This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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

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

Thank you for your permission, but I do not know anything about soap operas. Also, please stop linking random words in your posts. — BradV 03:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ignore this guy. He's a troll. -- Ouzo ( talk) 15:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Done. Red Zion^X 17:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The speedy template said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi,

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

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

You are right. I have removed the tag. — BradV 20:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 20:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

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

I have removed prod tags from a bunch of articles I had tagged earlier. I will re-evaluate those when I have time. — BradV 05:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of 'em probably should be deleted; I know that I looked at a few and agreed with you. I just want to see whether we can cut down on the rate of false positives. BTW, if I was kind of sharp with you yesterday, I'm sorry. If I disagree with you about something, I should be able to express that without being impolite. - Hit bull, win steak ^(Moo!) 14:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Thanks for the tip. It's better you aren't in that category anyway, it could get you blocked. — BradV 05:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was pretty crazy. People here fly off the handle about the dumbest things sometimes, like the Userbox war, or the ArbCom case over Certified.Gangsta's fake "you've got messages" banner. - Hit bull, win steak ^(Moo!) 14:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unfortunately there isn't much room in an edit summary to give all the reasons for changing something. I probably should have left you a message on why I was deleting that section, so I will try to do that justice here.

First of all I wouldn't categorize myself as a deletionist, but I can understand why someone might call me that. I believe that every article should have the potential to become a good article. If it does, I try to fix it up myself or tag it so someone else can do it later. If it doesn't have that potential, it gets nominated for deletion.

I had just taken on that task with The Gathering (film), as it had been tagged as needing work since August 2006. While work had been done to the article since then, the biggest problem remaining was original research. The claim of a resemblance to Ray Bradbury's work was unsourced and appeared to be original research by an editor. As I could not find any sources for that claim on Google, I removed it. Re-adding that information without a source meant that I would have to restore the old tag.

I encourage you to add the information, but only once it is properly sourced. The point is that you can't draw your own conclusions or ideas and put them in the article, you can only put what has been already covered elsewhere. What you claim about this film may very well be true, but it needs to come from somewhere. Once you have found a source that makes the connection between The Gathering and The Crowd, add the information, together with a source so others can confirm it, and I will endorse it. And by all means, if you want help with that, feel free to post a draft in your sandbox and I will help. — BradV 01:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that we've communicated, I agree with you that unless I can find an outside source making those comparisons, the entire section would just be OR. There is something to be said for taking an issue such as this to an article's talk page before acting unilaterally. By bringing up an issue and asking for input, other editors can then help with sourcing or support your case for deletion. I'm just saying... you could avoid some of the above unpleasantness by doing a little consensus building before acting. And, If you find that an edit summary doesn't give you a enough room to explain why you are making an edit, that's usally a good indicator that such an edit should be proposed on the talk page and discussed first. I see from other users posts here that you tend to act quickly and unilaterally as an editor and from your contributions that you are either a very new editor or an editor who has quite recently changed user names. If you are new, these are issues most new editors face. If you are not new and justing using a new name, then you already know all of this. Thanks again. Hopefully I'll have something for you to look at soon. LiPollis ( talk) 02:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Here's my script page: User:Bradv15/monobook.js. I highly recommend WP:Twinkle, WP:Friendly, and the script to add Google searches to the sidebar. But I have to warn you, editing that fast can cause problems. I was working on old orphaned pages and old unreferenced pages, but I got accused of being a deletionist. So today I focused on stubs instead. — BradV 06:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. Same thing happened to me when I placed a PROD. So unless I'm sure it's uncontroversial, I'm just placing {{notability}} and other cleanup tags on them. Or, if I can't de-orphan them, placing a {{do-attempt}} tag. Or all of them. Thanks for the scripts!-- Aervanath ( talk) 16:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

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

OK what about Al-kitab (Quran)? It turns out that Talk:Al-kitab redirects to Talk:Al-kitab (Quran) but Al-kitab redirects to Islamic holy books. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Hullo, hullo,

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

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

Awright, then. Mrbluesky ( talk) 22:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 11	13 March 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Accusations of financial impropriety receive more coverage	Best of WikiWorld: "Five-second rule"
News and notes: New bureaucrat, Wikimania bids narrowed, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Vintage image restoration	WikiProject Report: Professional wrestling
Tutorial: Summary of policies	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 12	17 March 2008	About the Signpost

Best of WikiWorld: "The Rutles"	News and notes: Single-user login, election commission, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Changes at peer review
WikiProject Report: Tropical cyclones	Tutorial: Editing Monobook, installing scripts
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

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

I have approved you. Good luck and happy editing! Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 22:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

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

I tagged 80 PLUS as advert and COI based on this diff - "moved 80 plus to 80 PLUS: marketing guys decided it". Its not really a problem as long as the article is fully referenced and neutral. Once that's fixed I'm sure all three tags can be removed. — BradV 15:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarification. Some of it still needs better citations. Zodon ( talk) 03:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 13	24 March 2008	About the Signpost

Single User Login enabled for administrators	Best of WikiWorld: "Clabbers"
News and notes: $3,000,000 grant, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Banner shells tame talk page clutter	WikiProject Report: Video games
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

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

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

what is wikipedea

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

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

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

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

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 14	31 March 2008	About the Signpost

Wikimania 2009 to be held in Buenos Aires	Sister Projects Interview: Wikisource
WikiWorld: "Hammerspace"	News and notes: 10M articles, $500k donation, milestones
Dispatches: Featured content overview	WikiProject Report: Australia
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

