User talk:7/Archive 1

Hey, Would it be wise to read a page before requesting it for speedy deletion? Thanks.

Innocent until proven guilty, read it before reporting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AzzleMcFazzle (talk • contribs) 23:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I read the article, and it doesn't do anything to assert notability for the main subject (Aaron Naughton) or for the other people mentioned in the article. Please read the notability requirements for biographies. If you are Aaron or are related to him you should also consider reading WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI. Also - to help other editors please make sure to sign your talk page comments. Regards. --    7  ^{{ talk to me }}     23:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I understand that you don't want gratuitous postings, but on the women's magazines, there are many listed with similiar descriptions, so where am I off base in how I wrote this as I want to do it right. JJShelby (talk) 00:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello, thanks for your note. Here are the two main points that make this appear to me to be an advertisement:

• It's totally unreferenced yet it makes very positive claims. Please check out WP:REF for citing references for these claims.
• Comments like "one of the fastest growing", "of interest to any woman" and "unlike other online magazines" all sound like advertising posing an an encyclopedia article.

You may want to consider reading WP:YFA for tips on your first article.

Also, encyclopedia entries should always maintain a neutral point of view.

As mentioned on your talk page, you can add the hangon tag to the page if you plan to improve the article. If it does get deleted you can ask an admin to userfy it for you (details also on your talk page).

Good luck with the article. (May I ask one question, are you an employee of that website?)

Regards.    7  ^{{ talk to me }}     01:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

One more quick point - if the article stays on Wikipedia (or if you re-create it later) then it should probably renamed to BettyConfiential.com - the disambiguation term "(magazine)" is not needed. Regards.    7  ^{{ talk to me }}     01:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I get the use of fastest growing etc.. I took it from the about us page. I am a fan of the site and doing research on women's magazines and saw many similiar ones listed. I will delete and practice first. JJShelby (talk) 01:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok - if you are willing to delete the page yourself you can do that by editing the page and replacing all content with this exact quote (including brackets):

{{db-author}}

Regards    7  ^{{ talk to me }}     01:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Since you mentioned practicing - please check out "user subpages" - you can consider creating this article in your user page. After you feel like you have a good start on the article in your userpage you can submit it for other editors to comment/review at WP:AFC. One last thing (sorry for all the homework), please be careful of taking information from an "about us" page or from some other copyrighted source. Even if you paraphrase it can still be a copyright violation. Best to say it in your own words and back it up with citations/references. Thanks and good luck editing.    7  ^{{ talk to me }}     01:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cunard for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. --DunkinDonutBoy (talk) 05:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank You for being kind with me, I thought I was ready but I know I need more practice now x —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aimeelo (talk • contribs) 23:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

You are quite welcome. Good luck and happy editing.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   23:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

hi could you please expain this to me....you are the only person i got a real response from.THANYOU!!!! i would like to know the grounds for conflict of interest. i am not Mark Howard. but i happen find it somewhat absurd that he has worked on some of the most acclaimed albums of the last 20 years and he doesnt have a wikipedia page. which is why i am so passionate about this. i have come up against lots of detours but continue to persevere as im really excited about wikipedia. could you please tell me why all the grammy awards and nominations were removed? they are all correct. what evidence do i need to show you? could you please return them? he is an engineer on most and gets a grammy ward of participation. please explain this to me. thankyou very much.--Charliedylan (talk) 05:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC) ps.. ok i now understand about editing my own page but i am just trying to get it all together and its taking awhile. and i didnt realse i couldnt add Marks name on other peoples wiki pages because its a conflict of interest! is that even when his name should be ther? i now understand and wont do that again. but please put the awards back up!!!!--Charliedylan (talk) 05:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC) [edit]Jan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charliedylan (talk • contribs) 06:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I see you have posted the same question to OrangeMike, the admin who marked these things. He should reply shortly. Regards.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   06:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry if I do not use this talk system the way intended by its creators (I am confused by it). Let me provide some answers.

> This article is tagged for notability (see WP:WEB), not for a problem with its references.

I read WP:WEB but I am still confused why notability is a problem - since your reply implies that the problems with the references you identified are not related to the establishment of notability. Can you please indicate what you would like to see for notability satisfaction?

> But since you mention references, please view WP:RS. None of these references are exactly reliable. One is a blog.

makeuseof.com is not a personal blog though - an edited one. (it has been used to establish notability of other wikipedia articles, too).

> The IEEE reference has no mention of this product in the abstract (and you need to be a member to read further).

That is a result of copyright restrictions (hint: googling the article will help finding the fulltext without requiring membership). I do understand, however, the lack of obvious connection.

> The heise link is a donation download site where anyone can list,

That's not true. The "donation download site" *is* the article subject website. Having that link on heise is a result of editorial action on the part of heise.

> World Symposium doesn't mention this product at all.

OK point taken that the connection should be established more clearly.

> Plus, it kind of seems like an advertisement pretending to be an encyclopedia entry.

I understand this to be a comment on 'writing style'. Correct?

Many thanks for your response.

Besensilver (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)besensilverReply

Besensilver - the summary of WP:WEB is: (my comments in bold)

Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers,(<-- Your article does do this) but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, (<-- Yours article does not do this) ...

I only focused your sources because you mentioned how strong your references were.

May I ask, are you affiliated with this site?

Regards.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   22:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Also - my comment on "advertising" is not a comment about your writing style (sentence structure, punctuation, etc...) but is about my gutt feeling that even if this website was notable the way you have written the article is more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia entry and may not be from a neutral point of view - for example your article doesn't mention anything about the other websites that offer similar services.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   22:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

"(Female homosexual behaviour was never criminal anywhere in the United Kingdom nor did concern for Queen Victoria's sensibilities ever prevent legislation against lesbianism being drafted.)" The second half of this sentence was deleted as being 'unsourced'. I replaced it as the first half of the sentence is also unsourced. So do both go or both stay? Nobody has disputed either part so I think they should both stay. Does that seem reasonable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.69.125 (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I disagree. The first sentence (in the article currently) as it is written summarizes the outcome of the case. While this sentence is not directly cited, it's facts are supported by the external links provided. Actually, this whole article needs work on it's citations and I have tagged it as such. The sentence you added does not summarize the outcome of the case but hypothesizes or proposes a possible reason why no similar legislation was ever drafted for women. Nowhere else in this article is the Queen or monarchy mentioned, nor does it appear that people are referring to lack of concern for someone's opinion as a reason something did or didn't happen. If there are references to support what you have added, then please cite them and add it back in. Thanks.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   23:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

can you please help me. i am dealing with orange mike who has deleted something off my page and refuses to acknowledge that he doesnt have the correct informayion regarding grammy award nominations and who qualifies to get one. who do i go to to rectify this situation. who are you people that i am talking to anyway. is it just anyone that is editing my page? who can take control of this situation? please give me some guidance--Charliedylan (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Charliedylan - OrangeMike has suggested that you post the article to the noticeboard for review (and I'd like to mention that you can take it to WP:RFC if you want further review). However I have to be honest with you that I agree with what OrangeMike has said, so I have posted a comment for you here asking others for their toughts. For your other questions on who we are - I strongly suggest you read at least two of the links I left at the top of your talk page a few days ago - namely Wikipedia Tutorial and The five pillars of Wikipedia. Anyone can edit (almost) any article. I'm just an editor interested in keeping the place tidy, and OrangeMike is an admin with a whole lot of experience. Regards.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   01:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

ok thanks i really appreciate your advice. i obviously need to do some more research on what is going on here. it is very overwhelming. i will be very interested to see what comes of your notice. thankyou for taking the time for me.--Charliedylan (talk) 01:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

what is going on. i feel like your going to delete me again..i saw the comment on the music board. god i feel like im in trouble im just trying to have a good page.. what is a rfc.. please tell me thanks  ??? --Charliedylan (talk) 01:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please stay calm. As I mentioned in the links above WP:RFC another way for people to ask for a closer look at anything on Wikipedia by other users. From RFC: Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input, and dispute resolution, with respect to article content, user conduct, and Wikipedia policy and guidelines.. An RFC has not been opened, and if one is opened it's not a problem. It can be opened by you or by anyone or may not be opened at all. I just wanted the readers at the noticeboard to understand that this is not currently an RFC. Again, I strongly suggest you read the articles at the top of your talk page for answers to this and so many other questions.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   01:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

ok thanks for bringing that to my attention and i agree. i have just been very frustruated and am trying hard to make my page better. i read the good faith and being civil. perhaps an apology is due. ok it all just seems a little crazy to me. anyway thankyou for all your help. i do appreciate it. --Charliedylan (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

My page ScribbleStick/Lies and exaggerations has been put on speedy delete by you because it is vandalism. I thought you userpages were you own thing and that you could do whatever you liked with them - I've seen people put random stuff on their userpages, so what are the rules?

