User talk:Stephen/Archive JulSep 2008
Palm Island[edit]
Hi Stephen, I will be doing a bit of additions without focussing too much on spelling and punctuation, I'd appreciate your continual help with copyediting! However so that we don't have edit conflicts I'd appreciate you waiting until I've finished on a section before starting on copyediting, thank you for your help!!! WikiTownsvillian 08:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Blueboy (band) page deletion review[edit]
Hi, on 6 June 2007 you deleted the Blueboy (band) page because it didn't assert significance.
This band released two albums on Sarah Records and thus meets the significance criterion "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)."
Please restore the page, thanks. Robort (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for restoring... Robort (talk) 23:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for the message on my talk page. I didn't create or edit the article, though, I just moved it to a new name. The creator was User:Acb. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Unblocking[edit]
The situation with Beam could have been resolved better if I was given time to unblock Beam myself. That is one of the many reasons the blocking policy requires that you communicate with the blocking admin before unblocking a user. There is really not much to be done about it now, but please be more communicative with the blocking admin before unblocking in the future. Chillum 18:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- If you had been more communicative with the blockee, as others have pointed out to you, the problem would not have arisen in the first place. --Stephen 21:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
As I have explained elsewhere the block was made immediately because I saw someone being actively threatened. I immediately communicated with both parties and was in the middle of dealing with it when you popped by and reversed. Now your opinion of my block is one thing, but policy is that you communicate with the blocking admin before unblocking. If you had talked to me, or even just waited 5 minutes for the ongoing discussion to pan out then I would have unblocked myself. Please follow the blocking policy in this regard. Chillum 05:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Josh Hamilton[edit]
Yeah, I saw that. The domain of that e-mail address was just registered yesterday, though, and isn't even showing up on whois. It doesn't precisely convince me he's who he says he is. My inclination is to leave him blocked at this point - thoughts? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Glad to hear we're in agreement. If he keeps up the charade, I'll probably protect his talk page. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
CoolKid1993 is requesting to be unblocked, as he believes he hasn't violated the conditions you set on his original unblock (not to upload copyrighted images he couldn't produce himself). I've taken a look at his upload logs and contributions, and I'm not seeing anything that would violate that - all of his recent uploads have met policy, and he hasn't uploaded any more SVG images since the block (log). His recent work with the images was to make the source of the images more clear to get the fair-use bots to stop warning him about things. I've not unblocked him yet, but I would like to ask if you could take a second look at things and consider lifting his block. Thanks. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 21:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing me at this. I was in error, and have unblocked and apologised. --Stephen 01:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Image:DetroitCougars1926.gif[edit]
While I was half-expecting the named image to be deleted, I would ask for help in tagging it properly so it stays. I'm not totally familiar with the imaging policy, and tried to use the proper licensing, but obviously to no avail. For clarity, I'm essentially doing what is listed on the image, Image:Canadiens-logo-1911.gif, only to the relevant article. Any help would be appreciated. Kaiser matias (talk) 06:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick response. The complex nature of the imaging policy tends to scare me off, but I felt I could make an exception for this article. And for future reference, do I just need to copy and paste that into new team logos when uploading them? Kaiser matias (talk) 06:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
RfB Thank You spam[edit]
.svg){kind=logo}
|
Thank you for participating in my RfB! I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at my RfB, which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please let me know. Again, Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 08:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC) |
Gazelle (Company)[edit]
Hi Stephen, I'm new here and I was just looking for some clarification as to the deletion of the article "Gazelle (company)." I had seen that this article had been around for a few years now, and so I thought updating would be appropriate. I guess I was trying to write about this company in the context of the green movement. I checked the guidelines, and they say that "an organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable." I interpreted this as meaning that an actual company could be the subject of an article as long as the article was written objectively (and especially if the company has some other sort of significance--in this case, as part of the new wave of green companies). Was this interpretation wrong? How should I better explain the significance of this company with regards to E-waste elimination and reuse? Thank you for the feedback.
Regards, RLLerner
They're looking to be unblocked and it seems they may have been acting in good faith trying to update broken reference links that already existed, but perhaps with a misunderstanding of how references (especially abbreviated named ones) work. –xeno (talk) 14:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
understanding[edit]
im not just puting articles up there for nothing, im puting them up there because im sure there fans would like to see them, but instead of just deleting them, help me and in formating them correctly or edit them and put them in the right format, wikipedia is very confusing at times, all i ask is for help, --Daisy404 (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)daisy404--Daisy404 (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
--Daisy404 (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)== regarding the article ==
stephen im not sure how to go in and create , each time i go in the page gets nominated or deletions, and or its againts wikipedia guide lines, and i dont want to do that, i want to do it right this time, if i do start it will u come in and edit correctly or put it in the right format, i mean in tryin to do it the right way this time, help me
--Daisy404 (talk) 02:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)daisy404--Daisy404 (talk) 02:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Stephen would u do me a favor and check out the article and let me know what u think
--Daisy404 (talk) 00:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)daisy404--Daisy404 (talk) 00:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
hey what do u think about the article now, does it fit the guidelines to go on wikipdia mainspace
--Daisy404 (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)daisy404--Daisy404 (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
hey stephen, im just courious as to why my adopter hasnt gotten back to me in weeks, and has respond to my questions --Daisy404 (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)daisy404--Daisy404 (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your sexuality[edit]
Is it true that you invented the man train? You're amazing.
