities? ScienceApologist (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, I'm not a cryptozoologist. I suggest you look at the references in the article. I'm just concerned that people want something deleted because they don't agree with it. That would be bad for Wikipedia. —BradV 14:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
We have plenty of articles on Wikipedia about things I disagree with. However, that doesn't mean that these things with which I disagree should creep into articles about subjects that they have little to no bearing on. No cryptozoologist is an expert in determining what is or isn't a dinosaur. So reporting their perspective on articles about dinosaurs is about as unduly weighted as you can possibly get and violates the spirit and the wording of WP:FRINGE. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

helen keller conspiracy article is valid

Using common sense and logic, you cannot possibly advocate the deletion of this article. Please try to open your mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smrt1vbms (talk • contribs) 18:24, April 5, 2008

AfD for a page which has been up for 10 minutes

And which has references, is a bit much. Where does discussion on this topic (AfD Hadley Corner) belong? - Denimadept (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The building does not meet the notability requirements at WP:N. If it is not significantly improved to meet those requirements in the next 5 days, it will be deleted. You can save the article if you can provide reliable, third-party sources (such as newspaper articles) that show significant coverage of the subject. Once you have done that you can remove the prod notice from the top of the article. —BradV 18:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
There already are such references on the page. Normally, there's an AfD discussion location. Where is it for this article? Oh, also I overstated how long the article was there before you AfD'd it. - Denimadept (talk) 18:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't bring the article to AfD, I tagged it for proposed deletion. And there are guidelines at WP:N that preclude this sort of information.
If you would rather have a discussion on AfD, remove the PROD tag and I'll take it there. Cheers. —BradV 18:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
What's the difference between PROD and using AfD? All previous such discussions I've seen have been AfD. - Denimadept (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:PROD - it's all explained there. —BradV 18:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I see. Yes, I disagree that it's a clear candidate for deletion. (1) I just created it, (2) I created with "underconstruction", and (3) no crystal ball is required since it's under actual construction. - Denimadept (talk) 18:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

trigger happy

You seem to make a habit of nominating other people's work for destruction. You didn't even leave an excuse for your decision that my weeks of research was beneath contempt. Filmography pages are quite valid on WP, if I had embedded it, the Yakima Canutt article would be of a prohibitive length. EraserGirl (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a prod. If you disagree you're free to remove it. —BradV 19:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
So you really HAD no excuse to want my work deleted. Do you guys get points or gold stars for this kinda of nonsense?EraserGirl (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I explained why I felt it should go in the deletion notice. Obviously you disagree, and your rationale makes sense, so I've removed it. I certainly wasn't trying to upset you. —BradV 19:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you.EraserGirl (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I know you weren't. But seriously it took me 5 hours to format it properly, after 2 weeks of trying to figure out HOW to best represent the data. I look around and see millions of WP man hours spent denoting each and every fart of a science fiction tv show, every time someone wants to dismiss my work on biographies of people who are no longer in the pop consciousness, it makes me really really angry. I really wish that people would just ASK creators: "why is this significant?", before they slap deletion tags on things. EraserGirl (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be overreacting a little. That's what prod is for. It gives people five days to answer the questions or resolve the issues mentioned. And I wasn't suggesting your work be destroyed, I was suggesting it be placed into the main article. I'm still not sure it warrants a separate article, but I'm not going to force it either. —BradV 19:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually proposing something be deleted is having it destroyed, the article is presently 24K and I am not done, and the filmography is 34k. Do the math, embedding a table that size just isn't done. I DID my research, I looked at similar pages and similar situations and extracting it to a separate page IS how it is handled. Did you think that I typed for 5 hours on a whim? tables don't just magically construct themselves. I work on biographies of obscure dead people I am finding that unless someone is still famous, your work is judged differently. EraserGirl (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Chronology (album by Bryn Haworth)

