User talk:TexasAndroid/Archive11

If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.

Thanks

Thanks for this. Geo Swan (talk) 01:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:LBC albums

Videogram

Thank you for your message. I've restored Videogram. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat

Hello TexasAndroid!

Sorry to hear that Bearcat deleted what you did as well. He has no respect for what other people do. He just trashes it, and he will argue with you that he is right. He should change his name to BearAss! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.254.46.243 (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

66, familiarize yourself with (a) Wikipedia policy, and (b) what actually happened here. It's not at all consistent with anything you think it was. Bearcat (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Bearcat ran afoul of a *very* obscure part of the project, Soft Redirects. I'm one of the few people on the project who know about them, let alone particularly care. He was also not helped by the fact that the Soft Redirect had been converted into a policy violating page. Given the page at the time it was deleted, his actions were proper. I happened to know a bit more about the history of the page, though, and politely asked him to reconsider in light of the information I had. He did, and I consider the issue to be closed. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Hi, nice to meet you again.You know me already.And I would like to say I'm sorry for acting like a jerk.But please we need to talk about this and clear it up! I need your forgiveness to move on with my life. YOu said I was vandalizing! I felt misunderstood and picked on! I was one of the best wikipedians there ever was if you asked me.Do you think so? I'm not vandalizing your page! We just need to get past this! Sincerly yours Casesamong! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.25.243.130 (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point me to where you and I interacted previously? Sorry, but I just do not remember the specific interactions. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manaus Brazil Temple

Thank you so much for fixing those categories. I know it was a long time ago, but I'm just now looking through some of my work. I copied the template for the page from the Phoenix Arizona Temple so that's why it was messed up. Again, thank you. Carter | Talk to me 18:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Renaldo Kalari (footballer)

Hi, I wanted to move this page to Renaldo Kalari, but this is currently a redirect to the SK Tirana team page (which you set up in September 2007!) I can't move the 'football' page across because the other page already exists, but in the apparent absence of another Renaldo Kalari it makes sense to lose the (footballer) from the article. Can you help? Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged the histories of the two pages. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. Eldumpo (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent of Scarning

I have a source for this, which you speedied Please undelete. (I know I have the ability to do so myself, but I want to ask you first.) DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with you undeleting this yourself in the situation you have described. Likely easier/better than me undeleting the bad version, not knowing when you'll be online to actually fix it. - TexasAndroid (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sure. I always ask because some people get annoyed if they do not get asked. DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

San Antonio task force

Hi! I started the Wikipedia:WikiProject Texas/San Antonio on here to help improve San Antonio articles. Would you like to join? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 08:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks in the article Elaine Parent

I screwed up. I'm sorry. I meant to use the template that warns people who worked on a page that I'd put it up for speedy delete. Please find the nearest trout and slap me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David in DC (talk • contribs)

No problem - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, TexasAndroid. You have new messages at Talk:School Improvement Grant.
Message added 21:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Also please note that you failed to list the article at {http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2010_March_24}~~ or to notify the article creator. I have rectified that. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I see it was listed at March 22, I have notified the artcile creator. I came here after responding to at post at WP:EAR#School Improvement Grants. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the addition of the template as per User talk:Jezhotwells#School Improvement Grant and discussion on article talk page. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ekaterina Vaganova

Hello! I'd like to know why you deleted the article i've created? What's the problem? Or someone requested the deletion? Thanx! --Temir87 (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC) Sorry, my fault!!! The page is OK! I don't know. Maybe i made a mistake... --Temir87 (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CFD for category rename of city/state categories

Hello. As someone who has participated in renaming categories for city/states representing metro areas in the past (such as at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_March_10#Houston_categories), please feel free to join one of the two CFD conversations going on at WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_20#Category:Visitor_attractions_in_Orlando.2C_Florida. Thanks! SpikeJones (talk) 03:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Auditory memory

Hi I have not been an editor as such for about 10 months now, just keeping a watch on articles which fall in my areas of interest. Auditory memory is a multi-layered topic which should include topics such as short term auditory memory, long term auditory memory, and more. Echoic memory is only one of the many topic s which should be included. I went to begin researching Auditory Memory, at PubMed etc, but the technical information went over my head so there is a need for some professional level of input to create and expand the required article so that it includes all of the wide range of related information required. May be you could help find such contributors dolfrog (talk) 10:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletion of "Calorie Restriction Society"

Hey there,

I'm going to recreate the Calorie Restriction Society page (and, this time, indicate the group's importance, which you thought was a problem). Could you send me the page in the state it was in when it was deleted? Or tell me how to find the text? (I'm a beginner here, sorry.) Thanks BWP1234 (talk) 10:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad Lynn

I think you were a bit quick to delete Conrad Lynn. The Harvard Crimson article referred to in it establishes his notability. Please also see my post to the editor who made the speedy deletion nomination, User:C1k3, for more explanation. Can you bring back the article? In case you forgot, you did the deletion around 04:00 on 13 May -- Ong saluri (talk) 05:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're a tool

All four members of Coldplay get their own biographies, but House Counsel for Iran Contra John W. Nields Jr., who has been discussed in multiple books, and in the articles for cover stories in Time and Newsweek in the 1980s, the New York Times etc. doesn't even get a delete but a speedy delete? You are a fucking tool.

I had the epiphany that Wikipedia was a lost cause a long time ago, but dorks like you, or whatever you call yourself..."WikiGnome" have it sinking lower in the sewer.

And you call yourself a computer programmer as well. Thank god I don't have to deal with the crap spaghetti code that you are surely putting out.

Why don't you show me what a tough guy you are and ban me or something. God, what a twerp. An incompetent twerp. Ruy Lopez (talk) 05:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, Insults. Not exactly the best way to persuade someone to see things your way. - TexasAndroid (talk) 11:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, if what you say in your first paragraph about him is true, then he likely does meet the notability requirements. It would have been nice if there was something in the article that said such. There was not. - TexasAndroid (talk) 11:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

French navy

I moved it to a template to protect it from vandalism. An un-reg user kept changing the article to his own make-belive numbers. Sorry for the trouble mate. Recon.Army (talk) 09:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not the way to do it. Sorry. - TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need keep errors

Hello, there is no need to incorporate errors into article history as you did with Maoraxidae. This is not need and it is harmful. You probably thought that you have kept important article history, but all gastropod related articles with one sentence have more or less the same universal introductory sentence. --Snek01 (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but as per the terms of the GFDL license, under which all WP text is released, preserving the history trail of a page is required. Mistakes and all. Cut&Paste moves are never the proper way to fix the names of articles. - TexasAndroid (talk)

I have made it by myself, but care a damn about it now. But trust to other users more next time. --Snek01 (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

The reason I got rid of the status, relatives and the ilk is because it's no longer on the infobox. Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 15:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I kinda figured that out. That's why I reverted myself after I reverted you. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wikibreak?

You seem to be around enough that you might want to remove the wikibreak notice from your user page. Just a suggestion. DGG ( talk ) 22:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted article

Hello, you deleted the article "Amritt, Inc." on 13th May, due to notability issues. I've been working on a new draft of the page and I've tried to find more secondary sources that meet the notability requirements. I was wondering if you could take a look at the page and tell me if there's any chance it could make it. Thanks and sorry to bother. CillaИ ♦ XC 00:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked through the references listed, and I really do not see that any show that the company meets the notability requirements given at WP:CORP. To meet these requirements, a reference must be independent, reliable, and non-trivial. And when it comes to using references to specifically establish notability, they need to be coverage of the company itself. The references listed either fail one of the three key aspects, or are not really about the company. Articles on outsourcing that mention the company's reports are articles about outsourcing, not about Amritt, I'm afraid.

With your new article, I would likely not speedy delete it again, but I also suspect that if a full deletion debate was begun on it, the outcome would still likely end in a deletion, IMHO. - TexasAndroid (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All right, thanks. CillaИ ♦ XC 12:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page Move: Ulysses1975...

Hi TexasAndroid.

Thanks for moving my draft article Ulysses1975\... to User:Ulysses175\... I have only begun to work with Wikipedia recently, and am still a little rusty with the lingo.

