This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hello Kinu -
Could I please get a set of Wikipedia's guidelines and/or standards for stubs? I read your notice on the article "The Door Within Trilogy" and I figured you'd be able to help.
-- I The Bluejay 17:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
How does one become a moderator as opposed to an Admin ?? BrianRFSU 21:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Why did you tag this page with the cleanup tag? (Reply here please) Milo 07:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Why did you mark this new article as a "candidate for speedy deletion"? It's breaking news of great importance. At least the wire services and general media think so! As do several medical ethicists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mjk1971 ( talk • contribs) 07:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC).
I see you're using < nowiki > {{ template}} < /nowiki >... I thought you might be interested to learn of {{ tl}}. Cheers, Tom e r talk 02:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Two days left! 63/1/0. Let's hope you get only more and more support votes, Kinu. =) Nishkid 64 22:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Well done on getting a 99% support consensus at your RfA! You must be really pleased at the result! A Bureaucrat will be along shortly to issue you with a shiny new set of admin tools. If you need any help in using them then please don't hesitate to ask. I will do my best to answer you! Regards and happy mopping, (aeropagitica) 05:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I am pleased to let you know that, consensus reached, you are now an Administrator. You should find the following forums useful:
Congratulations on your promotion and the best of luck with your new charge! Redux 11:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Kinu,
I understand the reasons for speedy deletion, and thought that I would let you know that the article does not really add anything important to wikipedia, and in my opinion should be deleted as soon as possible. As you can tell I am new user, and misunderstanding of the notability guidlines is partly to blame for this. Sorry to wsste your time
-- Tdparker 20:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
twat there was fuck all wong with that page lay off dude
twat there was nothing wong with my page loay off dude -- Adz79 21:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
lol well if you had let me finish the darn page maby i would have been able t put up the 'notable' things on the page you just pressed delete the monent you saw it i think thtas a bit judgemental aint it?
Hey, can you give me some guidance. I am having difficulty distingushing the situations where I would place a AfD tag instead of speedy deletion. I have been patrolling newly created sites, and have been placing speedy delete tags on articles about people of little/no notability (after doing a google search). In the article OMAR BARNETT, you placed an AfD tag, right before I placed a speedy delete. Would speedy delete be inappropriate for such an article? "Omar Barnett" has zero relevant hits on google. Some direction is appreciated. - Taco325i 00:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the help with User:74.140.190.187. I had not noticed his posts to his page with my sig. Looks like he copied all the details from one of my posts. Will ( Talk - contribs) 08:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Metamagician3000 and I have reworked the article on Joanna Russ's book And Chaos Died. It's not a great article, but I think it's much better than what had gone before (on the AfD, 23skidoo has changed his vote to keep). While it could certainly be expanded, it maintains an encyclopedic tone, establishes an amount of notability and includes external hyperlinks. Thoughts?
Best wishes, Anville 20:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent application to use AutoWikiBrowser. I have approved your request and you should now be able to use the AWB application. Be sure to check every edit before you save it, and don't forget to check out the AWB Guide. You can get any help you need over on the AWB talk page. Feel free to contact me with any questions,
I'm editing the Rapture Right page...This page does qualify as notable. It's not just a band but a new Christian movement started by the two founding members..This is of historical importance..Do more research about the band and their movement.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jezariah ( talk • contribs)
Thanks for the heads up. You know about theses things better than I, but as far as I can tell nothing further should be done right now, right? BTW, congrats on your recent RfA. Thanks again. -- Pastordavid 19:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah, now that was mean of you. -- Caoilte 21:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
May I get back the content for the article "Nicktropolis"? Thanks. Mr. Tropolis 17:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, and congrats on your promotion! Per this discussion, I'm dropping a friendly note to some of the recently-promoted admins requesting help with speedy deletions. I am not an administrator, so if you don't feel comfortable diving into deletions - or if you need more info - please don't come to me, but I'm sure that Cyde Weys would be happy to guide you if you want to help. Any help is great, but I'm sure that Cyde and others would deeply appreciate it if you could put the page on your watchlist and do a bit of work there on a regular basis? Maybe weekly? Thanks in advance! Anchoress 18:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I am from China. Can you tell me how to write China and People's Republic of China in Oriya? Thank you very much!-- icywind 08:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Arizona Jewelers Association. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 71.223.143.86 00:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The WikiProject Vandalism Studies ( Wikipedia:WikiProject Vandalism studies) just finished its first study and I was hoping that you being a statistician could help us formalize our findings. You can find our draft conclusions here [1]. Here's an excerpt of what we found so far:
The current study analyzed a sample pool of 100 random articles. Within these 100 articles there were a total of 668 edits during the months of November 2004, 2005, and 2006. Of those 668 edits, 31 (or 4.64%) were a vandalism of some type. The study's salient findings suggest that in a given month approximately 5% of edits are vandalism and 97% of that vandalism is done by anonymous editors. Obvious vandalism is the vast majority of vandalism used. From the data gathered within this study it is also found that roughly 25% of vandalism reverting is done by anonymous editors and roughly 75% is done by wikipedians with user accounts. The mean average time vandalism reverting is 758.35 minutes (12.63 hours), a figure that may be skewed by outliers. The median time vandalism reverting is 14 minutes.