I have no problem with this one being speedily deleted, if needs be. It's only a compliation album. But could you please explain which of the other Bryn Haworth albums are likely to be tagged in the same way, before I bother creating articles for them? In fact what are the exact criteria for an album by ANY ARTIST to be notable? Thanks Martinevans123 (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe you'll find the answers to all your questions at WP:MUSIC. —BradV 19:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, neither your beliefs nor WP:MUSIC are wholly enlightening. Which of the criteria for non-notability described at (Albums) are you applying to Chronology (album by Bryn Haworth)? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
This one: Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting. Is that a fair solution? I've removed the speedy tag for now to let you work out how you think this should be handled. —BradV 20:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
What a puzzle now give me! Like I said, this album is a compilation, so does that mean tediously and wastefully copying all the personnel credits from all the other albums from which the tracks have been taken? The same goes for producers, engineers, recording studios, etc., etc. Or would a album cover picture do? Or what else? And what about my second question? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm really not an expert on how to handle this. I guess you could try create all of the albums as separate articles, but you would need to show in each article how that album is notable (reviews, sales rankings, etc.). If that can't be easily done perhaps you could create a separate discography article to hold all the information on all his albums and singles. —BradV 21:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for the advice. I'll just do the ones which seem most significant for now. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Born Again Demo

Hi,

You had tagged the article Born Again Demo for speedy deletion under criterion A7; however "A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on." Thus, I have removed the speedy deletion template from the article; if you feel that the article should be deleted, please use PROD or AfD instead.

Thank you, Black Falcon (Talk) 22:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

CSD tagging

I believe that the article has been turned into a redirect per this AfD. Singularity 00:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware of that. Looked like POV to me. I've fixed it. —BradV 00:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Antarctica Roads

I think I might be, yes. Thanks - I'd forgotten it was there, though I knew it long ago. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 01:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Marking pages as patrolled

Hey, would you mind marking pages as patrolled when you mark them for speedy deletion? It'll save those of us monitoring New Pages some time. Thanks! TheMile (talk) 01:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

My reason for leaving those as unpatrolled was that if they aren't deleted they still show up in the unpatrolled pages. If it's easier for you I'll do it the other way. —BradV 01:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sandrew Sevans

That was not a personal attack. It was all fact. I do not know the subject. DaDASHDevil (talk) 04:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion: Jamaluddin, Abid Hussain

I am sorry that despite "hangon" and additional material and references, the pages on Ustad Abid Hussain Khan and his father Jamaluddin Khan were deleted. In continuation I was about a make an entry for Abid Hussain's grandfather, Beenkar Reza Alli Khan.

I humbly submit that Indian arts are based on the principle of impersonality and true artistes practice this even today. It was only interaction with west that made fine arts noticeable and worthy of documentation. Indian music is still a mystery, even to its practitioners; only a few of whom attain the moment of enlightenment. Unless one understands development of Indian music within the Gharana system, the term "descendent of Tansen" would hold no meaning, at least not as a reason for 'notability' or lack of it. I shall be grateful, if in consultation with an editor knowledgeable about Indian Classical Music the deleted pages are reviewed and restored. Both pages refer to a reliable secondary source, Prof. R.C. Mehta's book, Eminent Musicians of Yester Years. Both the artistes, father and son represent crucial points in evolution of North Indian Classical Music.

Please encourage people to add knowledge to public domain; it has been a fundamental belief of ancient Indian teaching system that "knowledge should be given to the deserving alone" and gave birth to caste-system based on intellectual discrimination. Pupils spent life-time devoting themselves to the whims and fancies of their Guru in order to gain Guru-mantra (grains of wisdom). The merit of such beliefs are no longer recognized. In a democratic world let not its champion Wikipedia prove that indeed, knowledge must be given only to the deserving. Best wishes, Ghanonmatta (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

A Walk Through Salem

Hello, Can you please clarify for me what is advertising and what is not? The whole section on tourism on the page seems to a laymen as myself as advertising. Granted it only covered the wealthiest in the trade. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Cheers, Chris Docspond (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The point is Don't advertise on Wikipedia. It's inappropriate, and you've been warned on your talk page, on the AfD discussion, and at deletion review. Advertising is editing Wikipedia in order to advance a particular product or service. —BradV 17:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Super Relativity