Regards Ulysses1975 (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NP at all. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for that. I knew there was something I'd forgotten! Tonywalton ^Talk 23:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages

I noticed you undid all the work I did on the disambiguation page for Hennuttawy. I understand the fact that what I did was against the standard way of doing things, but I actually had links on several pages pointing to this new disambiguation page. And sorry about my part of this :-) I'm not always aware of the "proper etiquette" for naming the page. I thought the disambiguation part of the title actually made more sense since it clearly identifies the page for what it is. But I will of course try to work within the standards here. I put my text on the page, because I think it may help people to known the names as used in the literature (f.i Hennutawy C). I realized I could have adapted Alensha's text, but thought about that after I made the changes. Ugh, the links work and the information on the pages is correct so that's (hopefully) what counts. Cheers --AnnekeBart (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring/moving my deleted article to Special:MyPage

I'm new to wikipedia and I'm sure I did something wrong when I added some website info for thisishowyouplay.com, but is there a way you can move the text/markup to Special:MyPage/This Is How You Play ? I kinda worked for a few hours on that, and I'd like to back it up while I figure out what I did wrong.

Christorea (talk) 05:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been placed at User:Christorea/This Is How You Play. Please read WP:ORG for notability requirements. Basically, you need independent media coverage of the organization. If such coverage does not exist, then you may be fighting a losing battle trying to get the article onto the project. - TexasAndroid (talk) 11:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect deletion of WA First entry

You have deleted the WA First entry twice. This is a political party that has lodged a registration with the Australian Electoral Commission having attained the necessary 500 members and therefore will be contesting the next Australian Federal election. The party has gathered considerable media interest in Australia, as per this page: www.wafirst.iinet.net.au/media.htm. By visiting that page you can follow links that shows the party has been featured on national television, print and radio in Australia. In all 21 articles have been featured across a variety of Australian media over the past week. Surely this rates as of significant enough interest to have an entry in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.86.156 (talk) 14:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At a minimum that sounds like enough to invalidate my speedy deletion, though I'm still not sure it would survive a full deletion debate. It's now back. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent deletion

I'm honestly really sorry, but I tagged an article by mistake which I thought was in my userspace. Could you pleas undo the deletion of List of numbered roads in Durham Region? Thank you :) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored - TexasAndroid (talk) 04:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Taylor (composer) deletion

Not sure what your looking for in this article to make it contend for Wikipedia. You stated significance of figure? I stated that Taylor's music is played all over the world by various orchestras and performers. He puts releases out on a regular basis. I referenced everything properly. I'm not sure what sort of information I left out for it to be speedy deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gebo84 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BIO, and particularly [WP:COMPOSER]]. If you can tell me exactly which of the six criteria he meets (or which of the five in the following section), and provide independent references to prove it, then you are well on the way to showing that he meet's the project's notability criteria. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Soldiers aid Haiti refugees.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Soldiers aid Haiti refugees.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stan James speedy delete

You speedy deleted this article when Stan James is a major bookmaker (and company not person) in the UK. Involved in sponsoring many sports. Also has been expanding recently - buying shops, opening new shops. It clearly is notable. I would like you to restore the article or at least list it on AFD. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which elements of WP:CORP does it meet? I'm looking for which specific criteria from that link are met? If you cannot show which criteria are met, then I'm sorry, but it simply does not meet the project's definition of notability. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a large bookmaker with chains around the country. It sponsors a lot of sports. It has been acquiring other bookmakers recently. Because it's a bookmaker, most searches about it will return information about events its sponsoring and not the company itself. So I'm having difficult finding stuff about Stan James itself. If you list it on AFD I'm fairly certain it'll survive. 84.13.181.41 (talk) 10:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Blue Period Ensemble page

Hi

Sorry - I hadn't checked the rules on that. I'd planned on filling it out more over the weekend, but liked the idea of having it up until then.

Should I just recreate it then, with more information?

Thanks

Sam —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallage134 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read through WP:MUSIC, especially the WP:BAND section. You need to be able to show exactly which listed criteria the group meets. And provide independent references to support that they are met. If the group does not meet any of the criteria, then you are likely fighting a lost cause in trying to give them an article here. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive template replacements - move

Good idea. Thanks. You might also drop a note to those who voted on it, as well as to the subject. JohnInDC (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Ta for the FYI. Trafford09 (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix problem

I saw you deleted Governors and premiers of First Republic Nigerian regions. Not really a problem, but it would have been more polite to drop me a note first.