Thanks. Remember 15:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello Kinu,
I saw that you recently deleted a page titled Sam_goucher. Thank you for doing this as this wasn't a valid article anyway. I teach at a middle school and it seem that some kids have been trying to write bogus entries in Wikipedia. I noticed that the IP was locked for creating new articles which is a good thing. In my opinion, all entries coming from that IP previous to the ban should be scrutinized as I don't think legit information would be put in from the school.
Thank You
Dan
Sorry about my redirect category. I probally went too far with "nut sack", buy I swear I wasn't trying to vandalize. Kip the Dip 14:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, You 'speedily deleted' a new article that I created about the social networking website Tommies.co.uk. I am unsure why this would be deleted when there are articles on othere social networking website e.g. Bebo. Can you contact me asap, as I'm interested on your reasons for removing the article Prcjac 15:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC) BTW this may sound slightly rude, but would you help us at Tommies.co.uk by creating an account, Thanks if you do! And apologies if that was rude!
I just started this article and would like some time to expand it. Not deleting it would be cool. Will dwane 17:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Why was the WrapMail entry deleted? Ny2525 17:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Kinu, I recently did a google search on my legal name and found that a Wikipedia entry had been posted, and then deleted because it was a personal attack. I am hoping to get any information on this post from you, including the original post. I have an Order of Protection against someone who continually harasses me and I would like this data to confirm who posted the entry and use it as proof to have the Order renewed. I hope we can communicate further about this issue via private email. Thank you. FireDoll 4/20/07
I think you got confused somehow when you warned me; I was just userfying the page. Veinor (talk to me) 22:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Kinu, you are so right. I tried to start a page and made it "live" by accident. I know I should have written it offline and vetted it personally before I posted it. Thanks, I wish I could have deleted it myself and started over.
A question: is it possible for the user to do this if an accident occurs, or is it a status only veteran Wikipedians enjoy? This has happened to me a couple of times, and it would be great if I could apply the brakes on my own. Please respond to User:sswonk. Massachusetts is great too, we love Texas, not taxes.
What would you suggest I do to improve the article to satisfy your concerns regarding verifiability? The only link I have been able to find on the subject so far is on Frank Discussion's own website itself where he gives a brief definition and history here. One of the people who came up with Antistasiology, Frank Discussion has a valid entry in Wikipedia and is mentioned in the entry on the situationists as well I believe. I have included the link and hopefully that will settle this to everyone's satisfaction.
Thanks
Lozen8 01:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks anyway. It appears it is simply too big of a hassle to introduce articles. Go ahead and delete it if you wish. It does rather sour me on Wikipedia's process and policies when you can find a page on Torgo and a serious page is set up for deletion. It certainly explains why so many people refuse to take Wikipedia seriously... Oh well. In fact, I would prefer a speedy deletion so I can be assured of not being associated with Wikipedia. Thanks.
But I will use Wikipedia every time I need information on Torgo or other silly 'cults'. I guess now I'm another one that refuses to accept Wikipedia as a valid source. Most schools won't, and now I have an inkling why. One last thing, I am unable to find information on how to delete my account as I do not wish to be associated in any way with Wikipedia. Thanks.
