User talk:Cobaltbluetony/Archive05

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 2006-08-21 and 2006-10-14.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Temporary references[edit]

User:Cobaltbluetony/Rory Lewis
User:Cobaltbluetony/JWs and Nazi regime
User:Cobaltbluetony/JWs on 607 BCE
The Watchtower Society as a United Nations NGO--A Critical Look at the Conspiracy Theory -- A comprehensive review of the conspiracy theory. Supportive of the Watchtower Society.

IQ (girl group)[edit]

No. You're right. IQ aren't actually signed to Universal Music. I checked UM's website and IQ aren't on the roster. They're signed to WPE Music, LLC, but their music was still distributed through Universal Music. Does this still make them notable if they are being distributed through a major label, even if they aren't signed to it? Their MySpace states they are on a major label. And by thw way, the reason I didn't to sign my username was because I forgot. Sorry. Fanficgurl 4:10 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that I've being doing some sluthing on IQ. Here's what I found out:

1. I e-mailed Public Relations of IQ. I was told that they are signed to Bungalo/Universal, but are having a hard time with the labels. [1] is their record label, but they are mysteriously not on the roster. The artists on Bungalo are Carl Thomas, LaToya Jackson, Suga Free, Patti LaBelle, Rodney Jerkins among others. Universal is linked with Bungalo. Bungalo released the girls' debut album, Roll Call.
2. IQ are on Radio Disney's Incubator roster (http://radio.disney.go.com/music/incubator/IQ_bio.html), which would mean that the girls are currently playing on a national radio station.
3. The girls did (and are) on a tour. The tour has mainly been around Massachusetts, but they did tour Los Angeles and New York City.

I'm not sure if this fits for notability, but if doesn't, then that's okay. If they do, then give me the okay for the article. Take care! Fanficgurl 3:41 (UTC)

Jeprox[edit]

Thanks for the heads up. I've deleted/protected it. That was a long exercise in nonsense. --Fang Aili ^talk 15:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

subst[edit]

Thanks for the reminder! Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tahoe[edit]

If you tag it, I'll delete it. Use A7. --Fang Aili ^talk 17:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. He's got a few more Tahoe A7 ones out there, but since I've tagged them myself I shouldn't delete them. Thanks for tagging all these speedies!! --Fang Aili ^talk 17:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jenn Shaw[edit]

This is a reminder that when a WP:PROD tag is removed, even by the creator of an article, it should not be added back for any reason. Doing so is inappropriate. WP:PROD is meant for only uncontroversial deletions. If you still think this article should be deleted, you should send it to WP:AFD. Mango juice^talk 13:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

East Keswick[edit]

Just a friendly reminder to use an edit summary when proposing deletion for an article. Edit summary usage is always good, but it is especially important that edit summaries are used when proposing deletion. The reason for this is that articles proposed for deletion that later have the {{prod}} tag removed should not be proposed for deletion again, but rather sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. The only easy way to check if an article was previously proposed for deletion is to look at the edit history and the edit summaries people have left before. Thanks! Mango juice^talk 13:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Property maintenance to afd[edit]

Hi, I de-prodded the thing and listed it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Property maintenance. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note.Yes. :) Dlohcierekim 14:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marina (Philippine television show) prod[edit]

Not sure it merits a speedy. Prodded. :) Dlohcierekim 15:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

School of Leadership and Development[edit]

Hey -- sorry to bother you for the third time in a day, but you tagged this for speedy deletion with the reason "advert." That is not a speedy deletion reason. Please read the speedy deletion criteria if you're going to use them, because otherwise it just slows us down. You might want to read Wikipedia:Introduction to Deletion Process which should help clarify the whole thing a bit. Again, sorry, I know you're trying to help! I put a PROD tag on this article instead, since I do think its deletion will be uncontroversial. Mango juice^talk 16:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In cases where the article doesn't really contain anything but a link, A3 would apply, yes. I think A1 might have applied to the repost, as well, since it gave no idea what rotteneggs was. Also, there's G3 for "pure vandalism", which some efforts at advertising might fall into (imagine a page called Macintosh rules, Windows sucks!, for instance.) Feel free to disagree about whether advertising should be a reason for speedy deletion. However, it is not; nothing on WP:CSD implies that it is. If you think this should change, the right place to bring it up is at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, but it's been brought up before and failed before, so you should at least read the history there before proposing it. The basic reason it has repeatedly failed is that Wikipedia does cover companies and their products, so some "spam" articles can easily form the basis for a useful and appropriate article. Mango juice^talk 16:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben & Jason[edit]