I am trying to solve the problem of putting a set of related bios into a matrix. Vertical: who held the same position at different times? Horizontal: who held similar positions at the same time? I want to link the horizontal groups vertically: who held that set of positions before and after? And I am trying to avoid redundancy of lists through transclusion. See Christian Onoh for a typical example of a thumbnail bio. There are two navboxes at the bottom. The "vertical" one transcludes a table which is also transluded into List of all Nigerian state governors, and the horizontal one gives links below the table to articles that basically just hold the navboxes for the prior and following groups. I don't like to put links to the templates themselves.

Have you come across this type of issue before? I am looking for examples of good solutions... Aymatth2 (talk) 00:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the notes, they are expressly not required for speedy deletion. If an admin had to notify before they could process speedy deletions, the deletions would back up massively at the extra bureaucracy. Sorry.

As for the table, I'm also sorry on that, but that's far outside my area of expertise, so I rally cannot assist you there. - TexasAndroid (talk) 00:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose accidents happen. This was irritating, like getting a parking ticket when you leave the car for one minute. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vinehub

Hello TexasAndroid, Recently you deleted an article on Vinehub. Please reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tweetdeck. The structure and information was quite similar. If you search for "Vinehub" you will see the growing popularity. I think it's unfair to not be able to have it listed in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameronswendt (talk • contribs) 19:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:WEB. This gives notability requirements for web content. You need to show how your item meets those requirements. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Community ban

So what happens to a community ban proposal that's archived without resolution? Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive213#User:100110100_-_Community_ban_proposal JohnInDC (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What happens? I put it back. :) It's supposed to stay open for seven days or so, until an uninvolved admin closes it. But the archive bot only knows that no one has commented for 2 days. Silly bot. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done; thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone interested in the above ban, which has now passed, I've set up a category at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 100110100 for tracking of the IPs. This will, among other things, give a listing for use if/when an IP range block is sought. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Determining the notability of journals

I've had experience with attempting to source academic journals and arguing their notability at AfD. As my username suggests, I use abductive reasoning to make my determinations. Some things I've discovered:

Searching by the journal name is difficult, because Google cannot distinguish between citations of the journal and secondary sources about the journal.
- To work around this, I use additional search terms with the journal name, such as "prominent", "leading", "founded" and "impact factor". For example, searching by Cytotherapy and "impact factor" yields this.
- Google Books is the best place to look for secondary sources on journals. Google Scholar will reveal if the journal is producing articles, and if the citation count for the journal's highest-cited article is low (>30-50), the journal is likely to be non-notable. Google News will find mentions, especially if one searches by phrases such as "in the journal Cytotherapy" or just "journal Cytotherapy".
One can use Google Scholar advanced search to eliminate the journal itself from the returns. For example cytotherapy -Cytotherapy shows that "cell therapy" is another term for cytotherapy. Then searching by "cell therapy" +Cytotherapy reveals that the journal Cytotherapy has the highest citation number for that field; 711.
One must pick one's battles when considering nominating articles for deletion. If a journal has lots of returns in the specialized Google searches, and has lots of citations, I don't bother. Journals with mentions in several news articles in the lay press are usually not worth nominating for deletion. I look at the article history, check the page views for the article, and the number of editors, and if there seems to be interest in the article, I am less likely to consider nominating it for deletion. If I discover that the journal has an impact factor greater than 2, I usually don't bother. The older a journal is, the more likely it is to survive Prod or AfD. If a journal is published by one of the big name publishers, it is likely to survive. Conversely, if a journal is obviously a recent start-up and its Wikipedia article was created by a representative of the journal or its publisher, even DGG will vote for it to be deleted. Abductive (reasoning) 18:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. LOL at the last bit. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your prod on "Gro Schibsted Sandvik"