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

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

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

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

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

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

No problem. — BradV 22:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, whatever works. I don't like heavy metal, but I created an article on a metal band after one of its albums was up for AfD (the band was a red link) at the time of AfD). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps)} 23:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

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

I don't know, I'm not a cryptozoologist. I suggest you look at the references in the article. I'm just concerned that people want something deleted because they don't agree with it. That would be bad for Wikipedia. — BradV 14:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

We have plenty of articles on Wikipedia about things I disagree with. However, that doesn't mean that these things with which I disagree should creep into articles about subjects that they have little to no bearing on. No cryptozoologist is an expert in determining what is or isn't a dinosaur. So reporting their perspective on articles about dinosaurs is about as unduly weighted as you can possibly get and violates the spirit and the wording of WP:FRINGE. ScienceApologist ( talk) 14:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The building does not meet the notability requirements at WP:N. If it is not significantly improved to meet those requirements in the next 5 days, it will be deleted. You can save the article if you can provide reliable, third-party sources (such as newspaper articles) that show significant coverage of the subject. Once you have done that you can remove the prod notice from the top of the article. — BradV 18:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

There already are such references on the page. Normally, there's an AfD discussion location. Where is it for this article? Oh, also I overstated how long the article was there before you AfD'd it. - Denimadept ( talk) 18:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't bring the article to AfD, I tagged it for proposed deletion. And there are guidelines at WP:N that preclude this sort of information.

If you would rather have a discussion on AfD, remove the PROD tag and I'll take it there. Cheers. — BradV 18:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

What's the difference between PROD and using AfD? All previous such discussions I've seen have been AfD. - Denimadept ( talk) 18:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:PROD - it's all explained there. — BradV 18:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I see. Yes, I disagree that it's a clear candidate for deletion. (1) I just created it, (2) I created with "underconstruction", and (3) no crystal ball is required since it's under actual construction. - Denimadept ( talk) 18:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

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

It's a prod. If you disagree you're free to remove it. — BradV 19:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

So you really HAD no excuse to want my work deleted. Do you guys get points or gold stars for this kinda of nonsense? EraserGirl ( talk) 19:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I explained why I felt it should go in the deletion notice. Obviously you disagree, and your rationale makes sense, so I've removed it. I certainly wasn't trying to upset you. — BradV 19:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. EraserGirl ( talk) 19:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I believe you'll find the answers to all your questions at WP:MUSIC. — BradV 19:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, neither your beliefs nor WP:MUSIC are wholly enlightening. Which of the criteria for non-notability described at (Albums) are you applying to Chronology (album by Bryn Haworth)? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 20:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This one: Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting. Is that a fair solution? I've removed the speedy tag for now to let you work out how you think this should be handled. — BradV 20:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

What a puzzle now give me! Like I said, this album is a compilation, so does that mean tediously and wastefully copying all the personnel credits from all the other albums from which the tracks have been taken? The same goes for producers, engineers, recording studios, etc., etc. Or would a album cover picture do? Or what else? And what about my second question? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 20:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm really not an expert on how to handle this. I guess you could try create all of the albums as separate articles, but you would need to show in each article how that album is notable (reviews, sales rankings, etc.). If that can't be easily done perhaps you could create a separate discography article to hold all the information on all his albums and singles. — BradV 21:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the advice. I'll just do the ones which seem most significant for now. Martinevans123 ( talk) 21:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello Bradv,

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

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

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

What should I tag it as then? It obviously shouldn't be kept. — BradV 16:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my Turkish is non-existent. Is it a hoax? About a non notable subject? -- Dweller ( talk) 16:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a non-English article in the English Wikipedia. - Denimadept ( talk) 16:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The speedy criteria instruct that a non English article isn't grounds for deletion. It should be tagged {{notenglish}}. See WP:SPEEDY -- Dweller ( talk) 19:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi!

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

- Warthog Demon 18:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

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

WRT consensus...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 15	7 April 2008	About the Signpost

April Fools' pranks result in temporary blocks for six admins	WikiWorld: "Apples and oranges"
News and notes: 100 x 5,000, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Reviewers achieving excellence	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 16	14 April 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Interview with the team behind one of the 2,000th featured articles	Image placeholders debated
WikiWorld: "Pet skunk"	News and notes: Board meeting, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Featured article milestone
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

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

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

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 18	2 May 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Wikimedia Board to expand, restructure	Arbitrator leaves Wikipedia
Bot approvals group, checkuser nominations briefly held on RfA	WikiWorld: "World domination"
News and notes: Board elections, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Did You Know ...	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 19	9 May 2008	About the Signpost

Sister Projects Interview: Wikiversity	WikiWorld: "They Might Be Giants"
News and notes: Board elections, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Featured content from schools and universities	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

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

Bradv,

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

the article is here

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

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

thanks in advance

karsten

>>

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

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 20	12 May 2008	About the Signpost

Explicit sexual content draws fire	Sighted revisions introduced on the German Wikipedia
Foundation receives copyright claim from church	Board to update privacy policy, adopts data retention policy
Update on Citizendium	Board candidacies open through May 22
Two wiki events held in San Francisco Bay Area	New feature enables users to bypass IP blocks
WikiWorld: "Tony Clifton"	News and notes: Autoconfirmed level, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Changes at Featured lists
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

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

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

Stubs WCWM The Glen Campbell Goodtime Hour W^X Roz Weston Throw Momma from the Train List of Korean ceramic artists and sculptors Global symmetry HBO channels KCSM Cool (aesthetic) Olympic Village PrimeTime Radio Military communications Wonton Chicago Theological Seminary Newton, Massachusetts Aglaea Fo Tan Malaspina University-College

Cleanup Closed list Alucard (Hellsing) Leonard Part 6 Merge Unitard Islamization AOL Add Sources A1 (band) Tom DeLonge Tsutomu Miyazaki Wikify Pick and roll Elliot S! Maggin Bowling Green State University Expand Orbit Satellite Television and Radio Network KFC Paleolithic

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

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

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

hi,

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

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

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

please let me know what to do?

thanks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brad

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

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

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

Hi,

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

Links to validate notability:

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

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

Best regards

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bradv,

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

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

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

Brad,

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

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

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

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

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

Hi

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

What I do?

Thank you

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

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

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

Can I ask what specifically is considered an assertion of notability in this article? Generally I look for whether the band has toured anywhere or has released any albums or singles that achieved any level of success. Neither of those criteria seem to be satisfied here. — BradV 06:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Evidently, the author feels the fact that the band has received airplay on BBC makes them notable. Another user on the article's talk page feels that that's an assertion of notability. Valid or not (I'm inclined to say "not"), at any rate it's enough to keep it from being speedied. I think you'd be successful if you start an AFD; without some serious improvements, the article will almost certainly be deleted. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay thanks for the explanation. — BradV 12:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 21	19 May 2008	About the Signpost

Pro-Israeli group's lobbying gets press, arbitration case	Board elections: Voting information, new candidates
Sister Projects Interview: Wikibooks	WikiWorld: "Hodag"
News and notes: Russian passes Swedish, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Good article milestone	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 22	26 May 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections: Candidate questions	Single User Login opt-in for all users
Community-related news sources grow	WikiWorld: "Tomcat and Bobcat"
News and notes: Wikimedia DE lawsuit, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Featured sounds	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 07:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Brad - thanks for the welcome. It worked.

Re: new SolarAid article "written like an ad" and "references and sources"

I'm really new at this so I have a lot of questions: Are the notices 'normal' for new articles? Should I work to improve the article myself? Will it disappear if I don't. Or should I let go and let the midnight elves take it to the next stage?

Wikiscopia ( talk) 14:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Erm, you tagged an article within 60 seconds of my first save. You also tagged an article with a notability tag, even though it's clearly listed as winning an award. I appreciate that you're being vigilant here, but be aware that sometimes articles are created in multiple edits. I recommend that you work on patrolling articles that are at least 24 hours old, and assume good faith on stubs that are in the process of being created by established editors. -- El on ka 00:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation on DonnyB's talk page - you put it much beter than I did! munchman |  talk; 12:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 23	2 June 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections open	WikiWorld: "Facial Hair"
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 07:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This page is not advertising, nor is it a copyright infringement. This page is public knowledge from www.fabricstructures.com, and I have referenced it there. Please advise and explain your comment further. There are numerous companies who are blatantly advertising on Wikipedia (like Rubb and others). However, this is not doing anything near that. Please advise. Mtc38118 ( talk) 15:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I honestly am not sure. It was created from a WP:AFC request by an ip user and I apparently missed that it was a copyvio. I've given it a bit of a rewrite to avoid copyvio problems. Cheers! Redfarmer ( talk) 19:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bradv - I noticed that you proposed TR100 to be deleted due to indiscriminate list of information. I looked at the page and am not sure if TR100 fits into this category, especially when the policy page only mentioned five examples cases, all of which differs greatly from TR100. Can you explain to me (in a bit more detail) why you think TR100 is an indiscriminate list of information? Also, can you show me the previous consensus for deleting articles of this type? Thanks! -- Jiuguang Wang ( talk) 23:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's also not a directory. The rationale is that this is a list of information that should be published elsewhere, and is not something you would find in an encylopedia. It also completely unreferenced, so it fails the verifiability policy. If you disagree with my reasoning, please express that on the article's talk page so that others can join in the discussion. Thanks. BradV 04:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have created a section on the talk page. Perhaps we can talk there. -- Jiuguang Wang ( talk) 14:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It seemed more... flattering... than the current one, to be honest LiteralKa ( talk) 00:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you ask Jimbo what he thinks of it? It's his userpage. BradV 00:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay! I will, I didn't even think of that. LiteralKa ( talk) 00:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I am a little flustered by the amount of text you have deleted or tagged as OR because you have unilaterally deemed it so. Have you read all of these sources and decided that these are my own syntheses of the materials? It's not a perfect article, and I doubt that an article on a topic like this would be met with much acceptance even if it were perfected, but the information, on the whole, is a distillation of published and reliable sources. I've let this article sit for a good while hoping that someone else would swoop in and make constructive edits by ADDING TEXT rather than taking the easy route and deleting with abandon. Sorry if this is offensive, but I'm reaching the last straw on my own faith in the "Assume good faith" policy. YouMustBeLion ( talk) 02:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the article is that it doesn't meet the policies on neutral point of view or verifiability. Wikipedia is not an authority on anything, nor is it the place to put our own essays ( original research). Instead, it is a tertiary source, summarizing and referencing what other people have written on topics. What this means is that we can't synthesize (or distill as you put it) books on particular topics and reach our own conclusions - rather we need to find those conclusions drawn elsewhere in newspapers, magazines, etc. and reference them in the article. So basically, 90% of that article is your own words expressing your ideas and using sources to identify the facts behind your conclusions. This is perfect for an essay in college, or a thesis in university (I'm sure you got a good mark for what you wrote), but in its very nature it is not a proper encyclopedia article. BradV 02:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, first, herein lies my problem with what you continue to say: on the whole the article is filled with opinions coming from PUBLISHED, VERIFIABLE SOURCES. Conclusions drawn are from these sources, which you would know if you had read them, which you clearly have not. A distillation is both the act of capturing an essence (summarizing) and the finished product (summary), not an original invention (nor synthesis). I suggest you read each and every one of these sources, in full, before you start deciding what "seems" like original research to you. Anything I have added as my own synthesis (which, by the way, is far from the 90% figure you've hyperbolized), is within your right to improve. Secondly, NPOV is an impossibility for any single editor, which is why Wikipedia is a good forum for improving the POV concerns of any given article by way of encouraging a multiplicity of voices. My understanding is that an otherwise well-written article not conforming to NPOV, in the Wikipedia world, is welcomed as an opportunity for collaborative improvement rather than the object of heavy-handed deletion. While I won't pretend to know your motivations for holding this particular article to a higher standard than that of many other articles on contemporary American politics, I find myself theorizing that your own actions are the product of a less-than-neutral point of view. Now that you can tag as original research. The article is well-sourced, well-written, and I whole-heartedly look forward to concerned, thoughtful, and informed edits. YouMustBeLion ( talk) 00:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