Hello Bradv,

I assume that you are the editor that will decide if the Super Relativity article will be allowed to exist within Wikipedia. If you should decide to keep the article I will expand it and add sources. I am somewhat reluctant to continue until I know for sure that it will not be deleted. I am busy writing the book and trying to meet those deadlines so I am dedicating effort to that until I know your decision. Please notify me by email. My email is mmfiore@tampabay.rr.com

Best Regards, Mark Fiorentino superrelativity.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmfiore (talk • contribs) 23:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Kürt

Thanks for tagging, but I'm afraid I had to remove your speedy tag from this article as the tag specifically excludes from "nonsense" material not in English. --Dweller (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What should I tag it as then? It obviously shouldn't be kept. —BradV 16:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, my Turkish is non-existent. Is it a hoax? About a non notable subject? --Dweller (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
It's a non-English article in the English Wikipedia. - Denimadept (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The speedy criteria instruct that a non English article isn't grounds for deletion. It should be tagged {{notenglish}}. See WP:SPEEDY --Dweller (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Freemanville, Alabama

Hi!

I agree the article was created for the wrong reasons (vandalism) but, since it does exist and there are Wikipedia articles already linking to it, I thought I'd take it upon myself to clean it up.
Peace! 17:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Smile!

WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

-WarthogDemon 18:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

NewPagePatroller

Bradv, I have merged your changes into my script so you can feel free to use mine and delete yours. Its good that they changed api.php to give patrolled status. Thank you for your work, you will get merit. --TheJosh (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

reply

WRT consensus...

Challengers to this article claim there is a consensus to delete articles like this.

In fact an administrator recently closed one as delete. That {{afd}} had 19 participants, 9 voicing keep opinions, and 9 voicing delete opinions. I'd call that a "no consensus".

Policies change. Consensus can change. The first four articles on Guantanamo captives were challenged on September 23, 2005. Three survived. The next two dozen or so Guantanamo related articles all survived their {{afd}}.

In the last seven months several {{afd}} related to Guantanamo have resulted in delete. But, FWIW, over the last two and half years, far more of these articles have survived their {{afd}} than have failed.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. So I guess this means, in effect, that every article in the category will need to be evaluated separately. —BradV 00:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Speedy Deletion of Silent Protagnist

Sorry for the short, single line definiotion... I really haven't done this before, and if you can alow me to experiment with it, and try to reorganize the entire or majority of the article, I'd be much obliged to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JederCoulious (talk • contribs) 01:27, April 10, 2008

Actually I didn't delete the article, I merely tagged it for deletion. If you read your first article and think that you can create a meaningful article on this topic, feel free to recreate it. I would recommend you recreate it in userspace (e.g. User:JederCoulious/Silent Protagonist), and move it to mainspace once you are satisfied with it. —BradV 00:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 7th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 15 7 April 2008 About the Signpost
April Fools' pranks result in temporary blocks for six admins WikiWorld: "Apples and oranges" 
News and notes: 100 x 5,000, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Dispatches: Reviewers achieving excellence Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: Speedy deletion of Daniel Brackins

why was the article Daniel Brackins deleted? You stated that the article "does not indicate how or why the subject is notable" The person, as indicated, is an Economist and is running for US congress as a GOP candidate in Hawaii. How is that not notable? Scsmith2004 (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately now that the article has been deleted I can no longer see it. The best answer I can give is that generally politicians are given articles only once they are actually elected - candidates generally don't. If you still have a question please let me know. —BradV 00:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: Speedy deletion of Daniel Brackins

Brad thinks he owns the wikipedia. He is out deleting things he doesn't like. BradV, stop deleting things all over, consider writing more. You might not be knowledgeable enough to decide on everything. Best. --Shaji K V (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Marking Splash Universe as Advertising

I have followed the same general guidelines as are in Great Wolf Lodge and Kalahari Resort (currently residing on Wikipedia). Can you please tell me how I would revise this so it is not considered advertising. The last time I put it up it wasn't considered substantial enough so it got deleted...I added to it and now it's considered advertising. Please advise.