--ScribbleStick (talk) 06:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

When you create a new article then it ceases to be your userpage. You should have created it as "User:ScribbleStick/Lies and exaggerations." --T'Shael MindMeld 06:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Your user page is here User:ScribbleStick/Lies_and_exaggerations. The page you created above, and that I marked for deletion is in the main article namespace with all the other Wikipedia articles and it doesn't belong there. Regards.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   06:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

hi just wondering if you could check out the wikipedia page on grammy awards and see how it is detailed. i strongly feel that the awards i had should not have been taken down.. how do i go about putting them back up. ive had no other advice that has told me any information. who has the power to put them back up? if it says THE WHOLE PRODUCTION TEAM- which is only the producer and engineer- its not the coffee guy- i dont see how ive violated anything.AND THIS IS ON WIKIPEDIA!!!!!!!!!!!!.what do you think?????--Charliedylan (talk) 00:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

First can I ask you to describe your relation to him?    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   02:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

i have no relation to him. but i am an avid listener of some of the records he has produced and the whole era including daniel lanois/ brian eno/ the experimental/ambient movement/ the new use of sound of which Mark Howard was an integral part... and i feel like my research was justified and thorough...maybe i should just let it go.. i feel like i need help navigating these early stages because this wikipedia world is very complicated.. i dont know who else to ask.. --Charliedylan (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Understood. The reason I ask is because your passion (concern) over this article may be what is causing others to think you have a conflict of interest. At this point I'd suggest you stand back for a while (week/month) and let's see what others say and do with the article. Very few articles (if any) are perfect from day 1 (I know mine aren't) and so it best to sit back and let the process work. Regards.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   13:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

ok totally. i understand. this is my first article so i have been a little obsessed with making it as good as it can be. but i will take a breather and see if others can add some more information. i might just try to add some references which orange mike has given me some pointers towards. ok thanks for your help!--Charliedylan (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Would you be interested in joining this project? We need more editors who share a burden for rescuing promising editors who have gotten into serious trouble because of behavioral issues. IF (a fundamental condition!) they are interested in reforming and adapting to our standards of conduct, and are also willing to abide by our policies and guidelines, rather than constantly subverting them, we can offer to help them return to Wikipedia as constructive editors. Right now many if not most users who have been banned are still active here, but they are here as socks or anonymous IPs who may or may not be constructive. We should offer them a proper way to return. If you think this is a good idea, please join us. Hello--Abce2|AccessDenied 02:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to put this anywhere on your user page. To edit this box for improvement click here

I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 06:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just to let you know, the rehab wikiprojact has been nominated for deletion. --Abce2|AccessDenied 17:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

fca stands for fellowship of chistian alethes and will you put a picture of eden it on the website and like that and on the sheldon clark one will you put a pic of sheldon clark on the school website to —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kody rainwater (talk • contribs) 01:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

There was nothing uncivil about it. Maybe a little short with him, but not uncivil.Drew Smith What I've done 05:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

We're all entitled to our opinions. Mine is that by definition "WTF" is uncivil. Also, the comment about URLs is irrelevant. Where he was able to prove that it was copyvio and where you got it from don't have to be the same place for it to be a copyvio.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   05:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

In my experience "WTF" is a simple question, akin to what the hell, what was that for, and others. Also, I wasn't threatening him, I was giving a suggestion. He has two contributions, one to my talk page, and one to add the speedy to the subpage. That is clearly single purpose.Drew Smith What I've done 05:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

An admin has to protect the page. --T'Shael MindMeld 04:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

No problem, I thought you might have noticed :). Bit too obsessed with "7"s are we....? ;) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

The reason is that your former account, User:JCutter, has been abused to send threatening e-mails to administrators, including myself. This is described here and here. When I first received the e-mail, I couldn't find the thread on the incidents' page. I sort of overreacted and banned both the JCutter and the 7 account. Once I read the thread saying that this vandal was only using editor's old accounts, i.e. that you were not to blame for this, I immediately unblocked you. I'm sorry for any inconviences this may have caused you, but I hope that you understand that I was in a situation in which I had no choice but to block your account. If anyone ever challenges because of this block, please tell me about it and I will set the record straight. Happy editing and please accept my apology, --Carabinieri (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

How can someone have logged into that account??? I don't understand how that can happen? After my CHUU I tried to re-register that account to prevent wiki-identity theft, and it actually wouldn't let me re-register because it was too much like another user J-Cutter. So how could someone have logged in???    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   12:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I honestly don't know. I'm not following this problem too closely. I can only refer you to the discussion on the incidents' page (see the section "Apparent threat by permabanned user The Fascist Chicken").--Carabinieri (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if I am doing this correctly, but the permission is provided. I put the link to that page on the page and the images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theboardchairman (talk • contribs) 01:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think that updated permission post may do the trick - but please leave the tags as they are now and a reviewing admin will confirm that the copyright problems are gone. After that, please make sure you are aware of WP:COI and WP:SPAM policies. Thanks.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   01:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thank you for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theboardchairman (talk • contribs) 01:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, this is the message you sent me:

"Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Woman on top (sex position), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you."

I did what I did because I considered that picture offensive.

Now that I read the "Wikipedia is not censored" section, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED#Wikipedia_is_not_censored) I recognize my mistake, I apologize. Didn't mean to misuse my ability to edit.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.226.209.205 (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I understand your concern, and to be honest I feel the same way. However the correct way to have handled that issue would have been to delete the image tag all together (which is a change I would not complain about) rather than to turn the image into a redlink spelling mistake. Thanks.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   22:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much. Yes, Im new here, just tried to translate my userpage from Russian to English and Hebrew. I did a mistake, fixing the problem. Thanks for help :) Anna Strebkov (talk) 22:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Happy to help - any time you need assistance just write {{helpme}} on your talk page and include a summary of your question and someone will be along shortly to help.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   22:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

--Glynwiki (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

No worries. Thank you for thanking me. :) Cirt (talk) 09:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

All that stuff happened with VG. Its a big part of our school. QQ some moar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.149.201 (talk) 13:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please feel free to add it back in after citing reliable sources.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   13:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I am flattered to see you have included my script in your monobook.js. I don't know if you were aware, but you could have included it with one line:

importScript('User:Symplectic_Map/spell.js');

This will allow you to take advantage of any bug-fixes to the 'spell.js' script. Let me know if there is anything I can do to make the script better, or if there are any other tasks which you would like to automate by script. I'm still debugging the script for IE, and adding more than just words starting with the letter 'a', but it's coming along. It appears to work right now in Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox. Best Regards. Symplectic Map (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Okay, so I guess it didn't work out for you, but let me know if there was a technical problem that I might be able to fix. I recently fixed a problem with it not working in IE. Thanks for trying it out. Symplectic Map (talk) 02:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Dear Mr User number 7,

I have no conflict of interest and do not work for Novelos Therapeutics.

NOV-002 saves peoples lives that have cancer and is approved for use in Russia.

NOV-205 reduced viral load to Zero with people that have Hep and is unknown in the USA.

I am trying to make the public aware there are better Canacer and AntiViral medications out there that work and are not approved for use in the USA.

Thank You and Have a Nice Day!

Bixbyte (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)BixbyteReply

May 27, 2009

Alex Kalman

I'm just getting into Wikipedia now, and seeing how you're altering my page is really teaching me alot about how the system works. For now, i'm just going around to other pages making small updates - guess I really jumped in the deep end making a whole new article!

Take care, AsteriosAsterioskokkinos (talk) 04:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Glad to help. It is very tempting for other editors to think a new article should be delete quickly if it smells at all like people are advertising or self-promoting (and I tend to do this myself sometimes) but in this case it truly does appear to me that the person will satisfy WP's notability criteria.

