User talk:NawlinWiki/Archive 80

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please sign your comments by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ).

Wondering why your pages were speedily deleted? Check this list first.

Do you want to move a page that I've move-protected? Discuss the move first on the article's talk page. If there's a consensus for the move, let me know and I'll unlock the page.

Please add all comments at the bottom of the page (or I may not be able to find them).

Sam Demaris[edit]

Hi, you deleted my page as you are saying 'Sam Demaris' is not a notable figure. I strongly disagree. Sam Demaris was a winner of the Houston's funniest person contest. Sam was a Feature with Maxim Magazine's Real Men of Comedy Tour with Joe Rogan, Charlie Murphy, and John Hefferon. He is an integral part of Houston Comedy.

Please re-instate this page.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTesterMan (talk • contribs) 01:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Bellos[edit]

Hi there. I was searching for Two Degrees (company) and it seems that you deleted it recently (August 14th). I'm just wondering why? I recently came across the company at a convention in Austin, TX and have been doing some research on it recently. They are huge in the food, non-profit and health awareness spaces. They've gotten all sorts of big media coverage for their buy a bar and help malnurished children business model (a lot like Toms). I'm a fan of the company, but am also an adamant supporter of wikipedia's integrity. It's my belief that the company deserves to be listed on the site. Since I've accumulated research on my own and have written and edited articles previously, do you mind telling me what went wrong and giving me a chance to fix it? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidBellos (talk • contribs) 17:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DavidBellos (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Callery[edit]

Hi, you deleted my page as you are saying 'Ben Callery' is not a notable figure. I strongly disagree. Whilst Ben is a sponsored athelete who contributes to the world of body building on an (at least) hourly basis, he is also an ambassador for the sport and a popular personality, that has been discussed in Beef Magazine.

Please re-instate this page, as Arnold has his own page, I believe Ben should too.

Thanks

I have just seen that Lawrence Lewellyn-Bowen has a page, I fail to see why he should have one, and Ben Callery not. Please clarify.

Please move article.[edit]

Please move article List of pornographic video sharing to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Manzzzz/sandbox/001

Thank you.Manzzzz(talk) 03:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Twilight Technologies[edit]

Hi. I see you recently blocked User:Twilight Technologies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), although I didn't notice this before I placed the username warning template a short while later. I didn't see any talk page spam, although I do note the deletion of User:Twilight Technologies/sandbox. The lone 4 remaining edits below look constructive to me, and therefore I wonder why this user has been banned from editing their user talk page.

Is there an obvious reason which I'm missing for such a severe block? And also isn't it normally the case that {{spamusernameblock}} would be added to the user talk page in conjunction with the block? I'm sure you see a lot more spam than I do, but I'm curious about this case all the same. Thanks very much. -- Trevj (talk) 09:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Chiu[edit]

Hi again. Quite randomly (via this archived company links page) I then found that Alex Chiu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been deleted (most recently under CSD A7 and previously by the more than semi-retired JForget). While the subject of the article may not be notable per WP:BLP1E, it seems possible that his website(s) and devices may meet WP:GNG. In addition to sources mentioned by Sethacus in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Chiu, I found the following:

The depth of information isn't great but could be enough to sustain a short article explaining the claims and notability for being a scam. Therefore, would you please consider userfying previous versions to my userspace so I can see if any previous content is worth reusing? An improved enclopedic entry for this material could be moved to alexchiu.com, Alex Chiu products or similar. What do you think? Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 13:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Wrongfully blocked[edit]