Just because they show up in a Google search doesn't make them notable. I am using the Wikipedia:Notability (music) for my {{prod}} because the {{db-bio}} doesn't apply if they make a claim to a major label. Please let me know if you think I've handled this correctly. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony 17:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same with Ben Parker (British singer/songwriter). - CobaltBlueTony 17:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, you're fine. The issue here is that the standards are much higher for speedy delete than for PROD and AFD. Speedy deletion is only for the most obvious cases - a page that says only "Greg Smith is cool" or "Greg Smith is gay", etc., etc. For bands and musicians, my standard for speedy deletion (not regular deletion) is basically whether the band has any notability at all. If it's a bunch of teenagers who "hope to get signed soon" or "are planning their first release soon" or some nonsense, I'll delete. For this and the Rory Lewis cases, other people in the world have clearly heard of them and they've released actual music to the public, etc. Would they survive AFD? Probably not. But that's not the standard for speedy deletion. Speedy deletion is often abused so we need to be careful with it. In my younger, less mature WikiDays, I'd nominated stuff for speedy deletion and had it turn out to be so notable that it survived AFD - so I'm even more careful. There's no harm in waiting a few days for a PROD or AFD to sink in for everyone. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Rory Lewis[edit]

I am not too sure if this is how to respond to, or post, a message to you so please forgive me if I am unintentionally screwing things up.

The reason the article is confusing is exactly why it is notable. Mathematicians/electrical engineers and musicians do, at times, share domains of interest. However, musicians who have made $$ from music and achieved a level whereby they are in Rolling Stone Magazine and performing in front thousands at stadiums with Jerry Lee Lewis ... have never (to the best of my knowledge) ... also used knowledge gained in the aforementioned environment, applied it to the Music Information Retrieval, used their Computer & Electrical Engineering to create a machine using a novel methodology of music analysis to the extent that KDD, and MIR conferences are inviting him to talk and share a new way of using 1) Inverse fast fourier transforms, with MPEG-7 descriptors and 2) mega-databases to split sound. See the site

So yes, how does one catagorise the silliness of on-stage antics with the seriousness of splitting sound. Its confusing.

Oh yes: Splitting sound ??? ... you insert a CD of your choice into the machine and it 1) prints out exactly what each instrument was playing in music form and, burns a multiple CDs each bearing only what each instrument played. Innertron 16:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for reverting my user page after the spam. Mrs Sheckler 20:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Rory Lewis[edit]

Thank you for your advice Cobalt Blue. I see that there is stilla cleanup tag. Are you saying that I should not clean it up ... as in wait until somebody else does it?

Also I would like to expound on different articles now, more technical in nature describing my methodology I have procured. How do I decide what catagory to use / or to make up a new one in Music Information Retrieval.

Thanks again for all you help.

152.15.97.230 17:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Kazoo[edit]

No argument, but that makes it a prod or an AFD candidate rather than a speedy. A speedy is for an article that probably cannot be improved (exception: empty articles, which this isn't). Just prod it and if nobody has improved it in 5 days, it'll get deleted. NawlinWiki 19:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me -- thanks for your work! NawlinWiki 19:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dr.wizard 13[edit]

Oops. I could have sworn that was in (Main) space when I put that tag on it.

