User talk:Supposed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hey there - I noticed your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One stop phone shop, and thought I would drop you a note to let you know that DJ Clayworth is referring to Wikipedia's Criteria for Speedy Deletion when using the term "speediable". When an article is deleted according to the CSD then it is said to have been "speedied" for short. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 04:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


Welcome!

Hello, Supposed, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

In reply to your questions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One stop phone shop, I did not delete the article previously. Another administrator thought it was deletable under Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion. (Peruvianllama already explained what that meant). I disagreed, but since some people obviously think it should be deleted the easiest way is to get the opinion of the community. The article will stay listed for five days, and if there is a consensus to delete it it will be deleted. If not it will be kept. In my personal opinion bits of it do read rather like an advert; making it more neutral would help it's chances of being kept. DJ Clayworth 04:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I've started the Totalise Plc v Motley Fool Ltd page. --Kchase02 05:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Cheers, appreciated. I have to gotta go to bed so will see the outcome of this in say 10hours from now.

see you later. Supposed 05:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Category:Reward websites

Hello, I've done what you asked for at Category:Reward websites. To add an article to a category, add [[Category:Some category name]] anywhere in the text of the article (usually at the bottom). Likewise, to make a category a subcategory of another category, add [[Category:Parent category name]] to the child category. See Wikipedia:Category for more information. Conscious 12:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for that. Muchos appreciation Supposed 12:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed wikiproject by Salix alba (talk • contribs • count)

Are you interested in joining? I think that it will be similar to Esperanza and Department of Fun (Respond on my talk page). Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 20:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Navigation Templates

Please read the Navigation Template. I have explained why the Template is important the way it is. Talk:Environmental_technology--E-Bod 20:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually you are right the template seem really strange. the other template is more appropriate--E-Bod 00:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion

Hello! I noticed that you have identified yourself as an Anglican, and so I thought that you may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion! Cheers! Fishhead64 23:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Video on conversion disorder

Hi thanks for putting that link up on the conversion disorder talk page. Unfortunately the link doesn't work, but I'd be very interested to see it. Can you update?

Paul --PaulWicks 07:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

I was looking at a website earlier where all these videos are but I'm having problems finding now.

However the videos are availabwe through yahoo search, you need to click on the video stub to view them. If you click on the link to the page it says that page is no longer available. It's quite strange.

The video you're after is at the bottom of this page

http://uk.search.yahoo.com/search/video?p=schizophrenia&ei=UTF-8&cv=g&fr=FP-tab-vid-t&b=21

[edit] Esperanza

I noticed you failed to meet the entry requirements a while ago for Esperanza, but it looks to me as if you could now join!

If you are still interested, we'd be glad to welcome you- just re-read the requirements here and follow the instructions.

I look forward to seeing you around!

EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 20:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quidco

Thought I'd let you know that Quidco has been proposed for deletion. NickelShoe (Talk) 19:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Aye thank you. There are several problems this and similar nominations. I will try and work through them later.

For example both rpoints and quidco are definately notable as Martin Lewis wrote an article in The_Guardian in which both were compared, in quite a biased fashion.

Secondly it's a little absurd to suggest this is sel-promotion as I would have to have a stake in all of these business's greasypalm rpoints and quidco.

Epinions has also been nominated for deletion yet it's owned by shopping.com who are owned by ebay. Quidco is a much better option for consumers and consumers should be informed as to how these websites work and how to best shop online. Wikipedia offers a way to inform the consumer without introducing bias.

Paypal has an article, in the same vain epinions should have an article as they are also owned by ebay but then why should the site which has the biggest business weight behind it have notability, especially why should it have it when the deal offered for consumers on epinions is alot worse than alternatives.

I will edit the content of these articles later, then remove the tags and then if necessary let it go to vote. Supposed 13:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Supposed 13:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for taking the time to write a message. I nominated the articles not because of anything they have done. Rather it is what they have not done. Wiki Guidelines on this will help us both and get a better article for all. Wikipedia:Companies,_corporations_and_economic_information/Notability_and_inclusion_guidelines
As such, you can add to that. Tell me how many days you think you'll need and be generous with the time, but not toooo generous. After that, if the articles still look feebile, I will WP:AfD.
Lastly, please sign your message with the four tilde ~~~~. This makes it easier for everyone to communicate. Also, I'll pull any tags you missed. meatclerk 05:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] epinion & quidco

Supposed, do you plan on taking over these articles? or should I PROD again? or AfD? I would prefer you write. meatclerk 05:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Supposed, I write to you again, asking about these articles. I assume that you need 3-4 months. Is this enough time? meatclerk 20:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to write to me about these issues. I feel that there is no issue with the Quidco article anymore as because the corporation has been featured in both a BBC and Guardian article it now meets WP:CORP Criteria.

As for Epinion, I don't know a huge amount about it in comparison to the other sites, however it is owned by Ebay so I would expect it to meet WP:CORP criteria very easily. I think it meets WP:CORP criteria simply because ebay is listed on the shares indexes.

Lastly you can't rePROD articles, you can only PROD them once. If you want the articles to be deleted you will have to go through the AfD process. Supposed 17:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Putting aside some assumptions, I note you have done some good work on several "web reward sites". However, they have some trival links mostly as a means to avoid obvious wikify. I'll clean them up, if you get the articles, as you promised. Will that work for you? meatclerk 22:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Esperanza membership

Hi!

I noticed you still haven't accepted membership into Esperanza- if you're no longer interested, would you consider removing your name from this list please?

I hope you do decide to join!

Regards,

EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 18:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reward Websites

Supposed, I note that a very limited amount of work on these websites. Are you giving up on them? I clean some of them up. They contained inappropriate links. Also, I should note that "press releases" are not considered valid news article for verification of a corporation. They are considered "trivial", hence of no value. None of the articles are on my watch list. So you have all the time you need, but please make some effort. Best regards. meatclerk 07:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Meatclerk, your tone to put it mildly is annoying but made worse because you should more carefully read the criteria you quote.

The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for the following: Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about itself, and advertising for the company. 1 Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories.2

both Quidco and rpoints meet the above criteria because they have been the subject of non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.

Your definition of trivial coverage is not the same as the quote from WP:CORP above, whereby trivial coverage refers to newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publication of telephone nubers and addresses in business directories. For that matter you haven't even read the guardian article, so you have no grounds whatsoever to call this work trivial. I have read it. The BBC article goes into alot of detail on rpoints so for rpoints that work is definately not trivial.

Unfortunately there are dodgy dealings going on in regards to all the articles mentioned. Do you not find it odd that the worst deals for consumers are the sites that get the most coverage? For these business's having an article written is often about who you know and Martin Lewis is known to have a very cosy relationship with rpoints. In which case the above criteria may be violated on grounds that it's not independent, unfortunately it's hard to prove this but I can show you clear bias on his part.

Lastly, the tone that you adopt toward me is confrontational. Your comment reads like a telling off, I have written a damning report on rpoints with evidence that 'effort' to create, more effort than anyone else has put into these articles, so why do you feel it necessary to complain to me for lack of effort? Your task is not to have these articles deleted and ask other people to tell you why, your time would be better served at finding out why these articles shouldn't be deleted and perhaps then improving them yourself.Supposed 10:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Supposed, I appoligize for my tone. I perhaps should do this earlier in the day, so as I have more time to edit any possibly tone issues. Please know I am on your side and working in good faith. So, if I might ask at this time, please overlook my frank tone.
With regards to the news clips you offered, you quote the correct section I was looking for. I appoligize for not pointing to them directly. But as you quite clearly have the section, perhaps you missed the section where I state They are considered "trivial",. True it can be easy to miss, so here it is:

except for the following: Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about itself, and advertising for the company. 1 Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories.

