User:Gpia7r/Archive1

Hello! Welcome to Wiki Project Indiana. If you have any questions, need some help, or want a pointer, just let me know! I am usually around. Charles Edward 17:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Your AFD for $Texas

The above article you listed for AFD was a redirect, so it's been removed from WP:AFD by another user. I've gone ahead and put it in for speedy deletion under the R3 clause - basically, improbable search/typo. Good catch, by the way. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

State Road 135

Yes, it is true that SR 135 is Meridian St north of County Line, but the rest of your edit was not accurate. SR 135 does not intersect with Monument Circle, and Meridian St is not US 31 on the north side of Indianapolis anymore. So the part about Meridian St is true, but that level of local detail isn't really appropriate for the intro section. There is information in the Route description section. So, no offense intended, but that was my rationale for undoing your edit. --LP ^talk 19:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, makes sense. Didn't know about the inner-465 terminology. Thanks for the clarification! Gpia7r (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed speedy deletion tag: Men in My Town

Hi Gpia7r! I just wanted to inform you that I removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on Men in My Town- because: the page has not previously been deleted via a deletion discussion. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. decltype (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

In short, for an article, only an AfD counts as a "deletion discussion". The page had previously only been speedily deleted. Regards, decltype (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and no, there isn't. The article can of course be tagged for speedy deletion under a different criterion if it meets one. Otherwise, WP:PROD or WP:AFD is the way to go. decltype (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Mr Cleaver

Please do not revert the addition of {{hangon}}s to pages. Anybody may add a hangon. Also, I don't think WP:CSD#G7 applies there, as the author obviously doesn't want the page deleted. Cheers - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the page obvisouly deserves to be deleted or not, hangons souldn't be removed, except when the speedy deletion template is removed or the page is deleted. It shouldn't slow down the process, as the admin will see that it is clearly a suitable candidate for speedy deletion, and it means nothing unless the user actually gives reason why it should be kept, which in this case they haven't. So no, it shouldn't slow down the process more than a few seconds - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks for the clarification. Gpia7r (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank You...

WikiThanks

...for the revert on my talk page. :)

Complaint

If you don't like the changes to the Tennessee Republican Party entry, then do your job nd clean it up. This site is for information, not ne sided propoganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PearlUT (talk • contribs) 16:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you clean it and make it right, rather than simply remove entire sections. Be bold, not counterproductive. What you're doing is considered vandalism. Gpia7r (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Vandalism

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I noticed your efforts and think that you deserve a barnstar --Syed Kazim | Talk 16:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I really appreciate it :D Gpia7r (talk) 16:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Request For Gpia7r

Can you please read the two posts below and respond to my overall question of what specifically it is that I have done that does not conform to Wikipedia rules. I have written the posts in good faith and with the intention to only present factual information.

Thank you, --Lukegilliam (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to disagree firmly (but politely ) with a point on this page:

[but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant]

was stated with regards to my article. I'm not sure if I agree. After spending close to a year recording and releasing music for Bruno Tocanne, all of which has been published and released to the public, the above label being written in regards to my name is not something I agree with. If the label insignificant applies to my work then may I ask does it also apply to Bruno Tocanne's work which is quite extensively published in a Wikipedia article called, if I am not mistaken, Bruno Tocanne. ?

Please clarify, --Lukegilliam (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Disagreement With Label No New Research I would like to know precisely what research I have posted is new. The film Dogma has been written about by literally thousands of people. I would like to mention here that it is my colleague George Kourounis who suggested that I post a very basic piece of bigraphical data here on the Wiki website. Both myself and George Kourounis worked on the film Dogma. Specifically I worked as an audio engineer. The film is notable and at least two of my fellow co workers (George Kourounis, Michael Snow, and Bruno Tocanne) have been published and in some cases my work has been published with them. Specifically Bruno Tocanne. I would also like to mention I was right in the middle of placing an external reference to a published site for one of the elements in my article and someone here on Wiki removed it before I could save the page?? It explains here that Wiki is open to the public and that if information is well referenced and is predominantly factual that it can be posted. How can that be if the editors don't even allow people the chance to place the references in there?? I'm not sure you are correct on the point Wikipedia:No original research. Please prove me wrong.

Thank you --Lukegilliam (talk) 17:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Request For Information From Wikipedia

May I politely ask

Oscarthecat

to explain what exact word or sentence I placed in my article that states 'New Research' or presents a conflict of interest to the parties mentioned in the article. I ask this in good faith as I made an effort to write an article that was not of a promotional nature, that was indeed bold, that was factual, and gave public domain readers some information that is actually published. Also for the record below is the external reference that I was in the middle of posting when my article was deleted:

[1]

Please Oscarthecat can you explain your words.

Thank you, and with kind regards, --Lukegilliam (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason I flagged the article is due to the "autobiography" angle it took. There's an obvious conflict of interest, as well as very biased words. The self-fame and self-praise was an immediate red flag that this is an autobiography, and 99% of the time, does not belong on Wikipedia. Gpia7r (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Christiane Zimmer

I declined speedy, but feel free to nominate it on AFD. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 23:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Madikonda

Hello Gpia7r, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I contested the speedy deletion of Madikonda - a page you tagged - because: A7 does not apply to real places. Please send to WP:AFD. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. NW (Talk) 04:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I realize now where the mistake was made. Judging on the past few edits to the page, it seemed viable for a Speedy Deletion. I was wrong and should have looked back further. My mistake, thanks for the input. Gpia7r (talk) 12:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Altered Speedy Deletion rationale: Total Suspense

Hello Gpia7r, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have deleted a page you tagged (Total Suspense) under a criterion different from the one your provided, which was inappropriate or incorrect. CSD criteria are narrow and specific to protect the encyclopedia, and the process is more effective if the correct deletion rationale is supplied. Consider reviewing the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks again! SoWhy 10:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Tagging of Gumblar for speedy deletion

This is jumping on the band wagon a bit but just to let you know that your tagging of this article was also inappropiate. A7 only applies to "An article about a real person, an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content" and a computer virus does not fall into any of these categories. Full criteria are avaliable here Dpmuk (talk) 11:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It also specifically excludes schools - "an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools)" - so your tagging of Myra S. Barnes I.S.24 was also incorrect. Can I suggest you take the time to properly read and understand the speedy deletion criteria before tagging any more articles. Dpmuk (talk) 11:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I tagged it because, apparently, it was created pre-maturely. They need to build in a sandbox, or a subpage on their userpage, before putting a page live that had next to no content. Gpia7r (talk) 11:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned from your reply and your reply to the similar issue with Madikonda that you're missing the point that I and other editors are making. I'm going to asusme your reply refers to Gumbar as the school article has not been recently created. Gumbar was ineligable for A7 speedy delete no matter what state it was in as it does not meet the criteria as it's not about a real person, organisation or web content. If you feel a page has no context it should be tagged under A1 not A7, although in this case the page clearly has context - it states what it is. Similarly no matter what state Madikonda was in it was not eligable for A7 as it's about a place. Your reply above seems to suggest you think your tagging was wrong because a previous version of the article was in an acceptable state. This is not the case your tagging was wrong because the article was about a place and these aren't eligable for A7.

In short unless an article is about "An article about a real person, an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content" it is ineligable for a A7 speedy deletion no matter what state it's in. It could be the worse article on the whole of wikipedia and it still couldn't be deleted under A7 and so shouldn't be tagged as such. Some articles will of course be deletable under other criteria but pages should be tagged with the appropiate template.

I have serious concerns about the amount of speedy delete tags you're getting wrong. Yes we all make mistakes but the number you're making both as a raw number and as a proportion of all your taggings suggest to me that you don't fully understand the criteria and your replies above reinforce this idea. Until you do your tagging is likely to be doing more harm than good. Speedy deletion criteria are strictly applied and unless a page meets one exactly the page won't be speedied. Again I suggest you go and read the criteria and make sure you understand them. Although I don't use Huggle my understanding is that it doesn't explain the criteria fully so you need to make sure you understand them by reading the criteria at WP:CSD before you use Huggle to tag articles. Dpmuk (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

While I stand by the fact the page should have been removed, I will agree that the incorrect tag was used. This is my fault, and I appologize for that. Sometimes it's hard to categorize some pages, I've found. In Huggle, for example, the A7 is labelled as "Importance/Significance not asserted", which does not give those specific ranges you are saying. I should know what it looks like on the page before I tag it as such... Gpia7r (talk) 12:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It may be hard to categorise some pages as not all pages are suitable for speedy deletion. The criteria have been strictly defined to only allow deletion of clear cut casses and this is why, for example, A7 does not extend to schools as it has been found that such cases are rarely clear cut. For such cases either the WP:PROD or WP:AfD deletion processes should be used as these allow time for editors to object and for there to (possibly) be more discussion. I know this can be annoying at times as some pages are clearly not sutable and can't be speedied but these policies have been implemented to ensure that the rate of valid pages being deleted is as low as possible. Dpmuk (talk) 10:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"Distinquished"

My opinion of Limbaugh aside, do you feel your addition safely passes WP:PEACOCK? --King Öomie 20:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

In the way it was worded as it was removed, I don't believe it violates POV. "Evidence for distinguished family? POV removed." As far as Peacock goes, though, sure, there are many words that can be put there... but the word "distinguished" befits an eminent person... and judging by the history of those people in question, and the positions they held, I disagree with the removal of the word. I wasn't around when the word was added, and I'm not the one that added it in the first place. Gpia7r (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It's your call. I'd prefer to stay out of Rush-related content disputes (and really anything else I don't feel I could edit with a level head). --King Öomie 21:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message. I looked at several other prominent politicians with notable families - lets take George W. Bush for example - I don't think anyone would argue that the Limbaugh family is more distinguished than the Bushes (with 2 presidents, a governor, etc.) - yet there is no POV description of the family in that article. So I've removed the distinguished phrase. Please don't remove without general discussion. Also you didn't provide any citation. Have a great day!! Hansbethe (talk) 14:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Gpia7r. You have new messages at Kingoomieiii's talk page.
Message added 13:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

King Öomie 13:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)