Although I admit it was a mistake, I have to say in my defense that the page was created by another user (not Dr.wizard 13) who was at the same time vandalizing a bunch of pages. Geoffrey Spear 16:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Welcome[edit]

Cobaltbluetony,

I just wanted to thank you for welcoming me to WikipediaCurtisJohnson 03:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- CurtisJohnson

Talk:Families Online Magazine[edit]

Hi: I don't mind you moving the info around at all. It makes more sense to have it on the user's talk page. Is there a template for the copyright explanation message? I looked around on templates but didn't see any. Your explanation was very succinct, and informative and would make excellent standardised text for something like this. -- Whpq 20:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Socach[edit]

Och, I never heard of it -- but the guy had a source. (I since found a web source and added it to the article.) :) NawlinWiki 18:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Family Foundation[edit]

I noticed you moved my article on The Family Foundation of Kentucky to an article with an appropriately capitalized title, whichi I appreciate, but now I can't seem to find the text of the article. Any ideas? Acdixon 13 September 2006

Thanks for your reply. I'm sure you can tell I'm new to Wikipedia. How do I request that my article be restored? To whom do I make the request? Once it is restored, do I just need to add some external links to the bottom to establish noteworthiness? Acdixon 14 September 2006

I've restored the page based on your comments. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 18:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping me restore this page. Hope all Wikipedia users prove as friendly and helpful as you! :)

Acdixon 17:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Edwardbudge[edit]

Have you got any reason to suspect a link between Benbrass, PaulRicci and Edwardbudge? If so, you can (and probably should) file a Request for CheckUser. Aecis ^Apple ^knocker ^Flophouse 17:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I didn't see that one. That is indeed very fishy. Possibly sockpuppets, definitely meatpuppets. Aecis ^Apple ^knocker ^Flophouse 18:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing User Page.[edit]

Hey Cobaltbluetony, It was actually me editing my User Page. It seems Desiato (a friend using my computer) was logged in when I tried to make the edit. Just wanted to clear that up. Thanks though for keeping an eye out. - Surrealius 13:09, September 14, 2006

Martin Snigg[edit]

It looks like the article was merely semiprotected (i.e., only new users and anon IPs were blocked from editing). I've moved it to full protection (only admins can edit). Thanks, NawlinWiki 13:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Lindley[edit]

Recreated! - CobaltBlueTony 15:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted! (aeropagitica) 15:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stattman articles/sockpuppets[edit]

I've indefinitely blocked all three Stattman accounts and protected all the Stattman articles (Josh Stattman and the two that you mentioned. Thanks, and let's hope this one is put to bed. NawlinWiki 15:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update - he had actually created up to User:Stattman6 and had already used Stattman4 to recreate one of the articles under a new name. All blocked now. NawlinWiki 15:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tonight with Bradman, Bradley Laborman, Bradman the Movie[edit]

I have been working on these articles because of the growing interest the "Bradman FanClub" has had with Bradley Laborman. If you do a Google search for "Bradley Laborman" or for "Tonight with Bradman" on the web, both provide well over the signifant number required by Wiki to be considered notable. I have cited several sources, including his involement with coverage of the Iowa City Tornado, another notable fact. He has been listed as a notable alumni of Buena Vista univeristy in Storm Lake, as a notable citizen in the Iowa City, Iowa page and his coverage has been posted on any wiki site involving the Tornados. I am confused how much more notable I have to make Mr. Laborman be. As a fan of his work, I just felt that other fans would like to use Wikipedia to share their info and trivia about him.

As far as Bradman: The Movie is concenred, it is concidered a Cult Classic, usually found only on Ebay and I am having trouble finding documentation on it. However, Bradley Laborman is a notable actor and therefore his appearance in this movie should be able to make it not deletable.

I have used sources that are confirmed in WikiPedia as being creditable sources as well as WikiPedia articles themselves. Thank you. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarySwope (talk • contribs) 14:10 21 September, 2006

On the article of the NW[edit]