Hello. I'm messaging you because I wanted to know why on 5 July, you blocked me for 2 weeks for "abusing multiple accounts"? When this wasn’t true, as my user contribution shows, in fact I've never even abused one account once. Also why was I also blocked from editing my talk page? Especially when this isn’t usually the case for blocked persons and is only done when one persistently abuses their talk page which, again, I haven't done because I have never even once done anything on my talk page ever. This block came across as a huge shock as I had only been on Wikipedia twice, one time I improved an article and a section of an article and the second time I actually forgot to log in as I forgot I had even created an account, but these edits were all improving articles and removing over linking only. So to come onto Wikipedia again and find I'd been given a block, that it was for two weeks, that I was even blocked from contacting you or any other admin, that I was blocked from editing my own talk page, blocked from appealing and even blocked from the sandbox for a false reason that there was no evidence for was very surprising and frustrating. I searched all over Wikipedia trying to find out how to get this unjustified block removed (but I was blocked from all but one of them, which was again for a false reason that there was no evidence for (abusing talk page)) and saw many people appealing their blocks for various actions such as verbally attacking other members. These people were only blocked for a day or two for something that they definitely did, there was undisputed evidence for and yet they were allowed the normal unblock procedures. I would think verbally attacking other members would be an instant ban anyway. I even looked through your contributions to see if I could find when you blocked me and found nothing. I even searched your contributions for anything related to edits I had made and again found nothing. I found no reason what-so-ever to support why I was blocked, given a long block and even blocked from appealing and contacting admins. As you can see, my block was immediately undone after my appeal, through the only way I wasn't blocked from appealing, was read. Thus indeed proving that there was indeed no reason to block me, never mind put those extra blocks on me that is not usually done and giving me a longer block. I would like to know why this happened, what was the reason for it? Why were such strict blocks put on my account and why was I even blocked from appealing? When my block was rightfully undone I was told not to edit without logging in (despite me only doing this once, by mistake, with good, helpful edits that improved every article I edited) unless I want to be accused of something called sock puppetry. I looked at what this is and learned why people are blocked for this, but this wasn't what the block you put on me stated I was blocked for. Besides, I've never sock puppeted or whatever it's called. Hell, I didn't even know what it was until I was unblocked! Wikipedia is said to be a place anybody can edit, yet if one does this without creating an account one is blocked and called a sock puppet? The same happens if somebody forgets to log in or doesn't realise they're not or no longer logged in? I don't understand this as that isn't sock puppetry, it's just not creating a username and why is that a blockable offense? After reading my unblock comments and learning of sock puppetry, I thought that maybe I was blocked for that and not for abusing multiple people as I knew I had never abused even one person. Well, I also knew I had never been a sock puppet, but I hadn't searched for that and seen that list of people. So thinking that this may explain why I previously found no record of my incorrect blocking, I searched through everything to do with sock puppetry, all the current investigations, all the massive lists of suspected sock puppets, confirmed sock puppets and whatever else and once again I found nothing. So I am still totally unclear as to why this has happened, why I have been accused of three things I have never done (abusing multiple accounts, abusing my talk page, sock puppetry). Why has all this happened, why was I not contacted or anything, why was no explanation given, why was I given such harsh blocks, why was I blocked from appealing, why was I blocked for things that I clearly never did and all the other questions I have asked here? I have been treat in a completely unfair, uncalled for and unjustified way and would appreciate to at least know why and be reassured such mistakes will not happen again.

Thanks Pawac (talk) 02:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi. The block had nothing to do with you. It was a block of a longtime abusive vandal who was using an IP address range that happens to accidentally include you. That vandal uses his talk page for further abuse, which explains the talk page block. But in retrospect, I probably shouldn't have blocked the talk page. I apologize for that, and for your getting caught up in the unrelated block. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, I see what happened. Thanks for explaining and thanks very much for the apology. I understand why you took the actions you did now and that it was just an accident to include my own IP.

Kind regards Pawac (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lumley FC deletion[edit]

I found out that in 2009, you deleted an article about Lumley FC, (I didn't write that, I just recently found that information, about 6 minutes ago) which I know is a football club I support as well as Sunderland AFC. I live in Lumley and want to create an article about it. I will add your userpage as a reccomendation to visit on my talk page, if you don't delete anything I put on my article. I know a lot about Lumley FC as it is my very local team (I live about 20 meters away from the pitch, so it's quite obvious) and I will try to get it all right.