Lozen8 15:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
After I posted, I did a few searches, it just got worse and worse. A few searches demonstrated to me just how randomly your policies are applied. You allow commercial interests and characters from late night comedy shows to have entries. There is extremely inaccurate information on serious subjects I happen to be familiar with. A number of the 'facts' are not verified and are in fact unverifiable as they are categorically incorrect. In general the level of scholarship is appalling. Next year I should be happily employed as a prof here in California and I will certainly warn my students that Wikipedia is to be considered a non-verifiable source itself. I have to accept some of the blame though, as even a cursory investigation into Wikipidia would have shown me how unreliable and often downright silly it is. I was under the impression Wikipedia was a serious scholarly attempt at having a GNU style online encyclopedia. I was sadly mistaken. My apologies for not realizing that Wikipedia is actually an in-joke.
Lozen8 16:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
My apologies. Perhaps I was simply embarrassed because I was unaware Wikipedia was another online in-joke. Searches on Wikipedia showed me a multitude of examples of it's silliness, I found some rather hilarious ones on YouTube, another great scholarly endeavor (along with MySpace). And if you *are* actually serious about any of this, Antistasiology is indeed a valid area of study as described. And any serious scholar would be a little 'defensive' at having their entries deleted by someone who apparently has zero knowledge of the subject area at hand and whose area of expertise (economics) is utterly alien to the subject in question, one who agrees that an entry on a company who owns a TV station(????) on the other hand is a fine entry for an online encyclopedia. LOL. 16:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Can you take a look at this editor? He created the article Obopay, which I tagged db-spam, but he keeps removing the tags. I warned him, but he does not seem convinced. Can you look at the article and tell me if it is speediable, and if so, tell him to stop removing the tag? Thanks. --- Charles 05:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
May I ask why my page was deleted so that I may correct my error?
Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TooManyIllinois ( talk • contribs) 06:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
Hello. I noticed that you deleted the article I had created within a couple minutes of saving. I did not actually write the content, but was attempting to disambiguate from an article that contained two different companies with the same name. In fact, I hadn't even finished with the disambiguation yet. I understand the concern that the company does not seem notable, but it was already linked incorrectly from the (notable) television station that it owns. Can this possibly be restored so that the disambiguation will work? It seemed silly, to me, to have an article with multiple seperate companies listed. Thanks. *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 07:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
why cant i get my stuff on wikipedia please help —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaythaone212 ( talk • contribs) 07:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
So you deleted the entry that took me about a week to research, and the last 4 hours to type up. Thank you. I understand that you may not be open to new ideas, or people you haven't heard of - but hear me out.
If you want to know why MadV is notable here are the reasons, with references.
1. He holds the record for the MOST RESPONDED VIDEO OF ALL TIME on the Youtube (if not the internet). http://www.youtube.com/browse?s=ms&t=a&c=0&l= if that's not enough, i will continue.
2. He is more 'popular' on Youtube than some other members you already have listed on Wikipedia
http://youtube.com/profile?user=MadV surely that makes him more notable?
3. Nominated for Youtube's 'most creative video of 2006' http://youtube.com/ytawards?name=ytcreative (that makes him in the top 10 of all creative people on the site)
So, go on. Allow the entry on MadV Thanks
I'm trying to add information that I feel people will want to view. Why do you keep deleting it? It makes no sense! Jaboolo 19:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
This looks like a copyvio, but I can't find the source through googling. I notice that you have already deleted it once; is the recreated article still the copyvio you identified the first time? - FisherQueen ( Talk) 20:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your efforts to keep up wikipedia's standards, but please give people a chance to create their pages before slapping banners on them. My list was not even up for 3 minutes before you attached an "unsourced" banner and a "tone" banner to it. While I appreciate your diligence, I was in the process of working on the page and, if you had looked carefully, you would have noticed that I actually referenced the book I was using to create the bibliography in the single sentence on the page. Just because there was, as yet, no footnote, was no reason to put a "source" banner on the page. And while I realize the "I" was inappropriate in my sentence, like I said, I was in the process of putting the page up and was just about to go back and revise. I can't imagine that it is very productive to label newly-created pages that editors are in the process of improving. If you had bothered to look at the rest of my work (by going to my userpage, for example), you would have realized that the Mary Martha Sherwood page is very much under construction. Thanks. Awadewit 21:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hello Kinu -
Could I please get a set of Wikipedia's guidelines and/or standards for stubs? I read your notice on the article "The Door Within Trilogy" and I figured you'd be able to help.