As a side note, I've seen the other edits you are making and I just want to give a word of caution that you could be stepping into more than you are expecting there too. As just one example you may want to check out this policy on external links, like the youtube link. You've already been welcomed at the top of your talk page, but I personally like this welcome menu better because it has just about every link possible, so I have created this second welcome page for you. Good luck and happy editing.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   05:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

As I said on the talk page, I copied some information from the [games from Apollo]] page, that their parent company, it listing how this game was their bestseller. That page had a link to the interview, but I was unable to copy it over, do to the spam filter telling me that page was currently blacklisted. What parts of it do you believe need citations? Dream Focus 05:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, the whole thing is essentially unreferenced except for that one unlinked quote from a book / magazine. Just wondering if you've searched google for any readily available reliable sources which can be cited. Thanks.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   05:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

[1] ..sometimes I get a little goofy. I've done it a couple of times before, but with these bots, it's kind of hard to do it mumbles something about "back in the old days...". I figure that I might as well have a bit of fun and perhaps somebody will notice. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

...And of course as soon as I hit save I realize that I typed your name wrong... such is life.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   06:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's okay, I've been called worse. ;) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please see the comment I left on the article's talk page. Crablogger (talk) 06:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, but I just wanted to make sure I had the right template to begin with. Thanks. Crablogger (talk) 07:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Understood. Thanks.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   07:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have removed your tag from this article because it does not fall under "patent nonsense". Please review WP:CSD before continuing to tag new pages. Ironholds (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please review hubris.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   12:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

There's no need to be rude. My apologies about how you interpreted my original remark - it wasn't intended to be condescending. This isn't a case of WP:Don't template the regulars; with obvious mistakes in tagging I treat everyone the same. In some ways it is worse when an experienced user tags things incorrectly - they should know better. Now, Nonsense is either 1) impossible to understand what it is or 2) a string of mucked-up gibberish. Neither of those apply. Hoax isn't "we can't find coverage of it" but "the lack of coverage/inconsistencies/so on lead us to believe it does not exist". Obviously with a word inside someone's head "hoax" doesn't work; how can you prove or disprove the existence of a thought? Ironholds (talk) 12:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Not trying to be rude, which is why I said please here, and thank you on your talk page, was trying to get my point across. It was not an obvious mistake, nor was it a mistake at all. It was accurate, and it was deleted by the reviewing admin as Nonsense. Those were the admin's comments (csd-worthy), not mine.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   12:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

"Please look at excessive pride, thank you for being patronising"; yes, I certainly can't see any rudeness in that - why, it's as free from offensive connotations as this comment is from sarcasm! It was neither "meaningless, or incomprehensible" as the admin put it; I'll query him. Ironholds (talk) 12:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

And perhaps have the article recreated?    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   12:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oh lord no. It needed to go, I just like things either done openly by the book (in this case, prod) or openly "it needs to go" (so IAR). Ironholds (talk) 12:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well we have found common ground. Just too late in the evening for me to be open to constructive critisism I guess. I too apologize if I was rude.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   12:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thats alright, sorry for the sarcasm and any patronising (patronisation? patronage?) phrasing I used. Ironholds (talk) 12:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Is awesome

That is all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.133.197.136 (talk) 14:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

This is my school's network and some immature punk is vandalizing all these pages. On behalf of my shcool, I apologize —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.102.161.169 (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Your comment copied from the removed discussion at WP:RM: "They might be, or they might just be confused... But now I am just wondering, is the system going to prompt them that they have new messages on their talk page when this isn't in fact their talk page but is connected by redir from their talk page?"

No, I believe your suspicion is correct: I don't think the system would notify them of messages, so that's another reason to revert it back. Another admin performed the move, so hopefully it's resolved now. -kotra (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks - appreciate the quick work!    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   01:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

No problem! Though credit for the actual move belongs to User:Jac16888. -kotra (talk) 01:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it's almost there. When I nominate an AfD, then see a newbie desperately trying to keep it in good faith, I can't just stand by. The article can be saved, so I must do it. Thanks for the comment, and good work yourself. :D American Eagle (talk) 01:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Exactly the spirit of WP:BEFORE. Thanks!    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   01:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, could you re-review the Ada Norris article to see if it now passes muster and is no longer has any copyright infringements. Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 12:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Looks better now. Thanks.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   23:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'll consider what you said about cholesterol depletion being narrow. I am publishing on the subject in a peer reviewed medical journal next month. Its is a growing topic in lipidology and cell biology. The clinical ramifications are coming on-line and now that squalene epioxidase research has hit the lipidology labs it seem we'll soon be giving cholesterol supplements!. we'll keep it under review. Thanks for the guidance I'm new to medical contributions (biochemical specialism).Glynwiki (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Happy to help. The article may be stand-alone material with all you've added to it - and you've cross-linked to the main article, so for now I suspect this is just fine. However it's good to hear that you are receptive to changes such as a merge just in case other editors recommend that in the future. Thanks, and happy editing.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   23:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've removed your speedy from Sunzoo studios inc, because it didn't fit under A7, as there were several claims of significance in the article. Feel free to prod or afd it. Fingers^OnRoids 23:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's spam - re-tagged.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   23:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
Thanks for helping to improve it, I don't think that it should merge with Live Nation since Live Nation Entertainment will be the new owner. B64 (talk) 04:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Dear User,

You placed a message on my user talk which is incorrect. First of all, my statement regarding the Air France officials stating the plane "Air France plane lost: officials say 'no hope' of finding airliner" is factual as it is already on atleast 2 newssites ^{[1] [2]} Also both my edits where presented with reference thank you very much. Secondly, i participate in a discussion about the article so please before you make such suggestions make sure your own facts are correct. 94.214.65.67 (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I waited a bit on Tatco but notice there are two different users involved. I also attempted to find notability on my own, which I was unable to do. Leaving underconstruction on for several days in a content-free article doesn't seem right, and in this case the ip contributor had nearly four hours to make some kind of edit. The whole thing seems precocious and feels like an attempt to keep spam in wikipedia longer, but I am more than willing to be wrong here. ZabMilenko 07:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I agree, which is why I immediately removed my hasty tag. I've just been trying to lean toward "fix-instead-of-delete". Thanks for the note.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   07:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for pointing me to the resources. Stupid of me not to have familiarized myself with that policy beforehand. I appreciate it. Best --Picatrix (talk) 10:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Not stupid at all - there are a million policies here (give or take) and I only recently leared about Outing myself.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   11:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

In trying not to be WP:BITEy, I've hidden the speedy deletion tags on this article for an hour. If Omegakingboo comes up with sources, everything's okay. If no sources are forthcoming, then I'll go ahead with the speedy deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Completely understood. Thanks.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   01:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes I am affiliated with this company. I have all of the rights to the information posted and the freedom to post it. Thanks for your help. Anything else that I can do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aafinc (talk • contribs) 14:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just trying to get the information out there. Just a brief history and what they do. Please warn if I've taken it too far. I'm not trying to sell anything. It's very similar to what other companies have posted without trouble. Thanks for your help Aafinc (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

The reference on the page has all the information about the company that was not published by the company. It is an outside source that provides all of the information listed on the Wiki. Anything else? Aafinc (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thanks for your help. I added two more resources to my page. The information is just a history and outline of what the company does. It does not have a COI. It's just information. I read the rules and maybe I'm missing something. I was wondering if those tags could be removed, unless, of course, I'm missing something still. Thanks for the help. Regards Aafinc (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I added a notability tag to the article; this looks to me like a relatively small company that has gotten minimal to no newspaper or magazine coverage. (I was considering posting a note to the editor's user talk page, but the account is blocked since the name is essentially a company account, not a personal one.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. What surprised me was that no one seemed interested in the motivation of the editor who did what he did. And I didn't find his answer (to my question) to be particularly compelling: essentially, he did it because he wanted to see if he could.

At least there now seems to be a bit of a push to block this first (even if apparently ineffective) hacking step in the future. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Regarding the NPA warning you left here - I assume this relates to the comment at User_talk:Ironholds. If so I have already raised this on Oxana's talk page as a personal message rather than a template. As two warnings for the one comment seems excessive, would you consider removing your more recent one? Euryalus (talk) 03:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Totally agreed, didn't mean to double up - I just didn't notice yours in the CSD notice. Thanks for catching it.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   04:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

No worries, and thanks for undoing it. It was' a pretty unacceptable comment they made, but they appear to be a newish user so one warning might be enough. Euryalus (talk) 04:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Looks like I'm not the only one to miss it.  ;)    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   06:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hmm. On the face of it a COI report is needed; however, if you think this is the same person and have some diffs that prove it we should also go to SPI. Daniel Case (talk) 12:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, I don't think it's an SPI situation, per se, because it's not like he's using both at once or using one to circumvent a community ban - he was blocked for username and now created a new account, which I think is allowed. I guess I am just hoping that you'll keep an eye on him with me. Thanks.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   12:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I just blocked Promixluvr indef since he had been editing Pro Mix. I cited him both for spamming (new account creation is blocked, which I hadn't done yesterday) and block evasion. New accounts are allowed after such blocks, but usually only after filing {{unblock-un}} and giving us a chance to review the proposed new username. This was clearly an attempt to circumvent the block. You might want to go vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Thom, if you haven't already.