Football Fan 200 (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please look at the notability guidelines at WP:FOOTY before writing such an article. The clubs at lower levels of the English football system are not necessarily notable for our purposes. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Follow on to what I just said[edit]

OK, thanks. Im more Sunderland after the dissapointing results of the matches on Saturday at the Lumley Festival.

This is Football Fan 200, I just accidentally logged out.

P.S. Eliot page deletion[edit]

Hi

P.S. Eliot is a well known band, definitely better known than a lot of the bands on this site. I'm sure any young person would have at least heard of them. I did a google search for them (ps eliot wiki) and found there not to be an article for them and upon further investigation found that you had removed the article because there was no explanation of significance. Because this is a well known band, I believe there should be an article for it so I was wondering what would, to you qualify as an "explanation of significance."

Thanks

Zoe

  • Hi Zoe. The article that I deleted was very short and did not indicate how this band met our notability requirements for bands, which are set out at WP:MUSIC. If you can show such notability through

reliable independent sources (see WP:V), feel free to post an article on this band. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 03:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request to take part in a survey[edit]

Hi there. I would very much appreciate it if you could spend ~2 minutes and take a short survey - a project trying to understand why the most active Wikipedia contributors (such as yourself) may reduce their activity, or retire. I sent you an email with details, if you did not get it please send me a wikiemail, so that I can send you an email with the survey questions. I would very much appreciate your cooperation, as you are among the most active Wikipedia editors who show a pattern of reduced activity, and thus your response would be extremely valuable. Thanks! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NawlinWiki. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I wonder if you had time to consider my request? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't "reduced my activity". I was on vacation for a couple of weeks. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Page[edit]

NawlinWiki I noticed that my page got deleted that I tried to create for Matmon Internet, Inc. I am not sure why it was so quick to get deleted as I didnt even get the chance to reference news article and press publications regarding significant news about the organization. Is there any way I can go about getting the chance to add that material to be given a fair shot? Elliottgbrown (talk) 02:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source code[edit]

Hey Nawlin,
thanks for putting the source code in my user space. You are the best! Hasibernd (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Daniel Smales (Noteable?)[edit]

This page was removed, this evening, this person is a Film Actor, but has been removed off Wikipedia? Also that took me 1 hour and 30 to write using wikipedia code that i cant get back now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunterabercrombie1 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Azmi Bishara[edit]

Hi. You protected the Azmi Bishara page because of "persistent sock puppetry". I don't see any sock poppetry, not recently anyway. Did I miss something? Cheers, --Ajnem (talk) 07:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't selective deletion leave any trace in the history? Very confusing. Cheers, --Ajnem (talk) 08:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About the article Mysansar.com[edit]

HI, You have recently deleted my article. This website is the most visited blog site in Nepal and has significant importance to all Nepalese people. It publishes news which are ignored by national medias. Please restore this . Thanks Ashishlohorung (talk) 11:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what do you want me to do to restore my article ? Ashishlohorung (talk) 09:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Request for Un-Delete[edit]