Comment in wrong section? —Giggy 07:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- I moved it, but feel free to undo my edit if I misread your intention. Orderinchaos 07:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
So, if somebody puts a fact tag on an article, and somebody else edit wars to keep removing it without providing a source, it's perfectly acceptable, despite WP:V? There is no reliable source for the claim. Corvus cornixtalk 06:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Spammer block[edit]
|
The Anti-Spam Barnstar | |
| Thanks you for handling the persistent spammer I reported so quickly. I wasn't sure how to proceed, but I must've found the right person.--E8 (talk) 05:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC) |
RfA thanks[edit]
|
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which did not succeed with 47 support, 21 oppose, and 1 neutral. I appreciate both the supports and the opposes. Thanks again and cheers! TN‑X-Man 19:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC) |
Notable residents[edit]
Hello. Why remove the list of notable residents from only this suburban article when there are quite a few Sydney suburban articles out there that have a notable residents list. After having a breif look at some of these articles I can see that the actuall articles them selves mention that the celeb was either born or has resided within the city, although some of the references need to be checked. Adam (talk) 05:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Fannie and Freddie in the news[edit]
Hi, Stephen. I see that you removed the sentence "It is one of the largest banking failures in United States history" from the ITN item about Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. I understand your concern about editorializing, but I'm worried that without that sentence the subject matter may not be clear to readers, especially readers outside the United States. Can we discuss the wording at WP:ITN/C#Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac? Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Naandi Foundation[edit]
Hi Stephen, Am new here. Was trying to edit the existing content about Naandi Foundation. In fact, i created a new page - Ensuring Children Learn and tried copying a part of the content from Naandi Foundation page to avoid duplication. Even before i could finish, both the pages were deleted.
Am rewriting the content so that it doesn't sound like an advertising attempt. Please help us retrieve the Naandi Foundation page back.
~~Team Naandi~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by NFoundation (talk • contribs) 08:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
CanGames page deletion[edit]
Hi Stephen
I noticed that you've removed the page for CanGames citing, "Not notable. No independent WP:RS Article may be an advert."
While the hobby of gaming has a limited and generally undocumented history, CanGames is historically significant to gaming for several reasons. It is Canada's longest-running gaming convention, and is now entering it's 33rd consecutive year. Considering the event is completely volunteer-run by a non-profit organization (unlike GenCon), it is amazing it has lasted as long as it has, and speaks to the passion it inspires in the volunteers who bring it together every year.
It is additionally notable for its historic associations with important gaming personalities. Gary Gygax attended CanGames as a speaker in 1978 (I can confirm this date), when role playing games were still a very young hobby. The dwarf logo for CanGames was created by Denis Beauvais, a now well-known and widely published fantasy/science fiction artist.
As far as any citations which are available, there have been several newspaper articles published locally about CanGames that I'd be happy to provide for citation. There also is Cangames' own archival information to support the claim to be Canada's longest-running gaming convention.
If you would please restore the CanGames page and links, I would be very happy to provide more information to meet the guidelines for Wikipedia notability and citation.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
~~Zizan~~ Zizan (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, this article was proposed for deletion, and, as no-one objected for five days, it was subsequently deleted by me. I'm going to restore the article, and put it up for further deletion discussion, a process that lasts a few days and will give you time to add any further references you have. Please drop me a line if you need any further help. --Stephen 23:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Mitchell Community College[edit]
Please explain why the Mitchell Community College's page was deleted.
As of my last editing of it, it was not spam by any means and had only good and researched information on it.
If said spam was on the page, why wasn't it rescinded to its previous form and the editing user blocked or the page protected?
Wizardx64 (talk) 04:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Because it was spam. The article consisted of numerous superlative statements, and was largely composed from block quotes from the student handbook. Not neutral, not independently referenced. --Stephen 05:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, lets not edit it, lets just delete it. With such tactics WikiPedia is doomed, as there are better endings for atricles rather than just an end. Giving such a power to someone is easy, but using that power to create and change rather than to destroy is something to behold; as in the current case, a quick oversight and an even faster deletion.
A man can withstand adversity, but a true way to test him is to give that man power; judgment must not be passed, as that man will judge himself.
The text on the page was informative in nature and lended no weight, whether under a presumptive nature or any implied or actual forward, to the school/institution in question.
Your actions, while under a presumably good faith effort, have harmed a small if not a supposedly unnoticeable part of the community (an abortion, if you will). Please undelete this page and edit it as you see fit, as long as it's "alive" and can be edited, it and the community are better off to create and edit it rather than destroy it.
This is not just about a page, but the actions taken upon that page and the ending result. A part of our community, gone and forgotten. It's the principal of the action, and not just the action itself or the reason for that action. Not all things are good that are done for good reasons, but the blame is not on you, it's on a system that supports such actions.
Deletion is always the last option, but it's a statement upon deaf ears.
Please stop the corroding of WikiPedia by saving at least this article, and commit not only your time but your energy to make it the best part of the community you almost ripped it from.
If this strikes your interest, please tell me.