What I'd like to know is how he was able to create articles immediately, without waiting four days from the creation of the account. What happened to auto-confirmation? Daniel Case (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Good question. He'll be back, I'm sure. Already voted at the AfD above. Thanks.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   13:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Progress indeed - we took it from 9186 bytes to 2935. If that isn't encyclopedia building, I don't know what is :) Really, don't feel bad about AfDing it - it was awful, and something needed to be done, and I was serious about the need for aggressive copyediting. I'll see if I can build it up. The only sources seem to be within the industry, so they'll have to be judiciously chosen. Acroterion _(talk) 13:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. It's getting there.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   13:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have permission from CFO Debbie Rosen to use any and all information on company literature, so my copy and paste from the website is a non-issue in that sense. Thank you for your concern. (MrOzio1 (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC))Reply

Sorry, but that doesn't resolve the issue. We can't take your word for it. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted material. Also, since you are apparently dealing with the CFO of the company you may have a conflict in writing about them.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   14:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

So because I'm writing a dissertation on a company and am in touch with the CFO I'm automatically a biased poster? Interesting. How was the Coca-Cola page made, may I ask? One might call that advertising.

Where is the boundary between the acceptable and the non? It all seems very played out to me. (MrOzio1 (talk) 14:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC))Reply

I said "you may have a conflict". I didn't say you were automatically a biased poster. If you aren't interested in reading the policies that I have sent you it will take a very long time for us to discuss it all here.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   14:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

To whom can I send a test page to be reviewed then? Seems to me that nearly any historical post about a company can be perceived as advertising by one person or another. (MrOzio1 (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC))Reply

Replied on your talk.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   14:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

In response to your message in mytalk, I'm responding to your message, I request my account to be removed as I created an account with my real name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DVDXCOPYGOLD (talk • contribs) 02:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I tried to do that but it kept leading me to pages that don't do any of that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DVDXCOPYGOLD (talk • contribs) 02:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

What would you like your new name to be and I can help you with the WP:CHU process.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   02:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

How 'bout "I'm a complete idiot for registering an account on this site" How about that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DVDXCOPYGOLD (talk • contribs) 03:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I apoligize for the post I made, but I'm having issues with an amazon online order that has not been delivered at the time it was schedueled to arrive (06-04-09) and its past the delivery time.

Still worried the post office has lost the CD (as it was out of print, and from the amazon seller's marketplace).

Also another concern over any username I suggest may be controversial with administrators on this site (even my legal name, maybe controversial. And its my legal name. I am afraid to use it in Hollywood as I may get sued by an actor with the same last name, what is this country going to - "lawsuit happy nation, ha!?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by DVDXCOPYGOLD (talk • contribs) 03:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I see you are interested in creating some templates. Please start and let's see where this goes. You may wish to create a subpage for this work. Just leave the link in the section. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for reminding me... spent some time trying to play around with a nuvola style logo, but at least got a draft of one template out there. Will work on the others soon.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   06:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

You have made some really neat templates. I like them. Unfortunately the one on the Project's main page prevents the TOC and section editing from working. How about tweaking the old one by adding the text and relevant links to it? See my edit here. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Fixed that problem. The current format has the table of contents mixed in with the first section (I did this intentionally because otherwise there is a large break before you see any text). I then intentionally broken the second section down below the contents box, because it visually doesn't look good if one section wraps around the box. Let me know if you think this works better. For any other changes I'll make a sandbox version.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   04:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

It is still blocking section editing. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Will you please add any skills (including making templates) you may have to the Supporters table at the project? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Fixed section editing - that was apparently an intentional function of the base template which I had to suppress. Not sure at this point if I have any templating skills, but I am around (but busy in RL) and willing to help.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   06:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Great! That works. Can you make it narrower? It dominates quite a bit, but maybe that's OK. The one on the talk page seems to be a more appropriate width. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

For some reason the section editing isn't working again. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

(←)Strange - did I break that? Like I said... template skills aren't ready for my resume yet. It's fixed (again), and I shrunk the box down to 80% width.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   14:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! -- Brangifer (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Since you seem to have a good eye for templates and formats, here are some links to other projects that may provide some ideas for templates, boxes and formatting:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fact_and_Reference_Check
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles

-- Brangifer (talk) 02:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Mifter (talk) 23:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

i'm somewhat miffed you wouldn't look at the page when I tagged it as it was a one sentence article that appperd to be nonsens. Howver in this case I was ultimately wrong and ifyou review not many of my csd's are declined. Next time please just ask me why I did something rather then sending me links, I'm happy to explain myself and (try very hard) to admit when I am wrong. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I did look at the history. I am sorry you are miffed at my polite notice to you. You tagged it as db-content, a blank article. It wasn't blank. You also also used an edit summary of "not notable" - CSD tagging is meant to be a lower standard than notability. I too have a lengthy record of successful speedy deletions (about 10x yours). It doesn't mean we should ignore the rules. Regards.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   00:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

didn't mean to suggest it was Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

You were very polite though, I give you that. This is only one of my own pet peevs, no biggie. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm deeply sorry, this is a school IP and some people vandalize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.50.110.19 (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

that you G10d an attack page for me before I even got to see it :) Good work -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 07:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Got your back.  ;)    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   07:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

It wasn't even very creative...    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   07:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your message. I do have an account, but lately prefer to revert vandalism anonymously. Much appreciated, and keep up the good work. 99.178.163.130 (talk) 01:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Out of curiosity, may I ask why? I too dislike when I become the target of vandals after reverting their work, but the same can happen with an IP.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   01:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I just enjoy the opacity. I don't mind e-mailing you confidentially re: my account, but it's kind of neat to be an anonymous, paying little mind to either reprisals or barnstars. 99.178.163.130 (talk) 02:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Understood. Thanks.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   03:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

sorry, i didn't realize you can list references like <references />, (and i don't know which i should use now)

i had opened the tab before you started editing, saw the "Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, ..." and added {{reflist}} because many people forget to add it. in the mean time you made edits and added <references />. when i saw it i assumed it was somebody's attempt to add references when they didn't know how to do it. (of course it turns out i was the one who didn't know) -- Austin512 (talk • contribs 06:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

No problem - was just wondering if you had a preference. Gotta hate those edit conflicts. {{reflist}} is just a small font version of the tag I had put. Either one works. Thanks.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   06:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi I'm very sorry for the vandalism. My friend messed everything up while i was awway in the bathroom.

I was trying to fix some pages also.

Thank you and please respond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor231 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, no I left my wiki page logged on. After I read my privacy statement and I was looking at some ways to edit wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor231 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

And btw i was checking my contributions and it was vandalized in three different places other than the one you caught 1)Wayne Wang ‎ 2)LYSMD3 ‎ 3)The Rainy Season

So i decided to tell you, i don't know how to fix this since i only just started

They've all been reverted. Thanks.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   01:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

MvC has been featured in 3 online articles, should I put those as its notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omegakingboo (talk • contribs) 01:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi - thanks for trying to improve the references. Yes, per WP:RS and WP:V you should include reliable third party references to substantiate why this site is important. Not that links to the site itself do not qualify as third-party references. I tagged it because a google search only shows 119 hits for that exact term. Regards.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   01:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Wait, so is the article good now or should I get more stuff to add because I can do that but should I have to to that now since you left a comment saying you'd delete it in an hour if I didn't get sources. Can you tell me what further must be fixed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omegakingboo (talk • contribs) 02:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

It won't get "speedily deleted" if that is what you are referring to. However, I still personally question the sites notability (as required for websites) but I'll take a step back now and see what others say. Thanks.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   02:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

What do you mean by sources? I've already put references to what I've stated. ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omegakingboo (talk • contribs) 03:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

??? Where did I mention anything about sources?    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   03:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I think someone else did lol. BTW, can anyone put this web page in MLA format for me to use in this?