Hello NawlinWiki, I’m writing to you to appeal a decision which was made to delete an article I posted to Wikipedia titled “Slurping Sarah” under the speedy deletion category. Under the comments section of the deletion there were two messages. The first statement indicated that the deletion occurred due to “unambiguous advertising” and the second statement seemed to be a message directed to the author indicating that Wikipedia should not be used to promote “your” book. I utilize Wikipedia myself quite a bit, and I recognize that the volunteers and administrators such as you must see a large number of articles every day. I greatly appreciate the work you contribute to make Wikipedia possible. With that said, this may be a simple misunderstanding that I hope to clear up with the following details. I would first like to clarify that I am not the author of the book in question. I would also like to explain that the purpose of the article was not to promote, but to inform. I acknowledge that there is a fine line between advertising and informing. However, one aspect that distinguishes advertising from informing is intent. While intent is something that is very difficult to completely establish in this simple e-mail, one thing I can do is offer evidence of intent through the tone of the text in question. To illustrate, the article does not utilize subjective language that cannot be supported with facts such as “visionary,” “exciting,” or “amazing.” All details in the article are mere statements of fact and can be backed up with third party sources such as Barnes and Noble and Tower. In addition, I’d like to explain my reasoning for adding a Wikipedia article for a self-published book. As the Wikipedia guidelines indicate, all entries must be “noteworthy.” While this is another detail that can be very subjective, I would like to point out that there was a statement in the article in question that indicated that the book was listed as number one in November 2013 on one of Amazon’s best-selling lists. While I acknowledge that Amazon’s lists may not be as noteworthy as the New York Times, but surely a book listed on a best seller list on one of the world’s largest websites could be considered as noteworthy. In addition, there are details regarding the creation of the book’s illustrations. To my knowledge, there are no other children’s books that involved an illustration process of a similar nature. I believe this is another reason that this book would be considered as noteworthy. Also, an example of a self-published children’s book on Wikipedia can be found at the following URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bats_in_the_Air,_Bats_in_My_Hair This is a similar example with a similar tone which was openly accepted into Wikipedia. I concede that my article may require some adjustment. However, I openly accept any adjustments as I understand that is part of the Wikipedia process. With that said, I did not expect complete deletion. As a result, I respectfully request that you kindly reconsider deleting the article that I spent a fair amount of time researching and crafting.

The original URL for the deleted page is as follows: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slurping_Sarah The deletion message is as follows: 15:34, 26 July 2013 NawlinWiki (talk | contribs) deleted page Slurping Sarah (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: ad for selfpublished book)

Best regards,

Stebbesa (talk) 01:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Stebbesa[reply]

  • Sorry, I don't think being listed, on one day, on what is essentially an Amazon advertising page qualifies for notability on Wikipedia, see WP:N. I've listed the "Bats in the Air" book for deletion as well. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE REMOVE MY PAGE[edit]

Hi

I am trying to get a page removed that I set up a few years ago but I get the message that it was 'speedly deleted' but it hasn't been and I would like it to be please. My username is MegArm198! and the page is Enviro Technology Services Plc — Preceding unsigned comment added by MegArm198! (talk • contribs) 14:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. (talk page stalker) The reason for the confusion is that the page in article space was deleted three days ago, while I just took care of the one in user space. Favonian (talk) 14:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do I add notability to my page Calcutta Walks?[edit]

Hi,

My page Calcutta Walks was speed deleted by you on grounds of no notability. I did add a couple of references to support my page. Could you please advise what do I need to do in order to get it back up?Sksohail03 (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please look at WP:CORP for our notability standards for companies. Being mentioned in one news article isn't sufficient. See WP:V. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PPACA[edit]

I'm not at all surprised that you reverted HJIO6509's additions to PPACA but I am surprised (WP:TPO, WP:DNB) that you reverted his/her talk page comment, which seemed to be made in good faith. Unless this user is a sock? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • It does kind of smell socky to me, but I think your action (responding to the talk page comment rather than reverting) was probably the better choice. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you guys already noticed. Actually, glad isn't the right word. Anyway, in case you hadn't already encountered him, Nawlin, but this is a sock of Grundle - a user who keeps vandalizing and having his socks banned. A new user who happens to be against he PPACA, edits the same subsection, knows how to reference/hyperlink/use the talk page immediately, AND writes, word for word, the same removed content e.g. "Leaders of the Teamsters, UFCW, and UNITE-HERE sent a letter to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi which said that Obamacare "will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits... these restrictions will make non-profit plans like ours unsustainable... we can no longer stand silent in the face of elements of the Affordable Care Act that will destroy the very health and wellbeing of our members along with millions of other hardworking Americans"" - is that sufficient for a sock ban? Sb101 (talk|contribs) 21:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TinyURLDotComSlashMb4tstl
Also, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ss6j81avz - you don't event have to go through the edit history log! Those edits I mentioned are still on the talk page from the this sock of the user. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 21:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like someone else nailed him. Thanks for the info. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Neutral" policy[edit]

If you're really trying to be neutral, actually research both evolution and intelligent design and don't delete my edits just because you disagree with them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.135.16.247 (talk) 14:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A careful read of WP:FRINGE and WP:VALID would be useful. --NeilN talk to me 16:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thibbs' talk page[edit]

The sock puppets are acting up at User talk:Thibbs again. Can you block and/or reprotect? Thanks, Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

György Lukács[edit]

Hi! I happen to be watching the György Lukács page. Just out of curiosity, could you tell me why you needed to delete it, restore 638 revisions of it and then protect it, given that recent activity there has been, to say the very least, minimal? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 02:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) My guess is that it was to get a flood of sock puppet edits out of the page history. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jack, you are correct. Because this sockmaster knows by now that his crude and unfunny personal attacks are reverted within minutes, his purpose can only be to leave them in the edit history. I'm trying to deprive him of that. What do you think, Professor Plaut, is it worth the effort? NawlinWiki (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks to both for the answer, makes sense. I hadn't seen that done before, hence the question. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Ban Appeals Subcommittee#User:Bruestle2 unblocked

{{Ping}} me if you have any questions. NW (Talk) 12:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vaublock/voablock notice not given[edit]

I noticed that you blocked Monkeyfarts5x (talk · contribs) as a VOA-account; why didn't you leave him a block notice? hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 15:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really necessary...? Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with RE, but I left a notice anyway. Not that I expect Monkeyfarts to be back. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Family Offices[edit]

List of Family Offices was recently deleted. I would like to work with the data and see if I can build it offline, and when done, provide it to you for review.HKbrit (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't find that deleted article. Could you give me the exact title? NawlinWiki (talk) 18:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of family offices in United States HKbrit (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • When the list was redirected, it only had two entries: Financial Clarity and Go Green Financial Group. There was no other content. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rodeo Ruby Love[edit]

Hi! I was just wondering why was Rodeo Ruby Love's page deleted? If it is a issue of notability, I have gathered evident that Rodeo Ruby Love is a notable band. They have "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." as it says in WP:MUSIC. Here are the articles I found, and am willing to find more if necessary.

Also they have "released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable)", as it says in WP:MUSIC Here is their label, an Independent Record Label formed in 2007 with several notable performers signed on. They have released 3 albums on this label. Also I'm new here, I'm sorry if my layout or process was wrong. Here is a list of the notable performers.

Nslvr (talk) 07:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hi Nslvr! I deleted an article on this band in 2007, back before they had accomplished any of the things you have listed in your post. Feel free to create a new article on the band with the information you have cited. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please validate your immediate deletion of an article published 1 hour ago (with 42 footnoted citations)[edit]

Hello NawlinWiki.

I see that you just deleted an article I drafted, entitled Doug Eldridge. I noticed that there was a prior article on this subject that was also deleted in April of this year. I am unclear how two different, unrelated authors can draft (presumably) completely different entries on the same topic, yet the latter is subject to automatic deletion. How can this be substantiated given the unrelated correlation to the prior author's work on the subject? The fact that this thoroughly researched piece was summarily deleted makes me think you did not even read the very entry that you deleted.

In terms of merit and suitability, Doug Eldridge has become a regular presence across cable news networks, and the notoriety of the clientele under his direction, certainly validate the suitability of subject matter. Two other sports agents--David Falk and Leigh Steinberg--are included within Wikipedia, and though both are older than Eldridge, they are living sports agents nonetheless. While I cannot speak to the quality of the prior entry written on this subject, I do know that my piece had diverse, verified, credible notation (including over 40 footnotes) which in and of themselves speak to the veracity and notability of both the sources as well as the topic itself.

To simply put a defacto 'block' or 'delete' order on a topic and subject it to automatic deletion, when it is neither controversial nor offensive, and when it meets the notability standards and is back-stopped by over three dozen sources from television, print, and digital media, makes no sense at all. By that logic, whomever chooses to write about this topic in the future would also have their well-researched article automatically deleted by someone like yourself, thereby removing a worthy and timely subject from the digital shelves of Wikipedia, without any justification for its exclusion. In that sense, you are not removing something based on a lack of research, merit, or verifiability; you are simply blocking a non-controversial, worthy subject.

Please let me know how my article can be 'undeleted' and returned to its original posting. I invite peer review on this, as the subject matter and the corresponding depth of undisputed, verifiable sources speak for themselves.

Thanks for your help,

SKJ

SK Jenkins83 (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • As you requested, I've again reviewed the text of the deleted article. What strikes me are two things. First, the overall promotional tone of the article, including referring to the subject by his first name, and including laudatory details like "he's riding in a charity bike ride". See WP:NPOV and WP:SPAM. Second, although there are indeed a lot of footnotes, the sources are not articles *about* Mr. Eldridge. They are articles about other topics, in which Mr. Eldridge is quoted or interviewed. That's not what we mean by a source about the subject. See WP:V. In short, even the new version of the article doesn't satisfy our guidelines. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you![edit]

Thank you for identifying and dealing with those socks--lots of red in my watch list today! I hadn't noticed that you even salted the topics: I posted in RFPP and was told it had been done already. —rybec 18:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Un-Delete[edit]

Hi. Today you deleted the entry I put up for Bayan Towfiq citing the reason as G5, that it was posted by a blocked user. As far as I can tell I am not now, nor have I ever been blocked by Wikipedia. It was my understanding that the page had already been reviewed and approved. Please un-delete the page or provide further explanation as to why it was removed and steps I can take to have it republished. Thank you.

Jjeffmackay (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Jjeffmackay[reply]

  • While you are not blocked, both the Towfiq and Flowroute articles were being edited by sockpuppets of a sockmaster who appears to be running a pay-for-articles group. I did review the articles, and neither of them appears to meet our standards for the subject's notability, see WP:BIO and WP:CORP. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined BLPPROD: Andreas Kjörling[edit]

Unfortunately, I've had to decline this. Even a primary, self-published blog source is, according to our not entirely sensible policies, enough to preclude the placement of a BLPPROD tag. Sadly, this will have to go to PROD or AfD. Best, --j⚛e deckertalk 15:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two Degrees (company) Wiki[edit]

Hi there. I was searching for Two Degrees (company) and it seems that you deleted it recently (August 14th). I'm just wondering why? I recently came across the company at a convention in Austin, TX and have been doing some research on it recently. They are huge in the food, non-profit and health awareness spaces. They've gotten all sorts of big media coverage for their buy a bar and help malnurished children business model (a lot like Toms). I'm a fan of the company, but am also an adamant supporter of wikipedia's integrity. It's my belief that the company deserves to be listed on the site. Since I've accumulated research on my own and have written and edited articles previously, do you mind telling me what went wrong and giving me a chance to fix it? Thanks.

DavidBellos (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Busey[edit]

Would you please un-delete the page for Phil Busey? I have further information to upload and sources to add relating to his significance that did not load the first time. Some of the items intended to add are - the contributions he made to the banking industry in relation to testimonies related to the fall of Penn Square Bank, the company he founded and is CEO of is now the 4th largest family-owned business in the State of Oklahoma (Journal Record), a columnist for several publications (Edmond Sun, Journal Record), serves on the board of recognizable organizations and is co-founder of a major orchestra based non-profit after school program for students in the Oklahoma City area. DRGOKC (talk) 13:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Given your username, you are either Mr. Busey or an employee of his company, Delaware Resource Group. You really shouldn't be writing about him, see WP:COI. The article appears to be basically a "isn't he great" puff piece. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WillowTree Apps[edit]

You deleted WillowTree Apps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on the 14th [1] but a new article has been created with the same title. I don't have a copy of the original to compare. —rybec 23:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Truepath1 IP Block and Page[edit]

I (Truepath1) had our page (TruePathTechnologies) marked for removal. I quickly wrote back to the admin to start working on what we needed to fix, etc.

Within minutes our IP was banned and page removed. Why? How can we work with anyone if our user/IP is banned.

I request that you take off the IP block and bring our page back.

This page while it seems to be a marketing, etc is the SAME format, setup, look and feel of other partner companies and even competitors. I can list these if you like.

We're trying to do the right thing here but can't if we're thrown out.

I want to add that I tried going to the unblock ticket system but it's broke:

http://screencast.com/t/U5ZFs8MwD

Thanks.

Dmauro25 (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've removed the IP block (although the block on the account named "Truepath1" still remains, because we don't allow usernames that represent a company or organization). And I can promise you that we don't have other pages with content like "to help companies harness the potential of their networks. TruePath is client focused and committed to providing a superior customer experience". If we do, please let me know and I'll delete those as well. But see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Finally, I suggest you read WP:CORP, WP:V, WP:COI, WP:NPOV, and WP:SPAM. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, but can you bring the page back under my new name (dmauro25) and let us make changes, updates to fix this. Also I see you reverted "Comparison of network monitoring systems" .. Why? Our software fits in there perfectly?.?. Can you please revert that back too please.

Dmauro25 (talk) 03:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Broadband Pricing Paradox[edit]

Hello, I have started the article, and have not have time to finish it, it has been deleted in really short time, saying, A1: Short article without enough context to identify the subject.

What is really expected? You write your article offline, and publish when you are completely done?

Not sure any more if I want to spend time sharing new things here ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deer777 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • As another editor explained on your talk page, Wikipedia is not for "sharing new things", i.e., new ideas or syntheses that you have created yourself. See WP:NOR. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

M-eux Test Deletion[edit]

Hi!

I noticed you deleted my M-eux Test page shortly after it has been created. While I appreciate the review process in place that ensures only quality pages make it to Wikipedia, I also would like the opportunity to better understand why this page was deleted and how we can proceed to come to a Wikipage that describes M-eux Test and meets the Wikipedia requirements.

Full disclosure; I do work for the company that makes this product. We don't want to use Wikipedia for marketing -- we have a website that does that. We did notice that most other products in the same space (say, Ranorex) also have a Wikipedia page. We have taken their example and crafted a Wikipedia page for our product in similar terms.

Could you please present us with some guidelines on how to amend the deleted page so that it meets the Wikipedia requirements?

Thanks,

Frederik.

Fcarlier (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • In general, we discourage people from writing about their own companies and products, see WP:COI. As for what is required for a software article, see Wikipedia:Notability (software). It seems unlikely that a product that was released just a month ago could meet those requirements at this time. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Nawlin,

Thanks for the clarification. I am aware of the COI and pay special attention to making sure we are as objective/encyclopedia as possible, but always happy to get feedback there.

Just to clarify, the latest version of our product has been released in July, we have been around since 2009. For example, please have a look at, say, http://www8.hp.com/h20195/v2/GetPDF.aspx%2F4AA2-7048ENW.pdf from HP dating 2009 and updated 2010, or https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/blogs/video-portal/entry/automated_mobile_testing_with_jamo_solutions?lang=en_us from IBM dated 2012. I hope you agree our product meets the notable requirements.

At the same time, can you please let me know what the best process would be to proceed here. Obviously, we want to craft a Wikipedia page that meets the requirements and avoid another speedy deletion. Is there a process, like creating a draft and submitting it for review that we could use?

Thanks,

Fcarlier (talk) 15:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) You can submit it as an AfC draft. Follow the steps at Wikipedia:Article wizard, and make sure you select to create it as an Articles for creation draft at the end. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Pederson refund[edit]

As this was a long standing article newly prod deleted, I restored previous versions and removed BLPProd. New/old version did have ref's such as they are. cheers, Dlohcierekim 16:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spambot?[edit]

Hi NawlinWiki,

what do you think about Special:AbuseLog/9193506? I don't remember seeing this sort before. Google thinks its Ukrainian but can't convert it to anything. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a Russian IP, hitting a page with "board" in it and replacing it with, at minimum, nonsense text. It meets my definition of a spambot. I've blocked the IP. Thanks! NawlinWiki (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NawlinWiki/Archive_80&oldid=1139277502"