Archives

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6 /Archive 7 /Archive 8 /Archive 9 /Archive 10 /Archive 11 /Archive 12 /Unfortunate Incident /Archive 13 /Archive 14 /Archive 15 /Archive 16 /Archive 17 /Archive 18 /Archive 19 /Archive 20 /Archive 21 /Archive 22 /Archive 23 /Archive 24 /Archive 24 /Archive 25 /Archive 26 /DFTT /Archive 27 /Archive 28 /Archive 29

Thank you. Never mind, eh. I'll follow your advice and keep at it. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 12:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had someone ask me this question, "How do I submit an article for inclusion in the biography section of Wikipedia?(Observerrelate (talk) 07:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC))" I'm not sure how you do it either so, could you help us pleeze? RC-0722 ^361.0/1 01:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "biography section". Just write the article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There could be some confusion relating to WP:BLP rathern than a biography section. There is, as Malleus rightly points out, no "biography section" - however our policies and guidelines on living people are all included at BLP, and it may be very useful to point the editor in that direction. Pedro :  Chat  06:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I've restored WP:COMMUNISM. The reason is that you deleted it as vandalism, but I think if you look at the contributions of the user who created it, I think it's pretty clear that the person isn't a vandal. Wikipedia has a proud history of humorous redirects, which I consider harmless; but if that history is over, it at least deserves a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. -- SCZenz (talk) 07:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed you did that. As far as I'm concerned it might be as humourous as WP:DRAMA but it I'm not rolling on the floor with laughter. I also note you marked your restore with no speedy deletion reason given when there clearly was. That was a little disapointing. Maybe I've had a sense of humour failure this morning. I've watchlisted the page and will engage in the forthcoming debate. Pedro :  Chat  07:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for writing "no speedy deletion reason given." It's not what I meant to type, and I was honestly surprised to look back and see that I had written it! I can see why it would bother you. Nevertheless, the redirect was actually in use, and it wasn't vandalism; the CSD don't apply. -- SCZenz (talk) 08:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No biggie. Debate is best any how. I really think these kind of redirects cause more harm than any benefit from the humour (I'm imagining the context on an article talk page - one editor using that re-direct to describe ownership issues to another editor and the eventual flame war that will happen...). However it is best to thrash it out rather than my unilatteral decision. Ta. Pedro :  Chat  08:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then we agree then on what to do next. (The rest I wrote while you were replying, then edit conflicted.) To add to my apology, I know the instant restoration was a little precipitous, and that we've started on the wrong foot because of it. My frustration stems from the fact that I had already told people on Wikipedia talk: Ownership of articles to take it to redirects for discussion, and then people kept trying to find an easy way around it. I'm sure you're aware of none of that context, and I apologize for taking it out on you. -- SCZenz (talk) 08:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No I wasn't aware. Hands up I didn't do enough checks. It was the usual thing - created by a name with a red link, looks a bit pointy, and I added 1 and 1 and got 3 and hit delete. My fault. No issues with the restoration and no issues with yourself. Pedro :  Chat  08:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I was the person that put the speedy tag on D!ZTRACTION. I think that the page also meets G4 of CSD. Just letting you know on that.leujohn ^{(talk, contribs)} 11:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it under G11. It hasen't ever been through WP:AFD so G4 wouldn't apply. Not that it makes much difference now as it's gone anyhow as blatant spam. Pedro :  Chat  11:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pedro

I don't disagree with your denial of speedy for the above-captioned article when looking at it on its own. In the context described at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Accounts Payable Association, however, I think the answer is more clear--but I am happy to run it through the AfD process. I would be interested your opinion there (even if it differs from mine!).

Thanks, Bongomatic (talk) 12:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is best. At CSD it's not really the wider context - it's "does the article meet the Speedy Criteria" - if yes and there is no better version in the history then delete. If not, or there is any doubt, default to keep and recommending AFD or PROD. G11 is fairly broad but I didn't see that article, on its own, as being nothing but promotional. It's a good decision starting the deletion debate - I'll chime in when I have a moment. Pedro :  Chat  12:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I noticed you removed the speedy deletion temp from this article, but I don't necessarily agree with your reasoning. The article doesn't assert it's notability. Per wp:n there aren't any independent secondary sources establishing notability. As such I believe it qualifies to be speedily deleted. (As a side note, the whole first sentence is a copyvio from the company website.) I probably should have added a note to my deletion template stating the above, which I apologize for. --Wizard191 (talk) 12:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that it will probably fail to meet WP:N. But in terms of a speedy A7 the mere assertion of notability (in this case "global supplier") means it's not really eligible. I've looked at their website and yes you could argue a G12 copy-vio but the article is so short that one (slightly reworded) line is not to big a copyright thing. I'd suggest WP:AFD due to notability. Pedro :  Chat  13:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok...thanks. --Wizard191 (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pedro. I was wondering why you decided to delete the page wikipedia.org/somebody_stole_my_pancreas_productions but leave pages like 70/30 productions? I am not suggesting you delete 70/30 productions, as a lot of people would be very upset, but my point is that both entities have, for all intents and purposes, the same significance. They're both production companies located in Atlanta that are associated with Adult SwimWhat can be done to have the page added again without being victim to speedy deletion? Thank you for your time.

PetePancreas (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The key thing is that the article has to assert some notability. Mere existence is neither here nor there, and the text as was gave a description of the company but not why it is important or notable. For example there is a hardware store down the road from me. It exists and is an established business. But an article on it would not be encyclopedic. Although Wikipedia is vast, and covers many many companies, they still need to assert why they should be in an encyclopedia. This article did not do that. Alas, I can't comment on the other articles as the existence of another article does not justify the inclusion of any other. To sum up, if you can write an article showing why the company is important - to the readers of an encyclopedia - please feel free to do so. You may find it handy to develop it in a sandbox first. Pedro :  Chat  20:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro, I'd like to thank you for voting in my RFA. Thanks also for expressing your trust in me, and I hope that I live up to your expectations. Don't forget, if you have any questions (or bits of advice), please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks again, Spencer^T♦C 02:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember me? Anyway, thought i'd give you a heads up that as of thursday afternoon (GMT) my immediate real-life stress should drop significantly, the best time for to try an RFA. So i'm giving you this time to make sure that you still think its worth going for and that i haven't made any major cock-ups in the last few weeks. Thanks--Jac16888 (talk) 02:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Leave it with me! Pedro :  Chat  11:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers--Jac16888 (talk) 13:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you! DARTH PANDA^talk 14:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not putting myself in that torture zone anytime soon. I'd rather take your advice and let it take til' I have a beard to run at RFA. Anyway, great nom. for Jac. Just wanted to let you know, and stop bothering you constantly about it. Cheers! — ceranthor ^(strike) 23:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]