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/moviecodec.com

TY —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omegakingboo (talk • contribs) 04:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Not sure exactly what you are trying to use, but would probably be best to just cite it as a reference (e.g. page rank per alexa = xxxx). Please take a look at WP:Citing sources. Please also make sure to start signing your talk page comments with four tildes ( ~~~~ )    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   04:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Does it have to be MLA format? Since I do not know what kind of thing to cite it as, it isn't an article.Omegakingboo (talk) 05:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

No - it doesn't have to be in MLA format. Per WP:REF you can use any approved format. Also - some of the citation templates are visible at Wikipedia:CIT - but I would strongly suggest you just use the cite button above the edit box (looks like this:  ) and click "web" and it will walk you through the required fields.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   05:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

You tagged Sporolides A and B for speedy deletion as a copyvio; however, I don't have enough information to determine whether this is the case, because the links you provided are all to sites that require payment for access. Can you provide more specific details as to which portions of the article are copied from each source, and the specific materials copied? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I found my proof by random google searches of long strings from the article. e.g. [2] and [3] - you can see the text matches clearly in the google previews. From a first time editor too...    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   14:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

7 is my favorite number to :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omegakingboo (talk • contribs) 03:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have created a new page with the more relevant Title. Now I want the original Page with the name of 'Niteen Parulekar' to be deleted. How do I do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amookbhartiya (talk • contribs) 08:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please blank the entire page and replace it with this text {{db-author}}    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   09:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I declined your speedy deletion request on this article, because some changes have been made and it is not 100% copyvio anymore. It still is, however, closely paraphrasing the website, and in any case it seems to be a completely non-notable organization. I urge you to take it to AfD instead. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

There was still one entire copyvio section which I have now removed. I'm surprised you didn't bring it to AFD if you feel the organization non-notable.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   22:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I was in a hurry; I thought you would take it there. If it's not listed by tonight I'll post it myself. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Understood. I'm going to take a step back and let others review it.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   00:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I'm not sure why you added {{advert}} to this article; I assume it was a mistake? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Because all 5 of it's linked references were links to the same commercial site.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   02:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Shall I just remove those inappropriate EL?    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   02:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Eh, I think the sources are fin, as long as the info is purely descriptive. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think that, at the very least, the reference 9, which simply goes to the commercial homepage of a company violates WP:ELNOrule #5. Further, I think that the fact that this page only has external links to that one site, and it has 5 of them, makes this entire article look like and advertisement. Lastly, that commercial website hardly qualifies as a WP:RS, which is why I put the primarysources tag on it. But if you are saying I am wrong, then I guess there is nothing left to say.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   04:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi 7, I saw you tagged Kouma Blaise for speedy deletion trough A7. I reworked the article and added a (Very weak, i admit) reference to it. Feel free to retag it if you feel it should be removed, as his notability is questionable at best.Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 08:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the headsup. Your willingness to work to save articles is impressive (seriously). Before I tagged it I did a search for [4]which had only 8 results, which sealed the deal in my mind. After you saved it I searched for the name the other way around and it has a few hundred [5]. I'll leave it alone for now... plenty of other editors out there to take a fresh look. But I agree with what you said said -questionable notability. Thanks again.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   08:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

This is just a friendly notice and not intended as criticism of any kind. :) You've probably already figured this out, but...

I happened to notice that you tagged Intelligent haunting for deletion as "G1 - patent nonsense." While, I have no opinion about the article itself I thought you should know that CSD G1 is intended only for things that literally make no sense at all. That is, pages where you can't even figure out what the author is trying to say.

For things that are blatantly false, CSD G3 ("vandalism") can be used, although this page wouldn't have qualified under that criteria either since it is only for extremely obvious cases. A valid G3 example would be "Brian Jones was the 21st president of the United States ..."

If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate and welcome the comments. I've discussed this with the reviewing admin on the article's talk page Talk:Intelligent haunting. While agree that this was a borderline call (because I could kind of figure out what they were trying to say) the combination of the nonsense (originally ghosts communicating with other ghosts) and the overall weakness of the article made me feel it was the right thing to do. As I said on the talk page, I've seen various admins delete a lot more of an article as G1 before. However, I am still wondering why Col'nl W de-proded it without comment or improvement...    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   23:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yah, some admins have a looser interpretation than others (although more often under G3 than G1), but the intent of the rule is only for things that make no sense at all. As to the de-prod, my only guess would be do to news hits: [6][7], although personally it is not at all clear that the term has any specific meaning. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Is quoting a critic's review of an artist's work in an article about that artist really COPYVIO? —  X  S  G  09:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, per WP:NFC#Text. The page has a prominent copyright disclaimer. I considered changing the quote to a proper citation, however the quote is clearly promotional in nature "see it before...".    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   13:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your message regarding conflice of interest issues in this article. Although the article is written by the publisher on behalf of the composer, it is simply a list of the composer's works and performances, as well as his area of birth and educational details. All material is referenced and can be found on other sights. Since the material used in the article can be found elsewhere on the internet in reliable sources, I was wondering why there was a question of conflice of interest? Ryan Wigglesworth's wikipedia page factually based and not a promotional page. Thank you in advance for your help! Schott UK —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schott UK (talk • contribs) 15:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello. First, please confirm, have you read the guidelines at WP:COI?    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   23:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Having the same abbreviation as the company may not be enough to block, in my opinion. It may be technically legal to ban this account, but I advocate continuing to try to reach an agreement with the person to improve his articles. Academic Challenger (talk) 06:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Someone, probably you, has requested an account on the account creation tool using this username. Please reply here to confirm it was you. Stifle (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Confirmed - it was me - thanks.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   22:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Your account is now approved. Please read the guide. You will only be able to create 6 accounts per day for now and won't be able to create any account with a username similar to that of an existing user. If you find yourself affected by these limits frequently, please request the accountcreator permission at WP:RPE. Thanks. Stifle (talk) 11:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Saw you just tagged it. Can you also take a look at Premature ejaculation, same links/text keep getting added there, I've already reverted twice today. --SpacemanSpiff { ^Calvin _Hobbes 05:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I noticed those additions as well, and tried to revert his first and had an edit conflict as he continues to make more. I'll give him a warning and let him tire himself out and then rollback (hopefully he hasn't used his own spray or he might be able to go a long time...). Keep up the good work.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   05:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ryan,

So sorry...I'm extremely new being a registered 'user' of Wikipedia (although I've been using this great site for a long time now to read, research etc). I haven't figured out how to respond from My own Talk page yet...Thanks for the notification and explanation of why my change to the title of Yargo wasn't actually taken....I know that the copy I have (from a 1979 printing) does have the title I put 'YARGO: A Love Story'...but I do understand the multiple printings of this novel and how the title flipped back and forth. I'll make another edit to the description page that just provides the alternate title. I will try to always put a comment on what edits were made in the respective field before I submit. I won't always try to edit or contribute to any page here unless it is something I know needs to be added or corrected (from 1st hand knowledge). Thanks again!

PS: My favorite number is also 7!

Corine (Gypsybelle) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gypsybelle (talk • contribs) 00:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

No need to apologize. Not sure who Ryan is... but glad you understand the situation. To respond at the bottom of your own talk page just click the "edit this page" tab at the top and it will take you to the screen where you can edit it. Regards.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   00:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry man I was just testing if it is possible: due to my love of the film and unending loyalty to the franchise i immediately reverted it myself only to find your message!! HAHA!! Don't mine.... :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.98.113.72 (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Make sure you use the talk page to explain why you added the original research tag. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 13:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Good point - thanks. I was using huggle (I know, not an excuse) and only saw the additions by the IP and didn't realize how large and how well referenced an article it already was. I see that you warned the IP (thank you), and I have gone ahead and reverted the edits. The comments about lack of a sidewalk to directly join cul-de-sac subdivisions with other areas is not always the case, and the comment about oil prices appears to be pure OR. Thanks for pointing it out. Regards.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   23:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, the Harlon Hanson was a terrible typo. I'm very sorry. Harlon Hanson can be deleted and the redirect as well. The new article is Harlan Hanson. I've added a working ref list and will get as much text up as I can tonight. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

No worries, I renamed and marked the typo for deletion. It's looking much better now. Thanks.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   03:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Linked -- no longer an orphan. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey Mate,

Sorry I may have just clobbered your edit. You caught me mid revision and I think I flubbed it. Maybe you could take a look now and see if your changes would still make sense? Craig Pemberton (talk)

No problem - your edit looks fine. Thanks for the headsup.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   05:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks!    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   23:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey :) I was under the impression that even if they disagree with the speedy deletion tag they can't remove it they just need to put a {{hangon}} up top. I definitely think it stands up to speedy deletion standards. Jamesofur (talk) 04:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

No prob ;) - you may want to re-read WP:CSD. Any editor (except the original author) can remove the CSD tag. Only the original author is required to use the hangon tag. While one of these two IPs may be the original author who has logged out (and violated community rules) it seems unlikely that two geograhpically distant IPs would be the same user... and both have removed the tags. Let's see what others think.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   04:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough :) definitely looks odd to keep removing the tag for that article but it isn't really hurting anyone so it never hurts to go through the process. Jamesofur (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

[8] —Dark ^talk 09:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

No... do you think it is? If you think it is, I can reset it. BejinhanTalk 06:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

How do I report it? BejinhanTalk 07:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks for the info. Yeah... I've been making one silly mistake after another. :( BejinhanTalk 07:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

You're doing fine - but may be good to read the notes at the top of people's talk pages...  ;)    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   07:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I read the notes at the top of your talk page after I left a message here. Since I've already left a message here, I decided to continue the conversation here and watch you page. Sorry for the inconvenience. :) BejinhanTalk 07:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just giving you a hard time. Nobody notices it... time for a bigger font.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   07:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

That's a good idea. ;) BejinhanTalk 10:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Good work with those spam usernames at UAA today (and, in fact, any other day come to think of it). Much appreciated. I also like the succinctness of your username! :) – B.hotep •talk• 10:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, and thank you for your quick work to clear the backlog there.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   10:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

That's the easy part most of the time – you do the hard part! – B.hotep •talk• 10:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Now I just need someone to take a look at this guy's last 6 contributions, all of which I A7'd... I feel bad, but I kept sending him notes and he kept on going.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   10:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, yeah. I will have a look at those soon. CSD backlog is a different kettle of fish! – B.hotep •talk• 10:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   10:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm using Erica Ash's bio as a template. I'm updating the information now.

Ok - I've removed the CSD. Can I gently suggest you consider using the sandbox in the future. Thanks.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   06:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's okay to create similar accounts (i.e. "ELTON") when the account that it is similar to has made no edits in the past year. In this case, Elton (talk · contribs) has no edits and no log actions since 2006. Best, →javért ^stargaze 10:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   12:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

he is a director of a major bank and corner in Hamilton county. Why delete him? Okay I see. Off of US Bankcorp page will revise.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hershel Daniels Junior (talk • contribs) 05:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello - as I noted on your talk page - this is a copyright violation.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   06:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi. There is this user that I'm handling right now. The username requested is WITCHY. Do you think it violates the username policy? WITCHY sounds like witch. BejinhanTalk 05:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think that was already deferred to flagged users - right? That means only an admin will be able to create it. In general, I dont have a problem with the name because of it sounding like Witch, but I think the issue is that it is too similar to propercase User:Witchy. However this user has no edits... so in theory a new user with all caps can be created. You can try to create it (assuming you have checked all the other tabs) but I suspect the system will tell you it's too similar.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   05:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

OverlordQ is online - I think you should release the reservation and let him handle it. Thanks.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   05:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've already broken my reservation. Personally, I find that username offensive because of the denotation of witch. Thanks! BejinhanTalk 05:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Haha, talk about this turning into a literal 'witch-hunt'. Please, the username policy wasn't created for that. -- Mentifisto 10:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. But while "witch" is not offensive in the States it may be offensive where Bejinhan is from - and I think he made the right decision to step away from it and let others decide (it was created in the end).    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   10:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

That's why I don't agree 'offensive' usernames should be included in any policy restrictions. Everyone could possibly be offended by something, but if we accommodate everyone then there would be barely any usernames left to choose from. Usernames that are deliberately created to attack/impersonate someone on the other hand, of course, since it's done in bad faith. -- Mentifisto 10:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well said. (and I'll fix your spelling of accommodate above)  ;)    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   10:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

(at least your mistake wasn't in an RFA)    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   10:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oh noes!!! Heh, actually I obsessively reread my nom/answers again and again for hours on end in mine. :-P -- Mentifisto 10:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

←After I accepted the nom, answered the questions and transcluded it, I didn't ever edit it again! Didn't get asked any additional questions or anything, so just let it take its course – ah, they were simpler days. :) – B.hotep •talk• 10:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yours was nice. I had to answer a total of 19 questions. :-( -- Mentifisto 10:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps my self-nom was so long there is nothing that could possibly remain unanswered (no jinx, no jinx!)    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   10:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

@Mentifisto: and then you did it all again on Simple.wikipedia! Glutton for punishment? ;) – B.hotep •talk• 10:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

There weren't any questions there! :-D -- Mentifisto 11:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Mr. 7, I see that you are running to be an administrator. I first noticed you a few days ago. I was disappointed to find that you will be an administrator because rather than fix my UAA request, you removed it. Bringing it to the talk page could have been done as you did, but you shouldn't have removed it from the UAA requesting page. I went to UAA because I discussed it on ANI and several people said to take it to UAA and then closed the ANI discussion.

I am not a troublemaker so I will not be voting against you in the RFA. Please be nice once you become an administrator.

Also consider changing your name. Your name implies that you are a very important person in Wikipedia, possibly the 7th most important person. In some states, the car license plate "1" is for the governor. Acme Plumbing (talk) 06:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am sorry that this move bothered you, but I would like to explain. The WP:UAA page has a bot which runs in the background to keep things clean and moves things around and it tends to get confused when entries there don't follow the specific instructions for that page. I misunderstood that you were actually trying to report someone, rather that you were wanting to discuss whether some should be blocked or some should be unblocked, which would be a more appropriate discussion for a talk page - as WP:UAA doesn't handle unblock requests. I thought I was being nice by moving it for you, and notifying you of the move on your talk page. There has been one reply to your note on the talk page, and if you would still like to report those three names you mentioned here is the format you should use this format, which you can cut and paste directly into UAA:

{{user-uaa|1=Oscar Arias}} Enter your reason here ~~~~

{{user-uaa|1=Oarias}} Enter your reason here ~~~~

{{user-uaa|1=Jon Corzine}} Enter your reason here ~~~~

Just cut and paste everything above into the bottom of the WP:UAA page. Please note I have not reviewed these at all, but you may want to see if you agree with the comments that have already been left on the talk page in response to your post which I moved.

Also - you mention that you think that Oarias is a Sockpuppet. The appropriate place to report that is WP:SPI, and I'd be happy to help you with that if you have evidence of this - but please note that this is a serious accusation and should not be taken lightly. You will need to have more than just similar names as evidence.

While my username is indeed short (like a custom license plate) it satisfies the requirements as laid out in WP:U.

I should also mention that you still have every right to vote in the RfA, whether for or against. I hope you believe I have treated you fairly, but if you do not there is no reason to remain silent.

Please let me know if I can do anything to help.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   06:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I have changed my opinion of you and voted "support" in the RFA. Keep acting like this once you get the administrator's sword. Acme Plumbing (talk) 02:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

You didn't create your RfA properly. I moved your information to User:7/RfA. Follow these instructions to create your RfA: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate. If you have any questions, let me know. Kingturtle (talk) 05:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I followed all 11 steps. Can you specify which one?    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   05:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

My mistake. Forget it :) My apologies. Kingturtle (talk) 05:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

You scared me - fastest WP:SNOW ever. Thanks for restoring it.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   05:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

It wasn't because of SNOW :) I thought it was mis-transluded, but it wasn't. Kingturtle (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

←<psst><whispers>If you want to put a comment in without affecting the numbering, put #: before the comment.</whispers> – B.hotep •talk• 09:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

That's a good one - thanks. Think it's okay as-is for now?    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   09:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes. It was just for future reference in case you have to comment on something. FWIW, I don't think your statement was too long at all. It had everything you could possibly need to know in it. I didn't read it. :) Because I didn't have to. But now I have, makes me even more sure. :) – B.hotep •talk• 09:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks - I appreciate it.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   09:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Hey there, I opposed your RfA just now. But if you want to comment and give me some reason to take back my opinion, I'll happily take it into consideration. By the way, be careful about responding to very many opposes. It can be considered "badgering" and having a feisty demeanor. Best, JamieS93 ^{be kind to newcomers} 03:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I will take your advice and no longer post rebuttals to the RfA page (including the fact that Jclemens and I have the same new article count). I agree I could have (and should have) gone back and improved my first article. I also agree that Lead sections are critical for any article. I can only assure that: 1) I feel my newer articles are better (Mitsubishi Ichigokan Museum, Tokyo for example), and 2) that I do know what a lead section is. Given the time I will try dig through my edit history to point out multiple instances where I have tagged an article as requiring a lead section, as well as where I have written them for the article myself. Thank you for sending me this notification.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   03:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Also, thank you for improving the Phoebe Dunn (author) article.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   04:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your reply. I now realize that my comment was unlikely and too broad of a statement (the part about lacking knowledge of WP:LEAD), although my concerns still remain. I initially came to your RfA supporting, so I do believe that you have admin potential. :) Best of luck with everything, JamieS93 ^{be kind to newcomers} 14:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Dear 7,