From your own message: "Conclusions drawn are from these sources". As I said before, that is applicable in an essay or thesis, but not in an encyclopedia article. That is original research and/or synthesis. And my only bias here is WP:NPOV. Anything that's not neutral, but is written to advance a particular point of view, offends me. BradV 00:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should have been more precise in my wording. What I mean to say is that conclusions are summarized by me, but are those of the original authors. My only intervention in their arguments is to summarize them. Additionally, I am personally offended that you would assume I am deliberately trying to advance a position, especially since this was never my intention. I have no idea what position I would be advancing, and I think that an elucidation of this point of criticism is warranted (on the discussion page of the article seems to be the place to do it, under where you have made that comment). Hopefully you will channel your offense at my apparent NPOV into constructively editing the article rather than paring it down to a stub. Remember that the result of the AfD was to not delete it, and although there was no consensus, enough people felt that the article has potential for expansion. As far as the further life of this article goes, I feel that the generalized nature of complaints like yours ("advancing a particular viewpoint," or "written in an extremely non-NPOV manner"), is not especially productive, and I'm sure everyone would appreciate explicit indications of what specific phrases, or even sections, could use improvement. Generalizing works much better as a tool for praise than for criticism. This means more work for you, but I think it's fair practice to do so, since simply deleting takes a great deal less energy than does actually creating a substantial article. In the future, since the article deals with a heady topic, please place suggested improvements on the discussion page, or at least place all deleted text into the talk page for archival purposes. In the interests of effective collaboration, please assume that what I have written is in place because I felt it was a valid contribution to Wikipedia and is representative of a new editor's highest efforts, and I will agree to assume that your primary interests are directed at the improvement of an article and not to advance your own position, whatever that may be. YouMustBeLion ( talk) 01:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

We have continued to be deleted from Wikipedia because of our article. Dr. Allan Bonner is as notable as any other author or television host on wikipedia. He is published and is a very successful risk and crisis management specialist. Can you please explain what is going on?

Thanks,

Sarah

Allanbonner ( talk) 12:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, it is not a resume or any form of advertising. His page allows people to learn the importance of risk and crisis management in a communications capacity. Communications is a rapidly growing field and it is important that people learn about the growth of the field and the people contributing to it. Is there a number I can call or another avenue to explore. There are other people such as journalists, artists and authors who have pages. Why are we getting kicked off. I have followed all the same guidelines which they have. I would like the speedy deletion removed.

Sarah

Allanbonner ( talk) 14:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. I am in the midst of scanning magazine articles and covers as well as providing album scans and such because my citing is in question? Would you like a link to these scans ? Thank you. Skyler Morgan ( talk) 20:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't personally want those, but I'm sure they'd be useful on the talk page of the article and/or at the AfD discussion. BradV 20:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see the following link: http://zacharyjaydonwiki.blogspot.com/

I am continuing to upload additional scans. This will be at the very least, a show of good faith, and a non-refutable proof of at least a portion of the information in question. Thank you.

Skyler Morgan ( talk) 22:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That's bizarre. When I went there the first time, all I got was a splash page of 4 women staring at me. No words at all. Now, I get text.
Kww ( talk) 21:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The 4 women you are referring to are the other celebrity spokesgroup for the brand. If you click on the link to several products, or the Close To Home link at the bottom of any page, including the splash page located at www.SexyHair.com you will find the text you are referring to. This is the official website for a Fortune 500 Hair and Beauty company.

Skyler Morgan ( talk) 21:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Bradv, sorry for correcting your nomination. I failed to notice that the article's references had been added post-nom, which was clearly an oversight on my part. Jclemens ( talk) 21:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. BradV 21:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I have not added a single word of promotional material on Wikipedia. I simply stated a fact on the article... It is a world-known fact, and I would appreciate you not deleting my post. I really don't understand what's going on. There is absolutely no advertising on the article... only facts, with references. Mtc38118 ( talk) 18:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Judging by the pages you have made, and your admission here that you work for Mahaffey, your only intent in contributing to Wikipedia is to advertise for this company. We are building an encyclopedia, and promoting companies is not part of our agenda. Such attempts are removed on sight, and repeated attempts result in users being blocked. BradV 18:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there,

thanks for alerting me to add more links to my article. as am new to wikipedia i've been trying to get my head around the dos and donts. i've added more links - hope it's better now.