Rena —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdvQwestKids (talk • contribs) 19:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Coastal Contacts

Could you please advice me as to the specific area with which you believe that this is advertising a product? In my opinion this is an informative article about a public company and doesn’t actually try to promote or sell the product. I respect your opinion, so please inform me which part of the article you have a problem with and I will make appropriate edits. Jackson Styles (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Your speedy tag on Benarty

I'm not sure why you put a {{db-nocontext}} tag on Benarty - there was sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. I have therefore removed the tag, and also quickly added a source to it from the first hit in Google, which proved suitable. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 14th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 16 14 April 2008 About the Signpost
From the editor 
Interview with the team behind one of the 2,000th featured articles Image placeholders debated 
WikiWorld: "Pet skunk" News and notes: Board meeting, milestones 
Wikipedia in the News Dispatches: Featured article milestone 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Being Called A Troll

Brad, my beloved Brad, I just wanted to know what television series and films are filming in the State of Florida because I felt like I needed to know these types of things because I like the State of Florida so much that I bought the book Florida for Dummies. Is that why you called me a "troll"? I should never be ignored by anybody who has a mind like mine and you know that, my beloved Brad. Ericthebrainiac (talk) 21:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 18 2 May 2008 About the Signpost
From the editor 
Wikimedia Board to expand, restructure Arbitrator leaves Wikipedia 
Bot approvals group, checkuser nominations briefly held on RfA WikiWorld: "World domination" 
News and notes: Board elections, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Dispatches: Did You Know ... Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Volume 4, Issue 19 9 May 2008 About the Signpost
Sister Projects Interview: Wikiversity WikiWorld: "They Might Be Giants" 
News and notes: Board elections, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Dispatches: Featured content from schools and universities Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

audiotube entry

Bradv,

I have uploaded the 'about audiotube' page to my userspace as you suggested and it would be really cool if you could review it?

the article is here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Audioman7/AudioTube

we are going to add our logo as well and clean up the tables and links a bit. the article was written very factually, i am not sure what else we need to do in order to ensure that we are compliant?

thanks in advance

karsten

>>

"You may have a case here, but you have to be very careful to follow the guidelines at WP:COI and WP:SPAM. I would suggest creating an article in userspace, e.g. User:Audioman7/AudioTube. Once you feel it meets the guidelines let me know and we'll get it moved to mainspace" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Audioman7 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 20 12 May 2008 About the Signpost
Explicit sexual content draws fire Sighted revisions introduced on the German Wikipedia 
Foundation receives copyright claim from church Board to update privacy policy, adopts data retention policy 
Update on Citizendium Board candidacies open through May 22 
Two wiki events held in San Francisco Bay Area New feature enables users to bypass IP blocks 
WikiWorld: "Tony Clifton" News and notes: Autoconfirmed level, milestones 
Wikipedia in the News Dispatches: Changes at Featured lists 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
WCWM
The Glen Campbell Goodtime Hour
W^X
Roz Weston
Throw Momma from the Train
List of Korean ceramic artists and sculptors
Global symmetry
HBO channels
KCSM
Cool (aesthetic)
Olympic Village
PrimeTime Radio
Military communications
Wonton
Chicago Theological Seminary
Newton, Massachusetts
Aglaea
Fo Tan
Malaspina University-College
Cleanup
Closed list
Alucard (Hellsing)
Leonard Part 6
Merge
Unitard
Islamization
AOL
Add Sources
A1 (band)
Tom DeLonge
Tsutomu Miyazaki
Wikify
Pick and roll
Elliot S! Maggin
Bowling Green State University
Expand
Orbit Satellite Television and Radio Network
KFC
Paleolithic

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- ForteTuba (talk) 11:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

audiotube wiki page

hi,

i put the audiotube page in userspace and tried to contact you... didnt hear anything back?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Audioman7/AudioTube

after not hearing back i tried posting it today but it was, again, taken down...

please let me know what to do?

thanks

karsten —Preceding unsigned comment added by Audioman7 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impressin that Commanderwaffles did not request wiki sucks to be deleted nor did he blank the page. Therefore, the page didn't qualify for {{db-author}}. --Justpassin (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well he certainly predicted its deletion. ;) —BradV 19:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Patrol

Actually, that has been something I have been a bit confused about. I edit the page, and the patrol link seems to disappear. How would you suggest marking them patrolled? Erechtheus (talk) 02:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It makes no sense for it to work that way (I imagine it's either a tech limitation or something), but your workaround makes a lot of sense. I'll try to work that into my new page patrolling. Erechtheus (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Patrol?

What exactly does it mean when you mark a page as patrolled? Bwrs (talk) 05:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

See WP:NPPLOG. —BradV 14:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Speedy deletion of Michael Machell

I don't see why the article should be deleted, Someone who's appeared on the Semi-finals of a major TV show deserves an article and is perfectly notable. Apex Glide (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Then I would put a {{hangon}} notice on the page and discuss on the article's talk page. —BradV 16:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you let me know why the ionfo on karyo was deleted?

it is something about which not many know, so, I had just put a few informative lines there!

I will appreciate if you let it be. It IS NO SPAM OR ADVERTISING! pl. check in details! I will be happy if you do so! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Rekhaa Kale (talk • contribs) 18:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see the rationale I left on your talk page. —BradV 19:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

New Messages From Mifter

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

About the bot

Hi Bradv - I've already apologised to one new page patroller. The bot was limited to a 100 article run as part of its approval process over at BAG. As you will now see, the bot has reached its limit - I will come manually clear the backlog and lend a paw for a few minutes. Once the bot is approved, it will have the bot flag, so can be excluded from NPP. Terribly sorry about that, but there wasn't anything I could do! Fritzpoll (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand. No problem. —BradV 19:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Serious Business

I wasn't aware that you had tagged it as speedy. You may reinsert the tag.

FWIW, I couldn't place it in any of the CSDs, but you may have seen it differently. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 22:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I agree with you. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 22:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Lil' Wil

Regarding your comment in the AfD for Lil' Wil -- The singer has charted on at least two Billboard charts, as verified here. A charted single is almost always an assertation of notability, and I have no reason to believe otherwise. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Cabal

What cabal won't let me in? :-P Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

page guidelines

Brad

Are we allowed to create pages to provide information about the history and services of a company? I see that ebay and other companies have pages - what criteria must a business meet to warrant such an entry?

thanks! Andrew —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kangaroo4u (talk • contribs) 02:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You can create pages about anything that meets the requirements for an encyclopedia. See the welcome page for more information. If you're trying to advertise, however, it doesn't matter how you phrase it - it will be deleted. —BradV 02:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Neeva article

Hi,

I uploaded an article on Danish band Neeva and it got deleted - apparently because it didn't fulfill any of the 'notability' regulations. On that note I want to draw your attention to point 11 of the 'Criteria for musicians and ensembles' - the one about rotation on a national radio station. Neeva has had many plays on Danish national station P3. Furthermore it was named 'track of the week' by one of the largest Danish tabloid papers Ekstrabladet.

Links to validate notability:

http://www.dr.dk/playlister/avSearch/?cidName=avsc (type 'neeva' and toggle the 'kunstner' box before hitting the green 'søg' button)

http://ekstrabladet.dk/musik/dkmusiknyt/article1010166.ece

Best regards

Dallandkjærsgaard (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Try create the article in userspace (User:Dallandkjærsgaard/Neeva) and I'll take a look. —BradV 15:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoops

On the Sun pipe redirect, it wasn't the article link that I did wrong, it was the redirect command itself (there should be no space between the # and the command). All fixed now. Thanks for the help. — NRen2k5(TALK), 17:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

And that was my first attempt ever at making a redirect. Going to do a few more now. — NRen2k5(TALK), 17:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Kyle newcomb

Thanks for monitoring Kyle newcomb :-) Nyttend (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. —BradV 21:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

ACTISEC

Ideally I will try to attend to this article tonight or tomorrow. Thank you for reconsidering speedy. If you have any suggestions, let me know, please. :-) GreenJoe 21:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Washing powder vs chunk of rock

It seems a pity not to allow for a little wry amusement from time to time. The seeming pro-astronomy anti-home economics bias of WP (in that we allow an article on a tiny chuck of rock but not one on a washing powder used by 1000's every week) is a little weird. What about the WP is not paper argument? What about the WP:IAR argument, if it's against the rules. Many find the washing powder connection amusing. I'll put it back and ask you leave it there. Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've reverted it back. —BradV 00:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Untitled

Bradv,

Don't know if you reply to my talk but the window just disappeared. How can I upload my articles and fulfill the 'notability' regulations (to avoid 'speedy deletion')? Have links of all sorts to prove that the info might interest a lot of people. Don't want to harm the artists, so please don't block their names anyway.

Thank you, PhilC2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilC2008 (talk • contribs) 02:08, May 29, 2008

Repled with a template on your talkpage. If you still have questions please reply here. —BradV 02:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


Brad,

I am sorry. I want to add an article about Qazan khan. Enerelt —Preceding comment was added at 06:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


Thank you

Thank you for your answer. I will try to reedit the article and I'll ask for need some help if needed. The artist's name is still 'speedy for deletion', what do I have to do to change that? PhilC2008 (talk) 09:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)PhilC2008

UNO

Hello Bradv, I had added a link to the developer of UNO for smartphones on the UNO page and I believe you marked it as spam. I guess I'm not sure why that is? Concrete Software currently holds the rights to UNO for smartphones - BlackBerry, Windows Mobile, and Palm OS. Concrete has made the game and handles all the distribution - all the info is listed on the Concrete site. Was it the wording? I thought it seemed relevent since the other platforms UNO was on were listed as well.

207.67.16.170 (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It was apparent you had a conflict of interest regarding Concrete Software, and were using Wikipedia to promote and advertise both the company and its products. I've left some useful information on your talk page. —BradV 19:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Shack choreographer

Hi

I tried to put a description on the trajectory of a hip hop choreographer called Shack, but has been rejected. I do not understand that I'm putting badly or if we need to attach some information. I do not understand what my mistake. Since I reported that the next time that it tries to be blocked and I do not want that happens, I just want to make such information correct.

What I do?

Thank you

Yarmouth School District (Maine)

Thanks for the brackets. Too late in the day and not enough caffeine. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. —BradV 05:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Brael

I've removed the speedy deletion tag from the above article. While the subject might not be notable, the article does assert notability in a reasonable way. You may wish to list it at WP:AFD instead, to get a broader consensus on the article. Thanks for your time and your hard work reporting these articles - even though I'm not deleting this particular one, your efforts are very much appreciated. Kafziel Complaint Department 06:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I ask what specifically is considered an assertion of notability in this article? Generally I look for whether the band has toured anywhere or has released any albums or singles that achieved any level of success. Neither of those criteria seem to be satisfied here. —BradV 06:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Evidently, the author feels the fact that the band has received airplay on BBC makes them notable. Another user on the article's talk page feels that that's an assertion of notability. Valid or not (I'm inclined to say "not"), at any rate it's enough to keep it from being speedied. I think you'd be successful if you start an AFD; without some serious improvements, the article will almost certainly be deleted. Kafziel Complaint Department 07:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay thanks for the explanation. —BradV 12:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

About the RFC bot

An occasional, reoccurring glitch of the RFC bot involves it wiping out the RFC lists. This may be caused by a misinterpretation of the what-links-here listings that the API produces when it refuses to give a response. It is not that much of a concern, though, as the problem fixes itself. MessedRocker (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)