Perhaps you can see where it says, publications where the company or corporation talks about itself. This is by definition a press release, and of course not valid.
I'll correct this on the article and leave other issues till next time. Thanks for your patience meatclerk 15:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • On reflection, I'll leave the correction on the articles for another day. Please note forums and blogs are not permitted either. Thanks meatclerk 15:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Reward Websites 2

In the case of the guardian article by martin Lewis, your assertion here that this article is the company or corporation talking about itself is absurb because this is an indepedent financial journalist comparing both rpoints and quidco in a bias fashion, nowhere in this article are the companies asked to comment, so again this does not violate WP:CORP. The more important thing that you should be focusing on is that he takes a strong position toward recommending rpoints even though it's very obvious that it offers a worse choice for consumers, but regardless of this your assertion that neither of these press releases meet WP:CORP is wrong. I understand why you want to keep the peace and it's probably best but you're telling me that an article which you have never read does not meet WP:CORP!Supposed 17:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
With regards to the article by Martin Lewis, I have made no such assertion.
To assist in the resolution of these external links. I am listing them one by one. I will mark each one valid or not. It's up to you to agree or disagree.

This is a press release. It is not valid. Please note the website is prnewswire.co.uk. This is a well known website and agency for press releases. I do not need to read it.

This is the offical company website. It is valid.

  • Martin Lewis, 08/10/2005 Cashback sites article The Guardian "Quidco, the choice for cashback kings".

This is not an external link. This story is not on their website. (That is, the website listed in the wikipedia article.) It is not valid. However, it may be valid for Additional reading. As I cannot verify that, I will take you at your word that it exists.

This is a trival article. It is not valid. I read the article, especially the two sentences that talk about quidco.

Should any of this seem unreasonable, I include the link to Wikipedia:External_links guidelines.
Just to be clear on this. Multiple non-trival articles will help define a corporation for listing on wikipedia. (I take it that at least two (2), not counting the company website, is multiple) This means that if more than two articles are listed about the company, then this serves to make them non-trival and hence, notable enough for listing in Wikipedia. Regardless of what they do, they are a corporation and publicly traded company, hence WP:Corp are one set of guidelines. On this matter, I will help you with this article.
So, if we take the Martin Lewis article and another article, then it should be okay when listed as a Corporation, at least by me. However, the other article should be verifyable. meatclerk 05:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geography Wikiproject

Hello, I thought you might be interested in helping Wikipedia:WikiProject_Geography If so, just add your name to the page. Thanks AlexD 11:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to Esperanza

Welcome, Supposed, to Esperanza! As you might know, all the Esperanzians share one important goal: the success of this encyclopedia. Within that, we then attempt to strengthen the community bonds, and be the "approachable" side of the project. All of our ideals are held in the Charter, the governing document of the association.

Now that you are a member you should read the guide to what to do now or you may be interested in some of our programs. A quite important program is Stressbusters, which seeks to support editors who have encountered any stress from their Wikipedia events, and are seeking to leave the project. So far, Esperanza can be credited with the support and retention of several users. We will send you newsletters to keep you up to date. Also, we have a calendar of special events, member birthdays, and other holidays that you can add to and follow.

In addition to these projects, several more missions of Esperanza are in development, and are currently being created at Esperanza/Proposals.

If you have any other questions, concerns, comments, or general ideas, Esperanzian or otherwise, know that you can always contact our administrator general Natalya by email or talk page. Consider introducing yourself at the Esperanza talk page! Alternatively, you could communicate with fellow users via our IRC channel, #wikipedia-esperanza (which is also good for a fun chat or two :). If you're new to IRC, you may find help at an IRC tutorial. I thank you for joining Esperanza, and look forward to working with you in making Wikipedia a better place to work!

Húsönd 18:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Welcome again to Esperanza! If you want to blow off some steam or just chat come on down to the Esperanza Coffee Lounge, that's where it's at! Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . 3 07:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] November Esperanza Newsletter

Program Feature: Admin Coaching (needs coaches!)
Admin Coaching needs coaches!!! If you are an administrator, or even a generally experienced user, do consider signing up to be a coach.

Admin Coaching, now being coordinated by HighwayCello, is a program for people who want help learning some of the more subtle aspects of Wikipedia policy and culture. People are matched with experienced users who are willing to offer coaching. The program is designed for people who have figured out the basics of editing articles; they're not newcomers any more, but they might want some help in learning new roles. In this way, Esperanza would help keep hope alive for Wikipedia because we would always be grooming the next generation of admins.
What's New?
The Tutorial Drive is a new Esperanza program! In an effort to make complicated processes on Wikipedia easier for everyone, Esperanza working to create and compile a list of tutorials about processes here on Wikipedia. Consider writing one!
A discussion on how Esperanza relates to the encyclopedia has been started; please add your thoughts.
Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.
The last AC meeting (full log)
  • The list of proposed programs has been updated, with some proposals being archived.
  • There is now a new program: the Tutorial Drive! Consider writing a tutorial on something you are good at doing on Wikipedia.
  • The suggestion of adding a cohesive look to all the Esperanza pages is being considered; join the discussion if you are interested!
  • In order to make a useful interlanguage welcome template, those involved in translation projects will be asked what English Wikipedia policies are most important and confusing to editors coming from other language Wikipedias.
  • A discussion of Esperanza's role in Wikipedia is being held, with all thoughts of all Esperanzians wanted!
  • Shreshth91 informed everyone that he will be leaving the Esperanza council as life is rather busy; his spot will be filled by the runner up from the last election, HighwayCello.
Signed...
Natalya, Banes, Celestianpower, EWS23, FireFox, The Halo, Shreshth91 and HighwayCello
20:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.

[edit] World's Smallest Political Quiz userbox

You may be interested in User:Audacity/Userboxes/WSPQ, which is a replacement for the old Political Chart userbox. The new userbox takes the two variables (economic and personal freedom), calculates which political alignment they place you into (Statist, Libertarian, Liberal, Centrist, or Conservative), and links your userpage to the appropriate category.

Please reply to User talk:Audacity, as I will not be watching your talk page. Λυδαcιτγ 07:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Rpointscensor.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Rpointscensor.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. MECU≈talk 04:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Rpointscensoragain.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Rpointscensoragain.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. MECU≈talk 04:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Rpointscensoragain2.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Rpointscensoragain2.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. MECU≈talk 04:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Environment barnstar

I have created a barnstar for Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment. Please visit the talk page to vote for the barnstar since there are no votes for 2 months. OhanaUnited 02:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Quidco

I've nominated Quidco, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Quidco satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quidco and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Quidco during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. RJASE1 Talk 01:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of this article, I have gone back and changed my vote to keep. Nice work updating the article, but be careful of bias slipping in. All the best. J Milburn 20:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] April 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. An article you recently created, Mason tvert, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new articles, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do and please read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. Coren 03:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

And why might that be? It's a little hasty :-) Supposed 03:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't reply earlier; I only infrequently check user talk pages where I left messages; it's usually faster to reach someone by replying on their talk page instead.
As for Mason tvert, it was simply a tiny page with some broken markup. It was probably an editing mistake on your part; try to remember to use the Show preview button before saving an article-- this will help you catch errors before they make it "live". Happy editing! Coren 23:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bude Surf Rock

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article Bude Surf Rock, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but yours may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. 172.164.240.39 22:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Greasypalm.gif

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Greasypalm.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Wakeham

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article Bill Wakeham, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but yours may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. The Sunshine Man 17:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New task force

Hi Supposed, A few editors are getting together to create a task force with the goal of making sure environmental records of corporations and politicians are accurately and efficiently represented in relevant entries. Given your interest in environmental topics, I thought I'd bring your attention to this project. If you think it's a good idea, please consider chiming in on the discussion page. We hope to have a task force page up soon and of course would love to have you involved...Benzocane 23:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of Mobileshop.com

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Mobileshop.com, by Hu12 (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Mobileshop.com is an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Mobileshop.com, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Mobileshop.com itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 02:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apigenin