Shibuyacat ( talk) 07:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC) cheers

Looks good. I did some cleanup to fix the citation style and formatting. I also added the orphan tag back in because there are no other articles that link to it. (See Special:WhatLinksHere/Tuborg GreenFest). BradV 11:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That is not my intent at all. I was inserting an article on clear span structures and stated a fact in the history section about how Mahaffey introduced the clear span to North America in 1980. That is a blatant fact, and is in no way advertising. Also, if you look at Rubb, that is clear advertising, so why is there no dispute there. I simply tried to do that for Mahaffey (with no advertising... simply facts about the company, just like Rubb), and it was deleted. I am very confused here. There was only one line about Mahaffey in the clear span structures entry, and that line was a fact. Please advise, as I feel this is unfair treatment. I am in no way trying to go or rebel against the Wikipedia guidelines. I am simply trying to educate viewers, just as everyone else is. Again, please advise. Thank you for your time. Mtc38118 ( talk) 13:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 24	9 June 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections continue	WikiWorld: "Triskaidekaphobia"
News and notes: Military media mention, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Main page day	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 06:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Bradv, I am looking to refine the content for the Sneaky Sunday page so it fits the standards that wikipedia outlines, but include informative historical information about the company, the service it offers, and a few of its people. When rewriting the latest content, I looked at similar company pages, and felt that because I used quotes from the press Sneaky Sunday has received and referencing it so that it was reputable instead of useless propaganda or banter. I looked at metromix and citysearch's pages and felt that Sneaky Sundays was more complete, well rounded and informative, but if you could help me edit it, instead of just flagging it, i would appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryanhenn ( talk • contribs) 18:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 25	23 June 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Board elections completed; results forthcoming	WikiWorld: "John Hodgman"
News and notes: Military media mention, milestones	Dispatches: How Wikipedia's 1.0 assessment scale has evolved
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 26	26 June 2008	About the Signpost

Ting Chen wins 2008 Board Election	ArbCom's BLP "special enforcement" remedy proves controversial
Global group discussions in progress	WikiWorld: "Raining animals"
News and notes: Foundation hires, milestones	Dispatches: Reliable sources in content review processes
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 07:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like a full explanation of why an article I wrote for a company was maliciously deleted. At no time was I given a notification by email of this pending action. I logged in today to find the ruthless deletion message from Bradv. If there was a problem you should have notified me by email. I do not spend my life looking at Wikipedia day in and day out like some here. I have a life outside of Wikipedia. Everything that was written in that article was true and legitimate information about the company and it's owners who are now upset since notification from me. Ebayrockstar ( talk) 00:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I am not an administrator, so I didn't delete the article and I can't see the deleted version. According to the logs, the article TNTRide was deleted as it failed the inclusion guidelines for companies and organizations. Judging by your comments I suspect it may also have violated the no advertising and the conflict of interest policies. Please take a look at the page Your First Article for advice on contributing to Wikipedia, and let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. BradV 00:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. The article was written following the strict guidelines. It was no different from any other corporations wikipedia page. There was no advertising going on and it was edited and compared to several other corporate wikipedia pages before it was saved for submission. As you can tell I'm severely agitated. I apologize for out right blaming you, however your name was associated with the deletion message.

Now how can I rewrite this companies article so that it meets complete wikipedia requirements? Can you offer some assistance?

Ebayrockstar ( talk) 00:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

hello There!!!!

Why did you remove the Speedy Tag. Please note that article has been deleted once as it is a test page.

U have not left any comment though.

Hitrohit2001 ( talk) 17:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Hitrohit2001

What makes you think Filip Krajinovic is a test page? BradV 17:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are able to see the deletion log then you may find out the reason what makes me think that. However, u should leave comment while reverting, as the one who placed the tag will definitely want to know "What makes you think that its not a Test page". Hitrohit2001 ( talk) 17:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Hitrohit2001

I agree that I should have provided a reason for removing the speedy, and have done so now. BradV 17:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for consideraion.:) Hitrohit2001 ( talk) 17:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Hitrohit2001

Did you delete my i-am-izzy page? I'm sorry about my previous comment, I was mad. I edited my page and it was completly deleted. It wasn't about her anymore it was about the website, but that's too bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pizzagirl543 ( talk • contribs) 18:32, July 3, 2008

I wasn't the one to delete the page, but I did tag it for deletion three times, and an administrator subsequently deleted the page each time. Please take a look at the comments I left on your talk page for ways in which you can constructively contribute to Wikipedia, and let me know if you have any questions. BradV 18:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Trying to add Gamer IQ Blog to Wiki.

No spamming here. This is a blog that promotes gaming and other tech things.

Why do you keep deleting what I put.

What do I have to do to get this to stay?

Nick —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickas21 ( talk • contribs) 18:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The article you posted was clearly advertising for the website. Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion is against policy. Also, the subject of the article appears to not be notable enough for an article, so even a well-written article will not be kept. Sorry. BradV 18:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bradv, I've had the Taryn Rose International page I created immediately deleted for blatant advertising and would like further explanation. I've read the guidelines and spent quite a bit of time reading other entries that were accepted to get a good idea of what is acceptable. What I created is in line with other brands, like Cole Haan, True Religion, Baby Phat, etc., so I'm wondering exactly what factual information in my page is blatant advertising that isn't in the aforementioned pages.

Regards,

Tifani Vernon TifaniV ( talk) 20:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well for one, the page was entitled "Adding content", not the name of the actual company. I can't see the deleted information, so I can't really answer the rest of your questions. You may want to check out the welcome page for more information on what is acceptable. BradV 20:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 27	30 June 2008	About the Signpost

Private arbitration case criticized, vacated	Other ArbCom announcements reviewed in wake of controversy
Statistical model identifies potential RfA candidates	WikiWorld: "Mike Birbiglia and the Perils of Sleepwalking"
News and notes: Board votes released, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Sources in biology and medicine	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 03:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Bradv

I'm the person who put the article about Glocals.com on line. You put two tags on it: "this article is written like an advertisement" and "this article requires clean-up".

I'd be happy to make the necessary changes. Still, I need more specific info. I tried to be as factual and descriptive as possible, citing references in the mainstream media, so could you tell me exactly which passages are to be changed?

Thanks you for your help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vonvalmont ( talk • contribs) 15:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The article is pretty good, but there are few grammar and formatting errors which the cleanup tag will draw people's attention to. Regarding the advertising tag: it still reads a bit like an ad and will need some more neutral, balanced coverage. It's also going to need a few more references in publications that we can actually find. Mentions on television programs aren't really good references as we can't look them up. If you would like a bit more help, check out the welcome page and the essay Your First Article. BradV 15:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

In regard to the tagging of this page for speedy deletion, please note that User:Icerasta does exist, as can be seen at Special:Listusers. Icerasta has no active contributions under that name, but he does have deleted contributions. There had also been notices on his talk page to him from other users about those deleted contributions. I restored the talk page to the way it was before the recent edits. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. I just saw that the user had never edited the page and had no contributions, so I thought that U2 would apply. Thanks. BradV 16:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

hi im sorry about recent events —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiernanmul2k8 ( talk • contribs) 18:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That's okay. We'd love to have you as an editor, but we just need your edits to be constructive. I'll take this apology as a commitment to contribute positively to the encyclopedia. If you need any help, please let me know. BradV 18:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

yes i would like help actually.im wondering if i could make a page on my friend whos inspired me in recent years in many ways.is that acceptable??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiernanmul2k8 ( talk • contribs) 18:08, July 4, 2008

Not unless he's famous. Check out the notability criteria for more information. BradV 18:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that... I must have misread the AFD page. Lastingsmilledge ( talk) 03:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

My PC Locked up pretty bad and I was trying to work on an article and for some reason it ended up deleting when I hit (CTRL/ALT/DEL) to reboot my PC...

Sam —Preceding unsigned comment added by D453g ( talk • contribs) 04:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

My article on Werner Karl Dahm was deleted due to "blatant copyright violation" because the same article was found on the aerospaceguide website. The article published on Wikipedia was created by us, the Dahm family as an obituary for our father. The article on the http://www.aerospaceguide.net/spacehistory/wernerdahm.html website is in fact OUR article that was printed by them (as well aas several other websites, journals and newspapers) with our permission. In fact, at the bottom of the aerspaceguide.org website article, it specifically states "Information and photo emailed by Werner J.A. Dahm on 22 January, 2008". Therefore, this is NOT a copyright violation. Please re-instate the article.

thanks, Martin Dahm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zydechef ( talk • contribs) 13:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

How many more citations do you want? It is a very short article and contains nothing which is not in the references, which are reputable. In my view it is a stub in need of expanding, not assertions in need of improving. Chemical Engineer ( talk) 16:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The best way to expand the stub is to find additional references. The claim "the most influential biochemical engineer of modern times" certainly needs an additional source. BradV 16:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense! It is not a claim it is a direct quote from the cited article. I don't claim it, I just report that Stephanopolous said it in the only obituary I am aware of. Chemical Engineer ( talk) 16:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the {{ prod}} tag from The Emporium, Leicestershire, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{ prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Kind regards, Ryttaren ( talk) 19:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I proposed it for deletion because I couldn't find a single source for the assertions in the article. What did you find that made you elect to keep it?
When you remove proposed deletion templates from articles, could you please make an effort to fix the issues mentioned in the template? If you claim that the articles are notable, please make an effort to find a reference that proves that notability and add it in the article. For example, you removed the prod template from Gecad research center with the comment "Strong deprod, very notable." How did you arrive at your conclusion? Where are the sources that prove that it is notable enough for an article? BradV 20:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Dear Brad, the {{ prod}} tag is only valid as long as a deletion is not contested at all. As wp:prod#Contesting a proposed deletion and common sense dictates, there should be no lengthy arguments in this process, since this would constitute some kind of controverse, indicating that an AfD nomination may be called for. Kind regards, Ryttaren ( talk) 21:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page! ... discospinster _talk 20:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. BradV 20:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I can send you PDF files of the original news stories as they appeared in the Los Angeles Times. Also, the books I referenced were specific about the Eulia Love case, and I dispute your (dispute) that this article isn't factual. The book I referenced, the biography of LA Times publisher Otis Chandler, went into great detail about the importance and significance of the Eulia Love case. Also, if you didn't live in Los Angeles when the case happened, and in the years that followed, you really can't speak with authority about the authenticity of my documentation on the Eulia Love case.

A book was also written, called 'The Other Side of the Gun.'

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casadejunque ( talk • contribs) 00:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I copied your message to the talk page of the article so we can keep the discussion in one place. BradV 00:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I am Tobyphoby and I created the "Shaking Up Shakespeare" page. Anthony Glenn and "Shaking Up Shakespeare" is a well recognised drama company across the UK, especially Greater London. It may seem like an advertisement but that is because there is hardly any negative feedback from any schools or people towards "s-u-s." I also have two valid quotes to back up the facts of "Shaking Up Shakespeare." Yes, I may not know the complete criteria for Wikipedia but I think this is actually a fair and truthful article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobyphoby ( talk • contribs) 19:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It was previously deleted because it didn't contain enough information to identify the subject of the article and why it should be included in the encyclopedia. It is no longer up for deletion since you recreated it. Check out Your First Article for information on working on the article, paying particular attention to finding and adding references. If you have any questions please ask. BradV 19:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Please exercise a little more care when reverting edits. This revert was completely uncalled for. If you'd taken a look at the article, its history and its talk page, you would see that this is a good-faith attempt to build the article. Please explain your actions on the user's talk page as well, as the user is now quite confused. BradV 19:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. It's appreciated. See [ [1]] for feedback. Germ ( talk) 19:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Moved back here to keep conversation together

I see by the comments you left on the IP's talk page that you still think that you were right in reverting that edit. Slight formatting errors do not equal vandalism. Your warning was completely unnecessary, and you owe the user an apology. BradV 19:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope you are satisfied now. If not, please feel free to help me enhance the article and help our friend talk page clarify his confusion. Germ ( talk) 19:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

do you think that the present content of the Lans Bovenberg page justifies removing of your like-resume tag ?

Regards, Vonkad ( talk) 22:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for tagging Image:Mustukovs.jpeg and other pages for deletion for violating the WP:NFCC. Some of these images could have been deleted earlier using {{ db-badfairuse}} as they have templates saying they are website screenshots but are actually photographs of people. Just letting you know! Stifle ( talk) 14:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking "s-u-s" away from deletion but can you get rid of the templates so they are no there any more? thankl you-- Tobyphoby ( talk) 17:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really. It still reads like an advertisement, it still does not explain why the subject is notable, and it still does not have any third-party references. Of the three tags, the most important one is the references. If you can find two or three references to the subject in newspaper articles, online reviews, etc. and add them to the article that will help out a lot. If you have any questions please ask. BradV 17:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for putting the note on Mahaffey Fabric Structures. I did not mean to remove the tags; I was simply trying to make an edit to the first paragraph, and I copied over them by accident. I will make any necessary edits I need to, in order to make sure this article stays up. Again, I apologize for the deletion. But thank you for your help. Mtc38118 ( talk) 19:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Why did you remove what I wrote about Jimmy Wales and the GNU/Linux naming controversy? -- 212.247.27.45 ( talk) 23:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Because Jimbo's opinion regarding the name is not notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. BradV 23:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It is very notable because he created Wikipedia and this is Wikipedia. It was POV that you removed it. Censorship. -- 212.247.27.45 ( talk) 23:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not notable because it has nothing to do with Linux. Do we have Bill Gates' opinion? Or George W. Bush's? Regardless, things of this nature should be at the GNU/Linux naming controversy page, so you can take your case to its discussion page if you like. BradV 23:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If Bill Gates and George W. Bush would have said their opinions, I would think it would be very notable. -- 212.247.27.45 ( talk) 23:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey Bradv,

Please help. See his talk page.

Germ ( talk) 00:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I assume this is the same user as User:Carau. I understand why you are tagging these articles for speedy deletion, but I don't think its the most helpful. Try not to undo the contributor's work if it is potentially beneficial. I would watchlist them all and make sure he carries through on them, and leave an offer to answer any questions on his talk page. WP:BITE should loom large here. BradV 00:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You can see a full list of all the pages at Category:Argentinean National University (the category doesn't exist, but the members are all displayed). I'm going to work through them and see if I can help, as this is good information. BradV 00:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Roger that. I will go through them one by one (I already started) and see which one can be easily improved. You are right about the WP:BITE in that case. Thanks for your help. Again. Germ ( talk) 00:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

File:Pdnbtn.png

Some of those articles only have the name. (I would not actualy call it an article!) For instance, National University of Lanús has the wrong date and links, and the wrong picture (it is a picture of National University of La Plata)Maybe just a list would be enough, what do you think? Germ ( talk) 00:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw that. All the ones that were incorrect I tagged with {{ underconstruction}} instead of deleting them, to give him the benefit of the doubt. I'll check back in a day or two and see whether they've been improved. There is no deadline. BradV 00:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Allright, I understand and tried not to panic but Carau just left all those article under construction with the wrong info. Anyway, have a good night! Germ ( talk) 00:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Followup...-- Ŧħę௹ɛя㎥ 13:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

		Thank you for the support!
		Bradv, it is my honor to report that thanks in part to your support my third request for adminship passed (80/18/2). I appreciate the trust you and the WP community have in me, and I will endeovour to put my newly acquired mop and bucket to work for the community as a whole. Yours sincerly and respectfuly, TomStar81 ( Talk) 03:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything in WP:SPS that says self-published quotes are acceptable. That seems to me like it would mean it's acceptable to include any quote from any webpage on the internet. From WP:SPS: 'This page in a nutshell: Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source.' 76.10.148.211 ( talk) 13:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Brad

I am the author of the article about former Mississippi State Representative Robert Clark. You had concerns that there was a possible conflict of interest. I must admit that it may be suspicious do to the fact that his last name is Clark and my user ID is bwclark please be assured that i am not a relative of Mr. Clark. As a teenager I must admit I was fascinated because we share the same last name. I have only met him once, when gave the commencement address at my college graduation over 15 years ago. I have read many books about Rep. Clark and all of the contents in the article is supported by the three books I referenced. Rep. Clark have made many accomplishments and a article about him will make Wikipedia a more valuable resource. Thank you for your attention and concern. ( Bwclark1974 ( talk) 14:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC))

I would like for you to review this user/administrator (SchuminWeb), the same person that caused my article to be removed. Not only is he "violating" (WP:CORP) what I was accused of he's also a hypocrite. I think this needs to be brought to light and if no one does it, I definitely will. Ebayrockstar ( talk) 05:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 28	7 July 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Transparency
Wikimedia releases 2008-2009 Annual Plan	Defamation case against Wikimedia dismissed
WikiWorld: "Charles Lane"	News and notes: Adminbots, abuse filter, ArbCom, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, June
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 09:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 29	14 July 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Transparency
WikiWorld: "Goregrind"	Dispatches: Interview with botmaster Rick Block
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 30	21 July 2008	About the Signpost

WikiWorld: "Cartoon physics"	News and notes: New Board Chair, compromised accounts
Dispatches: History of the featured article process	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 06:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason you removed all reference to Agrium's highly controversial fertilizer plant on the Mediterranean? It is a well documented fact that Egypt's Parliament voted to prevent continuation of the project due to environmental concerns. This is a major piece of information that should not be omitted unless the goal of the wikipedia article is to sell Agrium stocks. 209.222.195.180 ( talk) 04:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You must have me confused with someone else. I don't recall doing anything of the sort. Cheers. BradV 16:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm hoping you can shed some light on what transpired with the Eulia Love article. I was simultaneously thrilled to discover that somebody had created it, and crestfallen to learn that it has already been deleted. The deletion log says only that an author requested deletion. It was far and away the most notorious police shooting in Los Angeles history, and unquestionably needs an article on Wikipedia. Please reply at my talk page -- and thanks! Cgingold ( talk) 02:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The editor who deleted the page is NawlinWiki. You can either talk to that admin directly, go to deletion review, or recreate the page yourself. BradV 15:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Bradv,

Thanks for the heads up on audiotube, we will move it over to mainspace and start working on cleaning it up a bit more as you suggested.

Karsten —Preceding unsigned comment added by Audioman7 ( talk • contribs) 10:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi BradV,

So i moved the audiotube article to main space and its being contested for speedy deletion again. I have been working on it to remove as much unfactual data as possible to make sure it complies, and will contine to do so over the weekend...

take a look if you can http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audiotube

thanks

karsten —Preceding unsigned comment added by Audioman7 ( talk • contribs) 13:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot ( talk) 05:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 31	28 July 2008	About the Signpost

Wikimania 2008 wrap-up	WikiWorld: "Terry Gross"
News and notes: Unblocked in China	Dispatches: Find reliable sources online
WikiProject Report: Military history	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 32	9 August 2008	About the Signpost

Anthrax suspect reportedly edit-warred on Wikipedia	WikiWorld: "Fall Out Boy"
Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, July	WikiProject Report: WikiProject New York State routes
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 33	11 August 2008	About the Signpost

Study: Wikipedia's growth may indicate unlimited potential	Board of Trustees fills Nominating Committee for new members
Greenspun illustration project moves to first phase	WikiWorld: "George Stroumboulopoulos"
News and notes: Wikipedian dies	Dispatches: Reviewing free images
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 34	18 August 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Help wanted
WikiWorld: "Cashew"	Dispatches: Choosing Today's Featured Article
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 05:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 35	25 August 2008	About the Signpost

WikiWorld: "George P. Burdell"	News and notes: Arbitrator resigns, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Interview with Mav
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 36	8 September 2008	About the Signpost

Wikimedia UK disbands, but may form again	WikiWorld: "Helicopter parent"
News and notes: Wikipedian dies, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Featured topics	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, August
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 21:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 37	15 September 2008	About the Signpost

Wikiquote checkuser found to be sockpuppeteer	WikiWorld: "Ubbi dubbi"
News and notes: Wikis Takes Manhattan, milestones	Dispatches: Interview with Ruhrfisch, master of Peer review
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 05:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bradv.

You've linked to WP:RESUME in an AFD. There's a discussion about that essay going on at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not the place to post your résumé#Tone - you might want to join in. -- HughCharlesParker ( talk - contribs) 19:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't realise WHY my pages are deleted... Why is this so? What needs change? If I need to add a reference, I shall add them BEFORE THE END OF THIS DATE, 11/1/08. Thank you, Bradv. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JederCoulious ( talk • contribs) 03:27, October 30, 2008

Hi Bradv,

I saw your comment on the old deletion thread of "Love Systems" and you were considering getting the page back up if the sources were notable. After approval of several members of the Wikipedia seduction editors, the page went live. However, it just got deleted again even though the sources and content is Wikipedial compliant. Could you have a look at it and get the page back up? Thanks in advance. Coaster7 ( talk) 19:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I saw the Cleanup template you put on the article Shinpen Kamakurashi. I, being the author, would cleanup the article myself if I knew exactly what it is that you want, since the article looks fine to me as it is. May I ask what it is you don't like? Also, since the article is six lines long, wouldn't it have been quicker to clean it up yourself? urashimataro ( talk) 23:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I think you're right. The page needs some work in order to cover the topic in an encyclopedic manner, possibly an image or two, some more references, and definitely some information about the importance and significance of the work. That makes it a stub, not an article in need of cleanup. I've made the appropriate changes. Cheers. BradV 04:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)