Dear Cobaltbluetony,

Fist of all, I would like to apologize for my poor English, and please overlook my mistakes. To the point: what I actually meant with my comments to the discussion board of the NW is that the article has two main problems. The first is that, as it seems to me, it is made by people not familiar with the original languages of the Bible, and thus they are not in position to understand, to present and to prove what it is achieved by the NW, and the second is that they developed the article having been influenced by the criticism against the NW. As I have observed in the Internet, the vast majority of this criticism is junk indeed, and the smoothest thing I could say about the critics, especially those who present themselves as scholars, is that they are LIARS, taking advantage of the unfamiliarity of the common English reader with the original Biblical languages. To give an example, in Greece the NW was never criticized for its rendering of John 1:1, and this happens because this case is very simple for Greeks and because ALL the modern Greek versions, including the Orthodox ones, read the same with the Greek version of the NW. English scholars who criticize the NW do not tell their target groups that the Greek word for “God” is not used as a proper name in Greek (as it does in English), and this actually means that in Greek it needs a definite article, especially in the nominative case, when it refers to the identity of a person, and not only to his qualities. The second thing Trinitarian scholars do not usually say is that, according to the classic doctrine of Trinity, Logos is not identical with God. Oh yes, the Trinitarian God is not Logos, but instead is Father, Logos and Spirit altogether. This important matter is called to attention by B.F. Westcott: “The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in John 4:24. It is necessarily without the article (θεός not ο θεός) inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person. It would be pure Sabellianism to say 'the Word was o θεός'.” (The Gospel According to St. John) Anyway, in the Greek Wikipedia the NW article appears like this: http://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%9C%CE%B5%CF%84%CE%AC%CF%86%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%83%CE%B7_%CE%9D%CE%AD%CE%BF%CF%85_%CE%9A%CF%8C%CF%83%CE%BC%CE%BF%CF%85. Maybe in the future I will translate it into English. If you have any specific question about the NW, especially about the Christian Scriptures, I would be happy to help you in your research as far as I can.--Vassilis78 11:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense/vandalism[edit]

I think the page you're looking for is WP:UTTM. The {test} templates basically regard nonsense as vandalism once you get to the 3 and 4 level. (Everything is vandalism at 3 and 4.) Fan-1967 18:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph R. Garber[edit]

I found some additional information for Joseph R. Garber, so I added it and removed the prod that you had added. I think the article now demonstrates that he is a notable author. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC[edit]

Cobaltbluetony: Perhaps you can help me understand what happened to an article that I wrote. The reason that I am asking you for help is that you and I corresponded on a revision to resolve a potential copyright concern. (see your entry on my talk page dated 8 September 2006) Today, I tried to visit the article to make some possible revisions and cannot locate it inasmuch as it appears to have been deleted. Additionally, I cannot locate any history which explains why it was deleted. Could you help me understand what happened to the article? Tlmclain 17:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update It now appears that the article in question may have been deleted in error by User:Robth based upon the Copyvio that you helped me resolve in early September, 2006. The deletion log contains the following entry: 00:26, 17 September 2006 Robth (Talk | contribs) deleted "Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC" (Copyvio, listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems for over a week, from http://www.wcsr.com/default.asp?id=76) I have posted a question about this deletion on the talk page fro Robth.

Everything is fine now - the article has been restored. Thanks for all you do as an administator to keep Wikipedia "clean." Tlmclain 01:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fish Tank Clan[edit]

I can see your reasons for deleting the Fish Tank Clan post.....but they are bullshit. It is not self promotional because we do not gain anything by putting things on here and furthermore, there are way more posts about random stuff that you could go around and delete.

Your edits to the Watchtowerites page[edit]

Hello Cobaltbluetony. I wanted to recommend that this page be linked to the main article of 'Jehovah's Witnesses' instead of just deleting the information. The term is still applied today and as I get more sources referenced, it will become apparent that is still the case as well as providing some history of the group. This would be analogous to the terms that appear in the introduction such as 'Millerites', etc. Another option is to include a sentence about this in the introduction itself and then provide the links in the reference section or possibly another sub-page. Protector of the Truth 18:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Governing Body page[edit]

Hello Cobaltbluetony. There has been much information that has been deleted from this page and wanted to get your assistance in getting it in order or better organized. Protector of the Truth 18:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Woods[edit]

I was about to PROD this article, but I figured I would at least move it to the right title to give it a fighting chance. :) --Squid S K ^(1MC^•^log) 16:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]