-- I The Bluejay 17:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
How does one become a moderator as opposed to an Admin ?? BrianRFSU 21:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Why did you tag this page with the cleanup tag? (Reply here please) Milo 07:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Why did you mark this new article as a "candidate for speedy deletion"? It's breaking news of great importance. At least the wire services and general media think so! As do several medical ethicists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mjk1971 ( talk • contribs) 07:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC).
I see you're using < nowiki > {{ template}} < /nowiki >... I thought you might be interested to learn of {{ tl}}. Cheers, Tom e r talk 02:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Two days left! 63/1/0. Let's hope you get only more and more support votes, Kinu. =) Nishkid 64 22:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Well done on getting a 99% support consensus at your RfA! You must be really pleased at the result! A Bureaucrat will be along shortly to issue you with a shiny new set of admin tools. If you need any help in using them then please don't hesitate to ask. I will do my best to answer you! Regards and happy mopping, (aeropagitica) 05:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I am pleased to let you know that, consensus reached, you are now an Administrator. You should find the following forums useful:
Congratulations on your promotion and the best of luck with your new charge! Redux 11:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Kinu,
I understand the reasons for speedy deletion, and thought that I would let you know that the article does not really add anything important to wikipedia, and in my opinion should be deleted as soon as possible. As you can tell I am new user, and misunderstanding of the notability guidlines is partly to blame for this. Sorry to wsste your time
-- Tdparker 20:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
twat there was fuck all wong with that page lay off dude
twat there was nothing wong with my page loay off dude -- Adz79 21:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
lol well if you had let me finish the darn page maby i would have been able t put up the 'notable' things on the page you just pressed delete the monent you saw it i think thtas a bit judgemental aint it?
Hey, can you give me some guidance. I am having difficulty distingushing the situations where I would place a AfD tag instead of speedy deletion. I have been patrolling newly created sites, and have been placing speedy delete tags on articles about people of little/no notability (after doing a google search). In the article OMAR BARNETT, you placed an AfD tag, right before I placed a speedy delete. Would speedy delete be inappropriate for such an article? "Omar Barnett" has zero relevant hits on google. Some direction is appreciated. - Taco325i 00:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the help with User:74.140.190.187. I had not noticed his posts to his page with my sig. Looks like he copied all the details from one of my posts. Will ( Talk - contribs) 08:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Metamagician3000 and I have reworked the article on Joanna Russ's book And Chaos Died. It's not a great article, but I think it's much better than what had gone before (on the AfD, 23skidoo has changed his vote to keep). While it could certainly be expanded, it maintains an encyclopedic tone, establishes an amount of notability and includes external hyperlinks. Thoughts?
Best wishes, Anville 20:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent application to use AutoWikiBrowser. I have approved your request and you should now be able to use the AWB application. Be sure to check every edit before you save it, and don't forget to check out the AWB Guide. You can get any help you need over on the AWB talk page. Feel free to contact me with any questions,
I'm editing the Rapture Right page...This page does qualify as notable. It's not just a band but a new Christian movement started by the two founding members..This is of historical importance..Do more research about the band and their movement.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jezariah ( talk • contribs)
Thanks for the heads up. You know about theses things better than I, but as far as I can tell nothing further should be done right now, right? BTW, congrats on your recent RfA. Thanks again. -- Pastordavid 19:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah, now that was mean of you. -- Caoilte 21:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
May I get back the content for the article "Nicktropolis"? Thanks. Mr. Tropolis 17:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, and congrats on your promotion! Per this discussion, I'm dropping a friendly note to some of the recently-promoted admins requesting help with speedy deletions. I am not an administrator, so if you don't feel comfortable diving into deletions - or if you need more info - please don't come to me, but I'm sure that Cyde Weys would be happy to guide you if you want to help. Any help is great, but I'm sure that Cyde and others would deeply appreciate it if you could put the page on your watchlist and do a bit of work there on a regular basis? Maybe weekly? Thanks in advance! Anchoress 18:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I am from China. Can you tell me how to write China and People's Republic of China in Oriya? Thank you very much!-- icywind 08:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Arizona Jewelers Association. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 71.223.143.86 00:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The WikiProject Vandalism Studies ( Wikipedia:WikiProject Vandalism studies) just finished its first study and I was hoping that you being a statistician could help us formalize our findings. You can find our draft conclusions here [1]. Here's an excerpt of what we found so far:
The current study analyzed a sample pool of 100 random articles. Within these 100 articles there were a total of 668 edits during the months of November 2004, 2005, and 2006. Of those 668 edits, 31 (or 4.64%) were a vandalism of some type. The study's salient findings suggest that in a given month approximately 5% of edits are vandalism and 97% of that vandalism is done by anonymous editors. Obvious vandalism is the vast majority of vandalism used. From the data gathered within this study it is also found that roughly 25% of vandalism reverting is done by anonymous editors and roughly 75% is done by wikipedians with user accounts. The mean average time vandalism reverting is 758.35 minutes (12.63 hours), a figure that may be skewed by outliers. The median time vandalism reverting is 14 minutes.