Trying to get an article deleted that you do no think qualifies for deletion is not appropriate. Please see Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. If you have a problem with a deletion that I did, the reasonable thing to do would be to discuss it with me. --Ed (Edgar181) 11:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Murphey.jpg

I was thinking of uploading this image to commons, but got doubts when the lisence on flickr, and on the description-page didn't match. Kagee (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

sorry I don't know what the code is for the other creative commons licence template. If you do, could you replace the one that's there with the correct one. Thanks. Incidently, upon reflection my worry is the person who uploaded it to flickr did not take the picture. It looks like a pretty professional photo. Perhaps it's available from a commercial source on the internet somewhere and the flickr user just downloaded it and added it to flickr. Supposed (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The tag would be {{cc-by-nc}}, but tha's just a big speedy-delete, so after a few seconds of IRC-chat, it was tagged, and was deleted 10 seconds later. To bad - i wanted that image om Commons... Kagee (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Although I agree it's most like a copyright violation on flickr, until that can actually be verified there is nothing wrong whatsoever in adding it to the commons. What reasoning did they give for the deletion? Unless they are certain the image is from a commercial source they should not delete itSupposed (talk) 07:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The problem was the "no commercial use"-part of the liscence the image was distributed by on flicker. Neither en.wikipedia or commons can use images that are distrubuted using that. Kagee (talk) 11:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
No commercial use shouldn't be a problem on wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a commercial entity, it is a non-profit organisation. The concern is over whether we break the licence by using it, and since wikipedia is not commercial we're perfectly within the licence using such an image on wikipedia. It would be an issue to a company using the image but wikipedia is not a company it's a non-profit organisation. Plus that's the standard CC licence on flickr I think. There must be lots of images used on wikipedia under that licence. Supposed (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The default Flicker license is "None (All rights reserved)", i think.
Remember, Wikipedia is not the "Non-commercial encyclopedia", it is "the free encyclopedia".
From Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Images_and_media:

   This includes images licensed under a "Non-commercial Creative Commons License".

And i do believe Jimbo Wales Talk page says it quite clairly:

   NC- and ND- licenses are not acceptable for any Wikimedia Foundation project. 
   This has always been policy, and always will be policy. 
   Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia.


Case Closed? Kagee (talk) 09:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mason Tvert

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Mason Tvert, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Mason Tvert. Jfire (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] cannabis

hi, please provide a source for this edit, or delete the sentence, currently worded weasel-like. We cannot write claims saying that some serious academic study "was criticized" without giving any info on by whom and where. It is undermining the factual and grounded information, and purely rhetorically. Pundit|utter 21:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chick Slaughtering

There was a consensus to merge and redirect this article. If you want to recreate it, I suggest proposing it at an appropriate discussion forum (like Wikiproject Agriculture). But unilaterally undoing the result of consensus result is not okay. VanTucky 07:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Van tucky you should not merge an article then forget to include that information in the merged article. It's really unhelpful and damages wikipedia. You're effectively removing information. If you want the article merged then please at the very least go to the trouble of including that information in the merged article. Your actions mean such information has been effectively ommited from wikipedia for several months. Supposed (talk) 07:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
It was not all merged (a merge does not require all info be merged 100%, read WP:MERGE) because very little of it is appropriate for other articles, and it's not a sufficiently notable independent subject to merit an article. Chick slaughtering is just one of many forms of animal culling, and isn't really special or notable according to its coverage in reliable sources. Practically no chicken sources talk about it at all (such as the ones at my disposal in my sandbox). VanTucky 07:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Regardless your actions however well intentioned have meant notable content has been removed from wikipedia for several months. That is unacceptable and niether do I think it's acceptable for someone to merge an article and include next to nothing in regards to that merge in the new artcle. You can't just expect other people to do it. It's lazy and also suggests you didn't want to merge teh articles but infact wanted them deleted although I will assume good faith in that. However for example regarding maceration? That's notable isn't it? So you have removed notable information from wikipedia for several months. Supposed (talk) 07:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)