I've removed it, rather than issued a hangon tag, as the reason stated for the prod (lacking references) is factually inaccurate, there is a ref on the article. I wouldn't personally contest a prod on the article based on notability, but in this case, it's pretty clear this was an error in some sort of automated prod-scheme, and I got bold and just fixed it. I hope I haven't stepped on your toes here. Thanks. --j⚛e decker ^talk 05:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No automated scheme. Just me pushing buttons. That said, it was my oversight. I was working through the oldest "Unreferenced BLP"s, dropping PRODs on many that still had no references. If they have sat unreferenced for 2+ years, then I figure giving them a final 5-day countdown works well enough. Anyway, I obviously missed that this one had had a reference added. Sorry. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, and my apologies on my own misunderstanding! --j⚛e decker ^talk 14:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consilium abeundi

Just saw you deleted that page. Got a piece on it at User:G-41614/NeuerArtikel, after stumbling over a red link. Would like to know what was wrong with the page and why it was deleted. Regards, --G-41614 (talk) 09:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was transwikied to Wiktionary as being only a dictionary definition. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. - TexasAndroid (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about re-introducing it with that stub. --G-41614 (talk) 12:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that that stub needs a lot of work, but is not a dictionary definition like the previous one. While I would not want to move the existing stub into article space as-is, I would say that it looks well on the way to becoming a reasonable article. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is not my area of expertise, I just might move it into a.s., but before that I'll see wether I can't find a bit more. There's a quote on de:wp that I might integrate. --G-41614 (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Jewish American sportspeople

Category:Jewish American sportspeople, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Gnevin (talk) 09:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your apology on the Gaza flotilla raid redirects

No worries :). The apology is much appreciated! -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it

Could you please explain to me what the buttons do? How do you "Not accept" a change, that's what...you revert it, don't you...?Abce2 (talk) 03:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. If it is such that it does not deserve to be accepted, then you revert it. Keep in mind, that you are subject to all the normal limits on reverts as you are on any other page. Anything except vandalism or problematic BLP edits is supposed to be accepted, I believe. I'm still getting the hang of this myself, and just a few minutes ago hit revert on an edit I was checking, then thought better of it. Right or wrong, the edit was not vandalism, and thus I should not have reverted, or disapproved it. So I reverted myself. - TexasAndroid (talk) 03:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What if it was meant well, but completely messes up the format of the page?Abce2 (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then do a normal, non-vandalism, manual revert. That's really an issue of when to use rollback or not, more than a Pending changes issue. If it's not vandalism, but you disagree with it, you can still revert, but you should not use rollback, and are subject to all the normal limits of non-vandalism reverting. 3RR, edit warring, and all that. - TexasAndroid (talk) 04:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Abce2 (talk) 04:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

I think the pending changes for high vandalism rate articles is a resource hog for those monitoring them. I still get all the hits in my watchlist, and have to keep tracking the changes, which increases my workload. Also, there is a huge amount of visual clutter in the history, which adds eyestrain when trying to figure out what's going on. A simple semi is far better for such articles. Crum375 (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mas’ud El-Jibrin

You could actually delete this one. If you do a search on the name you will find only the redirect. It looks like it has a bunch of inbound links, but they all come from articles that include a navbar template which had the incorrect name, now fixed. It takes a while for Wikipedia to refresh the links. I will try to remember to blank it again when links have cleared away. Not important anyway. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not blank it. Blanking articles is almost never the correct way to handle things. In the current situation, the proper way to handle it would be to tag it for G7 speedy deletion with {{db-author}}. Since I know that'll be the result, I've gone ahead and processed it as a G7 deletion. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake and I apologize. I thought I saw somewhere that if the only editor on a new article just blanked the page it would be deleted without question. But next time I will tag as G7. The pseudo-links are moving over to the real article, but sometimes it takes a while for them all to move - so far about half of them have. I should at least have pointed out that effect, which I know of, in my edit summary, Sorry and thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Stone and Holt Weeks Foundation

Does this make it more clear about the importance of the foundation? What could we add so that you would undelete it?

In its first year, the Foundation has granted more than $63,000 in donations to schools and organizations, including the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, Environment America, Rebuilding Together DC and the Muscular Dystrophy Association. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolacey (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:ORG. This link shows the notability requirements for organizations. At it's most basic, you need to be able to provide multiple independent references that show that your group meets those requirements. If such references do not exist, then you are likely fighting a losing battle trying to get a page on the project. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Texas Android - we are a bit new to the entire concept, so please bear with us a little. Would your concern here be assuaged somewhat if we were to secure letters of reference from all of the organizations to whom we gave Foundation support during the past year? These would include attributable contact info so that you can "check up" on our reputation and activities. Please let us know if this will suffice.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolacey (talk • contribs) 22:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no. This is about Notability, not reputation. And it's Wikipedia's definition of notability, not any general definition. Please, please read the links I am providing. They'll explain the concept much better than I ever could. Basically, you need things like independently written newspaper articles (not just press releases) to show that the media is noticing your group. - TexasAndroid (talk) 12:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turano-Mongolian

I have reblanked this incorrect material - just as I would remove any false material in an article. There is no reason for Wikipedia to contain known verifiably false information for even a minute. As an admin, I could have speedily deleted it myself but I intend to write the article tonight or tomorrow and there is no particular reason to remove the article history. Rmhermen (talk) 03:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BLANK. Blanking can be considered vandalism, especially when I have pointed you to the correct way to handle bad redirects. Blanking of pages has a number of bad effects, and is (almost) never the correct way to handle bad material. In this case, please follow the instructions at WP:RFD for the correct way to handle bad redirects. - TexasAndroid (talk) 03:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

=D Thanks

Wanted to thank you for your work tonight on CSD. --Mboverload (talk) 03:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. - TexasAndroid (talk) 03:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why my article has been deleted!

my article Torny Genkai Itatsu has been deleted, can you tell me why. Genkai Itatsu is a singer-songwriter in Japan from Avex Trax. how other less famous singers in japan, their articles are not being deleted, but Itatsu is? thanks~! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosco1234567 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOTE and WP:MUSICBIO for notability guidelines for performers. - TexasAndroid (talk) 03:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proper reasons for deletion

Hi TexasAndroid. May i ask you why you have deleted Fish Smarty entry to wikipedia?

The article was non intrusive and was presenting in a neutral form the means and reasons behind online education. We are many behind the online education project and care about the content that was placed behind Fish Smarty. We have studied and analyzed many similar pages and followed a rigorous structure to present the information in the right format. May i ask you to reconsider the reasons behind the deletion and restore the entry, or suggest what was wrong in your opinion? It is not fair to just delete without appropriate comments. Thank you! Bernard 09:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flylotski (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:WEB. You need to be able to show that the page meets the requirements listed there. - TexasAndroid (talk) 11:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there,

Thank you for your comments. I would like to add that the article was focused on online educational content, area which is of an interest for many parents around the world. As a result of the online education and the means behind it, the output was Fish Smarty. And not the other way around. I have checked and on Facebook it has approximately 900 followers, several continuous blog readers and so on, all focused on education and means for using the available online resources. About references, there few on the internet, but they were not published yet as i considered that new and better references will come soon or the reviewers of the article will add references as well. The article was build on a collaboration platform so that others can contribute and bring their added value. But now, by being deleted, nobody can contribute anymore. Regards, Bernard 17:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flylotski (talk • contribs)

At a point where you believe you have references that will let you pass the requirements at WP:WEB, the article can be restored and placed in your user space for you to edit. Until that time, the page needs to stay deleted. Wikipedia has minimum requirements for the existence of articles. Until those requirements can be met, the article really cannot exist. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will do so as recommended. May i ask you for a copy of the wiki article as i worked online and not saved locally a copy? It will be a pity to have it lost. Is it possible from your side to move the article to user space? And it will not get published until proper references. Thank you, 158.169.9.14 (talk) 08:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely possible. OTOH, I think that it is premature. When you believe that you have your sources, ask again (for what we call userification), and I'll gladly do so at that point. - TexasAndroid (talk) 11:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I request userfy now. ----moreno oso (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is now at User:Morenooso/Fish Smarty. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. As a note to the anon IP, please copy the article somewhere and work on it. I will work on this copy. ----moreno oso (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The initial take is that the article looks like it had substance but WP:N for a web article may not have been made. I will now look at the full history to see when it was created and if appropriate tagging such as Ref Improve took place. ----moreno oso (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your comments. As i said before, references will need to be added to the article by me or other contributors. In the mean while the site and its content is under review by several independent web publishers. Once their review is completed, references will be created. However this might take some time. Regards, Bernard Bernard 21:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flylotski (talk • contribs)

You recently deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Difference

Hi TexasAndroid,

A member of our community recently added a page for One Difference and you removed it. I'm seeking to understand why it should not be a valid wiki entry. I wanted to ask for some guidance from you and to offer any additional information required so that we can reach consensus on whether it is indeed a valid entry.

One Difference is the community of people behind the products from the not-for-profit company, Global Ethics Ltd. Global Ethics sell a number of products one of which is One Water (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Water) and all the profits go to charity.

Global Ethics is a multi-award winning social enterprise and in the 5 years of it's history it has donated over £5m to charity.

The One Difference community is a significant arm of the not-for-profit. Currently, standing at 230,000 on Facebook, they represent people who resonate with the issues that Global Ethics addresses, and they help shape and grow the business.

I look forward to understanding more. Thanks in advance of your feedback. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.3.156.168 (talk) 11:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored it for now, but started deletion debates on both of the organization pages. There will now be a 5-6 day debate on each as to whether they should be deleted. Please read WP:ORG for notability requirements. - TexasAndroid (talk) 11:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Dobkin

Hello TexasAndroid!

I want to know why you deleted Mark Dobkin. I'm an important person on the internet.

Thanks, Mark Dobkin (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BIO. You need to be able to provide multiple reliable, independent, non-trivial that establish notability. Each of those three bolded words is important in evaluating a reference. Myspace, facebook, and blogs are not Reliable. A casual mention isn't Non-Trivial. Your own web page, or reprinted press releases are not Independent. Until/unless you can show that you meet Wikipedia's definition of Notability, I'm afraid that there is not going to be an article. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: David Mccaskill Elliott

I had declined the A7 and was in the midst of article immprovement. Please restore the file. The In use template was displayed. ----moreno oso (talk) 02:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will restore it, but for future reference, the proper template to put a CSD on hold is {{hangon}}, not inuse. - TexasAndroid (talk) 02:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Negative, and you know it. Anyone can decline a Speedy. ----moreno oso (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot the talkpage. I don't need to recreate work. ----moreno oso (talk) 03:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are misreading what I said. I was talking about what template you should use to put a speedy on hold, not whether or not you could do it. That said, I am rather underwhelmed by your improvements. Facebook is far from what I would consider a reliable source, and I still do not see anything that rises to notability. I'll be filing an AFD on this one sometime tomorrow if there if notability is not shown. - TexasAndroid (talk) 03:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the mention of an AFD is not good in light of your action. Recommend you rethink that one. ----moreno oso (talk) 04:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Negative again. And, I'm overwhelmed by your deletion with no CSD tag in place. ----moreno oso (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CSD tag added at 21:52 my time. Article deleted at 21:54 my time. So there was indeed a CSD tag in place at the time of deletion. But in the end it does not really matter. Admins are expressly allowed to speedy delete without prior tagging. You may disagree whether that should be so, but it is part of the process.

As for the mention of AFD, it's an acknowledgment that CSD is just not going to happen. I doubt you'll let a PROD happen at this point. That leaves me with one proper avenue for deletion, AFD. I was giving you advance notice, so that you could have a chance to add reliable sources to show notability. It still has none of those, and IMHO no real claim to notability either. Once at AFD, it'll be "put up or shut up" time. Either provide some evidence of notability, or the article will be gone. - TexasAndroid (talk) 04:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is extreme non good faith. I have already stated I will let the PROD stand on the talkpage. I recommend you drop this.----moreno oso (talk) 04:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm. What PROD? I see no PROD in place on the article. It's hard for you to let stand something that is not there. - TexasAndroid (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few last comments as I head to bed. At no point have I considered you to be acting in anything but good faith. Please extend to me the same courtesy. The bit about PROD was my extending your (seemingly) fanatical defense of the page into the future, which I should not have done, but it was a comment on your possible methods, not your motivation. I did not, and do not, consider the possibility of you protesting a PROD to be a bad faith action. PRODs get placed, PRODs get protested/removed. Neither is inherently good or bad faith. And my comments were simply a reflection of my view of the likely paths forward.

That all said, I'm still a bit confused on this whole PROD situation. PRODs exist by placement of the PROD tag on the article, unlike AFDs which have a separate discussion page. I've gone over your comments. You mention you'll let "The PROD" stand. Except there is no PROD tag on the article in question. I see no sign that there has been one. Are you somehow thinking that there is an active PROD in place? Are you saying that you plan to put a PROD in place on this one? Are you saying that, if I placed a PROD tag, you would leave it in place? If the latter, then I will do so instead of filing an AFD tomorrow, and we will see what happens during the AFD period.

Ultimately, I truly believe that this article, as it currently stands, does not belong on the project. I ask you to extend to me good faith just as you asked me to extend to you. There is nothing here beyond a belief in whether the article is good and proper for the project. You and I are on different sides of that belief, but that does not mean that either of us are acting in bad faith. - TexasAndroid (talk) 05:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a way of calming this heated debate down, let me offer apology on two points in this. First, I did miss your OnHold. I don't normally expect onHold as a "CSD Stop" template, I expect HangOn, which I do keep an eye out for. But even so, I should have seen the OnHold. Maybe this whole mess could have gone smoother, though I wonder. I suspect I would have held off, and checked back later. Since the article still lacks RS or claims of NOTE, I suspect I would still have ended up CSDing it, only at a later point in time. But any of that is speculation.

As a stronger apology, I apologize for saying that you added the Facebook link. You did not, merely reformatted things. So I was indeed incorrect on that particular fact. I misread the difs, and I apologize for having done so. - TexasAndroid (talk) 04:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't have to tell you what you should have done as an admin. You should have reviewed all tags, the time of their placement and who was trying to do what. That you should "fanatical" in describing me is another belittlement on your part. I have tried to assume good faith with you but to be honest, you have not with me and it's evident. I suggest you let the PROD stand. ----moreno oso (talk) 07:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And to be further clear, there was no reason to delete this article so quickly. If all the tags had been examined and to seen by whom, you should have realized very quickly that I too have the Wiki's best interest at heart. As per WP:BEFORE item 10, I look at all new articles to see if they can be improved via tags first. If they cannot, I will nominate them for a CSD. Anytime someone is "fanatical" in declining a CSD, should be a sign to the admin that a rapid deletion is not called. ----moreno oso (talk) 07:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I think that it's best if we are done here. Every time I try to say something, or even offer a bit of peace/apology, you find something in my words to twist into ways that do not at all reflect my intended meaning. This continued conversation serves no useful purpose. - TexasAndroid (talk) 11:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time is always an ally; haste is not.----moreno oso (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the Will Stratton article.

As well as the links to other articles that you removed. He meets conditions 1, 11, and 12 in the notability guidelines for musicians. If this was not sufficiently clear in the article as it was, it will only require minor edits to make it so. see below for evidence:

http://www.npr.org/search/index.php?searchinput=will+stratton http://www.popmatters.com/pm/search/results/5dd9c498a7096917497f9455d50e2f06/ http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.32.26 (talk) 03:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting the exact criteria he meets, with links, is a good way to get my attention. Restored. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 04:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please userfy this article to my userspace. ----moreno oso (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already restored :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 04:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor other than this anon IP stated the article was deleted and restored. Did you delete it? If so, your attitude in this section and matter are not what would be expected of an admin. Please explain yourself. ----moreno oso (talk) 07:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else tagged it. I responded to the tag and deleted it. The anon gives the above evidence that my deletion was incorrect, so I reversed myself and restored it. That's about it. - TexasAndroid (talk) 11:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion - Thermolaire

Hi, you recently deleted an article entitled Thermolaire (Speedy deleted per CSD A7, was an article about a company or organization that didn't assert the importance or significance of its subject. using TW) I've read (somewhat) into the issue and am still a little confused, can you explain what I would have to do to get it restored? thanks, Kyle1081 (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]