I have closed your recent RfA as no consensus. Please do not be disheartened by this – if you take note of the concerns of the opposition, maintain your activity, and stay out of trouble, you'll be able to have another shot in a few months' time. If you have any questions regarding the closure, feel free to send me a message. Best of luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous Dissident (talk • contribs) 07:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ah, how annoying. Thanks for letting me know. I forgot to subst it. I hope you don't feel ripped-off by my blatantly depersonalised message – but I do echo my template. It was very close, and I'm certain you'll be able to pass with more CSD experience. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry your RfA didn't pass, 7. It's interesting that you got the same level of support as many passes get, but hopefully, when you run again in the not-too-distant future, those opposes will be converted to unequivocal support – you know you got mine. See you around. :) – B.hotep •talk• 09:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Also interesting that when you hit the edit button in this section on your talk page, it actually edits Anonymous Dissidents subpage. – B.hotep •talk• 09:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks - and thanks for all your support. I've fixed the problem with the template above.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   09:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

My commiserations, 7. I'll put Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/7 2 on my watchlist momentarily. Cheers, Dylan620 (contribs, logs)^{help us!} 14:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Me too. Go for it :) Little Professor (talk) 11:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Maybe... someday... (saved by zero).    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   14:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey 7! Regarding your User:SAT1932CU and User talk:SAT1932CU nominations (RfDs here and here), is there any reason to delete the redirects as opposed to just blanking the pages, particularly if WP:CROSS is all you've got?

I was going to point out that SAT1932CU (San Antonio Teachers 1932 Credit Union) appears to be a single purpose account dedicated to creating their advertisement at Firstmark Credit Union in almost certain conflict of interest, but I see that you've already reported a WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#user:SAT1932CU.

What should we do about the Firstmark Credit Union article itself? Would you have any objection to a speedy G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion)? -- Thinking of England (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

• I was going to suggest that, too. May I also recommend taking a gander at the infobox "Firstmark Credit Union Branch Locations" at the bottom of the article? Thanks. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your comments. Glad to see that it's not just me thinking that this whole thing is a little "fishy". My thoughts, in matching order of above: the reason for the deletion of the redirects, as opposed to blanking the page was that 1) a deletion by consensus carries more weight than a single editor removing the redirect and 2) this is a redirect that shouldn't be there anyway but was created because the original author created the articles on his/her own talk and userpage and then moved them rather than creating them from scratch in the article namespace. After the move the system automatically creates the redirect. Next, I agree that this is a clear COI and if the account isn't blocked for COI it should probably be reviewed under UAA (although use of acronyms for company names is not a guaranteed violation). Lastly, on the question of deletion of the article in general: you could give it a try but I strongly suspect that speedy would be declined because it's not blatant advertising (doesn't say "buy this...") and the article asserts some notability ("fourth largest"). Again, you could try CSD, but I think AfD might be more appropriate in this case (potential reasons: non-notable, stealthy advertising, etc... - but remember COI is not a reason for deletion). I didn't nom for speedy or AFD because there are a fair amount of ghits and gnews for the entity... but it's certainly a close one. Let me know what you think.  7  23:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Guess you've decided... Don't be too surprised if an admin or other editor declines it - it's really not blatant advertising.  7  01:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've tried a speedy G11; we will see what happens. I do feel kinda sorry for them in that they have put a lot of work trying to make it meet the spirit and form of a regular wikipedia article, but I don't see how it could honestly be made objective without starting over from scratch, if the fourth largest credit union in San Antonio is even sufficiently notable to warrant such an article.

Regarding the RfD, I still don't see what you gain from a delete over a blank. As you pointed out, the redirects are remnants of a move (after treating the user page as a sandbox) and so they don't even contain any questionable history (and the talk page now contains a couple of notifications). I'd blank them myself but I don't want to step on your RfD toes if you do think there is any advantage at all to a delete.

I am not familiar with the historical practice at UAA, but SAT1932CU does not strike me so much as a "promotional username", but as an honest and descriptive admission of potential COI. I do wonder if the user does have the actual authority to offer the illustration as "I, the copyright holder of this work, ...". Is just saying so enough or would we need something more irrefutably from the organization? -- Thinking of England (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

First and foremost feel free to step anywhere, my toes were amputated long ago. There is rarely only one right answer and when there is I not necessarily to be the one to come up with it (at least not the first to come up with it). If the CSD works then the RFDs become a moot point. If you want to fix the redirects yourself you are welcome to. Seriously, I have no issue with any of your suggestions. I just thought a community discussion might be better in this case than a unilateral decision by me affecting another users talk and userpage.  7  02:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

The CSD went through and Firstmark Credit Union was deleted (along with its talk page, of course). -- Thinking of England (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Excellent. I agree with your comments on the RfD page. Do you want to go ahead and do that (remove the redirects) and then the RfDs can be closed early. Thanks.  7  22:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't care who, … so I went ahead and did it. -- Thinking of England (talk) 23:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

... and I closed the RfDs. Thanks.  7  02:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Commenting at WP:RFD#FielD, you wrote Google Search for those terms also reveal no relevant external links. Are you able to perform case sensitive Google searches? -- Thinking of England (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

AFAIK Google totally ignores case. However what I did is this search which searches for sites that link into the google term "field" regardless of case, and I excluded results from WP itself. I scanned the first 4-5 pages of results and saw none that matched the mixed case (so google doesn't do case sensitive search, but you can see the typed in case in the search results).  7  00:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I've used "-" and "site:" but for some reason I've never thought off combining them. Cool!

If you ever do run across a case sensitive search tool (and happen to remember me) please let me know. http://www.searchengineshowdown.com/features/byfeature.shtml#case claims No search engine supports case sensitive searching any longer. How sad. 8^(

http://case-sensitive-search.appspot.com/ does the type of scanning you described automatically, but such a method does not work well for unusual capitalizations of common terms. For instance, using that tool on "MoD" yields no results even if the number of case insensitive matches to be scanned is increased to its maximum of 4096, but "UK MoD" yields the full dozen results even at the default 256 setting. (This app also does not support "site" and "-".) In the case of the FielD redirect, a case insensitive search of "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FielD" yields "about 176" results, so the app presumably scans them all before reporting no case sensitive matches, which would seem to indicate that there are no incoming external links. (The quotes are necessary with the app search, for some reason. Even "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field" yields no results if they are omitted. Hmmm.) -- Thinking of England (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Will do. I may not remember, but my archives never forget. Thanks for your collaboration.  7  02:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I figured it out. Just make some changes to a non-padlocked article. Keep doing it and then change it back. I think it's like government red tape, just have to go through the motions. Dellcomputermouse (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm... okay... I don't think that was the intent of the guideline - you may also get complaints for self-reverting test edits to articles.  7  13:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just a note to hereby confirm that I did indeed request this JAWP CHUU.  7  03:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

The plot summary I included in this page was written by me, John Grimshaw as noted on the IMDB page. Since I am the author of this material, and since this is the official plot summary for the film, which exists in a variety venues, I wish to include it on the page. Thank you, please let me know if you have questions. John Grimshaw —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgjake (talk • contribs) 03:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Mr. Grimshaw - Here is a procedure for donating copyrighted materials which you will need to follow. However, since you have self-identified as the author of this work I must also ask that you read our policies on conflicts of interest and the rules against using Wikipedia for promotion. Regards.  7  04:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I have read and understand all three of the policies. I came across the following wikipedia entry two days ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Indie_Distribution_Fest_award_winners

Since this posting references a work that I created, and was already listed on Wikipedia, an informational link about the page seemed useful. If this is not acceptable I can simply add the IMDB link on the Indie Fest reference and delete the 20 Wheels page.

Thank you, "Jgjake (talk) 04:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)"Reply

Unfortunately that article isn't in the greatest of shape either... and it (too) was created by someone who has a COI (they are an actor in one of the other movies listed). Please let me know once you have donated the copyrighted materials and then we can discuss.  7  04:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I understand better what the issue is. Noob here, upon further examination of the COI, if an outside party can rework this, I think it should work better with your policies. I'll examine the documents further and donate the copyrighted works, will contact on further revisions. Thank you, Jgjake (talk) 07:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

No problem - there are a lot of unknown guidelines here and I still don't know them all. We're all Noob's at some point. Thanks, and happy editing.  7  08:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your message - A picture on the bipolar disorder is proving to be quite controversial and we would like feedback on it. Unfortunately there is no 'banner' eg "This article is not in the correct style". We would like a banner saying "An editor disagrees with the images on this page <talk>." but it does not exist. This is why I would like to add some text on the caption of the image. As discussed on the bipolar disorder talk page prior to the edit this would only be for a few weeks and it hardly distracts from the article like a banner. What do you think? 194.83.139.177 (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have made a few changes. I agree that the pic was not appropriate, but more because of the type of roller coaster pictured than anything else. The reference provided for that pic was actually quite useful (and has more accurate waveforms for the mood pattern of people affected) and I have re-incorporated that author and reference into the Prognosis section. I appreciate you coming to me for help, and I am always willing to do so, but in the future may I gently suggest that you can also consider this when you feel like future changes are necessary. Granted, it's a balancing act - and you don't want to make controversial changes in the heat of the discussion. Commenting on the talk page is the right thing to do, but you don't have to wait for consensus to be reached in a 9 month old (and 5 month stale) discussion before making rational changes. Talk in the article is not appropriate (imagine if you were paging through your paper encyclopedia and you saw a note/pic/ref which said "call us if you don't find this picture useful").  7  23:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hmm... It doesn't do anything strange for me. I've tried looking at it in Explorer, Firefox, and Chrome (I noticed that your signature has a shadow (I normally use IE8 which it doesn't show up in), very nice :D). What browser are you using? And could you explain what it looks like in more detail? The only difference I can think of is when you are adding a new section you get the Subject/headline box, and no edit summary box. And don't worry 'bout the boss comment, makes me feel important ;) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

It happens in Chrome at home and in Firefox at work for me - one note - after you click the links you need to scroll up to see the top of the screen.  7  13:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

If you still can't see it let me know and I'll email ya.  7  13:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Really strange, it starts at the top of the page for me. Are you using vector? Could you try doing it while logged out? If it's still broken, feel free to email me. Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm stumped. I'm using monobook skin (not beta), cleared my monobook.js and vector.js completely - purged and did a full refresh, and still the same thing happens. But you are right, it doesn't happen when I'm logged out. Oh well, I guess not an issue on your side then.  7  22:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi 7! I was hoping to gain a bit of your CSD wisdom. Given the way that the evidence disappears upon deletion, I am unsure how to properly review logs to determine the effectiveness and accepted interpretations of various CSD criteria. (I'm asking you because you seemed friendly when we communicated about the SAT1932CU / Firstmark Credit Union issues, but you certainly owe me nothing, so feel free to send me on to seek advice elsewhere.)

WP:RFD#Vampires abilities caught my eye. Vampires abilities was created today by all appearances as a child's run-on sentence describing what he or she thought about vampires. I wrote at the RfD that it would have likely been speedily deleted had it not been converted into a redirect, but, after posting, I browsed through the CSD criteria and became less certain, particular if the criteria are always interpreted literally. From memory, I was thinking WP:CSD#G1 (no meaningful content), but looking at it I see it addresses "gibberish with no meaningful content" and it "excludes poor writing". In your experience, is there any way this could have been speedily deleted, or would this have needed an AfD?

The creator, Kturn101(talk|contrib), also today created Jason the goose which was successfully deleted with a Speedy G1. Unfortunately, there is no way now to see if the page was truly gibberish, or if it too contained a child's single sentence. Is there any way to learn the actual working practice of CSD other than to track candidates as they are nominated and save a local copy of the article in order to compare content to eventual decision?

BTW, SAT1932CU was unblocked and has created a new username DonnaKP, matching the name of a Firstmark Credit Union graphic designer. While not following the early COI warning she received, she never did attempt any deception, and I do think that she was making a good faith attempt at creating an NPOV article, but avoiding COI in such a case is nearly impossible. -- ToE^T 16:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Wow - first time I've ever been accused of having any wisdom... thanks. Redirects are a tricky subject. Before, many people (myself included) successfully lobbied to exclude redirects from the search box suggestion/autocomplete/dropdown I used to have much stronger opinions that only the most common/relevant spelling and caps mistakes should have a redirect. Everyone else would say "redirects are cheap" and that they don't cause any problem, but I hated that when you started to type in "swim" you would get 72 different permutations of swim, swimming, swims, etc... with different tenses and caps and 95% of which would redirect to the general article swim. Now that the search box excludes redirects there really is no harm, and people will (correctly) argue that keeping a redirect is often better than complete deletion because it will prevent some other 10 year old kid from making a similar article later on. Plus, regardless of whether or not this original article was gibberish and would have qualified under G1, now that another editor has said a redirect is better it is really a moot point - you can't really go back to the original and try go CSD it. Long story short: Even with the spelling/punctuation mistakes I really don't see any harm in this redir. I think that most admins would not have considered this gibberish, but as you said - poor writing.

Agree on the credit union article/author - we'll just have to watch for COIs down the road. The whole block/unblock/COI discussion there was another clear example of how different admins react differently to various situations (perfectly understandable).  7  23:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Wow, I had not known about that bit of search tool history. Were I a banrstar believer I'd want to track down all involved and give you "saving the search tool" barnstars, creating one if it didn't exist.

The rate of {{R from misspelling}} tagging is poor, but, if it were more common, then perhaps changes could be made so such redirects could be treated differently, not yielding blue links, for example. As it is, people saying "redirects are cheap" are certainly more accurate given the dropdown change you effected, but there are still some costs that seem seldom considered. One is support of bluelinks, and that is how I was able to squeak through the deletion of Equador, Rio Grande de Norte last month, given the potential for that misspelling to reappear in a very prominent hatnote. Other costs are that are less tangible include their influences in skewing search engine results, amplified by the number of Wikipedia mirrors.

Finally (and I fear that this rates higher than it should in my mind, leading me to question my motives in all such cases) they often just bug me for being wrong. I don't mind a properly tagged redirect from misspelling created specifically for that purpose, but I am truly bugged by those left behind from unintentional misspellings. "Civil unions in Rio Grande de Sul" (and I won't link it here to avoid increasing its link count) now points to Recognition of same-sex unions in Brazil, but it is the redirect remnant of moving the initially misspelled "Civil unions in Rio Grande do Sul" article, subsequently merged into their common target. Some may argue that an unintentional misspelling is a strong argument for the need of a particular redirect from misspelling, but this one redirect is the sole use of the misspelled phrase "Rio Grande de Sul" in all of Wikipedia, and were such a redirect from misspelling desired, then surely an equivalent one to Rio Grande do Sul would be even more deserving. As it is, neither is desired, as the search tool easily catches this mistake and the inclusion of a phrase so grating to the Brazilian ear serves only to save one mouse click -- a click, by the way, which might occasionally serve to educate someone who has systematic misunderstanding of a particular spelling. In a just world there would be a CSD category for untagged, misspelled, redirects!

I think I may be ranting here, so I'll stop now (even though there are a few other costs that I've not yet mentioned) and apologize for bending your ear so far. -- ToE^T 06:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Believe me, I hear ya. Redirects that are misleading should go. Period. Regardless of how "cheap" they are. But as I drink the kool-aid a bit and think about redirects which aren't misleading but are just a little less likely, and I realize the fact that we might all be saved from having another RFD or CSD discussion on them when they are re-created in the future then I calm down a bit and walk away from them. Feel free to rant anytime... I often do.  7  06:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

how do u check ur editcuont?~!Richboyliang (talk) 22:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

One easy way is to select your username at the top of the screen and then select preferences.  7  23:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

The user is new and is a friend in real life (it's sad that I now have to make that distinction). I helped to convince them to rejoin Wikipedia, as they had been editing under an IP for a number of years. They then set up the account and asked if I could quickly fix up their preferences so that it would be a bit easier to use. I did so with my page also open, and it somehow copied all of his preferences onto my page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 13:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

An article you speedied earlier, Nathalie Quagliotto, has been AfDed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathalie Quagliotto. You may wish to join with the discussion. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, the content is actually about a noble house rather than just a standard surname like "Smith" or something. The house are Dukes of Leinster. - Yorkshirian (talk) 07:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks yet again for covering my back re. my talk page. It's apparent that there are some really bored adolescents playing with daddy's computer.  :)) Take care. Regards, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

No prob. Glad to help.  7  23:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply