User talk:Realkyhick

Realkyhick is busy and is going to be on Wikipedia in off-and-on doses, and may not respond swiftly to queries.

This is Realkyhick's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic.

I will reply to comments on your talk page, and if the conversation gets really long, I may add them to my talk page as well to make it easier to keep track of both sides of a conversation.

Please consider this as a very special case.Joseane (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hope I did this correctly - delete away (though I hope I can restore it when it's ready - I copied to user/joseane tondino's paradox and figured out how to sandbox it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseane (talk • contribs) 23:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated Preparation for flow cytometry for deletion, and since you've tagged the article and commented on its talk page, I thought you might be interested. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Preparation for flow cytometry. Deor (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Realkyhick,

Can you please express your point on your comments. I see many pages about colleges and universities that have much less information but still live in Wikipedia. Your comments are short and don't have any ground, and do not really give any suggestion on how to improve the article.

Sincerely,

Educator888 (talk) 04:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Realkyhick,

Could you please explain why do you think that:

> If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article TESST >College of Technology, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, >edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of >the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, >you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

> 1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and >products they are involved with; > 2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and > 3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Which link makes you thinking that "your user name is similar to that of the web site"?

>First of all you appear to have a conflict of interest regarding one of the extrernal links - your user name is >similar to that of the web site, which may constitute "link spam". The references provided are all either from the >school's own website or from a press release by its owner. These are not considered independent, reliable sources. >It appears that this article may exist primarily to promote the school, and promotion of anything at all on >Wikipedia is prohibited. Because of all of these,

The school is still notable enough to have its own face and more than 1000 students according to the governmental sources, please see the links which I provided in the article. Can you publish the list of your criteria for notability.

> I have questions as to whether or not this school is notable enough to have an article at Wikipedia. By the way, >the existence of other similar articles does not justify the existence of this one. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:45, >14 August 2009 (UTC)

Educator888 (talk) 11:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

>'You cited some site called "1888edu.com" and your username is "Educator888" - that's a little too similar for coincidence.

If '888' is the only thing for you to make a conclusion that some relation exists between my nick and cited site, I can tell you that 888, as well as 800, are all toll-free phones numbers in the US, people often use them for notability, because others number, like 111,333,666,777,999 are not really neutral for all people. I like the www.1888edu.com site because it allows me to keep searching by multiple parameters, no one other site (college navigator, ed.com/*, collegeboard.com, collegesearch.com ...) allows searching using so many parameters. On other hand, www.1888edu.com is the only site (except those in the domain ed.gov) which doesn't contain advertisements at this time and ed.gov/* sites have many references to other services. So, I don't see a good reason for stopping making references to www.1888edu.com.

>The general Wikipedia guideline for notability is found here. Various specific policies are found linked from that page. Moreover, the one and only governmental site you referenced contradicts what you just said above - it says 358 students.

Could you please give me a link in Wikipedia to the requirement, which specify the minimum number of student for notability. According to the ed.gov database, there are ~2000 students on 3 TESST campuses. ed.gov provides data in the tables and I don't see the report in the html form.

Educator888 (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the references from the US Department of Education to confirm the number of students on the institution campuses.Educator888 (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not ranting I'm giving an opinion of your actions. The article wasn't promoting the band so stop substituting words whenever you like. Who gives a shit if the article wasn't 'notable' enough? What if the standard was raised? Thousands of articles would be deleted. Then again, if the standard was lowered, more articles would be fine as they are. The Rishloo article would have been fine. Had you waited a while, the article could have been improved. Impatience is a bitch. Especially when somebody deletes your work because they're impatient.

Here's something you can do if you're bored: Delete YOUR user page. I'm sure you realize that you're not notable enough.

Here's my fucking signature if it helps. mÆniac ^Ask! 20:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry for the previous comment man. I had spent a lot of time on that article and seeing it deleted just set something off. I'm sorry and I hope you can forgive me. mÆniac ^Ask! 21:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding :) mÆniac ^Ask! 19:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy!
Was this edit done by a bot, or done manually?
In either case, it is completely inappropriate.
"because it is a very short article" - Since when has (28,482 bytes) been "short", much less "very short"?
If a bot, suggest you fix the bot. If manual, suggest you engage brain before dumping "canned messages".

[[Image:Ambox warning_pn.svg|48px|left]] A tag has been placed on [[:NZ Rhodes Scholars]] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under [[WP:CSD#A1|section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion]], because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see [[Wikipedia:Stub#Essential information about stubs|Wikipedia:Stub]] for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on [[Wikipedia:Notability|notable]] subjects and should provide references to [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]] that [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verify]] their content. If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding <code>{{tl|hangon}}</code> to '''the top of [[:NZ Rhodes Scholars|the page that has been nominated for deletion]]''' (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on '''[[Talk:NZ Rhodes Scholars|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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact [[:Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles|one of these admins]] to request that they [[Wikipedia:Userfication#Userfication_of_deleted_content|userfy]] the page or have a copy emailed to you. <!-- Template:Db-nocontext-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> - [[User:Realkyhick|Realkyhick]] <small>([[User talk:Realkyhick|Talk to me]])</small> 13:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Next whinge: There IS no tag on the page!

Suggestions: If bot, test it BEFORE using it. If manual, get your act together BEFORE you embark on brainless semi-automatic activities.

I'm sorry about the tone of this posting, but lets face it, your action doesn't reflect positively on you. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you've removed the speedy. But it DOESN'T need a prod. I needs YOU to think about what's going on, and if you don't understand, ask a question on my talk page. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy was more of a slip of the mouse. However, your response was entirely out of line and uncalled for. Please reconsider such rude comments in the future. You've been around Wikipedia long enough to know better. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 13:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy was more of a slip of the mouse. - You can hardly blame me for that!

However, your response was entirely out of line and uncalled for. - I don't think so. I'm not the editor going around doing inappropriate things.

Please reconsider such rude comments in the future. - Which comments are rude? Don't you think putting an irrelevant speedy on an article is rude? Don't you think blaming me for your stuff up is rude?

Look, I'm not interested in talking about this. You stuffed up. You still haven't apologised. Go irriate somebody else please. Bye-bye. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I clicked on a button that I didn't intend to. However, in light of your complaining, I have given your article a second look and found several problems: a title that does not follow the Manual of Style ("NZ" instead of "New Zealand"), lack of an explanation as to what this list is, and obvious formatting problems. Moreover, the list has no references for verification, and has some obvious template problems as well. I'll assume good faith that this is a work in progress, but you might help your cause by placing an {{underconstruction}} template at the top. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 13:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I'm not interested in talking about this, but your polite and reasonable posting does deserve a polite and reasonable response.

I'll assume good faith that this is a work in progress. - I would have thought that was blindingly obvious, but apparently, it wasn't/isn't. Bad assumption on my part.

but you might help your cause by placing an {{underconstruction}} template at the top. - Good idea.

Just as a matter of academic speculation, why did you almost immediately respond with the speedy/prod rather than responding with the suggestion of addition of the "underconstruction" template? And for that matter, why didn't you put the "underconstruction" template there yourself?

No big deal - just interested to read your reply. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simple answer: I was in a hurry on new-page patrol. Lousy excuse, but it's the best I've got today. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 14:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol! (Isn't that called Occam's razor?) Thanks for the reply. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is so frustrating, I can't tell you how many times I've gone through this process. I like Wikipedia for certain things, but I've been really frustrated when it comes to the article that was created for Thia Megia.

I cannot tell you how many millions of fans (yes millions) this 14 yr old girl has. Her article was published on Wiki the ending of 2008. There were speed bumps and I had to submit a lot of references to prove she was worthy of a wiki article. The beginning of 2009 her article was finally up and running.

Then it started again, first people erasing the articles (young jealous teenage girls), then recently it was completely wiped out again. Why???

Thia Megia was just voted off "America's Got Talent' but she almost made it to the semi-finals. She received millions of votes from American fans, unfortunately it wasn't the fans who voted her off it was the judges when it came down to a tie.

Anyways, the point is, she had her own article on Wiki before her debut on America's Got Talent, she has a laundry list of accomplishments that I've referenced several times in the article. And since then she's gained even more popularity and has accomplished even more!

The site isn't to promote any product, any website any blogs, it's just an article about her. Plain and simple. What could be easier?

Please, Please put the article that was already approved by several Wikipedia agents like yourself last year. What can we do to stop this deleting Thia's article fiasco? It's non stop. Please assist us in putting the article back up. I would truly appreciate it...

Thank you --Surfer808 (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Kenji[reply]

Rick Rick Rick...Let me ask you, why did two admins approve her article in Nov of 2008? Since her article was approved in Nov 2008 (check your records) Not only has she made several television views (major sporting events, television shows) but she was on America's Got Talent and got through to the quarter finals into the semis!!!!! What could me more worthy for a 14 year old?

Have you Googled her name? Check this out Rick, go to Youtube and search "Thia Megia" see how many hits and videos she has (not by her, but by fans and video clips etc) there's millions of views! Seriously, check yourself.

Please reconsider, she's 14 years old. She was eliminated from the Semi Finals in one of the biggest and most popular shows in American television. She was so excited back in Nov of 2008 when she had her Wiki article up. Now she's been eliminated and now her Wiki page is gone. What a double blow

I'm not asking much, and I'm not asking you to make an exception. All I'm asking is put here back up. She was already approved before and since then she's done more. She deserves her article back. This girl has accomplished more in her 14 years of life than most adults have ever.

Don't deter this girl, don't steal that fire from under her. This article means a lot and she should have it back, I know you can help.

Please put it back.

--Surfer808 (talk) 09:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've got some nerve RICK. --Surfer808 (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for contacting me about the page I created for the film Suicide Kids. I was wondering what specifically you thought sounded as promotional text rather than objective description? The film was the first shot in my hometown of Yorktown Heights, NY, and uses music from several rising, locally known bands in New York and Boston. To me, this made the film notable. Any thoughts you have to format or phrase descriptions better for Wikipedia's standards would be appreciated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smitty2185 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, Just was wondering why the page Rishloo was deleted? I understand that a scant Google search may be one reason, but the band has done notable things including:
- Holding a higher playcount on Last.fm than any other un-signed alternative rock band on the west coast.
- Beginning viral marketing "I Am Rishloo" which involved over 138 individual participants from over 19 different countries. This resulted in those individuals submissions being posted across three states with no self promotion of events, contact info or otherwise.
- Playing at national festivals such as Lollapalooza and Hempfest.
- accompanying act Judas Priest at the White River Amphitheater.
- Having a third album produced by Scott Olsen, who has worked with Alice In Chains, Heart, Deftones, Limp Bizkit, Buck Cherry, Dredg, Unearth and was involved with movies Singles, Almost Famous. He has preformed with Alice in Chains (Unplugged 1997) and Heart (1998-2002) He also currently has his own record label named Jibe Records.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe just being a part of a large national label without ever doing any other notable action earns a band its own Wikipedia page. Let me know.

Drewguy12345 (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Drewguy12345[reply]

Update: Realkyhick, if you could respond to my inquiry I would appreciate it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.112.225.13 (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did, several days ago. Sign in under your user name and check your talk page. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the source must make the connection between Beck and Jones otherwise it is a violation of No Original Research - subsection SYN - making analysis not present in the original source -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just reworked the entry and removed any language that may sound like a "press release." Almost all of the cited references are secondary, verifiable sources. I see other entries on Wikipedia (National Wildlife Federation, for example) that use its own website and other publications as sources, so I'm unclear on why using CEL's website and books are an issue. Can you please review revised text again? Thank you.

```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rikaiah (talk • contribs) 19:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just replaced two of the cited references with independent, secondary sources. There is only ONE sentence in the whole entry that uses CEL's own website as a source. I'm not at all connected with the organization, but I am a longtime admirer. I've also attended some of their seminars/events in the past.

````

I did also want to note that the vast majority of the National Wildlife Federation's sources come from their own website. I took care not to do the same and included a variety of external, verifiable sources. Thank you very much for your careful consideration and review.

```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rikaiah (talk • contribs) 23:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

are an a**hole. I barely ever swear but this was just over the top. What did I do wrong to have my page nominated for speedy deletion? I made it and ten seconds later, I refresh the page and it tells me its about to be deleted?!? Why don't you get off of Wikipedia and get a life. Christa Black is an artist trying to make it in the music industry. She deserves recognition and you can't give her that? I may not have links for notability yet since I JUST created it, but i expect to have more time than 10 seconds before it's deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carliandteresa (talk • contribs) 16:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the page i just created:( Commit charge/Page ) is my original userpage that i intend to kind of duplicate to avoid being vandalized.. I think you understand what i mean. Thanks! ≈ Commit charge —Preceding undated comment added 23:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Hi

You've proposed that the article I've put forward on Regulatory Risk Diffentiation be deleted because "Appears to be an essay, and also appears to have been copied and pasted from another source, possibly violating copyright."

While I would appreciate suggestions on how to better present the information contained in the article, it in no way violates copyright as it is my own work.

Kind regards Stuart Hamilton —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuart G Hamilton (talk • contribs) 06:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would appreciate your insights into how to better frame the article so that it meets Wiki standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuart G Hamilton (talk • contribs) 07:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I declined your speedy deletion request for Woman beater, which patently fails WP:G3. (See talk:Woman beater for details.) Please be more cautious with speedy deletion requests in the future, and think about how you can help new users, instead of templating them into submission. — Sebastian 16:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I resent your accusation of "templating someone into submission." The article "Woman beater" was written in a tone similar to those who post frequent nonsense and vandal articles. I still feel a G3 speedy was justified, though there's nothing wrong with the redirect. I have spent many, many, many hours on new-page patrol, and I'm pretty sure I know what speedy-deletion criteria are. Feel free to disagree, but please be more civil in your comments and discourse, and less snarky. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I have to apologize. The way wrote this didn’t make sense: Here I am telling you to be more welcoming and respectful, and I’m neither welcoming nor respectful to you. I can do better than this, as I did here. Would you have taken my message more to heart if I had written to you in a similarly respectful way?

I’d like to think that the reason I treated the other editor more respectful was not the fact that he was an administrator, but because I imagined the situation differently: In the case of woman beater, I saw the following scenario: A woman has been beaten by a man. She goes to Wikipedia, enters “woman beater”, and gets the message:

You may create the page "Woman beater", but consider checking the search results below to see whether it is already covered.

There were no results matching the query.

Frustrated, she creates the page. The same minute, someone threatens to delete it immediately, and so on. When I imagined that scenario, I felt sorry for the woman, and I reacted with anger towards you. That wasn’t right, but I hope you can understand me. — Sebastian 06:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, and apology accepted. Having looked at your previous work, your response did seem to be out of character. But we all have off days. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciated your comments on the talk page for "Nathan Johnson (author)". I am Nathan Johnson (speculation can cease) and have authored/written that page (perhaps not well enough) by the request of some individuals unaware of how to create a Wikipedia page. My content has been valuable over the years on this site and I appreciate not being blocked. I would welcome suggestions as to how to improve the page, not for self promotion but because I would like to offer insight into my life for those looking for it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John2690 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I received your response. The gameshow appearances, theater and the fact that I am a sports writer weren't the reasons that people consider me notable. It was due to the fact that I'm a published author. That's what I tried to focus on. However, I get the impression that you feel that doesn't warrant notability either. Am I correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by John2690 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page that I created was nominated for deletion, while the exact same page for another peer institution exists: Student Life in IIT Kharagpur. Now this is not the only one. The IITs are elite institutions in India, and each IIT has pages and pages of articles. I do not understand why this particular one was nominated for deletion? SDas (talk) 04:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Further, it is a stub and I intend to expand it!SDas (talk) 04:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You recommend a redirect. Yet I observe that almost every major educational institution has several pages. For example, every US university has a separate page on its sports team. The peer institutions of the one that I am writing have so many pages each, or even smaller aspects - like their annual cultural festivals (for example Spring Fest). These have existed since 2006. It is highly unlikely that those articles have been overlooked and thus not nominated for deletion. Clearly they have content. In due course, this one will too. SDas (talk) 04:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is "true," the redirect seemed to be a bit of an attack on Beck and speediable under WP:BLP. I looked for a target relating to someone converting to the LDS, but I couldn't find a good fit, so I just zapped it. youngamerican (wtf?) 15:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Just an FYI that I made the above article into a redirect to The Errand of Angels. I created The Errand of Angels when I had no idea that Errand of Angels (film) existed. In creating the redirect, I've effectively removed the PROD notice you placed on the article. I wanted to give you an explanation of what I did and why I did it.

Peace! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Wycombe Railway Company , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Redrose64 (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But this is my research!

Αλλά αυτό είναι μου ! -- Ebola90 (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK sorry! Del the Sliven demon :( -- Ebola90 (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been investigating and testing Wikipedia today with the EcoPawz listing. I obviously do not know what i am doing. I tried to take the page down and it will not let me; it keeps showing up. Can you help me to understand how to take the page down...please!

Got it, thanks! I was not completely aware of the full guidelines. However when I search the page still exists. If there is anything that i can do to ensure the page is removed please let me know.

Proof of chemenish,

Youtube user: burb3rryb3ats-Listen to the voice he uses in songs such as bbburberry (weaker version of chemenish) Youtube user: Doki66-Listen to mc devvo-donny soldier on his channel(strong use of chemenish in a slightly different manner)

I hope that helps :)

Hello Realkyhick, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Learning store has been removed. It was removed by Colonel Warden with the following edit summary '(Cleanup)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Colonel Warden before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)[reply]

I agree with your statement on neutrality. That having been said, if the goal of wikipedia is to record only FACTS, then I have done so. My sources are listed, but I would gleefully add more to back up these insertions. The things Beck has said are a matter of PUBLIC RECORD...his shows are broadcast all over the country...I'm only adding this history to his wikipedia page.

Thank you Jeffrey Owens

Now that I've read your "profile"...who do you think you are? Are you a paid employee of wikipedia? HELL NO! No wonder you were watching the Beck page you Bible thumping hilljack! Wikipedia is for EVERYONE.......as long as insertions have VERIFIABLE REFERENCES they should be left alone. I'm putting my insertions back in....these facts, again, are a matter of public record, as are my references. Delete me again and I'll report your sorry ass to wikipedia for misconduct. That's a promise.

Jeffrey Owens

Beck's mortal enemy? Now YOU sound like Beck and McCarthy. Beck FREQUENTLY gets the facts wrong. Hell, he misinterpreted the Constituion on his OWN SHOW! As for my citations, don't you worry, I've already broken out my other sources.

As for my personal opinion of Beck...his inability to check his facts leads him to report his ignorance, and his ignorance is dangerous to every American citizen.

Thus endeth the lesson

Wow..that sounded an awful lot like a threat as well. Pretty ironic from someone who purports to be a champion of neutrality. I assure you, I'm not trying to put in something that did not occur. Rather than just "delete me", why didn't you just say that my wording gave the appearance of bias? I would have attempted to be more unbiased.

Beck DID say these things on his show. All his viewers heard them. I'm just trying to add them to the record, is all.

I'll concede that blog entries are not good sources. I do not, however, just take Olbermann's words as facts. I WATCH BECK's SHOW. His own words ARE his errors.

When he tries to explain that in the constituion (Article 1 Section 9) the founding father's added an "immigrant tax", he is INCORRECT in his interpretation. Any credible U.S. History course teaches that this concerned the slave trade.

When he misquoted Edward R. Murrow (not only in text but in that the quote was actually stated by Attorney Joseph Nye Welch) he is INCORRECT. Since I noticed you also went to town on his statements on his radio show, I see that your bias is also showing. If you don't think that his hatred of 9/11 victim's families or calling survivors of Katrina scumbags counts as controversial, then so be it.

Whatever, dude...be the king of your little mountain, then.

"Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." - Sir Winston Churchill <sup>[1]</sup>

Jeffrey Owens

i dont understand why my pages are being deleted? they are not inappropriate in the least!

Uorallstars (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC) tony[reply]

Seeing as I'm the one who did the CSD Nom, I thought I'd leave some feedback here. I nominated them (and they were deleted) because you provided no Reliable Sources for your articles, and a search of three major search engines as well as IMDB showed absolutely no references whatsoever to anything that resembled your articles. If you can provide reliable sources and prove that it wasn't a hoax, then you are welcome to re-create the articles, but until such time as you can do so, the articles have been deleted. Please note that you were give an opportunity to fix this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Uorallstars&diff=prev&oldid=316505782 but chose not to do so. Frmatt (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for conducting a conversation with a third user on your talk page, I don't like it when it happens on mine, but was watching this user's contributions and saw the question appear on your page and figured it was the easiest way to get them an answer. Frmatt (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. No apology necessary. Thanks for helping. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is redlinked. Twinkle failure no doubt. Kevin (talk) 01:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Due to a lock, I could not add the following to the Mark Levin Talk page:

Well, Realkyhick, I have to say you made a good call. However, other than this blip in time when a sudden wave of v hit the page, the page should be unprotected as the serious problem is established editors not following wiki policy.

Now Mark has singled out Will Beback. Let me be clear that in my opinion Will Beback is acting appropriately within Wikipedia guidelines. Mark, it is bad to just blank out sections. Will Beback is right to restore them. However, selective editing is needed to properly remove the material about you that does not fall within Wikipedia guidelines. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I agree with you about MMfA, and I added a comment to say so, but Bob Mifune, always on the attack, removed it with the comment "rvv". The comment is clearly not v. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harrassing other users

You may not have known this, but re-adding comments to a users' talk page that they have removed (as you did here ) is considered harrassing behavior on Wikipedia.

Any user may remove comments other than block notices from their talk page. Removal of a comment is considered a form of acknowledgement of having read it. You do not have a right to insist on it sitting on their page. If they want to take it down, they can.

Please do not do this with anyone else, particularly further with BobMifune, given the current incident. Everyone needs to calm down and be on their best behavior for a while around that topic.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your uw-npov was arrogant and inappropriate. You disagree with me about covering a notable controversy related to Byron York, fine. But keep the templates to yourself, that was just childish. 64.231.164.148 (talk) 05:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you love slinging around policies to win content disputes, why don't you quote me the policy that says "people who understand wikipedia are required to have accounts, and if they edit from an IP, other wikipedians should make derogatory insinuations about them and demand they log in." Jackass. 64.231.164.148 (talk) 05:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While doing recent changes patrol with Huggle (HG), I came across the edit reversions in this article. My understanding of WP:NPOV is that deleting material that is accompanied by verifiable reference(s)/citation(s) can be also be construed as a violation of WP:NPOV. Moreover, the person deleting material that is accompanied by verifiable reference(s)/citation(s), is most likely going to receive a warning of between {{Uw-delete1}} to {{Uw-delete4im}}, depending on the Level of recent, previous warnings. Had the reversion of the material accompanied by verifiable reference(s)/citation(s) not been returned to the article just before I was about to Huggle it back, HG would have issued you one of those delete templates. Realkyhick, if you seek to remove material that is accompanied by verifiable reference(s)/citation(s), you need to first check that the references can be verified to contain the information that they are purported to contain. If they do not, then you can delete and say in your edit summary that the refs/cites are improperly used, and that they failed verification. If the refs/cites are indeed verifiable, and you still have a problem with them, you are required to open a new discussion thread in the article’s talk page. I am saying all this to keep you two from ending up in a possible edit war and receiving inevitable 3RR blocks. Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 05:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Realkyhick - I know tempers are running hot at Mark Levin, but ALL non-article related discussion is to END. To enforce conduct I'm running on a single warning, then a 24 hour block system. Hence you are getting a warning for this diff. You're a respected, long-standing editor and I'd really prefer not to block you. Regards Manning (talk) 05:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Go and sleep. Regards, Manning (talk) 05:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you identified BobMifune as a potential sockpuppet of another user. However, I cannot find any identification of Jimintheatl, and it appears to me in the exchange on the talk page that this was the account BobM was using at the time. Did I read it wrong? Or is Jimintheatl another account version of BobMifune? Thx. Flyer190 (talk) 06:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me there were several accounts that, in retrospect, all may have been sock puppetry. They all had the same POV, violated the rules (BLP) in the same way, and all seem to have gone silent about the same time.Flyer190 (talk) 06:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are several external links to WiFi Rail and someone should start a wiki about it. WiFi Rail has filed 4 patents and provides high-speed wireless network connections to trains (see similar WAAV). The network has been proven at BART and facilitates safety and security aspects never before available which are supported by many government agencies. Cooperglee (talk) 03:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Milestones...

Feb 20, 2007 began demo of free wifi service in 4 downtown stations
Jan 20, 2008 Proved testing in the above ground network
Jun 20, 2008 Tested redundancy of network
Dec 20, 2008 signed contract for all of BART
Mar 20, 2009 Tested and demonstrated 4.9 Ghz network
Jun 20, 2009 trans-bay tube deployment under testing

Some websites...

www.bart.gov[1] www.cisco.com[2] www.reuters.com[3] KRON 4[4] Cooperglee (talk) 06:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article 21 Astor Place has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

not clear how this might meet notability guidelines. No claim of notability is made.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RadioFan (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Realkyhick, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have deleted a page you tagged (0408136145) under a criterion different from the one your provided, which was inappropriate or incorrect. CSD criteria are narrow and specific to protect the encyclopedia, and the process is more effective if the correct deletion rationale is supplied. Consider reviewing the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks again! NW (Talk) 00:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the redirect info. So much to learn! I saved it before previewing it. I just edited again - could you please check all ok?

Thanks

Sarah —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahb1982 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm, actually my citation edits didn't save. Will redo now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahb1982 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I have declined your speedy delete nomination of Horrornewsnet because you tagged ti too fast in only one minute. Fro the brand new article you should give it a bit of a chance. However I would delete vandalisms, attacks, banned output, and copyvios in under a minute. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I have re-edited the page for Horrornewsnet and tried to remove anything that sounded too promotional. Please look over and reconsider. Also we appreciate any suggestions. The site itself can be verified thru numerous Google links. thankyou! Mikehorrorfan (talk) 18:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Realkyhick, Our company want to own a private wiki server, please tell me is this possible in any way. We want to put some important documents on wikipedia so that everybody else can get information about them. We dont want them to be edited at all by anybody else. Also please tell me how can I become an autoconfirmed user because i have to upload some pictures on wikipedia. Fozia izhar (talk) 12:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It means non-admin cannot put pictures on wikipedia. can I became an admin? What all are requirements to be an admin? please tell. Fozia izhar (talk) 07:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Realkyhick, i'm sorry but i just don't think it was very polite of you to delete an article i barely started working on. i'm new in here and don't know how to use it, so it might take me more than a few seconds to grasp all of the editing concepts, so it really did bother me the way in which you just removed my article without giving more than 30 seconds notice? hope you are well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfreibur (talk • contribs) 23:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

can you email me a copy of the wiki page i created? stevolivin@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevolivin (talk • contribs) 02:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Katja Avdeeva requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

Hello,

I am new on wikipedia.

I see that you lock my page... a cultural page about a great artist. I try to read the wikipedia best way of writing article... but everything i do seems to be wrong Could you explain me what i did wrong ?

Nicolas

RESPONSE 2 :

Thank you for your help. Katja has been produced by SONY. Her CD is being selling here : http://www.sonymusicclassical.de/artists2.php?iA=1&artist=790388&product=82876876272

A tag has been placed on Katja Avdeeva requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

Katja Avdeeva is being under contract with Sony and has made the following CD http://www.sonymusicclassical.de/artists2.php?iA=1&artist=790388&product=82876876272

She is a swiss pianist and plays in many orchesters in Switzerland and Germany.

Is it enought to be on Wikipedia ?

best, Nicolas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicemb (talk • contribs) 02:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 15:08, 26 May 2009 Accounting4Taste (talk | contribs) deleted "Focus group video streaming" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: Unambiguous advertising or promotion (CSD G11))

Carol McNerney Carolmc68 (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At her request, apparently nearly simultaneously with this one, I've provided a copy of the deleted material for this user at User:Carolmc68/Sandbox. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why do you speedy delete my article kate punch? all the facts are true and it discusses new books coming out in 2010. if you don't like the context please revise it, or contact me, do not delete my work that i have spend time researching. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottpunch (talk • contribs) 16:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what does this article need to meet wikipedia guidelines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottpunch (talk • contribs) 17:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Realkyhick,

this is all new to me. I've been trying to read all the guidelines Wikipedia has documented and get my head around them all. Not easy. It seems to me to be a lot of shades of gray in the guidelines and I can't quite figure out where my article falls into. But the reason for the multiple article creations was by accident –– the on screen directions weren't clear to me. Once again, so much reading and processing. If my article has to be deleted well I won't argue with it; I'm going to just have to take some time and read and process all the guidelines. But if there is any specific reason(s) for the deletion, I would be grateful to know what they are. Thanks. Progressive3000 (talk) 01:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I am not sure why have you marked the SpringPeople Technologies page for deletion. I have been searching Spring framework providers in India on wikipedia, and today for the first time I found something relevant. And I see you have marked it for deletion. I am not sure if it is a good idea. I am not sure who created it and why. But it will be good to have this page where I and our development community can edit the article to bring out the unbiased version of the training and other services provided by this company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravikaklasaria (talk • contribs) 04:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Realkyhick

I understand your reasons for proposing the article for deletion; I, however, consider the article to be of encyclopedic value for the following reasons:

• It presents unbiased facts ("Information about SpringSource partner") about one of the most important companies in the Java world (SpringSource Inc.).
• Valuable to numerous Spring Framework technology users looking for factual information on "official" source of training ("official" because the training has been created by Rod Johnson, the creator of Spring Framework itself).
• I have carefully kept all the content of the article to pure facts - no promotional material, no claims of superiority etc
• As for independent references, I am not sure why you would not consider the fact one of the important Java Conference in India considers SpringPeople Consultants to be an authority on the subject due to their association with SpringPeople/SpringSource.
• It is easy to get the web littered with "independent" references from the students who have been on training courses - I don't go for it as that's what in my mind a pure self-promotion.

I hope we do not get "non-notability" criteria weigh in more than the importance of the article and the value it provides to the readers. As one of our students recently pointed out - Spring Framework courses are costly and it really hurts them spending money on getting the hundreds of other training providers, most of whom don't themselves understand the finer details of the technology. He was glad to have been referred to us by other users on the Spring Framework forums- after nearly 5 years of Spring Framework being in existence, it's only now that there is an "official" SpringSource training provider partner in India.

Hope this helps clarify the reasons for my posting the article in the first place.

Peeushb (talk) 10:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Peeush[reply]

Hi Realkyhick

I think we are debating cross-purposes over here. My argument for inclusion of this article is based on the "encyclopedic" value of it. I (and I am sure millions of others like me) expect my encyclopedia (in this case, wikipedia) to be able to give me "factual" information about an important topic like Rod Johnson created Spring Framework training courses in India - irrespective of how non-notable the result is/how small or trivial the actual information is! At the moment, this is the only article that gives this information to thousands of Java developers in India, who although good with their knowledge of technology, still do not know much about SpringSource or it's official partners or sometimes even where to look for this information without getting confused - if not for the trusted wikipedia!

I appreciate your comment about the non-notability of the organisation; as for the citing reliable sources, I am not sure what can be a more reliable source about a SpringSource partner than the listing on SpringSource website as a partner?

Most importantly, let's not forget in all this debate about non-notability that an encyclopedia is to serve the information needs of it's users - Java developers in India is a big community who benefit from knowing the indisputable fact about SpringSource partner in India - I strongly feel that it's not for anyone to deny useful information to others on account of a technical guideline (which, btw, notes that there can be exceptions). If this is to really be questioned at all, we should have a poll where the India Java developer community can have their say on if they find it beneficial to have the facts known from wikipedia or would they rather trawl pages after pages on google to find the information about SpringSource partner in India.

I hope we agree that it's more important to fulfill the fundamental premise of wikipedia than to get bogged down with a general guideline created by wikipedia, which is applicable to most articles, but certainly not all.

Peeushb (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Peeush[reply]

Final Note...

Hi Realkyhick

I think there's not much left to debate further; I still don't agree with the "one yardstick to measure all" concept of yours, but will accept the decision in the right sprit - I hope that the decision process is democratic and not just one person deciding if this page should be deleted or not (or is it? some of the language in your replies seem to suggest that you already have taken a decision to delete this page?).

There's one comment in your reply though which I would like to elaborate on - Java developers not being "proficient" if they cannot find the information from a cursory Google search; Java developers can be proficient with the technology but may not necessarily be able to filter out useful/factual information from among hundreds of pages returned by Google on their query (irrespective of if the correct page has good SEO and appears at the top of the results) - that's where people expect information sources like wikipedia to be helpful.

Thanks for your patience with my queries and taking out time to explain the process/reasons for deletion.

Peeushb (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Peeush[reply]

I would appreciate it if you'd take some time to review the talk on the Mark Levin article and comment on the RFC I started on Sunday. Many thanks! Malvenue (talk) 04:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, is it possible to get back my article of Hinterland aviation so i can improve it to meet the standards of wikipedia. thanks jarden sJarden s (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is my topic "Overdrive band" marked to be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScionOfBalance (talk • contribs) 21:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can i put facebook link for group that is for the same band that is wikipedia topic about on External links section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScionOfBalance (talk • contribs) 22:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand why is "Overdrive (band)" topic about to be deleted? It is Serbian band with 3 studio albums. What is the problem? There are a tons of another bands on wikipedia, even ones from Serbia like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Gogh_(band) i dont see that is the problem? They are recognised band that recorded last album for biggest rock and alternative house, national house. I am personal friend with all band members and they agreed to make wikipedia topics about them. ScionOfBalance (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria. And they meet more than one. 1) Has had a charted single or album on any national music chart. -but that was in 2003 and i cannot find it on the internet 2)Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels 3)Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network. ... So what is problem? I just stated the fact and info about the band, nothing more. What must be done to keep this topics? ScionOfBalance (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

evidence they performed at EXIT Festival: http://eng.exitfest.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1233&Itemid=419 I will try to find out more evidence... ScionOfBalance (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://eng.exitfest.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1635&Itemid=712 ScionOfBalance (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PGP RTS doenst have online records for Overdrive(because that was in 2003), but Overdrive did publish 3rd album. I can scan cover of the album, there is a PGP RTS logo on it. Will that be enough? I found TV interview http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_ib_QJze1U&feature=player_embedded ScionOfBalance (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually PGP RTS published they 3rd album in 2005. I found link where you can order CD, and it says "Product date: May 23, 2005 Author: Overdrive Publisher: Pgp-Rts" http://www.yu4you.com/items/en/cd/item_2466.html#opis ScionOfBalance (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and what about http://www.yu4you.com/items/en/cd/item_2466.html#opis you can order that CD from there, and it says that PGP RTS is publisher! If that isnt enough only other way is to contact PGP RTS, but i imagine they are busy. If this isnt enough how much time is left untill topic is deleted? ScionOfBalance (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your initial instincts were right - though it may not be a hoax it's been deleted before here. Keep up the good work.  7  01:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Please stop. If you continue to add promotional material to Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused - I am doing my best to work within the confines of Wikipedia - I am doing everything I can to avoid the Peacock - I certainly didn't write the book.

The book is legitimately published-with the ISBN's previously given.

I looked at other "books" listed in Wiki and don't see much of a difference- See this one as just one example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race:_The_Reality_of_Human_Difference

I simply want to add a page with information about the book- if you read the book you'd see it isn't going to be easy to describe.

I'm sure you've been doing this a l o n g time now- and I understand your efforts to hastily dismiss something you believe is not noteworthy I'm not faulting you for that.

if you are convinced that I cannot put this information - even as simply as the above example - which is what I was going to try next when I saw your comments- then I will hold off for a while until I can figgure out what it is that I'm missing in my efforts and your requirements.

Please understand - it is not my intention to "advertise" the book - simply to begin a place where it can be further looked into.

Thank you-

John (I believe you have access to my email address - please feel free to email me if you'd like, otherwise, I'll just watch for my info on my discussion page- thanks again, J.) Amwaawwiki (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Realkyhick,

I am not sure why you voted to delete the Fire Department Photography link. I thought it met the criteria for inclusion in the Fire Photography Wikipedia page. The site is not set up for profit and has numerous pictures related to the Fire Service and various aspects relating to such. i guess my next question is how does one get a site added to the wikipedia page when it relates to the material being presented? Can you please advise so that I may follow that appropriate path in the future.

Tctrenr (talk) 04:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am very curious to know what was advertisement or self serving about the article that was posted to Wikipedia just a few moments ago which you targeted for deletion.

The article very clearly states that the mentioned company isn't even scheduled to open its doors until July of 2011.

The fact of the existence of such an elemental change in a significant industry as elder care in America is most certainly worthy of Encyclopedic mention so I fail to see why or how this article violates any of the conditions set forth in Wikipedia guidelines.

Please advise me how i could better rewrite this article to meet with whatever criteria you feel it violates.

thank you --Kurtd71 (talk) 05:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And for your information, I made no attempt to delete warning messages, I attempted to delete the messages themselves, which were apparently targeted for deletion for whatever ludicrous reason you set forth. I dont know how long you've had this job, but I can assure you that most people do not, and will not take kindly to your threats and warnings of being blocked, or of "skating on very thin ice". I can assure you, that your ice, can be just as precariously thin so I suggest you control your tendency to become a keyboard gangster just a bit better when making comments in any type of public forum. The results could be....well.... detrimental to you, to say the very least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtd71 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but If I were "obviously....directly, and indirectly promoting the company" as you suggest, I would ask people to go to a site, or to email someone, or to buy something, or call for more information. Nothing of that sort occurs here. The sole purpose of that article was to inform people that changes are coming to a vital industry and the nature of those changes. It would serve absolutely no purpose to promote a company that isn't opening for at least another 18 months in this, or any other forum for that matter. The article is an awareness piece...nothing more, and nothing less. If I remove the name of the company, would that still be considered by you to be an advertisement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtd71 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I received a notification for from Realkyhick advocating the really speedy deletion of MeshDynamics.

I am the founder at MeshDynamics. MeshDynamics has made significant contributions to Wiki in terms of content regarding multi-radio backhauls and animations explaining different mesh architectures.

The page I created (MeshDynamics) does not in any way advertise MeshDynamics. It focuses on MeshDynamics core technology that is resulting in new emerging markets for wireless mesh. There are articles and press releases on this - simply google MeshDynamics. I have not included them.

Please do take a look at other mesh companies on Wiki. There are quite a few. And there is absolutely nothing notable in terms of their technology contribution to Wireless Mesh Networking.

In the event that this article is deleted, in fairness, all companies listed under wireless mesh networking in Wiki, should also be deleted.

If there are questions I may be reached at fdacosta@MeshDynamics.com. I am willing to take this to the highest levels at Wiki. I simply wish us to be treated fairly, especially when, unlike others, we have kept content to core facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdacosta (talk • contribs) 22:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Realkyhick, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of TV Torso - a page you tagged - because: Two thirds of the band were in a band with an article. PROD or take to AfD if required. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. GedUK  09:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't looked too much into their notability, assuming the Capitol Records signing was enough, but after doing some digging, I see they are the subject of a few reliable sources: Boston herald[5], NPR[6], a mention in Rolling Stone[7], Pitchfork[8], an Orlando Sentinel article that is behind a pay barrier, and tons of info from Austin-based sources. Looks like they were all hype with no finish, but still notable. Angryapathy (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm new to Wikipedia, at least the contribution side. I've just finished writing a page on R.J. Huggins, the pioneer of new technology for creating web-searchable newspaper archives in their original image form. I've sited real references as asked, spent a lot of time making sure that the spelling and grammar are correct, yet I'm getting a message from you saying that there is no references to external, independent reliable sources? Which references are you referring to? Many of the references cited are Wikipedia's own articles (that presumably have themselves been verified)??.

You also state that it appears to have been copied and pasted from another source. I'm sorry but I've spent days researching and compiling this information and writing it up on my computer. If you are insinuating that its a slapup copy/paste job from somebody else's work, then you are very wrong and I am feeling more than a little put out that you appear to be accusing me of that.

Thirdly, what is notability not credibly shown mean? The man is a entrepreneurial genius who saw the educational and historic value of being able to search/view/read/copy original newspaper test/images through using Boolean search capabilities. RJ Huggins and his company Cold North Wind Inc were the first in the world to invent an entirely new process for web-searchable content that has now been bought by Google for inclusion in their current stable of products. I've sited references for this and for many other factual statements throughout the article. In 2002 they digitized the entire 110 year history of the Toronto Star Newspaper using their patented process. This is not noteworthy? Not of historical interest??

This article has been written by me, is truthful, factual and referenced. What am I missing? Webmastercol (talk) 16:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC) webmastercol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmastercol (talk • contribs) 16:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The author removed your PROD. Another editor then tagged it db-spam, which I have declined as it is not strongly promotional; but a quick search suggests no notability - do you want to take it to AfD? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No need, someone else already has. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken your SD off now that references have appeared (and a No 20 on Billboard). I'm keeping a watch and pushing gently. (I nearly said 'prodding'......) Not my scene musically, but there was a request for help. Peridon (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've done quite a bit of editing to this article, still a long way to go, but was wanting your opinion if it now qualifies to have it's SD warning removed? Bwave (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Realkyhick, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of TEA (band) - a page you tagged - because: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. GedUK  14:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but that just wasn't an encyclopedic wording. Wikipedia is just supposed to report the bare facts and leave opinions out of the article. If you want to say "Sherwood is the 1st film production company based out of a church's ministry" then that would definitely work (if you have a source for that).--SuaveArt (talk) 05:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough I don't want to argue over something this small. If you'd like to change it back again that will be fine with me.--SuaveArt (talk) 11:09 pm, Today (UTC−6) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuaveArt (talk • contribs) 05:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For continuing on with important CSD tagging/new page patrolling, without which WP would very quickly become a place for unsigned, 'up and coming' artists and musicians. Keep up the good work! GedUK  08:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this page to thank you for guiding a user to my talk page where I could help them with an article I deleted. I was amazed to see the amount of crap you seem to take for patrolling. You seem to get more abuse than I do for doing the actual deletions! Keep up the good work. (PS, you probably need to archive this page again! You know there's bots that can do it automatically for you?) GedUK  08:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Realkyhick:

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Amy Grant. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.68.130.33 (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has been mentioned on the XXXChurch wikipage for a long time before this deletion proccess. You seem "HELLBENT" to have the mere existence of The Full Armor of God Broadcast sticken from any mention on Wikipedia, you should refrain from going on a personal attack. Why don't you try calling the XXX Church main office in Las Vegas? I think you will find that they are supportive of The Full Armor of God Broadcast. Armorbearer777 (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing link on WLRYArmorbearer777 (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And WCLH and WTGO... It looks like you are on a personal mission to see that The Full Armor of God Broadcast is never becomes notible. Here's an idea, why don't you at least wait until the deletion proccess is final before you go on your mission to completely blot out The Full Armor of God Broadcast from Wikipedia? Armorbearer777 (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove the other references to The Full Armor of God Broadcast again until it is deleted, ok? Don't burry the dead until they are dead. Even afterward the article is still going to be worked on by myself and others.

For the record I do appreciate your additude, but I very much disagree with you on the notability of this subject. I realize that it is not a household name, but in the counter culture of Christian Metal it is a very well known show, deserving of modest mention on Wikipedia. In all due respect to such a well established Wikipedian as yourself, I do remember readin something in wikipolicy that said "Article topics are required to be notable, or "worthy of notice." Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject TY for your time. Please help make the article better on my userpage. I am also working and a couple others too. Be blessed my good man. Sorry for the conflict. Armorbearer777 (talk) 06:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I re-thunk the way this came out. Please do read it, but realize that I mean no disrepect to you. But in all honest, I was not the one who put the reference on those pages, I only linked them. I went and un-did all that you did, but I am going back now and fixing it. I realize that if I am ever going to be able to do anything to help Christian Radio here on Wikipedia, you are someone I want to work with and not against. Forgive me for my lack of protocal. I hope I can help Christian Radio here on Wikipedia by helping to establish notability of NEW cutting edge forms of digital, internet and mobile Christian broadcasting. Can you help me do this? Or rather can I help you? Your eternal brother in arms, Armorbearer777 (talk) 07:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional Thought

WP:N Clearifies that "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic" and that "A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines: Academics, Books, Criminal acts, Events, Films, Music, Numbers, Organizations & companies, People, and Web content."

WP:WEB Clearifies "Web content includes, but is not limited to, blogs, Internet forums, newsgroups, online magazines and other media, podcasts, webcomics, and web portals. Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content"

WP:RS goes on to state "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources."

Given the information listed form Wikipedia policy, could The Full Armor of God Broadcast achieve low importance notability in the area of Christian Metal and /or Christian Radio with its "Self-published or questionable sources or Web content" in the mp3 audio clips of notable guest liners, it's refernces to it's FM, LP and Internet Radio affiliate listings and references form other bands on notable music websites?

The Full Armor of God Broadcast is not a household corporate radio enigma such as "Bob & Tom", but within it's limited genre of Christian Metal and/or Christian radio wouldn't the current refernces be sufficient enough sources to establish a Start Class Low/Mid Importance article? Armorbearer777 (talk) 19:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Realkyhick,

Could I please be provided a copy of the Tracy Emblem (first letter in caps) article I created and was rapid deleted? My email is agarciaherbst@gmail.com. Also, would you be so kind as to take a moment and look at what I composed and PLEASE provide input as to how what I wrote could be improved to meet your standards.

Thanks, Arleen ArleenGH (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting how exalted Wikipedia editors consider themselves gatekeepers on factual information. Actually, the truth is that many facts can't muster up to requirements of citation because it is no longer possible to obtain published references. Before the days of the internet and media personalities who shamelessly engage in self-promotion, professionals in film in television worked behind the cameras producing what we saw on our little screens. They received no byline credit, rarely were acknowledged by the media they supported and toiled mostly anonymously. Such was the nature of the business.

William G. Wilson, the subject of the article you so callously critiqued for lack of references, was one such individual. His body of work is immortalized in hundreds of sports documentary films, but it is virtually impossible today to document references. Most of the films were produced between 1948 and 1988 and are contained in film archives and are not easily accessible for retrieving credits and other production information.

W3BIG (talk) 04:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC) W3BIG[reply]

Ref: William G. Wilson article. Sorry to start a new topic but I'm confused about the technique for adding to a continuing string on an existing topic. For novice users, Wikipedia can be quite confusing. I'm sure you know that.

I've taken your advice and modified some content to avoid the appearance of peacock phrases. Trust me, though Mr. Wilson, the subject of the article, is my deceased father, the descriptions of his career exploits are not boastful. They are modestly accurate. Unfortunately, as I previously stated it is quite difficult to obtain verifiable "printed" citations of the facts. I actually possess scores of photos documenting much of the information, but posting photographs on Wikipedia is another can of worms. As you know, even if you personally hold the copyright on a photo it is exceedingly difficult to jump through the required hoops to get them published on the website.

Most of the evidence of his career is on celluloid. As you may know, much of that history is being lost. I have, however, included two references from newspaper obituaries that documented his career. There are a few other news articles that I am tracking down. It is a real challenge to verify many of the statements, which I realize must appear boastful. But, he was a pioneer in filming news and sports for television and the exploits were phenomenal. To verify such experiences is not an easy task. For instance; Many of the sports films he worked on noted him as a cameraman in the tail credits. Just as many did not. It really was at the discretion of the production company.

Some of the other accomplishments are again very difficult to 'cite." Admiral Chester W. Nimitz cited him for courage under fire and awarded him a medal for very critical film work he did during World War II. I have the medal and citation, but how do I prove it? He also won a first place award in the NPPA's News Pictures of the Year Competition in 1956 and I have the citation and actual plaque. How do I prove it? I have photos of him with Hank Aaron, whom he filmed when he broke into the majors with the Milwaukee Braves. I have photos of him with Warren Spahn, the great Braves pitcher and another with the legendary St. Louis Cardinal slugger Stan Musial. I believe you are from Alabama. My father was friends with Coach Bear Bryant, whom he knew for many years from filming scores of games at Alabama. All of this anecdotal information is virtually impossible to cite.

Sorry to ramble on, but it is frustrating to encounter such difficulty in recognizing a stellar career. Today, there are news stories written about every Tom, Dick and Harry in the media. Back in the 1950s and 1960s, there was very little written about cameramen. I have to laugh at how we create celebrities today out of media personalities, especially in sports. As you may know, that was NOT the case in the early days of television.

Thanks for your advice and assistance. And, don't take personally any comments proffered by disgruntled contributors. Everyone hates editors...

Have a great new year,

Bob —Preceding unsigned comment added by W3BIG (talk • contribs) 06:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref: William G. Wilson.

Thanks for providing the link to the obit. I think I have been very neutral and I have already edited the only comment that could be argued - the "set the standards for broadcasting excellence" statement. Though he did just that, I toned it down to reflect neutrality. I appreciate your advice on that.

The comment that he was an excellent baseball player was evidenced in his being invited by the New York Giants to a tryout. I can't prove that. He had the invitation letter, but that was lost when he enlisted in the Marines after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Such correspondence loses its significance in the face of larger personal battles and challenges - like war.

My father did have a phenomenal career and I was lucky enough to share much of it with him as an assistant cameraman. As a sports editor you would have enjoyed talking with him. He knew sports inside and out and had personal friendships with so many of the legendary players. But, he was always modest and that is why I want to recognize his contribution. He not only filmed games, he was the cameraman on many instructional films in a variety of sports. He made teaching films with golfing great Sam Snead, who took him under his wing and taught him how to really play the game. When he was in his eighties, my dad could beat the pants off me on the course.

Again, thanks for your good advice.

Bob

W3BIG (talk) 07:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC) W3BIG[reply]

---

Thanks Realkyhick. I appreciate your thoughtful response.

ArleenGH (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I added some references to Philadelphia Canoe Club. You may want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philadelphia Canoe Club -- Eastmain (talk) 07:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref: William G. Wilson article

I want to comment on your handling of my article. Initially, I thought you might be a vandal. Once I realized your legitimacy, I found your comments and demeanor to be extremely helpful. You prodded me, without being dismissive or condescending, to provide citations and references to verify the facts. You did this in an exemplary manner. I appreciate all your help and wish you a fantastic new year.

Bob Wilson

W3BIG (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)W3BIG[reply]

The speedy deletion of this article is in error- I own the copywrites to ALL of the information cited that is not attributed in the article. There is no infringement

Happy New Year!

Jeff Pelletier

Boy this wikipedia stuff is harder than I thought.

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whichway (talk • contribs) 19:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any kind of "remove until rewritten" option on this site? I don't see one. It would be handy, if so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiahnicole (talk • contribs) 07:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Realkyhick. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Randy Morgan to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. Ale_Jrb<sup>2010!</sup> 11:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask how my PIMBA post can be considered vandalism? It is a legitimate organization and everything posted is factual. I am sorry that it may not be up to the highest Wikipedia standards, but other users can continuously update the page and make it better. Is that not what Wikipedia is for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antony1103 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reallyhick: Can you please look at the following draft and tell me if it's closer to meeting Wikipedia's standards? If so, I will clean it up, format it, add to it, and resubmit for approval. But I'd like to get your opinion first, if possible. Also, does a mention higher up of an L.A. Times story (can't link to it) on TweenTribune help with the "notability" problem?

TweenTribune.com

TweenTribune is an online newspaper for kids, aged 8-15. It is updated daily with stories from the Associated Press that are compelling, relevant, interesting and useful to tweens, which they post comments upon. Teachers use the site to meet No Child Left Behind requirements for reading, writing and computers.

The site is intended to teach children to seek out news on a daily basis so they become well-informed adults and better participants in American democracy. It is also a proof-of-concept model for new ways to fund journalism online.

The site employs a series of previously untried methods for building audience and revenue. These strategies grew audience and revenue in a matter of weeks, but it remains too soon to tell whether these strategies are the "silver bullet" that media companies seek to funding journalism in the digital age.

BUSINESS MODEL: To achieve uses a series of strategies to reduce cost combined with a group of diversified revenue streams to form a previously untested business model for online news.

Low cost, mulitple revenue streams.

LOW-COST CONTENT MODEL - User-generated content (UGC) - in the form of comments posted by students. Unique content provided by users reduces the need to fund oringinal content. - Distributive editing (DE) - all comments are moderated, by the editing task is distributed across the user base of teachers who must approve their students' comments before they are published online. Distributed editing provides valuable editorial oversight at no cost. - Cloud computing provides on-demand scalability to meet user demand without the need to deploy costly dedicated servers that may sit idle during periods of low demand. - Open source code. Webservers use these open source code applications: LInux, PHP, MySQL; The content management system (CMS) is also open source code: Drupal.

REVENUE STREAMS - Display advertising is targeted demographically, based on the appeal of the content to a youth audience, and geographically, with specific local ads served up based on the IP address of the user. So the user's location determine which ads they see. - Sponsorships by national advertisers which are not targeted geographically - "Freemium" model, in which basic features are provided to teachers and students at no cost, with specific value-added features are provided at an additional, nominal cost. (Cite Chris Anderson's "Free- the future of radical price) - Subscription fees paid by local media companies to promote their brands and local content to the next generation of news consumers.

HISTORY ...to come

TECHNOLOGY The site is built on the Drupal open-source code content management system (CMS), with custom modules developed by EbizonNetinfo of Noida, India. The site his hosted by Rackspace in San Antonio, Texas. It employs a unique, hybrid hosting solution developed by Rackspace to provide the instant and automatic scalability via cloud-based file severs while preserving the security of the sites database with a dedicated server.

CITATIONS ...to come

Kiahnicole (talk) 06:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see very short wiki pages that are of unkniwn poeple, obscure regional information and things of that sort. I think my article for WikiOdyssey was not only relevant, but extremely interesting as a condition that occurs due to the nature of Wikipedia. I know people get angry with you but maybe its because there is reason. I have a feeling you are being a stickler to Wikipedia's guidelines but maybe my article doesnt deserve its place.

My opinion is, however, that the bigger this thing (Wikipedia) gets the harder its going to be to set parameters as to what constitutes being "notable". I may think the Wikipedia page for Robert Devenyi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Devenyi is not notable. Please show me how it is. i am a teacher, does that deserve an article on Wikipedia? I think my article brought tangiability to a concept already very widely experienced. If you would be so kind, I would appreciate to know what I would need to get my article on Wikipedia without this interpretation of my submission occuring. Thanks, TCapo (talk) 07:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You marked a page I created for deletion. I have made a couple of notes on the talk page Talk:Sample troll. I would be interested in any advice you can offer.

Thanks Alex Stacey (talk) 11:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again:

Wonder what your opinion is on keeping the article on the Philadelphia Canoe Club. Some folks added some references, but was wondering if you think the organization is notable enough to keep in Wikipedia.

Thanks,

Bob —Preceding unsigned comment added by W3BIG (talk • contribs) 23:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Realkyhick. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of DirectIA, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: It is spam, but the comments on the talk page make me think that we need a community consensus on the notability of the subject. It's too close to software for A7 to apply, so I'll decline this speedy and take it to AfD. Thank you. GedUK  20:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Realkyhick! I noticed you display a service award, and would like to invite you to join the discussion over a proposed revamping of the awards. If you have any opinions on the proposal, please participate in the discussion. Thanks! — the Man in Question (in question) 01:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,Ive followed ALL the guidelines for submitting a Wikipedia page. My page is strictly fact and carries no opinion. It is also open for users to edit and add to the page as they see fit. There are several other pages that have not been submitted for speedy deletion such as Authorize.Net's Wikipedia page. All the guidelines are followed with my page and it would be greatly appreciated if you took a quick look to see the page. Thanks

OnebadGTR —Preceding unsigned comment added by OnebadGTR (talk • contribs) 16:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know what needs to be done in order to get the Speedy Deletion mark off of the page. The page follows all guidelines for Wikipedia and even links to other pages like Authorize.net which is very similar but they are not flagged. I'd greatly appreciate some feedback so I can make the proper fix to the page so it can remain up. The page contains strictly fact and not opinion so I dont understand why it is flagged for deletion? Thank you.

OnebadGTR (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. No rush, but I left a note for you on my talk page... in case you didn't see it already. :)

Kiahnicole (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re deletion of the above page. I have listed reviews and quoted them. The reviews are listed in the notes page. The Whisperinand hollerin website has given critically positive reviews of the band for several years. You only have to Google the band's name to find many positive reviews and results (86,000 hits on Google), far more than for several bands that already exist on Wiki. Therefore I request that this page be kept as it will act as a further source of information for those who are interested. Thanks. P.S. this is my first article on wiki, I am new to adding things so please be patient if I haven't put enough detail for your liking, and I will add further links to your talk page. Furthermore, I am just a fan of the band who has seen them only six times. Whilst they are not on a major record label, their album which was released on their own label is up on both E-Bay and Amazon, which may not be the case for some bands. I don't know about removing the speedy delete tag, as I said, I am new to writing on wiki. All I wish to do is appeal the decision to delete, when I believe that this does fall within wikis guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.87.12 (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further info against deletion.

Wiki policy 6.

Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles.

Nick Marsh was lead singer of Flesh For Lulu which is listed on Wiki.

Barney Hollington is listed with Miranda Sex Garden which again has an entry on wiki

Both must be notable if they already have wikipedia entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uvmnixon (talk • contribs) 17:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Realkyhick! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 5 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 1,099 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Mike Ward (TV director) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Dave Nemo - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
3. John Y. Brown, III - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
4. Jimmy Tillette - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
5. Lester Kinsolving - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 07:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know how a description about a company whose product I use is advertising? Please describe to me what line of text in the description is considered adverstising?

Virginia Panel Corporation (VPC) was founded in 1959 as a licensee of International Business Machines to manufacture and distribute programmable patch panels for computers. The patch panel established our Interface Connector product line, used in Automatic Test Equipment (ATE). <- This lists the companies background and what they do.

Virginia Panel Corporation designs, manufactures, and markets Interface Connector products for both commercial and military applications. Among its credits, VPC has developed the standard interface system for the United States Air Force Modular Automated Test Equipment Program. In 1987, General Electric selected VPC to design and develop the United States Navy standard electrical interface for the CASS Program. As a member of the ARINC 608A committee, VPC was instrumental in developing the standard for the Interface Connector Assembly used in commercial air transport testing. Additionally, as the VXI standard developed, VPC was the first to offer the most comprehensive connector interface available for VXI. Successful affiliations with major government defense contractors attest to VPC’s ability to perform well under strictly regulated guidelines. <- This gives credibility to the company as this is what was requested at one point when I created the wiki article for virginia panel corporation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandonhyl (talk • contribs) 16:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Realkyhick, I just wanted to let you know that I removed the speedy delete template you placed here because it turns out the subject has been well covered. Thanks for all your good efforts--I've had a few speedies overturned in my past. Best, 99.156.69.78 (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record, I stand by the removal of the {{db-person}} tag but agree that the article, as it was when you tagged it did not make an assertion of significance. All the best, HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 20:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was setting up Pelicans FC as a new article and it was deleted, even after I added details for the hangon section. I've found many articles with less information then what I had put up and it was deleted... any help is greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantonsm (talk • contribs) 20:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, man.

I read the criteria for band pages and A Darkness Behind His Eyes fits at least TWO of them. First of all, ADBHE is currently receiving radio play from WSOU in New Jersey which is a MAJOR radio network. And lastly, ADBHE has embarked on a previous US tour with Trivium and Whitechapel.

I believe that is good enough. No?

Homie C (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've removed the PROD you added to Cockroach (book), as I think it just meets WP:Notability (books) (I've found some sources, and am looking for more). I'll admit, the state you nominated it in was worth deletion, but I plan to improve the article a bit further. Of course, take it to AfD of you object to the removal. Thanks, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 16:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good. I found a thing review something called Quill & Quire, but nothing else apart from that. I'll try and integrate them into a reception section later, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 18:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Realkyhick,

I am representing Medini Iskandar Malaysia, is a company that manages the project implementation for Medini, Medini is a Node 1 status under the Malaysian Act both from federal and state.

Can you advice what the right apporach.

--Balkishmf (talk) 08:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First Annual Wikiout. In order to give our vandalism, new page and spam patrollers a well deserved day off, it is suggested that all edit patrollers take a 1 day vacation from editing Wikipedia, on Thursday, April 1, 2010. (No, this is NOT an April Fools Joke) Go out, enjoy the spring weather, and give your wrist a break from using that mouse! Please pass this message along to other patrollers by adding {{subst:User:Wuhwuzdat/Wikiout}} ~~~~ to their talk pages

WuhWuzDat 08:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've noticed you placed a warning regarding "general notability requirement" on the new page I've just added. This is the first page I've added so I have checked out what this means and have added a number of inline references which I think verify everything claimed in the page about Professor Connolly. I'd appreciate any advice you might have on this and whether I have done enough for your warning box to be removed from the page? Many thanks, Pete. --Peteburns123 (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi (again) Realkyhick, Just following up on my earlier message. I'm really not sure how all this works and what the protocols are. I am confident that all of the points made in the page I created for Professor Connolly all now have verifiable inline references. The thing is, I'm not sure what now happens to the notification you put on the page. I noticed that I had the option of removing it so I have. However, please forgive me if this was not the correct thing to do? I'm very keen to ensure this new page is correct and so please do let me know if you believe that further edits are required. Thanks for your help, Pete Burns --Peteburns123 (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Realkyhick, many thanks for your reply and the extremely helpful advice. The suggested further reading you pointed to me all seems very clear and it now all makes sense to me! There'll be no problem with me adding in the further details but it will take some time as I was only thinking of putting up the basic details I did but it is now clear that I need to summarise Professor Connolly's research and its impact and include verifiable external references to confirm this. Is there any sense of how long I have? I can get it done within the next couple of weeks but could try to do it more quickly if necessary? Best wishes, Pete --Peteburns123 (talk) 13:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I add a text reader to my new page? Like an ebook reader?

Michaelmichele1 (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --A Nobody<sup>My talk</sup> 19:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome page? I've been here nearly four years. I don't think I need a welcome message, especially from someone who has been blocked several times. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However it does appear that you should re-read some policy pages. I'd recomend you refactor your comment. And for the record I have no block record.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply) Yes a templated message is frowned upon by WP:DTTR, however your "editors to be executed" was vastly uncivil. "He did it first" is not an mature defense for your own poor behaviour. As I said, I'd recomend you refactor your comment.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply) Clearly not a funny joke. Which is why I suggested you take the step of realizing this and refactoring it. I have no means to compel you to do this, but I think it's the right thing to do.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was using the word refactor as an attempt at being tactful. I had hoped you were the type of person who would consider their words and either change or remove them in a way that would make them more palatable. However obviously you've chosen your path here.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I do have to clarify although it seems self explanatory to me. If anyone thought you meant that as a threat of actual violence you'd have been indefed before you could have refreshed the page. What it is though is uncivil and inflammatory. When you're in a heated discussion and you make a joking post that the other party in the arguement should be executed, it's a verbal slap in the face to that person. It's not lessening the heat, it's stirring it up. It's the opposite of a collaborative working environment.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Cough — WP:DTTR. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 20:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please read Wikipedia:Notability (music) before marking band articles for speedy deletion -- Mecanismo | Talk 16:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If your tagging of the Sugarman Three article is any indication of how you've tagged that many articles you've claimed then I believe that if you had read the notability guidelines and had a grasp on the criteria that are there to guide those decisions then you clearly wouldn't have tagged that many. So once again please do read the notability criteria before tagging any article that crosses your path. -- Mecanismo | Talk 16:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No, you've demonstrating that you don't know the basic aspects behind the notability guideline and repeating it like a mantra while desperately avoiding to back up your actions while launching absurd personal attacks will not make you understand the notability criterias. So please at least try to justify your own actions. And on a side note, stop talking in plural as you only speak for yourself. -- Mecanismo | Talk 16:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly am I "evading the requirements" if they are being presented where they should be presented, which is the article's talk page? Don't you even understand that? And I've contacted you so that you could at least take a look at the notability criteria in order for you to avoid doing a poor job at tagging articles for deletion. Why you've suddenly reacted with a series of absurd personal attacks and became defensive about this issue is a mystery to me. So if you feel insecure regarding the rules set in place to manage wikipedia's content then please stop posting personal attacks and invest 2 to 3 minutes at least learning the basic rules. And finally, your accusation of me being attacking you personally is absurd, particularly when considering your comments on Sugarman Three's talk page. Are they supposed to be a threat? -- Mecanismo | Talk 17:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you even following Sugarman Three's talk page? No one needs to duplicate that talk page discussion on your personal talk page. And your "blowing this out of proportion" bit is amusing, to say the least. But please be my guest and please do report me to the admins. Yet, then don't be too disappointed when they inform you that your accusation, whatever it may be, is baseless at best. -- Mecanismo | Talk 17:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't have any problem with that. Yet, I would like you explain what has been "blown out of proportion". That statement is odd, to say the least. -- Mecanismo | Talk 21:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is my second try at trying to make this page. I don't understand why it doesn't match the criteria, I have looked at the pages discussing it, but I still do not understand why the page I was trying to create was deleted. Could you explain this please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lothp (talk • contribs) 14:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want my Turnpike Troubadours page back. It is relevant completely. I was working on adding more links to it and from it. They are a band from Tahlequah and Stillwater, OK. They have put out two albums and deserve to have a Wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theriversown (talk • contribs) 21:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. " ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theriversown (talk • contribs) 01:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about now? They have charted on the Texas Music Chart (http://www.texasmusicchart.com/Pages/Chart.htm). They have paved the way for bands in this college town. They are obviously the most successful and will only get more popular. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theriversown (talk • contribs) 23:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be confused. The only problem that occurred was due to your overzealous need to speedy-delete articles even though you don't have a clue about what you are reading or even what you are doing, aggravated by your complete lack of knowledge regarding wikipedia's notability criteria. If that wasn't bad enough, the insulting stance you took on this whole issue, with your absurd conspiracy accusations, pathetic appeals to authority, laughable threats and your childish nagging of multiple editors to try to compel them to cover your mistakes make me wonder why you waste your time editing wikipedia. You are an appallingly poor wikipedian who, unknowing or not, is actively contributing to denigrate wikipedia's reputation by failing at fundamental aspects as neglecting wikipedia's most basic rules and violating wikipedia's guiding principles. If instead of me you were fortunate to perform the same incompetent actions on an article created by a newbie then, as even you can understand (but either way should understand), that newbie would be left wondering why wikipedia would be so oppressive and authoritarian but also what was the point of the so called be bold policy. That newbie would never edit a wikipedia article again, thanks to your incompetence. You are continually doing a disservice to wikipedia and wikipedia would be a lot better if you just wasted your time elsewhere. People actually use wikipedia in a productive manner. Try at least to understand that. -- Mecanismo | Talk 12:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You may paste as many templates as you wish, you can even whine on other user's talk page as you like and you can even pull your victimization act along with your sanctimonious bit on how to edit wikipedia but that won't cover your appalling shortcomings as a wikipedia editor. If you didn't want me to reply to you then you wouldn't post that insulting, hypocritical, passive-aggressive complain on my talk page. Did you expected that everyone you send that nonsense to will simply sit idle? So stop wasting your time bothering me on my talk page and, if you intend to still waste your time blindly and ignorantly ruining other user's entries then you at least must try to a) educate yourself at least about wikipedia basic policies and guidelines, b) drop your attempts at masquerading yourself as some sort of authority in wikipedia, c) stop with these idiotic passive-aggressive stunts, and d) cut out your whiny victimization act. You, as any regular wikipedian, should understand that wikipedia is supposed to serve as a communication channel where everyone can and should not only access information but also share it. It is not, nor should it be used as venue to showcase petty behaviour and make up for whatever frustrations you have with your life. So stop bothering me and at least try to be a decent wikipedian for a change. And -- Mecanismo | Talk 04:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Realkyhick. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Peter Rosenberg, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: notable Hip Hop radio personality is an assertion of importance. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 20:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Realkyhick. The correct procedure for changing the title of an article, as you did recently with Bassmaster Classic, is to click on the "move " tag at the top of the article (next to history). Doing this preserves the edit history for the article and its talk page. Also, as it stands, you haven't transferred the talk page from Talk:Bassmasters Classic, so the talk comments and project assessment have been orphaned. To correct this, you can revert your edits to Bassmasters Classic. You may then find you can't "move" to Bassmaster Classic because the latter now has an edit history of its own. So you will need to file at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and get an administrator to do it. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged that one wrong. What do I tag article like Hundred Years and WTFRUW CTJF83 GoUSA 00:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. CTJF83 GoUSA 00:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why the speedy deletion? I am currently adding references to highlight the band's notability within Australian Hip Hop. What other information do you require?Kungfukillaz (talk) 04:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please email me a copy of this page. Radio and press interviews, tour reviews and album reviews all coming in next week or so. Featured artist spot coming up on national and state radio. I understand where you are coming from but I wonder if you checked the additional links I provided? Kungfukillaz (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Windstorm inspection , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Stephen LaPorte (talk) 05:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Realkyhick, we communicated a few weeks ago about this page that I created. I promised to update it with references to reliable external sources. I have been working on this and have a range of references to news articles and reviews of Prof. Connolly's work in national newspapers in the UK, US and Australia. While sourcing this I also felt it worthwhile just expanding the page with an outline of his career to date and key developments in his work. This has taken a little longer than I thought and hence the delay. I've neatly finished it and am planning to upload it this coming weekend. In the meantime, I've added reference to the fact that he has recently been appointed to the prestigious honourary position of Donald Dewar Visiting Chair in Social Justice and Public Policy at University of Glasgow. I've checked the notability requirements and I feel that this, together with his editorship of a major international journal, should be sufficient. However, I will press ahead and add in the other references I mentioned in the next few days and maybe I can then check back with you if this is sufficient? In the meantime, I would be really grateful if you didn't delete the page until I've had chance to update it this weekend? Thanks again for your help and advice in this, Pete.Peteburns123 (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But I do know this. A couple years when my first book came out, someone I know posted a page on me. You spearheaded having it deleted. Now I don't know about wikipedia and I'm a computer idiot and don't have time to figure out how to do things on this site. I'm not MAD or anything, I just know that fans of mine have asked why I'm not on wikipedia and all I can do is shrug and say, "apparently I'm not notable." I have my own website, I own a production and publishing company, I have two books out, I've started a lit magazine, I have tons of publishing credits, next month I am speaking at a conference at Yale for my work with borderline personality disorder and obesity, and I have had lots of articles and reviews written about me and my work. So I guess I'm asking you as someone who obviously knows more about wikipedia than I -- I'm not allowed to have a wikipedia page because I'm not a best selling author? I know a couple of my readers have attempted to create a page (not by me nor anyone in "PR") and they haven't been able to. I'd really appreciate if SOMEONE could explain all this to me. Thanks.

- Janice Brabaw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.89.114 (talk) 03:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since Brabaw posted as an anon IP and not under a user name, I'll post my reply here since there's a good chance she could have a dynamic IP address and posting the reply there might be useless.

The article was deleted because 1) there was insufficient evidence that you meet Wikipedia's notability requirements (read these thoroughly); and 2) it was obvious that the article's primary intent was to promote you, which is specifically prohibited by this policy. Moreover, when this article for deletion discussion was instigated, it was also apparent that the original author was recruiting others for the sole purpose of voting to keep the article; this is also specifically prohibited. All signs pointed to numerous violations of Wikipedia policy, namely that one or more people were undertaking an effort to promote someone who did not meet notability standards, and that those people were attempting to subvert the process of assessing whether or not the article should remain. Therefore, the result of deleting the article was pretty much a foregone conclusion. Now it appears that you are seeking to restore an article about you, which again smacks of self-promotion, also prohibited. Since your article was removed via a formal article-for-deletion process and not a speedy deletion, it cannot be restored without going through the deletion review process, which is an attempt to show why the subject of the deleted article now meets notability standards. If you attempt to instigate this process yourself, it would almost certainly be swiftly denied as self-promotion. Moreover, if a third party tried to do so, it would be treated with great suspicion, given the conduct of editors involved with the previous version.

I strongly advise you to limit your efforts to promote yourself to venues such as your own web site, Facebook or other such places. Unless several independent, reliable sources write about youi in a way that shows your notability, it is highly unlikely an article about you will be allowed to stand. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All my references come from only two sources: 1 (www.Digitalballparks.com and 2 (www.baseball-reference.com)/minors/ballparks.

If you need me too, Il will put a 1 or 2 in for what are references. I have approximately 25 filled sheets of computer paper to add. I can't see putting down these same two references approxamately 1400 times. (25 pages x 56 lines per page). Any suggestions?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SABRMnLgs (talk • contribs) 04:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for butting in. Comments:

• Before creating a page, please think whether the subject is notable and whether you can support the information by reliable sources. I doubt www.Digitalballparks.com is such, as it is a personal site which doesn't seem to provide references to where the information came from.
• As to referencing, you don't have to cite every sentence. One reference covering the paragraph is often enough. You can also re-use one ref within the text, but first naming it and then using the name tag: for example
  Water is wet<ref name=bla>[bla.com Properties of water] by John Carpenter, November 26, 2009</ref>, but some respectable folks don't think so.<ref name=bla/> Materialscientist (talk) 05:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. 24.4.248.154 (talk) 06:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 24.4.248.154 (talk) 06:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to explain to me why you removed my response at ANI? [9] Niteshift36 (talk) 07:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Accidents happen. I was trying to figure out what my response in that thread had to do with Anti_IP bias. :) Niteshift36 (talk) 07:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You're probably on the right track anyway. A new editor that jumps onto nearly 200 edits in 2 days, issuing warnings etc..... he ain't a new user. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm a firm believer in calling a duck a duck. AGF isn't a suicide pact. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't edit other users' comments, as you did here. You may post whatever you want below them, but striking another editor's comment is generally frowned upon, regardless of what you believe about that editor. rʨanaɢ <sup>talk</sup>/<sub>contribs</sub> 07:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, it will be sufficient just to tell the person that they don't need to worry about those warnings; again, per WP:TPOC, you shouldn't edit others' comments. rʨanaɢ <sup>talk</sup>/<sub>contribs</sub> 07:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added the stuff you required to make it more notable and then it got deleted for being too promotional and advertising. Is there some middle ground? DaleDe (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just talking about Margaret Rafee.

I know the article does not have enough information, but in the future, people edit it and there will be more information about the person. --TheACS (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article 'Vaachak' is under improvement. Now this article has the references, citation and external links. Kindly unmark it from speedy deletion.

Noorul H. Khan (prologsupport) Prologsupport (talk) 07:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can I change the title of article Vaachak from "Vaachak" to "Hindi Text-to-speech"? I will also remove any Vaachak word from the article after renaming the article's title.

Noorul H. Khan (prologsupport) Prologsupport (talk) 07:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just added secondary sources to article. Would you be able to remove the tag?

Thanks,

Shardulkoza (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I need to do to complete the AfD discussion process on article Vaachak? What should be my next step as I am new to Wikipedia?

Noorul H. Khan Prologsupport (talk) 05:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the welcome sign.can you help tell people not to delete my 1st article? text me back.

thanks for the welcome sign.can you help tell people not to delete my 1st article? text me back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobodyse (talk • contribs) 18:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I forgot to put it as my personal work(sandbox). Could you go ahead and delete it? Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

your a (bleep) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobodyse (talk • contribs) 20:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I appreciate the feedback on my article and the welcome. I am new to Wikipedia, so it will probably take me a while to get used to it and edit pages properly. But thanks for the ideas about my articles.

Jamisonfmurphy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I see you deleted my article and redirected it to a unrelated page, can I ask why? Extreme card manipulation does not fit unbelivably under the card manipulation title sounds crazy I know but thats because card manipulation is the description of an activity relating to magic where as XCM or extreme card manipulation is a completely different sport which is why I added it in the first place as I found that wikipedia had no coverance for the artform/sport and I wished to use your site as a reference to what the term means now you have just lumped it in with magic which is completely incorrect and waters down the term to a almost non existant level. Please search xcm then search magic and you will see they are not related other than in the use of cards the activity itself is no where near the same and are treated seperately unless of course you feel that rugby and soccer are the same because they both use a ball? Please explain why the article was deleted or do I have to contact admins to get it reinstated or who can I contact with supporting link to show that this is a seperate sport and artform related to each other really by one term flourishing and thats it the actual creative proccess of both and definition is different and thus should be listed as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Idemon (talk • contribs) 02:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Idemon (talk) 02:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fair enough someone else added the redirect but you proposed the deletion and my question remain for what reason? or is it that you did not know this was a seperate sport/acitivity/profession from card manipulation in the magical sense (which is why it has been label extreme card manipulation not just card manipulation which focuses on sleight of hand rather than displays and the artistic nature of card handling? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Idemon (talk • contribs) 02:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not notible and no results... I highly doubt that http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=XCM+xtreme+Card+Manipulation&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=xtreme+Card+Manipulation&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a

Feature lots of results on the subject from all over the world including tournaments and other proffesional level activites. So next reason please. Idemon (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted your dated prod notice. The article is a stub now but it will grow. Scafetta is rare among academics in that his research affects so many disciplines. I suggest you wait 90 days to see the article develop before attempting to delete it again. By that time, you may see the article's worth. What's the hurry? RonCram (talk) 03:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Five days? It takes me that long to write a paragraph! You never did explain what the hurry was all about. Why would you want to delete an article about someone being praised as a future Nobel Prize winner? RonCram (talk) 05:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still adding to the article. Go read it. If you don't read Italian, use babelfish. You will see the article saying he may be a future Nobel winner. You say you are suspicious of me, which is against policy. You are supposed to assume good faith. Neither Scafetta nor I am trying to profit by selling any product. I don't know the man. I work in healthcare in California. He is at Duke. He has done some research in gait analysis which crosses into my field, but there is no connection between us. I am a global warming skeptic and came to the same conclusions he did about future global temps a few years back. Of course, my calculations were more back of the envelope stuff while he has proposed a serious theory. But since he agrees with me, I happen to view him as pretty intelligent. I have been hearing his name for a few years now, but did not know anything about him. I went to Wikipedia to learn about him and saw that he needed an article. Scafetta is young, only 39. The normal standards for whether an academic is notable favors the older profs and researchers. Being young should not keep him out of Wikipedia. Einstein was young when he wrote his theory of special relativity. Do you know why Einstein was such a big deal? Because his theories were later confirmed by observation. Scafetta has the chance to pull off the same kind of feat. BTW, you still haven't explained what the hurry is. If you are afraid I'm using some tactic, put a tickler in your Outlook Calendar for June 15 to remind yourself to check the Scafetta article. It's not hard. RonCram (talk) 05:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe you ever assumed good faith. You attempted to delete a new article before giving it a chance to develop. You must think of yourself as some kind of Wikipedia janitor. Far better for you to spend your time trying to make the article better. And if you don't like Outlook, get some other Calendar program. There are tons of them out there and some available on freeware. You don't even have to spend any money. RonCram (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know all about NPP and I have had pages I have written highlighted in the "Did you know?" section on the front page. The link you provided has this bit of advice - "Tagging anything other than attack pages or complete nonsense a minute after creation is not constructive and only serves to annoy the page author." You should know I am annoyed by both the speed at which you tagged the page and the attitude you have had. Your behavior in this instance is not helping you build your reputation in the community. RonCram (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry too much about RC's Your behavior in this instance stuff. The PROD was fine, as is giving him 5 days to improve it. After the inevitable failure to improve it put it up for AFD, whereupon all the GW "skeptics" will vote keep, cos Scafetta is a "skeptic", but at least you;ll have tried for sanity William M. Connolley (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overdrive_(band) I edited Overdrive (band) topic and now you marked it for speedy deletion. Before i couldnt prove to you that band is very successfull in Serbia, and since live performances arent enough, and Serbian national label forgot to mention then on their website topic was alive but it lacked citations for verification and it needed additional references.

On this monday Exit Festival published bands newest album under Exit's new label. So, whats the problem now?

We talked in november, and i remember that you (or davidwr) said that once Exit Festival publish album, topic will satisfaid Wikipedia's criteria because EXIT is recognized brand.

Here is proof:

http://eng.exitfest.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1806&Itemid=94

http://www.mtv.rs/vesti/exit-label-novi-album-benda-overdrive-online

If this isnt enough (but i think it is) please dont delete topic, just return the text like it was before i edited it on monday. Thanks ScionOfBalance (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Realkyhick. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Tennessee Riverkeeper, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just started this entry and it appears to have been deleted already but please read my discussion comments showing the entry is full of Wikipedia references and notable achievements. I think this is justifiable. Can i still create this page, please ~~ David Paul ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidpaulpress (talk • contribs) 18:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this keep happening? Articles are slapped with deletion tags far too quickly and if you don't respond or can't get onto the internet in a few days to add a hang on tag, they're gone! It's just insane, a waste of everyone's time. The article will be re-created and given enough time, properly established and hopefully survive the highly inadequatev speedy deletion process. Nick carson (talk) 11:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point in deleting fledgling articles so quickly. It's obvious if an article has just been created that it is under construction, this is information that admins and deletionists have available to them and should utilise to avoid unnecessary deletion. Those creating articles (actively contributing to wikipedia) should not have to justify their WP policy conforming contributions to speedy deletionists. Their time should be better spent expanding stubs and actually helping others contribute to WP. Further speedy deletion of articles shall only act as a very annoying and unnecessary appendix to WP. Nick carson (talk) 03:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These discussions go to the core of WP policy and the shape of WP policy and what in included and excluded from an open and free encyclopedia such as WP will change, but in the short term, it would be wiser for all concerned if such fledgling articles were given at least an adequate grace period before being deleted, the current period before deletion is far too quick and the editor's time better utlised contributing to the improvement of articles in preference to their deletion. Nick carson (talk) 06:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the problems faced, but surely one could give benefit of the doubt and if no references or work has been done after say 1 or 2 or 3 weeks for example, the AfD process begins? I am just amazed at the haste and the complete disregard for those attempting to create articles legitimately. Nick carson (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Added reference to Zinman article, could you remove notability tag.

Thanks,

Shardulkoza (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've fixed the second screening link. It seems the page had been moved.

• The Pavilion apparently don't keep an archive, so unfortunately they've deleted previous entries.

• The video is playing for me. And although it has been uploaded by the film's account, it is a recording from a television program, and therefore a third party reference.

• Unfortunately none of the articles are available online, not that I've found anyway. The best I could do is take pictures of the articles themselves and upload them. The film is of course local, but so is everything: everything is made somewhere. Hot Press is an internationally recognised Irish magazine. I see no reason that such a publication would waste column inches covering, as you call it, "a local item". The fact that the piece was penned by the deputy editor arguably evidences its relative importance. I believe that (positive and praising) coverage from the second in command of one of the country's most respected publications indicates notability. Overall, the film has received considerable media attention both on screen and in print, in areas both local and national. I don't think it's particularly far-fetched to consider this indicative of notability.

In relation to your final argument, well I've just discussed that really. Full national coverage in more than one medium certainly constitutes more than "a small geographic area".

Baron Ronan Doyle of Sealand (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are rather industrious in the deletion process

(at least from an prefunctionary glance at your contributions).

Just imagine how comprehensive Wikipedia would be if that industiousness was

in adding and bettering articles.

Mind if you cool your Delete button for few fortnights?

Excessive AfD is as community damaging as vandalism and revert wars are.

Kind regards --Zarutian (talk) 18:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creator userfied, possibly to bypass G4. What now? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • <sup>(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)</sup> 20:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I decliend your speedy on Fight pastor. I grant that it hasn't yet demonstrated notability, and it may not, but as you probably know the bar for avoiding WP:CSD#A7 is much lower, and i think that the controversy claim is enough to avoid and a7 speedy. I have posted to talk:Fight pastor. DES <sup>(talk)</sup> 00:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added some more references to Fight Pastor but am newer to wikipedia and I don't know how you did the references. Could you move the ones I added to the current method you did? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Profcoughlin (talk • contribs) 04:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand how to add links externally and internally but still can't figure out how you did what you did. I understand if you don't want to fix it. I might just leave it as is. I stumbled about the Fight Pastor page via Facebook. I will probably move on to editing something else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Profcoughlin (talk • contribs) 04:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, figured it out! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Profcoughlin (talk • contribs) 05:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DES <sup>(talk)</sup> 14:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I am interested in getting your support/clarity on what you meant by "promotion" on an article that I wrote. Can you provide some assistance?Stephaun Wallace 04:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephaunelite (talk • contribs)

I have declined your speedy, but with conditions - see here. It's reasonable to allow a userspace draft if there is some prospect of improvement, but I have added a put-up-or-shut-up time limit to take it to DRV. Let me know if you see it back in the main space under another title. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think it is a little late for that? We are so very angry right now at the rudeness involved in this matter that Jennifer Chapin and I both want our pages shut down so that these embarrasing public conversations can be contained and we can get back to our work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank "Jay" Garcia (talk • contribs) 07:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Alkalmbach.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you all read the comment by Hickwhatever-his-name-is? We are so furious at the wording that we want nothing more to do with any of this. There are a lot more fish in the Internet sea that wikipedia. Please delete our accounts to the furthest extent possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank "Jay" Garcia (talk • contribs) 07:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comment under deletion of Jennifer Chapin, you were not only rude and didn't bother to check the facts but highly presumptuous. There was no self-promotion involved; the blog mentioned is an academic project Jennifer has underway to explore the causes and ramifications of childhood physical, emotional, and sexual abuse. Jennifer has spent a lifetime contributing to academic research and has published works in the Sonoma State University Library of Rohnert Park, CA. There was also no condescending remark, and for you to assume that the message left was intended to belittle you is merely you taking professional matters personally. Wikipedia seems to be favoring semi-celebrity over real world contribution. Your group gave several sequential reasons for deletion, and each time one was given Jennifer attempted to correct it. (1) She discussed her academic accomplishments and fields of specialty, and was told that she didn't appear significant enough (2) She updated with further information about her career, and then was told that she couldn't write her own article, so (3) She asked me, her husband and business partner, to write it for her as she wasn't allowed to do it herself, and she commented on the talk page, asking you to wait (4) She saw a comment that we were asked to use the wizard, (5) She asked me to try including information on her family connections, several of whom were notable,as she had noticed that this was successful on her distant cousin, also Jennifer Chapin (known as "Jen") (5) I commented as well, noting that we would use the wizard as soon as we had time. Now, why did no one state the actual problem in simple terms so that we didn't have to keep wasting our time going back and forth and trying to guess what the problem was? We felt, quite honestly, jerked around I'm sorry to say. So, knowing that Jennifer's cousin, with whom she just had a heated email exchange and is not happy, isn't even well-known and has a semi-career because of my wife's father's nephew Harry's fame and shouldn't qualify any more for encyclopedia entry than a scholar who is known by thousands, I challenged her page on the same basis and, guess what? Jen stays because she is part of the entertainment industry and, I imagine, gives away lots of Harry's money to the right people...just a guess. A reason given was music credits but anyone can publish CD's nowadays, can't they? The point is not Jen, it is the comparison, and we wanted to see what you all would do in the other case.

Now, if you are going to insist upon leaving your insulting and presumptive comments up on that talk page, I would like my userid immediately deleted,for I have no interest in being publicly spanked by such a pretentious group of (making an)ASS-(out of)U-(and)-Me-ers. However, it would be nice if you would show a little class next time to the next person and contact them for the necessary references, etc. before making such a bold conjecture. I will check back to see that my requests have been honored, and can only hope that you polish your manners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank "Jay" Garcia (talk • contribs) 06:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You assumed too much and were extremely rude in your delivery. I already typed out a lengthy response and I don't know where it has gone, so I will be brief. Everything you assumed was untrue. I rewrote for my wife and business partner because we were told she couldn't write for herself. We rewrote several times, each time including the requested changes, though you all were quite vague. In the end we even added my wife's third cousin's credits as we thought a link was the significance you so sought. I contested non-celebrity Jen Chapin's page to see if my hypothesis that you all really do favor entertainers over those engaging in scholarly and humanitarian efforts, and your response has given me my answer. You say self-promotion? Jennifer has nothing to gain from this; she is a teacher. Jen Chapin has redirected all Jennifer Chapin and similar searches to her name, and crowded Google with benefit concert schedules and press releases, and Jennnifer only came on here, perhaps misguidedly, to try to get just a little room in edgewise so that victims of domestic violence and childhood sexual/physical abuse (a community she does a lot of work with because of her own past experiences) would have an easier time finding her project blog; this blog is intended to share Jennifer's experiences with others who have gone through the same thing and provide resources and expert referrals to those in emotional distress. Now, this purpose may not meet your standards, but my wife has had some personal contact with Jen herself and I can tell you from the results that Jennifer's heart is in a much better place. Not only this, but as far as significance goes, if you had given us a way to fax documentation of her notoriety in her field, you would have seen that Jennifer is far more qualified to be featured in a resource that bills itself as educational.

In any respect, we are done with this; there are plenty of other ways to get the help to the people Jennifer intends it for. I hope that you will take a little time in the future to communicate directly with people before posting your scathing opinions of them for the world to see and, on that note, I would like everything having to do with making Jennifer out to look like a bandit deleted and our wikipedia usernames/pages gone as well. We want nothing to do with an organization that seeks to shame others, and we will be finding out how to get this information to those who are higher up in the foodchain so that, hopefully, wikipedia can regain some integrity.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank "Jay" Garcia (talk • contribs) 07:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You tagged MD Rabbi Alam (MD Alam) for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7. It is poorly written and perhaps should be deleted via AfD, bu it does contain multiple claims of significance. Being chair of a statewide political caucus, much less a national one, is a claim of significance and thus enough to bar an A7 speedy. DES <sup>(talk)</sup> 17:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Although, Danny Kedwell fails WP:ATHLETE as the highest he's played is the Conference National. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Medical Alert has been granted the same technology permits as life alert and is now a notable company. We have 10,000 clients and are trying to promote our free programs. We are starting them in Arizona and are the first company to do so in the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnHarrison123 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you read the comments, I am not sure if I di the last post correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnHarrison123 (talk • contribs) 07:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just created a new article for Shomi Patwary that was tagged for speedy deletion. I intend this to be informative to his credentials as a Music Video Director/Collaborator and not an ad. Please help me or let me know how I should clean up the article to keep it relevant.

Many Thanks, Jay —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaymacc (talk • contribs) 15:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Jaymacc (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know you mentioned including what others say about the band, but I'm really unsure of what you mean by that. If you can please clarify. Thank you Pinedamo (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that I have there are not First-party sources. If you click on them you'll see that only 2 of them are first-party sources and the others aren't. Pinedamo (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon, Realkyhick, you should know better than this. Parsecboy (talk) 01:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's easy to get frustrated with these idiots. This one in particular has been around for going on a year, if not longer. Parsecboy (talk) 02:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Dr Santos and Dr. Santos (along with Aggubua and Agubua) have been salted, so really the only thing is to keep an eye out for similar edits (such as blanking a page with the edit summary "this page no longer exists") and variations on those article titles. Parsecboy (talk) 03:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw his new entry at AIV. While it seems quite clear this editor's being disruptive, and using autoconfirmed status to get around some semi-protection, he hasn't been sufficiently warned and that AIV report's going to fail. Putting explicitives into the page, while disruptive, needs a few warnings before a block is appropriate. I'd suggest you provide warnings to them whenever appropriate, and only report after they get to the 4 level. In some cases, when it's very clear that an editor's not just messing around, or making a mistake, then escalating warnings may be appropriate. I do it when the edits appear clearly to be from a wikipedia-aware vandal, the same individual under a different account, or very egregious threats or attacks. But you should beware that some people who aren't as familiar with the ins-and-outs of vandalism on wikipedia look at block escalations that skip a step with suspicion. Shadowjams (talk) 04:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keo Sarath is one of the most popular Khmer singers. I have tried to start an article about him and it has been deleted, I know this article was poor. I hoped that someone could complete it.

The author of that is user:JzG doesn't have his own page!

--Laurentleap (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Steamin' and Dreamin': The Grandmaster Cash Story. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Thought I should let you know as well as the admins. Thanks, Baron Ronan Doyle of Sealand (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't apologised on your behalf. I'm just sorry for their sake that the other editors have to put up with your ridiculous and unnecessarily negative accusations of passive aggression, and indeed my defenses to the contrary. It's entirely irrelevant and unfounded, and I wish you'd keep it out of the discussion at hand. Many thanks. Baron Ronan Doyle of Sealand (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And there you go again with your unbased assumptions. That bubble of ignorance must be jolly comfortable. I don't enjoy interaction with childish hypocrites, so I'll say goodbye now. Baron Ronan Doyle of Sealand (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only issue is your enduring rudeness. Put your personal dislike aside. DRV has reached a pretty clear consensus. Baron Ronan Doyle of Sealand (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That may indeed be the case, and I'll be happy to acquiesce should that be the outcome. Until then, however, I politely ask that you refrain from insulting my contributions as an editor. If nothing else, DRV appears to have decided that I was not in the wrong when reposting the article to mainspace, as it had been considerably improved. What I would like primarily is for you to accept that and discontinue your accusations of, among other things, spamming. Please consider how unhelpful it is. I have faith that you know better. Baron Ronan Doyle of Sealand (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not meet A7, as it contains at least an assertion of notability. As such, I have removed your speedy deletion tag. Please try to be more careful in the future. -Hit bull, win steak<sup>(Moo!)</sup> 19:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Realkyhick, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Constant Kusters has been removed. It was removed by Angeladz with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Angeladz before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 12:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the prod from the article, as the BLPprod is only supposed to be used on articles about living people. If you had read what you were tagging, you would have seen that he fought in the American Revolution in the 1700s, and the last sentence mentions his burial. He is clearly dead. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if I came off rude, I did not mean to. I worded that rather poorly. Friends? かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Volume 3, Issue 1 • April 2010 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup This month in USRD history	Features US Roads Portal celebrates April Fool's Day Portal selected article and photo	State and national updates Project reports
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

— JCbot (talk) 20:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Realkyhick, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Ballard Historical Society has been removed. It was removed by Andy14and16 with the following edit summary '(contested prod, see talk page)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Andy14and16 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 08:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 08:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

nice work Decora (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Realkyhick, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Chris Zardas has been removed. It was removed by Alzarian16 with the following edit summary '(Add source and remove PROD)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Alzarian16 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 09:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 09:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi admin! I hope you are fine. I am just wondering why you placed a speedy deletion tag on Betinternet? I am sure that it does not deserve a speedy deletion tag. At the most, if the notability of the article is in doubt, it should be listed in WP:AfD if you do not think that this company deserves an article on Wikipedia. This is a reputable and notable company and I have also provided references to this article. Your comments on this issue will be much appreciated and please leave a reply on my talk page. Cheers! --Siva1979<sup>Talk to me</sup> 03:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)03:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a second reference to my article in question. I don't think that this article deserves a speedy deletion. At the most, if you are unsure about its notability, it should be listed in WP:AfD. I shall provide more reference and content to this article in the near future. --Siva1979<sup>Talk to me</sup> 08:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are now a total of 56 different references to this article. I think that it is pretty clear by now that this article do not deserve to be speedy deleted. --Siva1979<sup>Talk to me</sup> 08:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This gaming company also operates to over 154 countries world wide from the Isle of Man. Doesn't this make it notable? At the very least, this article does not deserve to have a speedy delete tag. --Siva1979<sup>Talk to me</sup> 09:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I fixed this issue. Is this enough to remove the speedy deletion tag? --Siva1979<sup>Talk to me</sup> 16:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But unfortunately, that editor in question is NOT an admin! --Siva1979<sup>Talk to me</sup> 17:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to comment on your comment on the page i have made of a fictional character jaireven is not real and therefore i am not attacking it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jairogyro (talk • contribs) 02:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your obsession with this topic. You are clearly a capable editor, as your past entries are clearly respectable and helpful. This entire article seems unbiased, except when the Assemblies of God is described. Someone, maybe not you, is apparently trying to trumpet this organization's numbers above all others. I see no references for that, as well as an attempt to combine the younger, much different "JBQ" numbers, while the article as a whole primarily focuses Bible Quiz/Bowl as a "6th - 12th grade" activity, in order to give a larger than necessary portrait of the number of teams. I simply went to verify the claimed numbers, (which I had to do on my own, since there were no citations - a red flag for any editor), and found that on the Assemblies of God supposed website, biblequiz.com, the regional, district, and league results were listed and numbered. Considering the number of regions at eight, the number of districts below them, then leagues, novice, etc., it was clearly no less than 300, but not 500 teams for sure. I gave the benefit of the doubt to say "at least 375", and I didn't want to complicate the article with my reasoning being written alongside. "JBQ" was more difficult, but assuming an increase since they opened up their membership to non-Assemblies of God teams, I see no factual error in my adjusted numbers. I even gave them a higher number of teams than before. All in all, I believe my small edit to be more accurate than your previous statement of simply "3,000 combined", and I left your "largest in number of participants" claim, untouched. Still, I am at a loss as to why you took such offense at my edit, when it is more accurate and softens the braggadocios nature of the Assemblies of God section of the article. Please point out where I am in error. If you can provide documentation for a more correct counting of the team numbers, I will be glad to verify and post them for you myself.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.252.196 (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for relying on what seems to be a half-official website (biblequiz.com). I am not familiar with the ins and outs of your quiz ministry. I quizzed as a teenager with the Nazarenes and one or two WBQA. When we would see Assemblies of God teams from time to time, they would definitely know the scripture better than we did, but there was also an arrogance that they seemed to have with them, as if our quizzing program was second class, and more of a game to them, rather than serious competition. When I read the article on Wikipedia, it has that same "we are the best there is" attitude. I always took it for granted that they were the largest. When I decided to look into the numbers myself, I realized there couldn't be thousands of Teen teams, and it just looked to me that whoever was writing about them, wasn't doing it for accuracy, but with that same arrogance the Assemblies of God teams always seem to exhibit. Don't get me wrong, I believe they are all Christians and love God, and maybe there are just a few bad apples. However, adding the teams up, even if there were an average of 10 teams per district (and we know some regions ended up with only four teams), that would still add up to 8 regions, times 5 districts each, times 10 teams, equaling 400 teams altogether. Even if there were an average of 6 districts with 10 teams per region, that would still only mean 480 teams - and I personally think that is way over estimating it, especially considering, like us, many districts have 1, 2, or even no teams at all. That being said, you are correct that JBQ is difficult to estimate, and since I read they have expanded to include non-Assemblies of God teams, I gave them the benefit of the doubt and increased their numbers. In total, I increased the total number of teams, and since I agree with you that JBQ can be technically counted, I added their numbers in as well. I don't understand where I could be mistaken. I didn't inflate the Nazarenes or WBQA's numbers. Although they haven't increased, they have been relatively stable. However, I didn't glorify them, I simply made the Assemblies of God numbers more accurate. Maybe I shouldn't have taken it so personally, and let my previous experience guide my fact finding. But I still think that the way the Assemblies of God numbers were advertised was misleading. I wish that all quiz ministries were doing much better, regardless of the economy or technological distractions. But I also think that truth is the first step in finding the way to make a ministry grow, even truth in numbers that hurts. Like I said, I will abide by any documentation that shows the accurate number. And while biblequiz.com may not be official, it did not seem to be that much different from the smaller, official biblequiz.ag.org, and it seemed to have more up to date information. I don't disagree that the Assemblies of God has a much more strenuous program than the Nazarenes, but I don't see that as a license to exaggerate the numbers in order to keep that aura of being the best in place. If the Assemblies of God has a better quiz ministry, it is because the kids involved are more serious about memorizing the Bible, not because more of them memorize it less. Again, you sound like a believer, so I apologize if I have offended you in any way, but I hope you can see my reasoning for wanting more exact accuracy.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.252.196 (talk) 03:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just proposed a speedy as "pure vandalism." I think that category applies. If not, then that's one of those "fall through the cracks" situations that requires fixing in the CSD criteria. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, let's see what happens. I've started a subpage with examples of SD loopholes, for future reference. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just deleted. Turns out A7 covers animals, so it's not really a loophole. Go figure. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Perhaps I'm missing something, but the beginning of your rationale is support for deletion seems to be malformed. It first says "reason", then your signature, and only then do you set forth your rationale, followed again by your signature. Sincerely, --PinkBull 16:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!Im new here!To bad my page ATA karate is gone.From DinoMan314. 6/2/2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by DinoMan314 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey don't delete it they are an up and coming group in Australia. i am new to Wikipedia an am unfamiliar wit how to edit, if you could help it would be much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazel93 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why you have tagged this article for deletion. Steve (not the author of the article, my name is Michael Roberts) has contributed a great deal of time and money to the local area of Portland, Michigan. Deleting this article is deleting a special part of local history that was a part of growing the Portland, Michigan area for the past 30 years. While I understand he is running for a public servant office, he should be recognized for his achievements over the past 30 years. To delete this article would be a travesty. If there is an error in citation, please blame me and let me know whatI need ot do to correct this. Thank you for your time.

Michael Roberts —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveFabiano (talk • contribs) 03:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was moving information on the Gordon Lee High School from the Chickamauga article in the education section. That whole section is utterly disorganized and it's driving me crazy. I did, in fact, reword the last paragraph in the first section though because I noticed the original person had copied it from the school website, without proper permission. Ugh, I hate copyright laws. So I changed the wording of the sentences. As for your comment, I'm confused. I'm sorry that I made the page then, if I did it incorrectly from what someone else had written on Wikipedia. Explain your POV on this? Tamer of hope (talk) 01:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. From your user page it says you work for the AG's Bible quiz. So am I safe in assuming that you are an AG member? If so, if you haven't already, would you mind reading the article and letting me know what you think of it? I've been adding alot of info to the article, but I'm not in any way affiliated with the AG so I'd love to hear what someone who is thinks of the article in its curent form. Have a nice day. Ltwin (talk) 03:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you tagged the page Mónica Heredia for speedy deletion with the reason "article about a real person that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". While that's a valid reason for speedy deletion in general, this page does not qualify for speedy deletion under that criterion because the article says she won a bronze medal in a championships, which is an assertion of notability. If you still want the page to be deleted, please consider tagging it with a speedy deletion template which does apply, redirecting it to another page, or using the WP:AFD process. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 09:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are your comments on Stephen Strasburg's debut tomorrow for the Washington Nationals?

96.245.43.48 (talk) 05:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Realkyhick, section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion no longer applies to Megafoo, due to the clause stating "this does not apply to any article that makes a credible claim of significance or importance".

Bsanders246 (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Realkyhick,
I 'wikified' this new BLP article a bit, just added internal links, and also Spencers IMDB entry. I was wondering if the IMDB link is enought to remove the BLPPROD template? I know there is a way to template a BLP it as "IMDB only reference, needs additional citations for verification" or similar word. Couldn't figure out how to do it. Any ideas? Thanks. --220.101 (talk) <sup>\Contribs</sup> 20:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One problem I have is that for some reason when I try to paste my article into your site for submission, parts of it come out in a box that spreads out to the right for many lines and I can not seem to get these part to conform to the original width of the article. Can you help?

Next, I feel this article is useful for relationship development and dealing with interpersonal conflict. It is well documented from with many references from "A Course In Miracles," and refers to a topic of timely value for anyone in a relationship as well as the well publicized arguement between two respected ACIM authors. (no names mentioned)

I have explained this in the discussion page I submitted. The way the article keeps coming out with these text boxes makes it very difficult to read coherently and for this reason alone I could see it being deleted. I must be able to fix this somehow. On the other hand if it does not meet you content standards, even though it has already been accepted for publication in "Miracles Magazine" then there is no reason for me to try and fix it./

Can you help? I have spent hours working with the writing of this article for publication in Jon Mundy'w "Miracles Magazine" and do not feel that it needs further editing beyond repairing the way it prints out for you.

David Ott, M.Ed. http://www.peakrecovery.com

email: davidott@peakrecovery.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidott42 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry for troubling you, but, i worked very hard on that biography and I in no way tried to violate any terms and I believe i was well within the guidelines. I was just trying to start a page for a Professional MMA fighter and thought it would be beneficial to the community and the fans of the fighter.

Jeffthewrestler (talk) 07:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)jeffthewrestler[reply]

I just added a reference, can the deleted tag be taken off the page? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanleyswami (talk • contribs) 02:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The website link from the Marty Wombacher page has been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanleyswami (talk • contribs) 02:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I keep getting a warning on my Marty Wombacher page saying that there's a notablity issue. I don't understand, all the references I've listed are valid and true references. Two are from the NY Daily News, one's from an international TV show in Australia and the others are all valid. Can you please tell me what I'm doing wrong? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanleyswami (talk • contribs) 05:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just got a warning saying I wasn't signing my pages. If you can help me out with the notability thing on the Marty Wombacher page, I would appreciate it. All my references are valid.--Stanleyswami (talk) 05:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate your help. The references are all valid and there's nothing phony there. Sorry about trying to slip in the website page, that was unprofessional and I apologize. I'll read what you sent me and try to fix it up tomorrow. Right now I'm really tired and have to get to sleep. Thanks for your help in the manner! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanleyswami (talk • contribs) 06:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I keep forgetting to sign these things! Here's a signed copy:

Thanks, I appreciate your help. The references are all valid and there's nothing phony there. Sorry about trying to slip in the website page, that was unprofessional and I apologize. I'll read what you sent me and try to fix it up tomorrow. Right now I'm really tired and have to get to sleep. Thanks for your help in the manner!--Stanleyswami (talk) 06:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll read what you sent and thanks again for the help, it means a lot! And look, I signed this one! Cheers to you!--Stanleyswami (talk) 06:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed a number of company profiles currently posted on Wikipedia before preparing the profile--and subsequently modeled some of my content after theirs. They were:

Chargoon, Fruit of the Loom, Osram, Serono, Eli Lilly, Param and Topflight (this last one is tagged as advertising, but remains on the site).

I am willing and able to rework this piece. However, before I do, I need to understand two areas:

1. Why are the above-mentioned companies still on the site given their promotional nature? This goes to the consistency of the Wikipedia policy--and I want to understand the seeming disparity.

2. What specific recommendations do you have for me to rework this article to make it acceptable, along the lines of other profiles on the Wikipedia site?

Thanks for your help. Mdlusky (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me out with my article NZ king Salmon.

As the majority producer of Farmed Salmon in the world I beleive they are important enough to have a wiki entry but my article keeps getting deleted and I am positive its un bias enough and dry enough to not be considered advertising.

Can you point out where I'm going wrong with it.

Cheers

(RepublikNZ (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

According to WP:MUSIC, criteria 5, if a band "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)." Therefore, PMtoday meets the criteria. I'm putting a hangon tag under your speedy deletion first, and please write back. Thank you. --ҚЯĀŽΨÇÉV13 23:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So now it's a PROD? Haha. Well, please don't take this as sarcasm, but I sourced that PMtoday meets criteria 5 of WP:MUSIC above. Why are you only addressing that the band is simply signed? Releasing two albums makes them notable due to the fact that both were released on Rise Records. Please tell me if I am making a mistake somewhere. --ҚЯĀŽΨÇÉV13 16:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was a wording error on my half. I don't mean that it meets five different criteria, but that it literally meets criteria number 5. Therefore, despite sources, which can be improved, I'm thinking it should be kept. --ҚЯĀŽΨÇÉV13 15:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Sorry if I came off as rude at all. I wasn't intending it. --ҚЯĀŽΨÇÉV13 01:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't sure if you are watching my talk page or not, so notifying you of reply to your comment. Pianotech 02:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I have been attempting to add and update pages for this year’s PA State House candidates, but two have so far been deleted. The reasoning behind these deletions appears to be that the Wikipedia editors do not think PA House candidates are important enough to qualify for a Wikipedia page.

I take issue with this decision for several reasons. First of all, members of the State House of Representatives are responsible for approving multi-billion dollar budgets that impact all residents of the state they serve. They decide education policy, welfare policy, environmental policy and many other policies that impact all of us. So it is important for voters to know as much as possible about who they are electing. As I’m sure you would agree, Wikipedia serves as an important source of information nowadays, and many voters may find it useful to read about their State House candidate before going to the polls.

Second, it seems undemocratic for Wikipedia to decide that some candidates for office are not worth highlighting and others (namely incumbents) deserve a Wikipedia page. We all know incumbents have a distinct advantage when running for office, and your decision to deny challengers on so-called “lower” levels of office a Wikipedia page continues that unfortunate trend. By deleting these pages, you are helping incumbents retain their elected position without giving challengers a fair chance to prove their worth.

I find this unfortunate and would like a better explanation of why the pages I am posted continue to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.58.88 (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the requirements regarding noteworthiness of unelected candidates for public office, many are members of school boards, (as Frank Bovalino was), County Commissions, or hold offices like tax collector or constable. These officials should, by your policy, be permitted to have a page if their current offices are highlighted first. If their candidacy for other offices is simply a subhead, with the focus being their current office, they should not be deleted. Is this reasoning correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.58.88 (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I was bold and redirected it to Pinochle. Clearly, they are the same or similar games, with similar rules and similar names (say them ten times). A redirect is cheap and cleans up CAT:PROD. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hey.. i'm not sure how to send you a message. I recently edited the wikipedia page for el pollo loco. I accredited Brian Berkhausen whom was responsible for taking the company from $40million annually to $460million over a span of ten years. You deleted my accreditations. Please tell me why or just refrain form doing so again in the future. thanks (76.171.40.213 (talk) 04:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)) b[reply]

[no't demolish the house while it's still being built] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.40.213 (talk) 04:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i'm not sure why my post keeps getting deleted. I explained what we are doing and why. Can you please consider restoring until we are done?

Cheers, Gohstryder (talk) 05:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give PapaJohns.com Bowl a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Birmingham Bowl. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. –Grondemar 14:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Knusser. List of countries that do not have rivers is certainly useful and will help avoid problems with editors trying to find articles to write about from these places. Dr. Blofeld 17:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Volume 3, Issue 2 • Summer 2010 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup News in brief	Features Infobox road upgrade Editing needed near bottom of leaderboard Junction list updates	State and national updates Project reports
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

— JCbot (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle crapped out and didn't finish your nomination. And once again, I'm the only person on the whole project who can freaking see a redlinked AFD on the log... Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • <sup>(Otters want attention)</sup> 16:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi You keep deleting / reversing my posts on the harness page for what you define as Commercial advertising, but what i define as information regarding an innovation that is used in every major race and race track in Australia, (Check with Harnees Racing Australia. I also not that it seems to ok with you for people to promote a particular race track (commercial enterprise ) but not a barrier / Gate. Interesting.

In any case i have changed the information to remove the link but the information is factual , is innovative and deserves to be noted.

I have been involved with harness racing for over 20 years so i know what i am on about.

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.9.149.82 (talk) 06:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Realkyhick, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Yi-Jen Lai, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you.  ʄlame  22:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current consensus holds that it is bad practice to tag articles for speedy deletion as lacking context (CSD A1) or content (CSD A3) moments after creation, as users may be actively working on the article content. Ten to fifteen minutes is considered a good time to wait before tagging such articles under either of these criteria. Please note that before an appropriate waiting period is over, the articles should not be marked as patrolled, so that the wait does not result in the article escaping review at a later time.  ʄlame  03:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

being new to wikipedia; I am doing my best to follow all reuqisite guidelines. Te person on whom the article is being written, played a prominent part in Jharkhand( a state in Estern India's) independence and breaking away from Orissa and Bihar. He was a member of the erstwhile royal family of the area(princely state of Seraikella) and younger brohter to the Chief Minister of Orissa. His family is staill actively involved in the upliftment of tribal and backward tribes being oppressed by the federal government authorirties in the state. He was a freedo fighter(gaianst the British and interred in Ranchi centeal Jail). I need another 4-6 weeks to gather further data and references to bolster and research the article. I will be visiting India in at the end of the month to meet with his family to expand the article. Kindly assist me in this endevor as this is merely a starting point! Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by I7800186 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Frode Saugestad. I disagree with the speedy deletion of Frode Saugestadbecause the article makes a credible claim of significance or importance. You should therefore not retag Frode Saugestad for speedy deletion. You are, of course, free to tag the article with {{prod}} or nominate it at WP:AFD. Favonian (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Realkychik, Thanks for your speedy reply. I also look at many other biographies on players and many of them also did not play with the MLS, but I understand if you need to delete it because of the policy you are following.

You are correct, I never rostered with an MLS team, but as you can see during the early MLS years, I played with the Rochester Rhinos and we competed and defeated the MLS teams often. Also, the NPSL was the highest level in the United States for indoor soccer through the 90's. Maybe this helps.

As you can see from the article, I am definitely not trying to self-promote, just adding a piece to the Rochester Rhinos encyclopedia. The Rhinos figured I would be best to write the article as long as I was not biased.

If it makes more sense, I should have the Rhinos front office add to their own article and put biographies about the players so it is not an autobiography.

What do you think?

Mkirmse12 (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)mkirmse12[reply]

In terms of the notability rule, I would imagine playing in the highest league in the United States for Indoor Soccer - National Professional Soccer League would satisfy this? Would like to know, so they know what players to add to their notable player list.

When you review the players that played in this league that are in Wikipedia, you will find that most of them never played outdoor soccer and simply played at the highest level on the indoor level.

Mkirmse12 (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)mkirmse12[reply]

I'm not sure if you are the one I send this to. If not, what talk page do I put this on?

I was asked by the General Manager of the United Soccer Leagues, who is also former owner of the Rochester Rhinos, to add under Notable Players on the Page Rochester Rhinos, my name. He then said that I should then create a page about my professional soccer playing career from that link. I see that there are many other players / biographies from players on the Rochester Rhinos, as well as, other soccer clubs in the United Soccer Leagues. I felt that I wrote the article non-biased, just stated facts, and provided adequate references. If you need me to change something, let me know or if you need someone else to write it, please let me know.

Mkirmse12 (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)mkirmse12[reply]

Why did you use rollback on Kirmse? You are aware, aren't you, that rollback is only for vandalism and similar things, not for undoing admin-related issues? The article claims that he played in professional matches against MLS clubs; it's a clear claim of importance. COI, even autobiography, is not a valid reason for speedy. Nyttend (talk) 23:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Realkyhick,

Thanks for your useful feedback on the Azam Marketing listing.

Based on your feedback, I have spent considerable time finding external references.

As regards the comment about it not being a notable company, you can see here that the 13 year old agency has serviced many major brands: http://www.azam.net/clients-best-service/

Would you say the listing was not suitable to remain on Wikipedia? Or does anything need to be ammended/added?

Thank you very much. I appreciate your assistance.

Regards, Markbristol Markbristol (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again,

I am not sure why you are aggressively putting forward everything I write for deletion. The listing of Nadeem Azam, for example, has been on Wikipedia since 31 January 2010 and not one other person in all that time has deemed it necessary to have it removed.

I have tried to be polite and co-operative with you, as you can see in the message above, and have spent over an hour editing listings after reading your feedback and to suit your requirements.

Markbristol (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Despite my multiple attempts at being courteous and polite to you, you have shown ongoing disdain and disrespect. This seems to be an ongoing trait with you based on so many other comments.

Wikipedia Editors: please appraise 'Reallyhick'

Markbristol (talk) 10:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tagging my new article 4 improvements!

Can you please help impprove the aticle any further? Ababab270 (talk) 23:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how i'm not being serious. You may not believe that The Conch Republic has a decent claim to independence, but the article was written in a serious manner.

Also, regardless of the seriousness of the topic, i'm being respectful and would request the same from you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kill me when i die (talk • contribs) 23:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know why you marked my page "Jeff Allen" for deletion.

Jeff allen is a comedian listed on the "Christian comedy" wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_comedy.

He has performed on Thou Shalt Laugh http://thoushaltlaugh.com/, which is listed at the first reference in the Christian Comedy wiki page.

There is no advertisement in the page the only link to the aritst is one to official website for the performer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timgrable (talk • contribs) 23:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is disgusting how you have given me a warning, and I am going to make a complaint against you. I will delete the page... but I do not see any logical reason as to why you warned me like that, especially after I acknowledged what you said, you didn't even await my reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.170.223 (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Am I allowed to write about myself just as you have done? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.170.223 (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will "complain away". As I think you have the wrong attitude for this job. Oppression and Suppression is very obviously something that you promote and within a very rude manner. You have made a very poor attempt to educate me on the rules and regulations of Wikipedia and have been very 'trigger-happy' In handing out warnings where completely unnecessary. For someone who is new to Wikipedia, you have made my visit most non-welcome. In your own non-professional words and customer-service lacking skills, I will indeed "complain away". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.170.223 (talk) 00:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Realkyhick. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Little fire, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims importance/significance of the subject. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz <sup>Talk</sup>/<sub>Stalk</sub> 03:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please be slightly more cool-headed. Also, i've been on wiki for longer than this account, not that that really matters, so please don't try to pull rank on me or whatever you think you're doing.

Your claims that i'm being 'monitored' mean nothing to me, as i'm not a vandal. All pages i create/edit are in good faith and i would like to be treated as such.

Regarding the Conch Republic page, i understand if you don't find it notable and i totally see where you're coming from, but telling me to "go back to the Keys and have a drink" is just unnecessary disrespect. For what it's worth, i live in England, not the Keys.

I'm not trying to make enemies here so i'd like it if this little disagreement ends now, i don't bear grudges, and i respect your position on the Conch Republic page, i just think you could be a little more polite to your fellow editors.

Kill me when i die (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, i do think you're often abrasive and hostile, but i'm trying to bury the hatchet here.

Also, "what they do is their business"? What do you even mean by that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kill me when i die (talk • contribs) 23:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, i accept your apology, and i'm sorry if i seemed a little vindictive

FYI: the person below you i think was an admin for what it's worth

Kill me when i die (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is editor of CDA Verlag in Austria http://www.pcuser-online.de/Support.93.0.html Harald Gutzelnig Geschäftsführer Herausgeber Tel.: (+43) 07262/57557 h.gutzelnig(at)cda-verlag.com --Aalbert der Zwölfte (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get some guidance as to what you are looking for here please? You have raised several objections, some of which are presumably easily fixed. For example the 14 references I've cited (that is, all of the references except the one that is the subject of the page itself) are extremely well known, and most of them are mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia pages. Other objections (such as your view that the page exists only for promotional purposes) are not easily fixed - indeed they are probably differences of opinion that cannot be fixed at all. You are a moderator here, and it is not my practice to get into arguments with moderators. If you prefer that I just delete the page and discontinue my interest in Wikipedia, please say so and I will cooperate. Grumpy one au (talk) 01:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarifications and your prompt response. It appears to me that there are three issues for resolution: (1) Notability (2) Verifiability of References (3) Style (4) Originality (Is this a report on research?)

(1) You make a good point: the theory has not yet been reviewed by a magazine or journal, and is not the subject of further research by people other than the original author. To me this looks like a timing issue - presumably those things will happen (if the theory has any merit) but it is likely to take several years. In the meantime, the notability criterion has not yet been satisfied (unless a few comments by interested amateurs turn up on the internet, but that would be only a technical solution, not a comprehensive one).

(2) Presumably I can find a publicly accessible database that confirms the existence of the references. Of course this should be done.

(3) So far as style is concerned, I agree that the tone is highly academic and the contributor of the page (me) is clearly very familiar with, and interested in, the theory. I think the style can easily be adjusted to your satisfaction.

(4) Research issue: Wikipedia does not accept the results of original research as content. I have not fully come to grips with the problem here, since there is a published book (Chamberlain's) that reports on the research, and traces the original data to his dissertation, which is on file (though not publicly accessible) at a long-established university. Hence there seems no prospect of the Wikipedia page revealing any unpublished research.

In summary, the key issue seems to be notability: can a new theory (first published in June 2010) be reported in Wikipedia, or is it necessary that a gap of a few years always exists between first publication and the creation of a Wikipedia page? This seems to me to be a policy question for Wikipedia. If the question can be resolved, the others seem to me to be fairly routine editorial matters. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grumpy one au (talk • contribs) 03:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i'm doing this page for a class project in web design so please don't delete it.

Sean Sullivan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fresh2dethsts (talk • contribs) 04:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not your webhost. Please go elsewhere to do your project. Protector of Wiki (talk) 05:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. I accept that Wikipedia does not accept pages on topics that have not yet been discussed and views formed on them elsewhere. That explains your concern over the "research results" point. I have deleted all of the text from the page, but do not know how to delete the page itself. Perhaps you could either do that, or tell me how.

As you suggested, I have kept a version of the page for potential Wikipedia use when academic opinion on the new theory has gelled. I will also make it available to the author of the theory - he may want to use it as a basis for a summary of his theory, to be posted on his book's website. Grumpy one au (talk) 04:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Grumpy one au (talk • contribs) 04:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the [10]user page as well - clearly no idea about whatwiki is about :| SatuSuro 23:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC) Hope the link clarifies what I meant :| SatuSuro 00:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC) So apart from the BLP there is also the username itself - when it rains it pours in this department... SatuSuro 00:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Yeah... - thanks for your help on that.interesting to see if they return... so many times in other project areas they get dumped and the original eds never return ..... sigh SatuSuro 00:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the following points show notability of the artist :

- noticed by Vasyl Yermylov and Michael Alpatov

- recorded by Nathalia Brodskaïa in "Naive Art" ed. Parkstone International. I have only french version of this book : ISBN 978-1-85995-668-7 p. 35 (you can see the web version of this book)

- recorded by Xenia Bohemskaïa Ксения Богемская "The Soviet naïve art" "Советское наивное искусство" ed.Интерроса ISBN 978-5-91105-018-4 p. 12, 16, 229, 324-325 (you can find a PDF abstract with summary p. 382)

- a citation of Sergei Tarabarov of the Gallery of Naive Art "Dar" (National Center for Contemporary Art of Moscow (NCCA)citation

- a reference of a permanent exhibition : Collection of Gallery of Naive Art (National Center for Contemporary Art of Moscow (NCCA))source

- Exhibition in Moscow Museum of Modern Art, " Peace to everybody! "

- Exhibition in Tretyakov Gallery of Moscow (first museum of Moscow), Retrospective.

Faithfully

Qqchose2sucre (talk) 11:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry plz dont block me --TheAmazingExplodingDiaphragm (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

I created the Peter Ungar entry on my own. It was not for his own benefit, nor did he have anything to do with it. I think there's a misunderstanding from my edit summary, and I apologize for this error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkrueger (talk • contribs) 15:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats it, just thanksTolkny (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the prod tag you placed on John Wesley 300: pioneers, preachers and practitioners as the article talk page indicates that deletion is not uncontroversial. Compliance with policy/procedure is the only reason I did this; I have no prejudice to opening an AfD. —KuyaBriBri<sup>Talk</sup> 20:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto my above comment for Elena Volkova. —KuyaBriBri<sup>Talk</sup> 20:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion has begun about whether the article John Wesley 300: pioneers, preachers and practitioners, which you previously proposed for deletion, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Wesley 300: pioneers, preachers and practitioners until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You tagged the new article I wrote about Brandon Richards questioning its neutrality. The tag, in case you don't read the results of what you have inserted into an article, say to discuss this on the talk page. You stated the argument, so you should be telling me what you object to. Since you failed to do that, I'm removing the tag. If you wish to argue about about the contents of the article, you can reach me at my talk page. As far as I'm concerned, I have a multiple-source article that discusses the subject's accomplishments as a high schooler--his claim to notability in WP terms. It is also balanced by the comments about the asterisk and his failure to achieve the greatness that was expected of him based on his achievements and his lineage. So you need to itemize what is wrong with this. Trackinfo (talk) 06:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOTVAND; and do not warn and list people who are not vandalizing. KillerChihuahua<sup>?!?</sup>Advice 18:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You recently tagged Brady Hicks for notability, the same day it was created and while editing / expansion was ongoing. This is a new article, in progress, and there are certainly claims of notability. Don't just drive by tag; discuss with author. If concerns are not addressed then consider other options. KillerChihuahua<sup>?!?</sup>Advice 18:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from my talk page, per my talk page notice request to not split discussions:

I feel the notability tag was sufficient. It's a rather benign notice, as opposed to a speedy-delete or PROD, especially when a case is not clear-cut as in this case. Since the article is new, it's just a notice to the author that they need to establish notability a little better. I've been doing new-page patrol for years now, so I think I know what action is appropriate for a particular case. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Apparently I was unclear. I did not post on your page because I was suggesting you do more. I am suggesting you do less. I found the tag not "sufficient" but completely unwarranted and spammy, unneeded, uncalled for, wrong, drive-by tagging. I am requesting you be less quick to paste drive by tags on articles, certainly when you have expended exactly zero effort to resolve the issue which you believe you see in the article. I trust my view is now clear to you. KillerChihuahua<sup>?!?</sup>Advice 22:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I wholeheartedly, unequivocally disagree with you in the strongest means possible. There is no mandate that anyone who places a tag on an article to do anything else. There is absolutely nothing wrong with tagging an article without adding anything else. Moreover, given your comment below, it appears you are watching my actions -- in other words, stalking me. Well, all I can say is watch your step. I've been an active editor here for several years, and I am well aware of the rules and regs. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to be so combative. It is perfectly normal for an administrator to check the recent contribs when someone bites a newbie, or misuses a tag, or incorrectly reports vandalism, to see if the editor in question is making other errors. As it happens, this particular issue is a matter of opinion - please note I have said so, and referred you to no policy. However, I was first made aware of you when you incorrectly reported User:MBradleyUltimate for vandalism. That is a misunderstanding of the policy, and I suggest you take the time to study what is, and is not, vandalism. I naturally checked your contribs; and found you were edit warring with someone on their own talk page to keep your hostile posts in place. This is inexplicable considering that you have been here for some time, but I assumed you were ignorant and not simply bullying and posted the relevant links for you. Now you have exhibited some battleground mentality by telling me to "watch (my) step" - which can only be taken as hostile, and very likely intended as a threat. This is not helpful. I am trying to assist you to learn policies, so you are not running afoul of them. Please try to learn from this, and not try to turn it into a combative situation. KillerChihuahua<sup>?!?</sup>Advice 00:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is their talk page; they can remove whatever they want, including your posts, vandalism warnings, and anything else they see fit. Edit warring and restoring posts on someone else's talk page can be a blockable offense; please read WP:OWNTALK. Do not do this again. You may find the essay at WP:DRC helpful in understanding this. KillerChihuahua<sup>?!?</sup>Advice 22:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of the procedures. I did this once -- and only once -- just to let an uncommunicative new editor know that simply erasing a warning comment would not make the problem go away. If he had erased the comment again, I would have let it go. Instead, he got the message, understood the issues and is addressing it (in a very polite way, I might add). There is nothing even close to an edit war going on here. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted his removal of your post, using Twinkle. You have been warned not to do this again. Do not. Once is exactly one time more than is allowed by policy. KillerChihuahua<sup>?!?</sup>Advice 00:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Mr. WikiCop. Now it would be nice if you weren't being so persnickety about meaningless things like this, and instead help out on new-page patrol to clear out the endless stream of pure vandalism and attack pages, articles about bands that were formed last week, and spam of all flavors. If you don't want to help, then get out of the way while the rest of us get down to work. (It would also help if you addressed the issue of borderline spam in the article that started this whole affair.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm, combined with telling me to ditch my priorities and follow your orders... telling me that your biting and ignoring policy is "meaningless things" and calling me "persnickety" - I'm going to guess you were having a bad day. Hope today is going better for you. KillerChihuahua<sup>?!?</sup>Advice 13:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moveing the page to the right place I have been working with Vicky for two day's to get as much info as I can on her she needied to be here. If you want to help any more thanks in advanced. Mickey Sanker MDSanker (Talk to me) 08:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, if you are working directly with her, you have a major conflict of interest. Wikipedia policy very strongly discourages anyone from writing an article about themselves, or having someone write one about them. The subject of an article, or someone in his or her employ, is not likely to be an objective judge of whether or not someone meets out notability standards. Furthermore, he or she is not likely to present a fair, balanced, neutral point of view about the person, including any information which may portray the subject in a negative light. I strongly suggest you stop working on this article right away, and let someone who has no connection with Hamilton write an article instead. Otherwise, the article may be seen as self-promotion, and subject to deletion. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not work for her she is in CA I live in TN, Someone found out that I did a page for someone elce and asked if I can start this up for her all she did was send me the photo and let me interview her I will not ever get paid to do this. It is to much fun getting paid would not make it fun. I wish I was connected with her all the fameus people she has worked with. She found me on Facebook. When I said I was working with her it did sound like I was getting paid for it. MDSanker (Talk to me) Mickey Sanker 06:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your enthusiasm. While this probably does not figure as a conflict of interest, it does run afoul of another Wikipedia policy: no original research. If information for your article came from a personal conversation or interview with the subject, that qualifies as original research - information that was created specifically for the Wikipedia article. The reason for this is that original research cannot be independently verified, plus Wikipedia articled are required to use information taken from independent, reliable sources that can be verified. Usually this policy applies to someone who has posted his own theory or thesis on some subject, but the principle applies to biographical articles as well. Please read this page about reliable, independent sources. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed a few other clubs such as Beecroft, Forest, Mosman, Waverley, with pages linked to this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_South_Wales_Suburban_Rugby_Union

Hunters Hill are the second most decorated club and we have records to compare with the Statistics under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSW_Rugby

I am new to this web posting but in a nutshell, if these other clubs are on here then our club certainly should be.

Regard Ron. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HHRUFC TAC (talk • contribs) 05:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tend to agree with Ron, in this instance, but a 'normal' AfD is the way to go here. Generally I feel there is an overall lack of significance for all these clubs but there are bigger fish to fry. --89.211.176.159 (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I saw your comment here about references in Russian. There's no policy that says that and in reality Russian references are not really much more of a problem to check than any of the myriads of books and journals and other sources that can't be searched on the internet. There are plenty of Japanese-, Swahili- ... and Russian-speaking editors here who you can ask for help if you think someone is making references up. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. Unfortunately I have to categorically disagree with you. The USSF designates each league within the United States a 'division rating' to illustrate its position within the hierarchical framework of American soccer. Major League Soccer is at Division 1. The USSF Division 2 Professional League is at Division 2 (as per the league name).. and so on and so forth. These are not things I arbitrarily created myself - these are *official* designations from the USSF, and it makes no sense to show them as "tiers" or any other word, irrespective of what they call them in other countries. Every other US soccer team page shows the hierarchical levels as "divisions" - not tiers, conferences, or anything else. I changed the Corpus Christi entry back so that it follows the official format. Thanks! --JonBroxton (talk) 04:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'me sorry for the lack of sources in my article. I put one now. Thank you for explaining me my mistake and sorry to have made your time lose. If you have any advice, you're welcome ;)

--Gauss Pard (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice and sorry for bother you, i'll now try to translate longer articles with sources before publishing it. If you're still not ok with my contributions, let me know. cheers, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauss Pard (talk • contribs) 17:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I copied the layout for that article from another article on Wikipedia about another Non Government Organization doing similar work in Cambodia which was not tagged for deletion, but since you feel that articles like theirs and mine should be deleted I have tagged theirs for deletion as well. There was no advertising going on, just a description of a non profit organization registered in two countries working help children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djavorsky (talk • contribs) 10:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please explain why you think this page meets the criteria for speedy deletion?

I am open to discussion.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikemichaelreid (talk • contribs) 03:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not appreciate how you speedy deleted my article on "My Genie" and my article on "The Van Pels" I spent hours researching them for the sole poupose of making an article. The information in People associated with Anne Frank is ridiculous. All of the facts in there can be proven false. I felt as if it was too invalid to even touch so i created another page and you deleted it.Otis47 (talk) 00:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were told why your Van Pels article was deleted - because there is already an article about them that contains more information than your new one. If you dispute the content of People associated with Anne Frank, you must discuss it on the article's Talk page, at Talk:People associated with Anne Frank, and explain you reasoning there. You must not just unilaterally decide to create incompatible duplicates yourself - if everyone was allowed to create new versions of articles just because they disagreed with the original, we'd end up with hundreds of copies of articles, all saying different things. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you recommend we handle this? I agree a merger might be a good idea, but merge with what?

I discovered there was more than one National Bank of Commerce when I was adding an article on a bank which was essentially taken over by one of those banks. Disambiguation pages can't have red links, although I think it would be helpful to have information about this bank for those who might be confused trying to find out about one of the others.

I tried hard to find information, but it just wasn't there.

It's just plain silly not to have certain kinds of information on Wikipedia.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This bank simply isn't big enough to have its own article. It's a local bank with a handful of branches, and sparse independent coverage at best. You can have it listed on the disamb page without a link at all, simply for reference. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you SURE?Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure about which: size and notability of the bank, or whether you can have a mention without a link on a disamb page? If it's the bank's notability, I'm going by what's in the article. But I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, which is why I simply put a {{gng}} tag on it and not a deletion notice of some sort. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the lack of a link on a disambiguation page. I was hoping I could find more on this bank but so far I haven't. There's another Natrional Bank of Commerce which seems even less notable, which has changed names.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And as far as the notability, I do have to find another source for the bank's size since the one I found isn't allowed. I've used that source many times before but the information is usually duplicated somewhere else, so I've probably taken it out in most cases. I hope so, anyway. But it's pretty big considering the small number of branches. It's not like it's a small-town bank.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looking for more sources. I'm not considering putting it up for deletion for a while, so don't worry. By the way, the other National Bank of Commerce that you may be running into was based here in my neck of the woods in Birmingham, Alabama. It has been taken over by RBC Bank. I think that was about three years ago. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually half a dozen of those. I'm working on possible articles for all of them, but the one in Superior and the one in Birmingham, and another one in Mississippi that may not be the one in Birmingham, are all in the same boat as the one in Superior. I thought Superior was a large city but when I looked at its article, it's not. So that doesn't help my case.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was my primary issue. Superior is relatively small. I think the Mississippi bank is tied to the one in Memphis, but I'm not sure. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got the impressiion it wasn't, and the reason for that bank changing names was the confusion. I have yet to find proof either way.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here is what I think is proof the Mississippi bank is not the one in Memphis, but they bought a Memphis bank which just made things confusing. I don't think Cadence Bank is notable enough for an article, which is a real shame. I'm sure others have been confused and it would help to have this information on Wikipedia.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The other National Bank of Commerce is now RBC. If you look here, that one might be worthy of an article.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, forget might. This article is a LOOOONG way from completion. There are lots of newspaper articles. I'm quitting for today, but that article is far from complete.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. And you just taught me a new tag -- {{outdent}}. Cool! - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could help. I've been seeing it a lot so I decided to find out how.

I figured you being from Birmingham or near there you would be more likely to give my article more scrutiny.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused by your choice of template on User_talk:Actor_Info. The article itself (while arguably not meeting notability) is not inherently inappropriate, nor is the username of the user. Cheers.    Thorncrag   23:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the assertion that someone (in this case Robert A. Sutermeister), has published several books (not self published), as an assertion or indication of possible significance, and to pass speedy. Whether the person is actually notable is another matter, of course. but that one of them has 2 major academic reviews is in my opinion fully enough to satisfy WP:AUTHOR, & the reviews are 3rd party sources. DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Volume 3, Issue 3 • Fall 2010 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup News in brief Portal selected articles and pictures	Features Bot automates graphics creation, saves work Featured Article, eh? Reviews needed at ACR	State and national updates Project reports for Delaware Maryland Michigan Minnesota
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

— JCbot (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note! I should have paid a little more attention to my prod choice in twinkle (or it should be a little more clear of when to choose the blp-prod). Probably the former. Either way, I apologize for the error and thanks for bringing it to my attention. jheiv <sup>talk contribs</sup> 21:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This one is not WP:CRYSTAL, as the film consists of material already shot for Jackass 3D, and much like Jackass 2.5 will be released on the heels of its predecessor in order to take advantage of the predecessor's popularity. I am a bit surprised that your nomination stated that you could not independently verify that this film will actually be produced,[11] as sources do speak toward a possible DVD release as early as Christmas 2010,[12][13] and Paramount Studios is even considering a theatrical release.[14][15][16] Following the example of Jackass 2.5 being part of Jackass 2, I suggest this be merged and redirected to Jackass 3D. Care to comment at the AFD? Schmidt, <sup>MICHAEL Q.</sup> 00:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I appreciate your looking back in, and am sorry to learn of your computer loss. Schmidt, <sup>MICHAEL Q.</sup> 20:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you have deleted our page description, Blue Orange Games. We are the creator of cultural board games: we create unique board games that are patented and became classics (that are listed on Wikipedia such as Gobblet[[17]] or [[18]])

We believe there should be a story about Blue Orange Games, we want to tell the world about board games, how they were created, how they are played, we have them available for free for African orphans (it's in the page you deleted)

We reference to all of our games. We are not promoting videogames or online games, we create classic games made of real materials similar to chess/checkers etc..

We have pages for our games such as Gobblet[[19]] or [[20]]) but no link to who is the inventor/maker of these games. The link shows Blue Orange Games but is deleted. It does not make sense. Or at least delete the games as well, because there is no reason why we should be invisible to the public, we invented these games.

We believe we deserve a story on Wikipedia, we are not promoting our company, we are explaining who we are and how we created these games (there are pages for our games, why not explaining where do they come from?? Plenty of other game companies on Wikipedia such as

Hasbro: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasbro Endless Games, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endless_Games http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_the_Box_Publishing Or our publishing company http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigamic

etc.. all these are the companies we work with every day, we do the same work, we invent and publish board games. We are not a distribution company but the creator of the games.

We create good things, board games to teach children and provide fun to families. We believe the public deserves to know who we are and where we are coming from. This is important information, we have sold over 1 million games and millions of people are wondering who we are and would like to know about us. Thank you for your consideration.

Julien Mayot, CEO —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmayot (talk • contribs) 19:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With the artist "Nathan Edmondson," comic book and fiction author. I was mid-page-creation when an admin deleted it. I didn't understand how I was violating the page creation rules, to be honest. I just needed to get it the rest of the page up there and I think it would be okay, —Preceding unsigned comment added by NPGordon (talk • contribs) 10:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that my List of Synonymous Homonyms has very few examples, but how is it less notable than an article on paronyms? To quote: "Words which are almost homonyms, but have slight differences in spelling or pronunciation and have different meanings." So, either differences in spelling and meaning but not pronunciation (plain old homonym) - or differences in pronunciation and meaning but not spelling (plain old heteronym). Paronyms are really just homonyms or heteronyms. Why create a redundant article? A third option is that a paronym is a word "that is related to another word and derives from the same root". But that is just a cognate. More redundancy. If we accept that paronyms deserve an entry, than that article argues for the notability of my list. It states that "[s]ome paronyms are truly synonymous, but only under the rarest of conditions". Words that fall in that category, what I am calling synonymous homonyms, are already admittedly rare. How is that not notable? Should this list just be merged with the paronym article under the special case of synonymous paronyms?

Redroversama (talk) 05:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. I am sure the other involved editors appreciate your comment as well. Cullen328 (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beat me to it; got an edit conflict as I was adding a delete tag having just looked over his contrib history :) - JVG (talk) 03:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usually I'm the slow one. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just to let you know that I have declined your CSD for Charles Warnken. Generally, academics and PhD members of faculty are considered notable. References were easily found. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 06:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		For your relentless dedication to NPP. Kudpung (talk) 05:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

im not sure why it would be deleted before its got all the information. This is a public internet encyclopedia and hope its just that, not just another forum to push yime warner, britany spears and miley cyrus to the moon, while lesser known americans of great talent aren't given the respect of a billion dollar corporation. Thankyou for your time, i see no reason why to delete this page, if this site is truly about knowledge information and cataloging it for the general public , stay true to your purpose & thankyou again.

Why are you trying to get my first article deleted so badly?

I don't mean any offense, I'm sure lots of no-nothing bands are put onto wiki and good citizens like yourself clean it up....but,

Just because you haven't heard of Yellowcard,Craig's brother or HeyMike! doesn't mean that they aren't notable. I would like to eventually add the whole scene to wikipedia because it hasn't been recorded yet and it should be. I don't understand why your calling world touring punk bands, bar bands. Does it personally hurt you to have this band on Wiki? They clearly meat at least 6 of the guidlines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foley227 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Realkyhick. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Ultimate paper football to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Marginal, but I think "hoax" means intent to deceive, and in this case they probably really have made up this game - a classic WP:NFT case. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qaedafall (talk • contribs) 00:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your help/critique/suggestions. Brand new user; have no idea what I'm doing.

Stumperc (talk) 05:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)stumperc[reply]

Hello Realkyhick. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Rakae jamil, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 23:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Realkyhick. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Dean Shostak, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: "his music has been featured in notable programs such as" is an assertion of importance Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 00:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm leaving you this message because you're listed as a Wikipedian in Alabama. The Wikipedia Ambassador Program is currently looking for Campus Ambassadors to help with Wikipedia assignments at Troy University, which will be participating in the Public Policy Initiative for the Spring 2011 semester. The role of Campus Ambassadors will be to provide face-to-face training and support for students on Wikipedia-related skills (how to edit articles, how to add references, etc.). This includes doing in-class presentations, running workshops and labs, possibly holding office hours, and in general providing in-person mentorship for students.

Prior Wikipedia skills are not required for the role, as training will be provided for all Campus Ambassadors (although, of course, being an experienced editor is a plus).

I know Alabama is a big state, but if you happen to live near Troy and you are interested in being a Wikipedia Campus Ambassador, or know someone else from Troy who might be, please email me or leave a message on my talk page.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Realkyhick. I am just letting you know that I deleted Jack mowbray, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I WAS TRYING TO CREATE (templete:bmcat). sorry for that. please remove that. then i am making an article in the name of 'bishop moore college' where i want to put the (template:bmcat). but the result is a total mess. please rectify the problem

A tag has been placed on Forrest L. Wood requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} 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 hang-on 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Realkyhick. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Tandem Digital, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The people they've produced work for is enough for A7 I think. Take to AfD if required. Thank you. GedUK  19:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharohandy (talk • contribs) 23:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Volume 4, Issue 1 • Winter 2011 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup Portal selected articles and pictures	Features The Year in Review Royal Award Conferred USRD busy at work at FAC	State and national updates Project reports for CA MI MN NE NJ UT WA
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—

JCbot (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hilton Hassell was my grandfather so i do have prejudice / conflict of interest. I think that HH was notable enough to be in wiki. He was famous in his own right (art editor for McLeins Magazine, solo shows at Eatons Fine Art, Anne Of Green Gables/ Avonlea covers, painting the Queen of England... as well as for his close ties with the group of seven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raphael hassell (talk • contribs) 11:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You tagged SNAS Higher Secondary School as a page lacking sufficient context. The article, as it stood when you tagged it, clearly identified the subject as a secondary school in Mandi Gobindgarh. That's enough context to identify the topic and find any further sources. The fact that there are not further sources means that the article is not verifiable, and should not be allowed to stand in its present form. I had redirected it to the article about the town in which the school is located, as this is the common outcome regarding non-notable schools, but the article's original author chose to undo that redirect. I will contact that editor separately. WikiDan61<sup>ChatMe!</sup><sub>ReadMe!!</sub> 16:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, whatever. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kentucky guy. On Rescue Patrol, I added a hang-on tag to Hanyut/Almayer's Folly (film). Granted, it might have been a case for your venerable Wikipedia Intensive Care Unit, but I don't see it as blatant advertising.

kind regards, --UnicornTapestry (talk) 12:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Realkyhick. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Alan Bass to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you.   -- Lear's Fool 08:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Lear's Fool's talk page.  -- Lear's Fool 12:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:BBVA Compass Bowl logo.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 {{hang on}} 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 hang-on 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.

Just wanted to give you a heads-up on this, since you uploaded the original version. JKBrooks85 (talk) 13:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Realkyhick,

I am looking to make a good quality page for the B2B CFO page but I am unsure as to what I am doing wrong. Are you able to shed any light on this for me please?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewroversfan (talk • contribs) 19:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, i just made a page, and it was deleted, but it is actually for a school thing I am doing mate, and dont want it deleted. lease let me know if there is anything u can do about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirYummyFat (talk • contribs) 08:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Realkyhick, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Blame assessment, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not blatantly an attack page or negative, unsourced BLP. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Jujutacular <sup>talk</sup> 16:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you reviewed my recent post of Van Howard. Your comments make me think that I wrote this submission about myself. I wrote this about someone I know who played in the Grand Ole Opry with Ray Price in the 50's. The information I provided was directly from Van Howard's bio.

You commented that if someone was worthy of a submission that someone else would write something about them. That's exactly what I was doing. In my search on Wikipedia of some of the people that Van played with, I found several of them already had Wikipedia pages. It seems fitting that Van would have a page since he was a significant part of history with Ray Price (Musician).

Nmantooth (talk) 04:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Realkyhick, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Andy Levine, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Logan <sub>Talk</sub> <sup>Contributions</sup> 15:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Realkyhick,

Thank you for your feedback. I've reworded the article to remove some of the items you mentioned that detracted from the professionalism of the subject. I am checking to find more references on this person that I can add to the list of references. Since he performed so long ago, it's difficult to find much on his music career. I'll keep looking. Nmantooth (talk) 03:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Realkyhick,

I've made several changes to my article to make it more encyclopedic. Would you please review the article again and remove your comments about "This article's tone or style may not be appropriate for Wikipedia" if I've corrected the issues you had with it?

I am in the process of researching more references for the article so I can get the 2nd comment removed.

Nmantooth (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed my page was for some reason flagged for deletion. If you can explain to me why I am unable to make a page for myself and my own music in which I am promoting I would be very interested in hearing it. I am not trying to be rude, I am just trying to understand why I am unable to add information on MYSELF on wikipedia. Ive known many people to do it, and don't understand what makes mine flagged for deletion.

Looking forward to hearing from you, thank you very much for your time.

Gene Priest

You can't just delete USWGO Alternative News because multiple reporters say it exists and I have cited references and sources plus trying to keep the article at a neutral stand point. Also I like to receive your help to make sure it fully complies with Wikipedia standards. I am new at wikipedia and so I don't know how to make it completely complaint. So can you help me properly reference the sources because this has been reported by news agencies and even press releases. Also uswgo.com is in the Colorado court records so it is all verifiable.

Can you help me make it complaint instead of just deleting this because enough has been done to have good amount of references and verification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenAcel (talk • contribs) 04:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You marked my recent addition Boston Interactive for deletion. I've gone through and compared it to articles about other companies in the same industry, and I think it has around the same tone. Is there any specific feedback that you might be able to offer that I could use to improve the article?

Thanks, Mosfette (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Such information could only be provided by an insider within the company" Or anyone with an internet connection and a little Google-fu :-) http://www.bostoninteractive.com/portfolio.asp I'll remove the Industries area, but the rest is cited with independent sources rather than anything from there website. Would that be enough to stop deletion? Mosfette (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Realkyhick. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Greater berzerkistan, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: This is not a hoax - this fictional country is indeed featured in the Doonesbury series, and Google suggests that there is enough cover to pass notability. JohnCD (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I would like to know why my article has been deleated? I have not finished the book yet but I thought that I should be able to write a small summary. Please if I need more information do tell and I will wait to make a longer summary and do give any suggestions. Sodins 3/25/11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sodins (talk • contribs) 17:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete both of the articles. I'm confused on a few things. Please tell me how to put a picture with a caption in and how to make a name so that it can direct the reader to an article about that person. Pleases to meet you. Sodin 3/25/11. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sodins (talk • contribs) 18:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Realkyhick, I can see why you think this article might be false. The book was written in 1955 by Madison Cooper. It wasn't very popular so there where not many copies that came out. The work is also out of print because the author had his literary files burned after he died. If you need to confirm this you can vist many rare book sites and try to look it up with a small discription. Thanks for the photo information! Sodins (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Sodins 3/25/11(UTC).[reply]

I get what I have to do but how do I get the file number? Sodins (talk) 00:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Sodins 3/25/11[reply]

You deleted my Melody & Tyler Page because you said you didnt see how it showed notability, but there are several awards of notability referenced in the article. I truly believe that this page is something that can be used for reference as an encyclopedia is used and that it holds significant information as well as accomplishments for the band. Where was I missing notablity? All sources were verified with links containing hard evidence of factual information. Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following (subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page)

Here are the Wiki Guidelines for Deletion: Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria: NOPE Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish: NOPE Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject) Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate): NOPE Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes): NOPE Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed: NOPE Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth): I DONT SEE HOW IT DIDNT Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons: NOPE Redundant or otherwise useless templates :?? I CAN FIX THAT IF THERE WERE Categories representing overcategorization: NOPE Files that are unused, obsolete, or violate the Non-free policy: NOPE Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace.: NOPE Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia: ALL GOOD HERE.

SO. If theres a problem with formatiing, please help me know what I need to fix. I am new at this. I know you can't hold the hand of all 100,000 people that probably ask for your help and I understand that most bands added with out a grammy award in their references are just for promotion of themselves, but I honestly dont see how, with Tylers song on an award winning highly grossing game in the US and over seas, Melody & Tyler's newest album by highly notable producer Marc Cooper, and their time on Park City TV (I believe it said time devoted on a television station somewhere) every year you can say they're NOT notable musicians. I appreicate your help and advice. -Melissa Melpul (talk) 04:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Realkyhick,

I am the advertising & promotions director for MystiCon VA. For some reason the WikiPedia page that our webmaster has been attempting to create for our convention is being interfered with/deleted by you and another user by the name of Dravecky. I would appreciate it if you would cease & desist with these attempts as we have every right to maintain a presence on WikiPedia. If this interference does not cease I will submit this dispute to WikiPedia's editorial board for mediation. Thank you.

Carl Kesner, Advertising & Promotions Director, Mysticon VA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cekesner2 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reallyhick asked me to comment, as an admin who frequently deals with articles from organizations. Mr. Kesner, you misunderstand Wikipedia, but that is not your fault, as it is a new idea entirely--a publication where the users as a commonality decide the content, and where there is no editorial board to decide whether an article is to be kept or deleted, or what it shall say. The users will judge what to do with the article after the discussion, Though we will listen to those associated with the group, they do not decide for us. We're an encyclopedia, not a place to promote conferences or anything else, and whatever we include has to be notable enough that readers will expect a comprehensive modern encyclopedia to have an article on it, as judged by substantial coverage from independent published sources. If it is so referenced, the community will decide to keep, and otherwise they will not. Whether the actual referencing is adequate depends on their judgment, not yours or mine or reallyhick's.

btw, reallyhick, I think you've already said enough to make the point at the AfD. DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So I would have thought, though I don't think the message is getting through. I think I've done all I can at this point. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your message to me appears below and my response to you will be in italics:

Sir: With your message on my talk page, you have violated a host of Wikipedia policies. First of all, by identifying yourself as an advertising director for MystiCon, you have admitted that you seek to promote your conference through a Wikipedia page. This is a blatant violation of Wikipedia's anti-spam policies (as set forth on this page), and grounds enough on its own for the article for the article to be deleted immediately, and for those involved to be blocked from editing articles. I did identify myself as an advertising director for MystiCon. That is a title. You should not interpret that to mean I am seeking to promote our science fiction convention through WikiPedia. Our webmaster has established a WikiPedia page that is similar in content to the other sci-fi convention pages found on this WikiPedia list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_science_fiction_conventions . Are you proposing to delete all of those pages as well? If so, you are going to have a lot of angry WikiPedia users.

Second, you have attempted to claim ownership of an article. No one owns any article at Wikipedia, particularly those with which they have some soft of association with the subject, as set forth in this policy. You seem to be under the impression that Wikipedia is like Facebook, that you can use it for your own promotional purposes. That is not so. I labor under no impression that WikiPedia is like Facebook and I take offense at your assumption that I do. I never claimed ownership of the MystiCon article. However, in accordance with WikiPedia's editorial guidelines, I requested that you cease your attempts to have our page deleted or I would submit the discussion thread to the WikiPedia editorial board, which I have done and I am well within my rights to do so. You have yet to justify your single-minded desire to have the MystiCon WikiPedia page deleted with any reasonable arguments. You, however, seem to operate under the delusion that you are judge, jury and high executioner for WikiPedia. That is not so.

Third, you have made threats toward another editor for attempting to take some sort of action on an article. This sort of action is taken very seriously by Wikipedia management. You may make no demands of any kind whatsoever that any one refrain from acing on an article, unless you are a Wikipedia administrator, which you obviously are not. Fourth, you have claimed that you have a "right" to this article is absurd on its face. No one has a "right" to anything on Wikipedia in relation to the inclusion of an article. The First Amendment does not apply here, as Wikipedia is not an agency of the United States Government. Wikipedia is free to set its own policies on what is included on its site, and enforce those policies as it sees fit. So don't go claiming any so-called "rights." I made no "threats". I have challenged your attempts to have the MystiCon page deleted in accordance with WikiPedia editorial policy. Nothing more, nothing less. You are ascribing actions and intentions to me that simply do not exist. Also, I think that WikiPedia embodies the very nature of the First Amendment right to free speech. The First Amendment does not apply solely to "agencies of the United States Government". It applies to everyone and everywhere in the United States of America.

I strongly suggest that you read this page, and familiarize yourself on how Wikipedia operates — that is, assuming you are not blocked for editing for the violations you have already committed. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

"I have to wonder if you understand how WikiPedia operates, given the nature of your posts about MystiCon and your poorly concealed animosity towards not only that convention but to me as well" --Cekesner2 (talk) 04:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		Nobody has better kept their cool on an AFD that has spiraled far out of control. Kansan (talk) 18:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I am not sure why you deleted the page I created for Ohm Phanphiroj. Ohm is a great artist from Thailand with stellar credentials and works that others need to see. Ohm achieved a lot of things and have exhibited his works worldwide and published books. His life and works were documented in many sites so I think it is important to add his life and career on wikipedia.

Please explain why you think you have a legitimate reason to delete it without proof other than your subjective personal opinion. I suggest you search him online first to see what he has done.

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afcasting (talk • contribs) 06:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Real KY Hick,

Please explain how I am spamming Wikipedia. I would like to know your thought process, by not being in a self-centered dramatic mode. Because all I was trying to do is creating a page for others to get information of the artist, and you all are doing is attacking the page and information without merit just because you think you can and you are a KY hick moderator?

I am sorry to be blunt, but you have to be more careful when deleting, cos there are many pages that do not deserve any attention on wikipedia and you have managed to put forward.

See Airry Haruehun's page which has no substance as he has not achieved anything. Yet, there is a page about him. But when I am trying to create a substantial contribution of an artist that is internationally recognized, you dont like it.

Please clarify this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afcasting (talk • contribs) 07:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Realky. Many thanks for reviewing the page I createad "Queen Kong band". I am relatively new to Wikipedia, and appreciate your feedback! I would like to create pages for a number of independent DIY Irish bands (next up, Estel) that have been been successful in Ireland, and in active existence for at least five years / three records. In the case of Queen Kong, they have played over 500 concerts in Ireland, also played at selected Ladyfests in mainland Europe, been featured on Irish TV and radio many times, recorded full live sessions with the national radio station RTE, and had their records reviewed in the national newspaper of note, The Irish Times, aswell as popular Sunday newspaper The Sunday Tribune. Unfortunately The Sunday Tribune have gone into recievership and it is very difficult to find a link - which is why I've had to resort to linking to internet pages referring to the reviews, rather than the official newspaper website. The Irish Times has recently become available on a subscription basis, which again creates an issue for linkage, although these are quite reputable newspapers aand (I hope) provide, amongst others, examples of notability. Can you give me some advice on this - to improve the article, should I link to these sources, even though the link provides less info than the ones I have provided? Best, Yseult — Preceding unsigned comment added by YseultM (talk • contribs) 11:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Guy Working On Items From Raleigh DeGeer Amyx's Collection

Regarding your post on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ttonyb1 : "Pardon me for butting in here... 1) Blogs are not considered to be reliable sources. Click here to see what is. 2) Yes, you can link to the watch page from Amyx's own article page, it the article survives the deletion discussion. However, I will issue you a strong caution: If you have any connection with Amyx of his museum, these articles will be seen as a violation of our conflict of interest policies, and therefore suspect of being promotional in nature. Do you work for Mr. Amyx in any way, paid or otherwise? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)"[reply]

I do not work for Mr. Amyx, neither do I have an interest in his collection (financial or otherwise, for that matter). One thing I'm curious about is why was his own personal page never deleted, if he has a vested interest in showcasing not only who he is, but some of his items in his collection? Clearly collectibles always have some value (which means there never is a completely unbiased interest on the part of the person working, in any way, on or with those collectibles), but if what I'm reading about notability requirements is true, why wasn't his own page deleted also, especially since no book has been written (to date, anyway) about him, and his collection is referenced in a number of journals and articles.
I'm getting the sense that all I need to find is a way to show the relevance and connectivity between the items, and his history as a collector, and the historical significance of these particular items. Am I on the right track or am I missing something? I'm really not trying to be difficult. I really do want to understand this.

Raw4815 (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raw4815, given that you work for the collector's web developer and you have been tasked to create pages for the collection, by default you are working for the collector. ttonyb (talk) 22:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony is right. You have a business interest, even if it is indirect. Having said that, if you can find independent, reliable sources that verify what you write about the items, you may be OK, though the article would probably be edited by others to remove anything that might seem promotional. But you will have to walk a fine line. Wikipedia takes a very dim view of anyone who uses WP for promotion of any kind. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've just expanded the short article which I wrote on E-lab. Hope you'd give me clues so that it won't be deleted. (Akintundemlawal (talk) 01:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will state, however, that if you keep saying you don't accept the significance of File 770 within the science fiction world, you will continue to undermine your position as somebody trying to keep the requisite NPOV. There are three places to whom a member of the science fiction community (fan or pro; the distinction is not important to us) looks for reliable news: Locus, Ansible and File 770. (I'm a print bigot, so don't tend to rely on SFSite as much; but Steve Silver, who runs it, is himself a Hugo nominee, as well as an active editor here.)

By the way, what paper do you work for? My daddy was once a sports and outdoors writer for the Anniston Star, back when I was a kid bettering my reading by "proofreading" the early edition for typos I could gleefully point out to his colleagues. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm new to all this and you've flagged my first article for speedy deletion. Could you explain why? I think I've followed the layout used for other small press companies. If I've done something wrong, could you work with me to improve it instead? SaraRucksom (talk) 04:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your swift reply. Looking at some of the other articles about small publishers I'm not sure what differentiates them from Deadstar Publishing except for the duration they have been in existance. I should have looked more thoroughly when I first researched the piece but they are listed on the Literature Wales site as a recognised small publishing house along with more well known publishers like Seren and Parthian. They also seem to have distribution through Waterstones and WHSmith, which some of the other listed small presses have not managed. In addition to this they were also interviewed by Geek Syndicate at their first convention - although I didn't link to that as it is not a traditional newspaper and I wasn't sure if it would meet the standard for suitability. SaraRucksom (talk) 04:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

watsup is this how you message ?

i wanted to submit a contest for speedy deletion in regards to sugaspott

i gather youre a well learned individual so i wont try to spar intellect but just a request to consider the manner of article you have deleted ?

i suppose i know very little so please try to be a beacon for me in terms of all things wikipedia

how would the A7 article be proportionaly represented to an audience in a third world environment like zimbabwe or should they be fed the bible of american relevant pop culture because thats fine too just thought maybe wikipedia may have exception to say if an individual is relevant to a subsect of people and that people were looking for information about that individual, wikipedia may find it helpful to present well written and educational information about said individual where maybe noone else from the global village may consider it notable, that 10 or so million people from that remote area of the world where he is relevant are now eternally grateful and moresore now aware that tools such as wikipedia exist, and can now start to look into even the american pop culture

i am sorry if i dod not make sense but i tried

regards newbie trying to get a break Wikispott (talk) 04:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on posting some sources. As for the creation, I am a sophomore music major at the institution he teaches at. Also, I found it somewhat ridiculous that he would have an article on the Dutch version but not the English version of this site, so I made one :D. If there is anything I can do to improve/keep the article, please let me know.

Thanks!

Zac.roberson (talk) 05:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Andrew Flynn Soltys is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Flynn Soltys until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Blanchardb -<sup>Me•MyEars•MyMouth</sup>- timed 20:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Just not clear why my entry is up for a speedy deletion. Yoursphere is a popular social network for kids and teens, just like Togetherville. The links listed in the Notes section of the post show how Yoursphere falls in the same category as other kid/teen social networks.

Please advise.

Thank you.

Ar8423 (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC) AR8423[reply]

Hello Realkyhick. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Swampy Zombie Fever, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Though it probably would fail at AfD, two singles and signed on a minor label is more than a garage band, and is a credible claim of importance. Thank you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Volume 4, Issue 2 • Spring 2011 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup Portal selected articles and pictures	Features Stub drive continues on User Vaoverland passes away Get your kicks with the US 66 task force	State and national updates Project reports for CA DE MD MI PA
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—Rschen7754bot (talk) 02:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Realkyhick. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Patrick Bradley (disambiguation), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Winning a Clio award is sufficient assertion of importance. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz <sup>Talk</sup>/<sub>Stalk</sub> 06:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Patrick Bradley (entrepreneur): According to the official site, Bradley was part of a team that won a Clio in 1998. (Click on Interactive and 1998, the product is Kenneth Cole.) I don't know whether being part of a winning team makes a person notable, merely that it is a sufficient assertion of importance to avoid speedy deletion. Try PRODding the article, or take it to AfD. — Malik Shabazz <sup>Talk</sup>/<sub>Stalk</sub> 19:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I'm trying to figure out how to follow all of the rules here, but I don't understand why creating a page about my business (for which I own the copyright) on the webpage is a problem. Pleae let me know. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llnhenderson (talk • contribs) 17:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At Template_talk:Rescue#RfC: Review of Rescue Tag Usage

As the founder of the ICU, you might have a useful and interesting viewpoint on the Rescue Tag and its use. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 05:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I split it back off with a few secondary sources. There is now enough content for a reasonable article, but it could be better. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • <sup>(Otters want attention)</sup> 02:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop reverting my changes without a reason. I discussed the changes and the reason for the changes after you reverted them the first time. You only responded about one site I removed and your response is it used to be the official site. It no longer is. If you disagree then discuss it but simply reverting every change without reason is wrong. I have every right to edit the article and if you didn't like the changes a discussion would have been a more appropriate action then simply reverting my changes. 24.113.52.215 (talk) 03:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)ElijahJ[reply]

It seems to me you are biased because I want to remove some sites which are A/G and you are involved with the A/G bible quizzing program. 24.113.52.215 (talk) 00:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)ElijahJ[reply]

I am not adding the link. It was already there for about 2 years and you removed it when you undid my first revision. I would also add back in AcmeQuiz.com but not sure about adding a commercial site. 24.113.52.215 (talk) 02:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)ElijahJ[reply]

Better yet, let's put all these links back in there from before I made my first edit and only remove the links we agree on.

The article Bluff Magazine has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Self-sourced, no evidence of notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rklawton (talk) 12:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please undelete!

It is indeed similar to the Snowdonia Society website - I wrote both!

It's an environmental charity - and I was its director. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.48.92 (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Realkyhick! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 12:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Volume 4, Issue 3 • Fall 2011 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup Portal selected articles and pictures	Features Junction list template updates coming ACR processes merged Stub drive getting toward the end	State and national updates Project reports for CA MD MI PA VA TX
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—JCbot (talk) 01:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Garvin's has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Project has apparently been canceled. Signage on the property has been removed; no trace of any further development. (Can reinstate later if the projects picks back ip.)

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Realkyhick. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for Joan Givner, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers and review the criteria for speedy deletion. Particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion, proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. Makes claims of notability. Search for sources, then PROD or AfD instead Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have a reply on my talk page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Realkyhick, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia!

I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you worked on, American Software, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

It helps to explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the Help Desk. Thanks again for contributing! noq (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Realkyhick, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia!

I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you worked on, Logility, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

It helps to explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the Help Desk. Thanks again for contributing! noq (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Hard Rock Hotel and Casino (Biloxi) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Individual Hard Rock venues are rarely notable enough to have their own articles, Biloxi certainly isn't.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Skysmurf  (Talk) 11:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i originaly created this article but you deleted it, now it has been created by someone else but not deleted. why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynamismik (talk • contribs) 05:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because I didn't see that it had been created again. It does show a little more notability, but not enough. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm just letting you know that I have declined your speedy deletion of Poor Boyz Productions. Reason: subject makes claims to notability. Please consider PRODing or AfD if you still feel the article should be deleted after searching for more references. Thanks, and happy patrolling! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

Was any of the information you deleted on the Fultondale, AL wiki page untrue? Bluenova1971 (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Volume 5, Issue 1 • Winter 2011 • About the Newsletter
This edition is going out to all USRD WikiProject members (current, former, or potential) in addition to other subscribers as part of a roll call to update the participants list. Anyone that would like to continue to receive this newsletter in the future needs to update the subscription list if they are not already subscribed.
Departments Assessment roundup Portal selected articles and pictures	Features U.S. Roads consolidates M-6 article makes headlines Planning Department debuts Stub drive concludes early, successfully Editorial	State and national updates Project news Task force reports for MD, MI, PA, and VA
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—Imzadi 1979 → 22:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Realkyhick,

Back in November, you got either an AfD or PROD notification, which was part of the template testing project's experiments. If you could go here and leave us some feedback about what you think about the new versions of the templates we tested (there are links to the templates), that would be very useful. (You can also email me at mpinchukwikimedia.org if you want.) Thanks! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Volume 5, Issue 2 • Spring 2012 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup Portal selected articles and pictures	Features Paving a path forward with KML Down and dirty with KML SPSs in need of removal from articles Maple Syrup Report	State and national updates Project news Task force reports for CA, DE, and MI
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—Imzadi 1979 → 00:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Volume 5, Issue 3 • Summer 2012 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup Portal selected articles and pictures	Features U.S. Roads Project Goes to Wikimania Driving to 4 Million Michigan Reaches Milestone Maple Syrup Report	State and national updates Project news Task force reports for AK, CA, DE, GA, GU, LA, MO, MT, ND, OK, and TX
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—Imzadi 1979 → 23:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am contacting you in respect to the Bible Quizzing article. The volunteers are discussing the selection of a new translation of the bible for future events. The 1984 version of the NIV has been withdrawn from the market. The 2013 quiz year will use the latest release of the NIV. The years after next year are not set as of yet. The later version of the NIV corrects some problems with the 1984 version but is still in question.

There has been some discussion on using ESV for Acts starting in 2014 or GEPCP in 2015. This would align the Nazarene program more closely with Bible Quiz Fellowship.

I am not a normal editor for Wiki, but thought I would send you a note since you seem to be much more involved here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.10.195 (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assemblies of God Bible Quiz, in which I work, was also forced to change to the new NIV because of the publisher's withdrawal of the 1984 version. There has been a little grumbling about the new version, but nothing earth-shattering. To my knowledge, there is no significant talk of switching to a new translation. The last time we did that, moving from King James to NIV, was rather problematic. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Volume 6, Issue 1 • Winter 2013 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup Portal selected articles and pictures	Features Wikidata Q&A USRD Cup returns Project looks ahead to new year	State and national updates Project news Task force reports for CA, FL, and PA
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—EdwardsBot (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tagging this article for notability, and deletion, back in 2008. It's still tagged; you may want to take it to the Notability noticeboard or AfD to get it resolved. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Volume 6, Issue 2 • Spring 2013 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup Portal selected articles and pictures	Features Project creates route list standard Driving down under Meta and Wikidata update ACR becoming active, changing USRD Cup wraps up	State and national updates Project news Task force reports for CA, GA, MI, OK and WA
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—EdwardsBot (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, FAST CARD , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Adam850 (talk) 06:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Hello, I noticed you rewrote the FAST CARD page back in 2007. There seems to be a duplicate with the Free and Secure Trade page. Do you have any input as to merging these pages? Just checking. Adam850 (talk) 06:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Volume 6, Issue 3 • Summer 2013 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup Portal selected articles and pictures	Features Rewriting Infobox road and incorporating Wikidata Driving around the Pearl of the Orient Fixing our shields licensing	State and national updates Project news in brief Task force reports for CA, GA, MI, MN and WI
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—EdwardsBot (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. A while ago I created a page on Marker Wadden, this page was deleted by a user called Inevercry, who is no longer active on Wikipedia. This project will star in 2015. Wikipedia should have a page on it. Is it possible to recover my last work as to work on it ? It was a translation of the French and the Dutch page. Regards.--Io Herodotus (talk) 08:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Volume 6, Issue 4 • Fall 2013 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup Portal selected articles and pictures	Features Final push for 2013 goals A New York state of merger Templates, Lua, and sister projects	State and national updates Project news in brief Task force reports for CA, IA, MD, MI, and PA
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—EdwardsBot (talk) 03:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Volume 7, Issue 1 • Winter 2014 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup Portal selected articles and pictures	Features 2013 in review The Moon is rising: our Lua progress so far Looking ahead to 2014 The Maple Syrup Report	State and national updates Project news in brief Task force reports for CA, GA, MI, OH, PA, UT, WA, and WV
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scott Beason, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aborigine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jefferson County, Alabama may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• River Railway]], and [[Birmingham Terminal Railway]] (formerly Birmingham Southern Railroad)). There is also one [[switching and terminal railroad]], [[Alabama Warrior Railway]].{{citation

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jefferson County Schools (Alabama), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Superintendent (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Volume 7, Issue 2 • Spring 2014 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup Portal selected articles and pictures	Features Under a moonlit (and lightning-quick) sky: Lua, , and what's next The new and improved HWY Cup Making shields 101 The Maple Syrup Report	State and national updates Project news in brief Five years ago... A chat with our newest USRD members
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of Imzadi1979[reply]

Hi, I see you have placesd a Speedy Deletion on Robert A. Sutermeister. I think it passes WP:GNG, simply because of the book, the chap wrote: People and Productivity which I think satisfies WP:BKCRIT. If he got a ref. on that, the article would be help. Another article in the series, Howard Sutermeister Merritt is certainly not notable, and fails WP:BIO, and [{WP:GNG]] and I'm going to nominate it now, since I'm currently reviewing it. scope_creep talk 00:52 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Volume 7, Issue 3 • Summer 2014 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup Portal selected articles and pictures	Features The U.S. Roads Portal: A great gateway to the project HWY Cup a success in improving the articles of WikiProject Highways	State and national updates None submitted
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979, 21:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Volume 7, Issue 4 • Fourth Quarter 2014 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup Maple Syrup Report Portal selected articles and pictures	Features The U.S. Roads Project Is Turning 10! 2014: The Year in Review Setting the bar for 2015	State and national updates CA, DE, MD, MI, MS, MP, OR Project news
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) 10:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Western Star (Bessemer, Alabama) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Western Star (Bessemer, Alabama) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Andrew<sup>327</sup> 07:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ranger Boats has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Serious lack of independent sourcing to establish notability. What notability there is would seem to depend on being the innovative developer of the bass boat. However that article credits a different inventor, 20 years earlier.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Volume 8, Issue 1 • Winter 2015 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup Portal selected articles and pictures	Features Be part of the turnaround... now become part of the solution Raising the speed limit on KML creation RCS coming for the Texas FM/RM routes The bar is set for 2015	State and national updates CA, DE, MI In other project news...
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) 18:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Volume 8, Issue 2 • Spring 2015 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup Portal selected articles and pictures	Features Route description 101 The nitty gritty of in-depth research	State and national updates Editor updates In other project news...
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 12:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Volume 8, Issue 3 • Summer 2015 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup Portal selected articles and pictures	Features Road to the past: Some tips on researching history sections Getting to know the editors behind the lenses	State and national updates State updates In other project news...
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—MediaWiki message delivery (talk) delivered on behalf of Imzadi1979 05:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

—delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 (talk) on 23:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

—delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 (talk) on 22:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Realkyhick,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Kentucky & Indiana Terminal Bridge page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanup-PR has been nominated for merging with Template:Advert. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Adam9007 (talk) 02:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

—delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 on 01:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article The North Jefferson News has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The North Jefferson News is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The North Jefferson News until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Stumbled on your August comments. I have created a number of articles about newspapers. The way, the sole way, to keep such an article up is to find WP:RS that discuss the newspaper. Other newspapers will, for example often cover the fact that a newspaper has changed ownership, the departure of a long-time editor, or the hiring of a new one. sometimes a journalist or town resident will publish a memoir with a discussion of the newspapers. Or someone who worked for the paper will go on to have a notable career. Or a history of the town or region will discuss the paper. Write the article in your user space, then create it. Cheers! E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About the only other newspaper that would write anything about The North Jefferson News is The Birmingham News, which considers the NJN to be a competitor. The days of newspapers writing about ownership or management changes at other newspapers is largely gone, unless 1) the newspaper being written about is a large one or 2) an editor or publisher does something they shouldn't as was the case recently at The Anniston Star. Reliable sources about small newspapers are few and far between today, except when that newspaper closes or reduces its publication schedule. As a veteran of the newspaper business for nearly 40 years, I see that happen far too often. Realkyhick (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ben Ferguson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CRTV (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ryde Racine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Medicare. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Turfway.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Garywood Christian School has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No refs for 15 years. Most of the contents seem to be false and no evidence it meets school inclusion criteria

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Barrybinghamsr.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Valley View Center, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mall.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

—delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi 1979 → on 19:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]