Thanks. Remember 15:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello Kinu,
I saw that you recently deleted a page titled Sam_goucher. Thank you for doing this as this wasn't a valid article anyway. I teach at a middle school and it seem that some kids have been trying to write bogus entries in Wikipedia. I noticed that the IP was locked for creating new articles which is a good thing. In my opinion, all entries coming from that IP previous to the ban should be scrutinized as I don't think legit information would be put in from the school.
Thank You
Dan
Sorry about my redirect category. I probally went too far with "nut sack", buy I swear I wasn't trying to vandalize. Kip the Dip 14:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, You 'speedily deleted' a new article that I created about the social networking website Tommies.co.uk. I am unsure why this would be deleted when there are articles on othere social networking website e.g. Bebo. Can you contact me asap, as I'm interested on your reasons for removing the article Prcjac 15:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC) BTW this may sound slightly rude, but would you help us at Tommies.co.uk by creating an account, Thanks if you do! And apologies if that was rude!
I just started this article and would like some time to expand it. Not deleting it would be cool. Will dwane 17:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Why was the WrapMail entry deleted? Ny2525 17:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Kinu, I recently did a google search on my legal name and found that a Wikipedia entry had been posted, and then deleted because it was a personal attack. I am hoping to get any information on this post from you, including the original post. I have an Order of Protection against someone who continually harasses me and I would like this data to confirm who posted the entry and use it as proof to have the Order renewed. I hope we can communicate further about this issue via private email. Thank you. FireDoll 4/20/07
I think you got confused somehow when you warned me; I was just userfying the page. Veinor (talk to me) 22:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Kinu, you are so right. I tried to start a page and made it "live" by accident. I know I should have written it offline and vetted it personally before I posted it. Thanks, I wish I could have deleted it myself and started over.
A question: is it possible for the user to do this if an accident occurs, or is it a status only veteran Wikipedians enjoy? This has happened to me a couple of times, and it would be great if I could apply the brakes on my own. Please respond to User:sswonk. Massachusetts is great too, we love Texas, not taxes.
What would you suggest I do to improve the article to satisfy your concerns regarding verifiability? The only link I have been able to find on the subject so far is on Frank Discussion's own website itself where he gives a brief definition and history here. One of the people who came up with Antistasiology, Frank Discussion has a valid entry in Wikipedia and is mentioned in the entry on the situationists as well I believe. I have included the link and hopefully that will settle this to everyone's satisfaction.
Thanks
Lozen8 01:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks anyway. It appears it is simply too big of a hassle to introduce articles. Go ahead and delete it if you wish. It does rather sour me on Wikipedia's process and policies when you can find a page on Torgo and a serious page is set up for deletion. It certainly explains why so many people refuse to take Wikipedia seriously... Oh well. In fact, I would prefer a speedy deletion so I can be assured of not being associated with Wikipedia. Thanks.
But I will use Wikipedia every time I need information on Torgo or other silly 'cults'. I guess now I'm another one that refuses to accept Wikipedia as a valid source. Most schools won't, and now I have an inkling why. One last thing, I am unable to find information on how to delete my account as I do not wish to be associated in any way with Wikipedia. Thanks.
Lozen8 15:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
After I posted, I did a few searches, it just got worse and worse. A few searches demonstrated to me just how randomly your policies are applied. You allow commercial interests and characters from late night comedy shows to have entries. There is extremely inaccurate information on serious subjects I happen to be familiar with. A number of the 'facts' are not verified and are in fact unverifiable as they are categorically incorrect. In general the level of scholarship is appalling. Next year I should be happily employed as a prof here in California and I will certainly warn my students that Wikipedia is to be considered a non-verifiable source itself. I have to accept some of the blame though, as even a cursory investigation into Wikipidia would have shown me how unreliable and often downright silly it is. I was under the impression Wikipedia was a serious scholarly attempt at having a GNU style online encyclopedia. I was sadly mistaken. My apologies for not realizing that Wikipedia is actually an in-joke.
Lozen8 16:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
My apologies. Perhaps I was simply embarrassed because I was unaware Wikipedia was another online in-joke. Searches on Wikipedia showed me a multitude of examples of it's silliness, I found some rather hilarious ones on YouTube, another great scholarly endeavor (along with MySpace). And if you *are* actually serious about any of this, Antistasiology is indeed a valid area of study as described. And any serious scholar would be a little 'defensive' at having their entries deleted by someone who apparently has zero knowledge of the subject area at hand and whose area of expertise (economics) is utterly alien to the subject in question, one who agrees that an entry on a company who owns a TV station(????) on the other hand is a fine entry for an online encyclopedia. LOL. 16:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Can you take a look at this editor? He created the article Obopay, which I tagged db-spam, but he keeps removing the tags. I warned him, but he does not seem convinced. Can you look at the article and tell me if it is speediable, and if so, tell him to stop removing the tag? Thanks. --- Charles 05:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
May I ask why my page was deleted so that I may correct my error?
Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TooManyIllinois ( talk • contribs) 06:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
Hello. I noticed that you deleted the article I had created within a couple minutes of saving. I did not actually write the content, but was attempting to disambiguate from an article that contained two different companies with the same name. In fact, I hadn't even finished with the disambiguation yet. I understand the concern that the company does not seem notable, but it was already linked incorrectly from the (notable) television station that it owns. Can this possibly be restored so that the disambiguation will work? It seemed silly, to me, to have an article with multiple seperate companies listed. Thanks. *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 07:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
why cant i get my stuff on wikipedia please help —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaythaone212 ( talk • contribs) 07:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
So you deleted the entry that took me about a week to research, and the last 4 hours to type up. Thank you. I understand that you may not be open to new ideas, or people you haven't heard of - but hear me out.
If you want to know why MadV is notable here are the reasons, with references.
1. He holds the record for the MOST RESPONDED VIDEO OF ALL TIME on the Youtube (if not the internet). http://www.youtube.com/browse?s=ms&t=a&c=0&l= if that's not enough, i will continue.
2. He is more 'popular' on Youtube than some other members you already have listed on Wikipedia
http://youtube.com/profile?user=MadV surely that makes him more notable?
3. Nominated for Youtube's 'most creative video of 2006' http://youtube.com/ytawards?name=ytcreative (that makes him in the top 10 of all creative people on the site)
So, go on. Allow the entry on MadV Thanks
I'm trying to add information that I feel people will want to view. Why do you keep deleting it? It makes no sense! Jaboolo 19:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
This looks like a copyvio, but I can't find the source through googling. I notice that you have already deleted it once; is the recreated article still the copyvio you identified the first time? - FisherQueen ( Talk) 20:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your efforts to keep up wikipedia's standards, but please give people a chance to create their pages before slapping banners on them. My list was not even up for 3 minutes before you attached an "unsourced" banner and a "tone" banner to it. While I appreciate your diligence, I was in the process of working on the page and, if you had looked carefully, you would have noticed that I actually referenced the book I was using to create the bibliography in the single sentence on the page. Just because there was, as yet, no footnote, was no reason to put a "source" banner on the page. And while I realize the "I" was inappropriate in my sentence, like I said, I was in the process of putting the page up and was just about to go back and revise. I can't imagine that it is very productive to label newly-created pages that editors are in the process of improving. If you had bothered to look at the rest of my work (by going to my userpage, for example), you would have realized that the Mary Martha Sherwood page is very much under construction. Thanks. Awadewit 21:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)