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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Hi Metropolitan90, just for curiosity, why blank Talk:LEMO instead of deleting? If that is the policy, I'll avoid bothering admins with speedy tags. Thanks, Sergio Ballestrero ( talk) 12:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Metropolitan90,
Thanks for your note about copyright infringements on our page. Can you tell me how to donate our material to Wikipedia? I read about it, but it wasn't clear. And can you tell me how to recover the page once we make the donation? You can post on the page where you posted before for National Association of Scholars.
Thank you
Adebter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adebter ( talk • contribs)
It has been confirmed by the user that the depth chart here : [1] be removed as stated here : [2] Only admins can do it so your it. Roadrunnerz45 ( talk) 10:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Because not only it's POV but is also not accurate. It was meant as a joke. Anyway see other articles on the matter. No user can speak Moldovan, since all speak Romanian. BereTuborg ( talk) 18:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Done. BereTuborg ( talk) 18:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Just FYI... two more "Miss Cosmos" type articles have also appeared, so I decided to tack them on to the existing AFD rather than create separate ones. I hope this was okay... I just wanted to alert you since you had already voted. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 05:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
You may have wanted to read the talk page. -- Rockfang ( talk) 16:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Aydınlatma ve Isıtma Araçları Müzesi, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aydınlatma ve Isıtma Araçları Müzesi. Thank you. Rockfang ( talk) 16:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the {{ prod}} tag from Hovel t moon, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. I have nominated the article for deletion instead; the debate may be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hovel t moon, which overrides the need for a {{ prod}} tag. I have explained my reasons for doing this in my nomination. Thanks! -- Atama chat 19:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you declined the speedy tag I put on The Alabama Militia Law of 1820 (and that you've now prodded it). I was just wondering whether this copyright notice is invalid (as it was the only reason I tagged it)? I'm no expert but I thought that as the text was almost certainly copied from there and not the original document, that it would still be a copyvio? I'm sorry if I'm wasting your time but I don't want to make the same mistake again. thanks, ascidian | talk-to-me 17:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Metropolitan90,
Thank you for the note on my talk page. This page contains the same content as those deleted below but in French. User:Cult Free World says he's translating it into English. Very sneaky try to avoid the deletion review procedure.
Previous deletions are here:
A condition for re-posting the article was secondary materials required (this was the reason it was deleted, because no secondary sources). User:Willbeback confirmed that secondary sources were needed for the article to survive deletion review here.
Thank you for looking at this. Marathi_Mulgaa ( talk) 17:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I do my best to really understand the position of those who disagree with me.
In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam you expressed the judgment that the article didn't use any secondary sources. I posed questions, looking for clarification as to whether the OARDEC " Summary of Evidence memos" were or were not secondary sources.
I would really appreciate you looking at WP:RS/Noticeboard#Primary source, or secondary source? and WP:RS/Noticeboard#What constitutes an "independent third party source"?
If, after reading those two sections, you still feel the memos are not secondary sources, I would really appreciate an explanation. Even a hint as to why you do not regard those memos as secondary sources would be helpful.
If you read those two relatively brief discussion, remained sure the memos were not secondary sources, but didn't feel prepared to discuss this, or explain why, I would appreciate a one sentence note saying something like. "I read them, my opinion is unchanged, but I don't want to discuss it." -- I would still find that helpful, and would respect your wishes.
Cheers! Geo Swan ( talk) 00:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
As a point of comparison, a legal brief might make extensive references to documents produced in the litigation, and a judge's written decision explaining the reasoning behind the verdict might in turn be based in part on the legal brief submitted by the more successful party. Yet the legal briefs and the judge's decision would themselves be primary sources, at least as to establishing notability for the case or its parties in Wikipedia.
Similarly, the fact that Ajam's detention review case has generated some documents which are not themselves evidence but which summarize evidence found in other documents does not establish, in my mind, that he has "been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" under WP:BIO. If a general interest newspaper or magazine (in the USA, Syria, or anywhere else) were to print an article focusing on Ajam himself, that would be the kind of secondary source I would be looking for in order to establish notability.
As the article Secondary source states, "Many sources can be considered either primary and secondary, depending on the context in which they are used." In this case, it appears that all the sources used in the article Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam which actually refer to Ajam himself are primary sources as to establishing notability. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
If the detainee wrote a book and had it published after being released, or if he was the subject of a book written by others, that would count very strongly in favor of his notability. Moazzam Begg does indeed appear to be notable, as you suggest. Other detainees who have received more limited press coverage will have to be judged on a case-by-case basis. Ajam, who has received zero press coverage that has been identified in the article, is at the opposite end of the spectrum from Begg; Ajam is clearly non-notable.
I don't think there is any level of allegation that a detainee could make that would automatically qualify him as notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. Allegations made by a detainee that he was tortured, sold for a bounty, had inconsistent allegations against him, or had unrelated allegations brought up in the memo are just allegations. If the allegations become the subject of press coverage, then that might contribute to his notability, but just making the allegations does not do anything to establish their truth. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Why when I click on upload my own photos or the upload form I get Permission Error? Editors want me to make citations but won't let me upload them. ( Lookinhere ( talk) 07:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC))
I noyiced your comment at Iron Duke's talk page indicating you had more to say at the RS noticeboard discussion of this. The discussion was "closed" immediately after I posted to it, without my point (that McNeil got facts wrong in sliming Pipes, and cannot in the face of that be considered "reliable") being addressed. So I've nowickied the closure and invite you to have your say. Did Relata refero have some authority to perform the premature closure that I am unaware of and need to respect? Andyvphil ( talk) 12:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Metro, I saw that you speedied Glossary_of_Christian_and_Jewish_terms because if not having content, and then that you prodded it using an adequate template for soft redirects that are no longer useful. These actions were correct and adequate.
However, if you look at the top of its talk page, you will see that this page has survived 3 deletion nominations, and the last one here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Glossary_of_Jewish_and_Christian_terms was only 2 months and a half ago and decided to keep the article as a redirect. From reading the nomination debate, it appears that there were concerns about keeping the history list for legal concerns with the GFDL requirement of keeping a list of authors. Please address this concern before deleting the articel with its associated history. If the address has been concerced somewhere else, then please point to those places on the talk page and then prod it again. If you think that the deletion debate decision is obviously no longer necessary but you have no hard proof of it, then you could open a deletion review (DRV) so people can say why it's still necessary or not and an admin will take the decision at the end of the review.
Again, a page that has survived a deletion debate shouldn't be speedy deleted or prodded without at least explaining on the talk page why the decision on the deletion debate is no longer valid, and this one has survived 3 of them -- Enric Naval ( talk) 11:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I did attempt to discuss this with User:Epson291 here but received no response. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi this article is purely for information its not advertising and also I have permission to post it, what would you require in order for me to prove the permission?
kindest regards
Lassany ( talk) 04:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure that's fine. Thanks. -- Blechnic ( talk) 04:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The discussions are old and I am doing general maintenance on all the voice type pages right now per discussion with the opera wikiproject. There is no reason to keep conversations that discussed problems that no longer relate to the current version of the article out in the open. Nrswanson ( talk) 08:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Back in January, you deleted a talk page under "Lauren Dukoff", because that article did not exist. This article exists now; could you please restore the talk page? Thanks! Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 04:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
This is the real phantom409. I do not get ahold of you in any other way but I am reuqesting that content involving me is removed from your server. The materials involving me was fraudulently placed and absolutely fictitious from a 16 year old boy who has been stalking me for months. If you want an article about me posted then I would be more than happy to provide that information to you instead of posting bogus information that is totally untrue about me.
Thank you, phantom409
well I am refferring to this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2006-11-20#Kenneth_Dennis_AKA_Phantom409 in which a young kid at that time WAs a 13 year old kid.
If you look on my usertalk page you will see at how the kid wished to lie to you guys in order to embarrass me and humiliate me. I was googling and typed phantom409 and this was I found on a google search engine. Since that time the kid went to that other site and did a article on ED under the account wtvcrew1 in order to further embarrass me for no reason.
That is why I am contacting you now. I did not discover this article until last week and do not normally come to your site. It caught my attention and I am asking that the record is straight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phantom409 ( talk • contribs)
Hello. It seems some of the university-related AFDs are having trouble gaining enough discussion to form a consensus. I thought you might want to voice your opinion on these AFDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Student Action, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Associated Students of the University of Hawaii. Thanks!-- SevernSevern ( talk) 17:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)-- SevernSevern ( talk) 17:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I have proposed a change to the student government/student union section under Common Deletion Outcomes, and I would like your input. Thanks! User:SevernSevern aka Flunkerton ( talk) 17:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure this project needs an article on the subject, but I think there is notability asserted (thus no speedy deletion) and that the subject is such that a wider group of editors need to weigh in (thus no prod). Erechtheus ( talk) 15:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, i was searching something on wiki and i found that someone deliberately post a page about Kuzman Sapkarev, presenting him as "bulgarian". I tried to change but your administrators unabled me to do so. I demand from you to remove the post right away, because it is FALSE, it is NOT TRUE that Kuzman Sapkarev was bulgarian. He was born as MACEDONIAN, and he died that way. I will not tolerate that the name of my great-grand father is treated this way. I thought that wikipedia is something you can rely on, i am disappointed.
P.S. Also the Grigor Prlicev section, and Miladinov Brothers shoud be corected imidiately, they were also MACEDONIANS, not bulgarians —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mise02mkd ( talk • contribs)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Hi Metropolitan90, just for curiosity, why blank Talk:LEMO instead of deleting? If that is the policy, I'll avoid bothering admins with speedy tags. Thanks, Sergio Ballestrero ( talk) 12:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Metropolitan90,
Thanks for your note about copyright infringements on our page. Can you tell me how to donate our material to Wikipedia? I read about it, but it wasn't clear. And can you tell me how to recover the page once we make the donation? You can post on the page where you posted before for National Association of Scholars.
Thank you
Adebter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adebter ( talk • contribs)
It has been confirmed by the user that the depth chart here : [1] be removed as stated here : [2] Only admins can do it so your it. Roadrunnerz45 ( talk) 10:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Because not only it's POV but is also not accurate. It was meant as a joke. Anyway see other articles on the matter. No user can speak Moldovan, since all speak Romanian. BereTuborg ( talk) 18:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Done. BereTuborg ( talk) 18:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Just FYI... two more "Miss Cosmos" type articles have also appeared, so I decided to tack them on to the existing AFD rather than create separate ones. I hope this was okay... I just wanted to alert you since you had already voted. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 05:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
You may have wanted to read the talk page. -- Rockfang ( talk) 16:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Aydınlatma ve Isıtma Araçları Müzesi, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aydınlatma ve Isıtma Araçları Müzesi. Thank you. Rockfang ( talk) 16:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the {{ prod}} tag from Hovel t moon, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. I have nominated the article for deletion instead; the debate may be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hovel t moon, which overrides the need for a {{ prod}} tag. I have explained my reasons for doing this in my nomination. Thanks! -- Atama chat 19:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you declined the speedy tag I put on The Alabama Militia Law of 1820 (and that you've now prodded it). I was just wondering whether this copyright notice is invalid (as it was the only reason I tagged it)? I'm no expert but I thought that as the text was almost certainly copied from there and not the original document, that it would still be a copyvio? I'm sorry if I'm wasting your time but I don't want to make the same mistake again. thanks, ascidian | talk-to-me 17:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Metropolitan90,
Thank you for the note on my talk page. This page contains the same content as those deleted below but in French. User:Cult Free World says he's translating it into English. Very sneaky try to avoid the deletion review procedure.
Previous deletions are here:
A condition for re-posting the article was secondary materials required (this was the reason it was deleted, because no secondary sources). User:Willbeback confirmed that secondary sources were needed for the article to survive deletion review here.
Thank you for looking at this. Marathi_Mulgaa ( talk) 17:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I do my best to really understand the position of those who disagree with me.
In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam you expressed the judgment that the article didn't use any secondary sources. I posed questions, looking for clarification as to whether the OARDEC " Summary of Evidence memos" were or were not secondary sources.
I would really appreciate you looking at WP:RS/Noticeboard#Primary source, or secondary source? and WP:RS/Noticeboard#What constitutes an "independent third party source"?
If, after reading those two sections, you still feel the memos are not secondary sources, I would really appreciate an explanation. Even a hint as to why you do not regard those memos as secondary sources would be helpful.
If you read those two relatively brief discussion, remained sure the memos were not secondary sources, but didn't feel prepared to discuss this, or explain why, I would appreciate a one sentence note saying something like. "I read them, my opinion is unchanged, but I don't want to discuss it." -- I would still find that helpful, and would respect your wishes.
Cheers! Geo Swan ( talk) 00:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
As a point of comparison, a legal brief might make extensive references to documents produced in the litigation, and a judge's written decision explaining the reasoning behind the verdict might in turn be based in part on the legal brief submitted by the more successful party. Yet the legal briefs and the judge's decision would themselves be primary sources, at least as to establishing notability for the case or its parties in Wikipedia.
Similarly, the fact that Ajam's detention review case has generated some documents which are not themselves evidence but which summarize evidence found in other documents does not establish, in my mind, that he has "been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" under WP:BIO. If a general interest newspaper or magazine (in the USA, Syria, or anywhere else) were to print an article focusing on Ajam himself, that would be the kind of secondary source I would be looking for in order to establish notability.
As the article Secondary source states, "Many sources can be considered either primary and secondary, depending on the context in which they are used." In this case, it appears that all the sources used in the article Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam which actually refer to Ajam himself are primary sources as to establishing notability. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
If the detainee wrote a book and had it published after being released, or if he was the subject of a book written by others, that would count very strongly in favor of his notability. Moazzam Begg does indeed appear to be notable, as you suggest. Other detainees who have received more limited press coverage will have to be judged on a case-by-case basis. Ajam, who has received zero press coverage that has been identified in the article, is at the opposite end of the spectrum from Begg; Ajam is clearly non-notable.
I don't think there is any level of allegation that a detainee could make that would automatically qualify him as notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. Allegations made by a detainee that he was tortured, sold for a bounty, had inconsistent allegations against him, or had unrelated allegations brought up in the memo are just allegations. If the allegations become the subject of press coverage, then that might contribute to his notability, but just making the allegations does not do anything to establish their truth. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Why when I click on upload my own photos or the upload form I get Permission Error? Editors want me to make citations but won't let me upload them. ( Lookinhere ( talk) 07:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC))
I noyiced your comment at Iron Duke's talk page indicating you had more to say at the RS noticeboard discussion of this. The discussion was "closed" immediately after I posted to it, without my point (that McNeil got facts wrong in sliming Pipes, and cannot in the face of that be considered "reliable") being addressed. So I've nowickied the closure and invite you to have your say. Did Relata refero have some authority to perform the premature closure that I am unaware of and need to respect? Andyvphil ( talk) 12:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Metro, I saw that you speedied Glossary_of_Christian_and_Jewish_terms because if not having content, and then that you prodded it using an adequate template for soft redirects that are no longer useful. These actions were correct and adequate.
However, if you look at the top of its talk page, you will see that this page has survived 3 deletion nominations, and the last one here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Glossary_of_Jewish_and_Christian_terms was only 2 months and a half ago and decided to keep the article as a redirect. From reading the nomination debate, it appears that there were concerns about keeping the history list for legal concerns with the GFDL requirement of keeping a list of authors. Please address this concern before deleting the articel with its associated history. If the address has been concerced somewhere else, then please point to those places on the talk page and then prod it again. If you think that the deletion debate decision is obviously no longer necessary but you have no hard proof of it, then you could open a deletion review (DRV) so people can say why it's still necessary or not and an admin will take the decision at the end of the review.
Again, a page that has survived a deletion debate shouldn't be speedy deleted or prodded without at least explaining on the talk page why the decision on the deletion debate is no longer valid, and this one has survived 3 of them -- Enric Naval ( talk) 11:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I did attempt to discuss this with User:Epson291 here but received no response. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi this article is purely for information its not advertising and also I have permission to post it, what would you require in order for me to prove the permission?
kindest regards
Lassany ( talk) 04:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure that's fine. Thanks. -- Blechnic ( talk) 04:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The discussions are old and I am doing general maintenance on all the voice type pages right now per discussion with the opera wikiproject. There is no reason to keep conversations that discussed problems that no longer relate to the current version of the article out in the open. Nrswanson ( talk) 08:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Back in January, you deleted a talk page under "Lauren Dukoff", because that article did not exist. This article exists now; could you please restore the talk page? Thanks! Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 04:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
This is the real phantom409. I do not get ahold of you in any other way but I am reuqesting that content involving me is removed from your server. The materials involving me was fraudulently placed and absolutely fictitious from a 16 year old boy who has been stalking me for months. If you want an article about me posted then I would be more than happy to provide that information to you instead of posting bogus information that is totally untrue about me.
Thank you, phantom409
well I am refferring to this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2006-11-20#Kenneth_Dennis_AKA_Phantom409 in which a young kid at that time WAs a 13 year old kid.
If you look on my usertalk page you will see at how the kid wished to lie to you guys in order to embarrass me and humiliate me. I was googling and typed phantom409 and this was I found on a google search engine. Since that time the kid went to that other site and did a article on ED under the account wtvcrew1 in order to further embarrass me for no reason.
That is why I am contacting you now. I did not discover this article until last week and do not normally come to your site. It caught my attention and I am asking that the record is straight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phantom409 ( talk • contribs)
Hello. It seems some of the university-related AFDs are having trouble gaining enough discussion to form a consensus. I thought you might want to voice your opinion on these AFDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Student Action, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Associated Students of the University of Hawaii. Thanks!-- SevernSevern ( talk) 17:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)-- SevernSevern ( talk) 17:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I have proposed a change to the student government/student union section under Common Deletion Outcomes, and I would like your input. Thanks! User:SevernSevern aka Flunkerton ( talk) 17:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure this project needs an article on the subject, but I think there is notability asserted (thus no speedy deletion) and that the subject is such that a wider group of editors need to weigh in (thus no prod). Erechtheus ( talk) 15:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, i was searching something on wiki and i found that someone deliberately post a page about Kuzman Sapkarev, presenting him as "bulgarian". I tried to change but your administrators unabled me to do so. I demand from you to remove the post right away, because it is FALSE, it is NOT TRUE that Kuzman Sapkarev was bulgarian. He was born as MACEDONIAN, and he died that way. I will not tolerate that the name of my great-grand father is treated this way. I thought that wikipedia is something you can rely on, i am disappointed.
P.S. Also the Grigor Prlicev section, and Miladinov Brothers shoud be corected imidiately, they were also MACEDONIANS, not bulgarians —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mise02mkd ( talk • contribs)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |