Archives	2005 First half, 2006 Second half, 2006 First half, 2007 July - Aug, 2007 Sep - Dec, 2007 Jan - May, 2008 May - Dec, 2008 Jan - May, 2009 June - Dec, 2009 Jan - June, 2010 July 2010 - Dec 2011 First half, 2012 Second half, 2012 2013 2014 Current

For a player stub, either delete it or improve it, but DO NOT redirect it to the club page. Matthew_hk tc 15:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also for Albert Duro, Jérémie N'Jock, Vojislav Vranjković, Jean-Philippe Mendy, Ricardo Gomes Vilana, Liviu Hapaină, Dejan Rusmir, Nemanja Vasiljević, Eugeniu Cebotaru and Nemanja Vidaković. Matthew_hk tc 10:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Next time call for Football Project member to expand it or Afd it, like me. Matthew_hk tc 12:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In general, for sub-stubs where a larger article offers as much or more information as the sub stub, then IMHO redirecting to the larger article is a perfectly valid option. These articles would almost certainly fail AFD, because the people do qualify for notability. But as long as the page offers no real useful information, and the target page offers as much or more information, then I consider redirecting a valid option. I consider redirecting to be a less extreme option than deletion, even if deletion was a valid option. Redirecting leaves the page ready and easily restored by anyone ready to actually create a useful stub. Deletion makes what little information is there availible only to admins, even if the pages qualified for deletion, which these most likely do not. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article you deleted, Agents of Oblivion, may have been deleted in error. This band was created by Dax Riggs and Mike Sanchez from Acid Bath. If this information was included in the article then that is an assertion of notability (#6.Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable), making it not eligible for the speedy deletion category used. Reason for deletion: (A7 (group): Group/band/club/company/etc; doesn't indicate importance/significance) Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. You made your poinjt well. - TexasAndroid (talk) 12:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for restoring this article. Can I also ask you to restore Agents of Oblivion (album) for the same reason. Duffbeerforme (talk) 05:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just saw that you moved the entirety of the Talk:Cat page to an archive. While I understand that some of it may need archiving, it would be best to leave the more recent threads on the talk page. Can you look into it, please?--Ramdrake (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind: just saw you did just that. Thanks!--Ramdrake (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. There are two types of archiving, move and cut&paste. I do move archiving, which means I Move the page, taking the history with the archive, and then I have to rebuild the existing talk page by cut&pasting back what should remain. When you come into it in the middle of the effort, things look incomplete. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i left a message on the pages (User talk:ThatWikiGuy/gWatch.js, User talk:ThatWikiGuy/gwatch.js, User talk:ThatWikiGuy/iwt/de:User:Luxo/gwatch.js) that i also want the corrosponding page deleted too!!!! Are you a bot? – TWG 15:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Those did not make sense to me. I'll look at them a little more closely and try to figure out what you were wanting. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you dumb or just a robot? Delete User:ThatWikiGuy/gWatch.js, User:ThatWikiGuy/gwatch.js, User:ThatWikiGuy/iwt/de:User:Luxo/gwatch.js. – TWG 15:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Please read WP:CIVIL. There is no call for being abusive to someone who is just trying to assist you. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Have this;

– TWG 15:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. As one of the first editors to this template I would like to see what you think of my preposition on the templates talk page. Thanks ·Ãḍď§ђɸŗЄ· ^Talk 21:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering, why are you removing all these schools from this category? (I'm sure there's a reason I'm missing out on.) Thanks! A13ean (talk) 02:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because I'm putting them into the more specific category for the city, and the "HS in city" category is in the "HS in state" category. With a few exceptions, articles are not supposed to be in both a category and any parent/grandparent of that category. - TexasAndroid (talk) 04:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, thanks! A13ean (talk) 12:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my closing comment. Thanks for blocking the two users and answering the report. Yechiel (Shalom) 23:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to trouble you again, but a new account was created by the same puppeteer: User:Newonces and is continuing the hoax. MythSearcher^talk 12:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got a literal war going on here. 65.173.105.243 (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TA,

I would like to request unprotection for the cashU page, it's an online payment solution like Moneybookers or Paybycash, heavily used in the Middle East.

--slashgod (talk) 3:58 22 June 22 2008 (IST)

You had four different admins delete it. At no point did you provide an article that came anywhere close to meeting the requirements of WP:CORP or WP:V. At this point I'm not inclined to give you a fifth try at it. There is, however, another option for you. You can create a version of the article in your user space, likely at User:slashgod/CashU. Once you get it to a point where it meets the criteria in the links I gave just above, you can petition to have the salting lifted at WP:DRV. Do be aware that you will need to provide reliable, independant, non-trivial references to establish the notability of the company. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure as to what I did wrong and was put on the speedy delete list. Pardon my "newness", but I was in the process of adding references and more information when the article was deleted. I believe that this acting troupe is VERY noteworthy (as any actors within wikipedia), it is not a club (as is the SCA - which is included in wikipedia). And the troupe has performed in many areas of the United States. (Some not yet listed in the article). I am still asking for help finishing this article from those more knowledgeable about the troupe. I would also welcome any help from the wikipedia administrators, as this is my first article. (I still can't figure out how to add pictures!) I copied this from my talk page to yours, because you seem very knowledgeable, and I have had no answers to the aforementioned questions. Have I added the correct type of information, now? (I am getting more. Some are newspaper articles, which I was unable to find, but I know are archived ). PSQ —Preceding unsigned comment added by PSQ (talk • contribs) 23:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dealing with a kiddie-wiki vandal bouncing back and forth between two accounts vandalizing the Buffalo Bill article. Left word on AIV, but there's a backlog and this idiot isn't giving up. Can you clobber him for me, please? Thanks! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your recent category edits on California articles. I think you're moving things in the right direction. Please keep up the good work. Stepheng3 (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I do general city category sorting work, and work down the list at List of United States cities by population. I'm a bit over #100 for general places cleaned up. But every 3-6 months I go back over the higher population ones to sort out any articles that have crept into the city categories since I last visited. And, as usual, I often get onto tanget sorts like the San Francicso Bay area hospitals sorting I was doing a couple of hours back. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

excuse me . stop reverting my edits. you dont know fucking shit about Dan Cook. He is a redneck.75.8.83.150 (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you need to provide sourcing/verification for your inflamitory accusations. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have atleast 5 people that know that "event" took place '77. They saw that match. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.83.150 (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And your sourcing (that meets WP:RS) for this is.... what? People that you have met do not qualify. Anyone can say anything. I don't know if you are correct or making up a bunch of crap, and without proper sourcing, there is no way to know which it is. And without that, such potentially libelous material cannot remain in the articles. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TexasAndroid, I have over 10 people that there were at that event in 1977. Btw, there are some things that alot of people might not know about Mr. Dan Cook. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.238.71.34 (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, the people I interview , and met I have the interviews in recordings on tapes for your information 70.238.71.34 (talk) 22:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC). But if you dont want the "truth" on wikipedia then it I will keep till ...forver I guess.[reply]

I don't understand why you deleted my page Homemade Jamz Blues Band, I understand the initial deletion based on the the requirement to show the significance of the group. My following edit added the fact that they are the youngest blues group to ever sign with a major label. That they are also the recipients of a number of pestigious awards.

I will also be adding the following in subsequent edits. The fact that they are so succesful at such a very young age makes thier acheivments extremely notable at the least. That they are making these inroads into a genre dominated by much older individuals is also extremely significant given thier young age. They are also pioneers in the creation of the instruments that they play which I intended to focus on in another article. Thier guitars are handmade out of automobile mufflers.

I checked an article on David Wilcox, and american folk singer and failed to see any info there as to why he would be significant.

I understand and very much appreciate the high standards of the wikipedia community, I just don't understand what type of significance your requiring for acceptance here.

Powertoaster (talk) 17:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Earlier today, you twice deleted articles submitted about the Homemade Jamz Blues Band. The second deletion caught my attention, because I was in the process of removing the Speedy Delete tag, since the article in question had citations concerning the band's notability.

I wanted to let you know that I did some Google snorkeling and came up with additional independent sources that confirmed the band's notability. A new article (a stub, actually) is now online. I hope this can be preserved and allowed to grow, as the band's notability can easily be confirmed. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current version looks good enough from avoiding CSD. Sounds like we were just at bad timing with that last deletion. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the deleted article did mention the band's appearance on NPR, which is why I was removing the Speedy Delete tag. In any event, I am glad this happened -- I never heard of the band before this and I think I may purchase their CD based on the music sampling I've heard online! Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm (mainly) editor in the German version of the Wikipedia and thus know little about the rules in the english-langugage version. I wonder why you deleted Pfadfinder und Pfadfinderinnen Österreichs though. I guess that was a redirect on Boy Scouts and Girl Guides of Austria. Don't you keep redirects from the official (german) name (that is Pfadfinder und Pfadfinderinnen Österreichs [1], de:Pfadfinder und Pfadfinderinnen Österreichs) to the articles name you chose (if you have to translate that at all, what I oppose, but that's a different topic)? --Wirthi (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was one of several marked for G6 Housekeeping. That generally means someone wants to rename another page into where the G6ed page is. If that has not been done by Monday, I'll restore the redirect. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the clarification. The only reason - other than a redirect on Boy Scouts and Girl Guides of Austria - for that page would be to move Boy Scouts and Girl Guides of Austria there. I doubt anybody will do that without further discussion. --Wirthi (talk) 10:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The rename has now been done, and it was exactly the rename you predicted. As for whether it's the right rename or not, I'll stay out of that one. I just facilitated what appeared to be a reasonable rename. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, again thanks for your clarification. The article has in fact been moved to the proper german name (what I strongly support, but had not expected). --Wirthi (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't look far enough in the history, which is my dumb fault - G3 vandalism tags don't count when they are themselves vandalism, even if well-intentioned. I've restored the article and the AFD. Thanks for the catch, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain to me why a G7 delete isn't valid if I am the creator of the article and contributed to the majority of the content (~80%). I will report you for not following policy if you continue to decline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webbo2005 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The text of the G7 requirement is:

Author requests deletion, if requested in good faith, and provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request.

The text says "only", not "majority". Once someone else edits the article, it no longer qualifies. As for my actions in general, particularly my protection of the page, I have already started a thread on the admin noticeboard requesting review. If you would like to question my declining of the CSD requests, then that would be an appropriate place to do so. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree. What you are saying is contradictory. You are saying that if more than one person edits an article, it no longer qualifies? This contradicts you saying that; The text says "only". Regardless of it saying only or majority - my request is still valid. I am the ONLY person to add substantial content to the page. The other author that made the non-vandalism edit just expanded on what I had said and added an info box. I would not class this as substantial as nothing new was added of any substance. I will be reporting you in the appropriate place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webbo2005 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you must. At this point I see three other people who have edited the article. User:Green Tentacle did quite a bit of signifigant work. User:Diggly's edits, which while highly POV and inappropriate, are not really vandalism IMHO. Vandalism means specific things, and Diggly's edits fall outside that scope. So he IMHO counts as another editor. And finally User:Ultraexactzz, the admin who mistakenly deleted the page this morning, did some minor formatting editing as well. Also, Ultraexactzz, on the AFD page, expressed the opinion that no speedy deletion criteria applied. In my original denial of the speedy yesterday, I examined the situation, and it was mostly Green Tentacle's edits that IMHO disqualified G7 as a speedy deletion reason, though Diggly is a part of it as well. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have effectively reported myself. In the above linked ANI thread, where I previously asked for review of my protection of the page, I have now also asked for review of my judgement on the G7 speedy issue. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know what you're doing then just keep out of it. It's people like you that mess up wiki. Webbo2005 (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make personal attacks. He never said that he didn't know what he was doing, he said he asked for a review. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he knew what he was doing he wouldn't need a review. It's administrating a wiki not brain surgery :p Webbo2005 (talk) 08:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re James Hart (journalist): I'm not sure CSD requires that the deletion summary carry a reason, but IMO it is enormously desirable and overwhelmingly customary. My own practice with NN's (my guess at what you had in mind) is to place the speedy tag, but leave it to another admin to carry out the deletion itself; i commend it to you.
--Jerzy•t 18:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm. Ok. This was from 17 months ago, so I have no direct memory of the specific deletion. But a glance shows that it does indeed have a deletion summary. Specifically "No evidence of notability, no reliable sources". So I'm really not sure what you are getting at. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Err, i share your confusion. I'd be glad to give you my best guess about my reasoning, if you want, but i'm sure i erred at least twice on my way to leaving you that msg, and that the concern i expressed to you was completely unfounded. Sorry!
  --Jerzy "To err is human; to aire is a mispronunciation" Jerzinski•t 08:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  

Please contact me via my email address at melissa.pistone@ubs.com in regards to completely deleting a page from Wikipedia and any search engines.

Thanks, Melissa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pistoneme (talk • contribs) 12:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main page you were editing has been deleted alrady. At this point, only administrators can see it. If it needs to be more completely removed, see WP:OVERSITE for the next steps. As for search engines, we on the project have no control whatsoever over them, and thus can do nothing about them. - TexasAndroid (talk) 12:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hey, can you userfy Ian Hickson for me plz, with history? thx, riffic (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already dealt with by another admin. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Tillow, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tillow. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? I know you only Prodded it, but thought you might be interested. Rockfang (talk) 13:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an opinion to the AFD. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I re-created this and am trying to clean it up. Bearian (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was a bit quick. I'd like to userfy it to the creator's sandbox. Bearian (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm formally asking you to find it and create it as a sandbox. Thanks in advance. I believe it is, in fact, a notable organization in upstate NY. Bearian (talk) 18:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's now userfied at User:AnakinVader1138/New York State Summer School of the Arts. Get it past the spamminess, and source the notability, and it'll make a good article. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For re-creating a stub for a newbie. Bearian (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar. I'll leave it up to you at this point, and move on to other things. It you feel you have helped the newbie get the article up to snuff, go ahead and just move it back into place without running it by me first. I've not crossed paths with you before, but at quick glance you appear to be a well enough experienced editor that you can handle this by yourself. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user who created the recently deleted article ORT INSTITUTE claims that the article was modeled after Bramson ORT College‎. I actually see quite the similarity between both articles, yet i cannot judge exactly how similar the two articles are. What i am left wondering about is one thing: If the deleted article qualifies as speedy, does the second article also qualify as one? Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 19:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a little followup: The article's deletion is up for review now Excirial. ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 20:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just let it play out at DRV. There were *so many* things wrong with that article, from the capitals in the title, to the total lack of wiki formatting, to the inclusion of a lot of non-wiki formatting code, to the totally spammy tone, to the total lack of references, to the total lack of any assertion of notability. Only the spamminess was CSD actionable, given it was a school and thus not A7 eligible, but it was overall a pretty worthless article, IMHO. As for the other article, I'm not really sure what to say. There are indeed some similarities of text, the second article has a lot more to it. None of the other problems I mentioned above apply to the Bramson article. Would the Bramson article survive a notability AFD? I'm not totally sure, but I would not bet against it. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re your deletion of this article: {{db-notenglish}} actually only applies to articles which are substantial copies of articles on foreign-language Wikipedias or other projects. In this case, the article was not copied from kowiki, so it should not have been deleted under that criteria. However, it did turn out to be an anti-Japanese rant about Dokdo. If you should come across any other articles which are not English but do not fall under {{db-notenglish}}, feel free to bring them to WP:PNT and/or tag with {{notenglish}}. Thanks, nneonneo ^talk 20:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was tagged for CSD by User:Prince Kassad, with a description of "speedy, this already exists on both ko and en". I trusted that the tagging was correct and hit the delete button. Whether that trust was well placed or not may be an issue, but assuming the trust, then by the user's statement it was indeed at kowiki already, and the tagging and deletion were correct. I am also well aware of WP:PNT, and placed an article there just yesterday. So in most aspects, your lecturing of me is pretty well off-base. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I sounded harsh. I wasn't meaning to lecture you at all; I just wanted to let you know that it was not tagged correctly; I've already informed the tagger. Again, if I sounded like I was lecturing, I apologize. nneonneo ^talk 22:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr.Android, I managed to find out that you (along with the retired User:Coredesat) deleted Trip Lee back in 2007. Looks like it was a good idea at the time. I have made a new version at User:Dimsim da man/Trip Lee with a lot more sources, though it is only a first draft. I was wondering what I could do to get the article recreated? I am not familiar with the whole process, so I tried User:MZMcBride‎, but he had only protected the page after it was deleted. Wikipedia:Requests for page protection said that since it was deleted AfD, I should go to Wikipedia:Deletion review. It suggested I contact the initial admin. Anyway, if you could tell me what needs to be done, I'd be very appreciative. Thanks for your time --12:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Comparing your version to the deleted version, I'm not really certain that the new stuff is enough to overcome the notability issues expressed at the original AFD. So I do think you should head to deletion review with it, if mostly to get additional opinions. Give be a few moments, and I will undelete and userfy the old edits, so that you can expressly reference how it looked before the original AFD in comparison to now. - TexasAndroid (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Done. You can link directly to the last version before the AFD deletion using this link, the version deleted a month later as a recreation using this link, and your current version as the latest version of the user space page. Good luck. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your overly gracious help. I think I can prove notability since he (Trip Lee) has broken into the Top 200 Billboard albums and more. I will take my case up at Deletion review. You have been a great help and very kind. --Aquatiki (talk) 14:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done; but they need some reliable sources badly. (A Google convinces me that it's by no means impossible, and possibly easier than mastering the intricacies of GFDL.) --Orange Mike | Talk 17:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-created the article, this time with a number of reliable sources. I don't blame you for deleting it per A7, given the lack of sources, but I note that this is an organization that has probably been the subject of hundreds of newspaper articles over the years, and that it was on the list of "Requested articles" at Portal:California, one of only five topics on the list. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much better to me. I've gone ahead and undeleted the history so it'll be there for the record. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the helop with the person trying to identify me as someone without my permission. What I hope doesn't fall off people's radar is that even after your warning he has continued to do so. HE doesn't give the name anymore, he just tells people the steps he used to do so and has posted it on the page questioning you and also on the page of at least on editor with a personal conflict with me in the past. It's clear he still intends to out my regradless of the warning, and giving his steps isn't functionally different from just saying. It looks like another attempt at wikilawyering from that crowd of people. I would like those statements removed. DreamGuy (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know he placed the steps on the ANI report itself, and that spot is technically impossible to remove for a couple of reasons. 1) Too many edits in between, all of which include the data, and 2) deleting specific edits involves deleting the entire page, and then restoring the non-problem edits. But admins cannot delete pages with more than 5000 edits in the history, because deletions above that limit have brought the site to a halt in the past. ANI has an immense number of edits in it's history. So there at least, it's simply not possible to actually delete it from the history, though it could easily be redacted from the latest edits. I'll see what I can do.... - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's unfortunate that it can't be deleted. More important, I think, is making sure he gets punished for ignoring the warning. Another admin showed up on his page to give a gentle tsk tsk but basically agree with him on the trolling claims, which I think is going to just escalate the problem. I seriously think these people need a wake up call that these over the top personal attacks and policy violations can't be excused just because of some mob effect there and an admin who hangs around letting it happen. If BH and the others don't see that this behavior is not tolerated, they'll just get worse and worse, and the situation on that article has been nearly impossible for at least a year and a half as it it. A harsh warning doesn't mean anything unless it's followed up on when it's ignored. I'm sure you know that part of it, so I don't want to seem like I am lecturing you, but I am extremely frustrated at how certain editors seem to get away with murder while my every action is under a microscope in an effort to try to oppose my every edit. Wikipedia shouldn't work this way, and that's been my experience with it for years now: people ID you as a bad editor, any other person who disagrees with you sees it and decides they can win by joining in on the tar and feathering instead of following the policies like they should.DreamGuy (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to give you my POV on this, for most situations that involve you, I find myself unable to take any action, either against you *or* against those who attack you. As for against you, I'll not bother dredging through our past clashes. But in the vast majority of your continued clashes, when I look at them, I see no innocents. Your detractors are not innocent, but you are far from innocent as well. And I'm sorry, but when both sides are misbehaving, IMHO either both sides should be punished, or neither. And since I simply cannot act against one side (you), I don't consider it fair to act against only those who are against you, whether they deserve action or not. So for the vast majority of things that happen on the JtR talk page, I consider my hands tied, just quietly shake my head and sigh, and move on to something else to edit.

User:Kbthompson, the other admin you mentioned, has expressed that he similarly considers himself restrained from admin action on the JtR article in general. So in activities related to there he is just acting as another editor, and it's really not fair to complain about his lack of admin action, when it would not be proper for him to act as an admin in these cases.

As for the current WP:OUTING situation, in contrast to the "equal fault" situations I mentioned above, I saw a clear violation of the rules, that, while directed against you, had no similar faults on your side. And I saw that failing to act, leaving the edits visible, was by far the greater harm. So in this one case, I felt I that there was no fairness issue in my acting against someone who was acting against you. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between "everybody makes mistakes" and "if both sides made some mistakes, I can justify one side having a a year of over the top off the scale violations and getting a free pass." You and KB both need to see that. If you expect one side to have to be perfect before you can take any action, you'll never take any actions ever and encourage the bad behavior. People aren't perfect, and if you put anyone under a microscope as severely as these people do (while ignoring heir own behavior) there will always be something to wikilawyer into a complaint of some sort.

And, regarding our earlier conflict, if I remember correctly it was the exact same issue. I would hope that at some point you and KB would see through the tactics they are pulling and do the right thing. I don't have a problem with either of you, other than you seem to fall for the idea that lots of accusations of wrongdoing mean that there must be some wrongdoing, and that such wrongdoing means anyone else can do whatever they want, and you let that built up hostility forever after color your perceptions, even in what would otherwise be clearcut situations.

Thanks for the part you did do. I'm not here to run you down, I just want some admins somewhere to actually step up to the plate... of course those who do seem forever after to be targeted by the same problem editors, and many of them have largely given up in disgust themselves (I think you probably know who I mean, as you used to interact with them), but Wikipedia is worth fighting for, and I don't understand why the people in positions that imply that they would care about policies and making things better routinely let policies be broken and gamed on such a dramatic level. All it takes is a few good men (And women) to stand up, and all that. I believe that, and I stand up to people, and of course that's going to piss certain people off. If you want to suggest that that's a bad thing, all I can say is I disagree. I periodically try not standing up to them, but things don't get magically better on their own. DreamGuy (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With KB, the issue is not you, it's the JtR page. He's self proclaimed as too personally involved there to take admin actions over much of anything that arises from there. It is totally improper for an admin to take actions that arise out of situations where they are personally involved. He's declared himself involved, and thus it would be improper for him to take any action against you or any of the other players on that page over things that arise from there. It would likely have been improper for him to take the actions that *I* took reguarding BH, as that all builds directly out of the JtR page. I have a similar page in one of the major American reality TV shows, which I have heavily edited. If admin action is ever needed arising out of that page, I'll need to find an uninvolved admin to assess the situation, as I am very personally invested in it.

With me, it's the past history between you and I, not JtR specifically. I still feel free to act as an admin there, but not in general if it involves you. I've explained above why I felt free to act in the current situation. But overall I really do feel my hands are tied by the fact that, if it is to come to admin warnings or even blocks, IMHO you generally deserve them just as much as some of the others. You may not have a bad opinion of me at this point, but ultimately your opinion of me is not the issue. It's my long formed opinion of you, and the fact that, if I ever did block you, you and/or others would be able to easily dredge up plenty of old material to show I have held a low opinion of you for a long time. That we have directly clashed at least a couple of times, and that I have expressed my low opinion of you a number of times previously. Do you really want sitting in judgement of your current actions someone who has publically expressed such low opinions of you? I expect not. But overall, I long ago realized that I was no longer an "uninvolved admin" where you were concerned, and self-declared myself ineligible to act as an admin towards you. It was a preemptive declaration, but I think that it has served well. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, some of his information for describing the methods of outing still exists on the JTR talk page. DreamGuy (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And as long as we're at it, he makes several way over the top personal attacks as well. I thought those were supposed to be removed on sight. DreamGuy (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NO, I haven't. And DG is clearly trying to throw gas on something to set it on fire. I just posted a response which called for an explanantion. DG is lying to you..there are no personal accusations and I tried to explain myself where I posted here.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 13:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Texas Android. I think it would be a good idea if the JTR Talk page is monitored by admins for infractions of the wikipedia guidelines on good faith and civility etc. I find myself like a passenger in a no-smoking carriage in a train who is told by the guard that I am wrong to point out that another passenger is smoking and making the air hard to breath because supposedly I am 'just as bad'. The point is that smoking should not be tolerated at all, not that in certain circumstances it is okay to do it if you can prove that the person complaining about it lit up a fag there last week. I am willing to abide by a zero tolerence code, as long as it is imposed impartially to all with no 'you're just as bad as him' get out clauses. Colin4C (talk) 08:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may add that I merely coughed after having smoke blown in my face, by that (self-appointed ?) guard. And then he accused me, or rather stated as if being a fact, that I'm a heavy smoker. I rather feel like warning any other traveller against this train company, after leaving at the next stop. ΑΩ (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have a lot of time on my hands and I was wondering how one becomes part of Wikipedia's elite Deletion Force. There are many articles that need to be deleted and I fear those of us still living in our mother's basements might not have enough time to delete all the articles that must be deleted in order to restore peace and freedom to the galaxy.

Thank you and may the farce be with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmgeek2001 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do delect a few notes of farce in your comments. :) But I will answer them seriously. As for actually pressing the delete button, only administrators can do that. Anyone can potentially become an admin, but the process requires a bit of fortitude, as your edit history will be gone over with a fine-tooth come by other editors. And with you being a quite new editor, your chances of passing are closer to "none" than to "slim".

OTOH, any editor is free to nominate articles for deletion using one of the three article deletion systems on the project. WP:CSD, speedy deletion, is the fastest, but is also for very, very limited and specific situations. For that one you just tag the article for deletion, and an admin will evaluate the tag fairly soon after that. WP:PROD is also fairly simple, you just correctly tag an article. PROD is much slower, though, as the tag must remain on the article for five days. If noone has protested within the five days by removing the tag, then an admin will likely delete it at that point. Finally there is WP:AFD, where full debates on the deletion of articles goes on. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's about time Susan Belbin should have a link but her link goes to Jonathon Creek you know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Hall of England (talk • contribs)

Can you either add the relevant text to the Special operations page or delete it. It is causing no end of confusion on some of the other pages. "Special operations" is a multi use term to describe both a Spec Op (operation) or Spec Op's as in the units. Also, Special Operations troops is a term use to describe those military units that are in the limbo between Special Forces and standard GS troops. I am aware that the USA uses his as a loose term to describe some SF type units.

Rather then simply re-directing the page to the Special Forces page, it would be better to highlight the fact that this is US term. This would elevate the problem of the 'ill informed' causing editing problems on other page. Thanks (Archangel1 (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)).[reply]

I see that information has already been placed at the page by you, so this is mostly moot. But in general, you cannot foist off on those simply enforcing anti-blanking policies the job of filling out the article. If you want it filled out, you need to do it yourself, as you eventually did. - TexasAndroid (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Thank you for solving this. I'd have to say that it's a toss up which as done more damage -- missiles or television. (!) I'm a newbie and had no idea how to do that. I'm not even sure if I'm doing this talk thing right. Could point me in the direction of a complete guide to all the little wiki tools? Scott Hutcheon. Scotthutcheon (talk) 06:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've dropped a welcome template on your talk page. This has a number of useful links for new users. And welcome indeed to the project. - TexasAndroid (talk) 12:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TexasAndroid, I can not understand completely, why you deleted my entry about Time-Triggered Ethernet. I understand that it sounds a little like advertisement - but that was not my plan. It's true, that TTEthernet is the product of a company - anyway it is a new development of the product "Ethernet".

I will put the article onto wikipedia again and ask you hereby to help me to adapt the text in a way, that it is not seen as an advertisement anymore.

I am looking forward to receiving some positive feedback from you as I would really like to improve the text in a way, that interested people can inform themselves about this further way of Ethernet.

Thank you, Gnalk (talk) 09:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

gnfnrf's comments on your talk page explain pretty well the problem with the article. There's not much else I can add. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to protect your own user profile page from malicious editing? A friend of mine had it done to her today. i see that your page can't be edited, just your talk page. Her user is User:anniealice. -Smlauriot (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's called semi-protection, as it only protects from new accounts and unregistered users. If I was to fully protect it, noone other than an admin could edit it, not even she herself. I have gone ahead and done the semi-protection of her talk page. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have just deleted my article on the Noel Coward Society. Please explain? Are you aware that they are the leading authority on Noel Cowards work and hold most of his world-wide rights? If anyone in the world needs detailed information, advice or detail about any of Cowards plays, books, songs, lyrics, paintings, performances etc they are the first port of call. I really think that it is not right to just delete, without appreciating the importance of the details being arbitarily deleated. Captainclegg (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:GROUP and WP:NOTE. Nothing in the article, and nothing in what you say above, gives any indication that the organization meets the project's notability requirements. Unless they meet those requirements, and you can provide reliable sources to show that they meet them, the article simply does not belong on the project. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I just don't understand. Surely as the main source for academic research and chronicling Cowards life and work, that is by definition 'notable'. You surely are not doubting Cowards notability as one of the greatest contributors to 20th cen English culture are you? I urge you to reconsider and reinstate the only accurate source of Cowards work for the benefit of other users. Thanks. Captainclegg (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The author may be notable, but that does not mean that an organization about him is notable. Just having a link to a notable person is far from enough. Please read the links I gave above. They explain notability. You need to provide reliable, independant, non-trivial references to establish the group's notability. The group must be shown, by the project's definitions of notability, not yours, why it is separately notable. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will see what I can dig up. Thanks for the help. Captainclegg (talk) 17:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to know why the article "Advanced Production and Loading (APL)" was deleted. By just looking at the amount of effort i put in to write the history of the company, i don't think there was any sign of intended advertising or promoting the company. As I am working in the industry and I happen to come across this company in one project, I think their technology is just brilliant. I just hope that the informative history of the company will be source of information for people of the industry as not many know how it was formed and what they actually do. Turret99 —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CORP for information on notability requirements for companies. This was read like an advertisement, and did not indicate notability. So it had two strikes against it, I chose the SPAM one to actually tag it with, but both would need to be dealt with if such an article was to remain. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to know why you again deleted my TTEthernet article? I think I really improved it and there was no advertising in it anymore. Maybe you are interested to look on the following link, which may show you, that TTEthernet is not only a product to make advertisment for, but a further development of the standard Ethernet technology and worth to describe on Wikipedia: http://www.fbodaily.com/archive/2008/03-March/27-Mar-2008/FBO-01541379.htm Thank you for your attention, --Gnalk (talk) 14:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've put it back for now. Still reads a bit spammy to me, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for a while. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for putting the article back. I'll implement the answers to the questions you stated some days ago. --Gnalk (talk) 08:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr Android,

You deleted "Reamsys" new entry recently...

I now understand that I need to add either a stub or references to what I had added.

Is it possible to return the page please to the preview section (or I read somewhere that you may be able to send it to my email; markg@remasys.com) where I can work on adding these requirements before saving the page again?

Indeed Mr Android, everything I've added (links to Remasys as an example of 'agentless data collection' supplier and a whitepaper discussing the agentless approach to data collection) have all been removed?

You are obviously busy but I'd appreciate if you could let me know how I can get my 'adds' to stick around?

Many thanks for your time,

MarkGriffin.mn (talk) 04:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:CORP for notability requirements for companies on the project. You will then need to provide reliable, independant, non-trivial references to establish the company's notability. If you can do this, your article will have a chance of remaining. - TexasAndroid (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did delete and protect from creation a page for PORT designs. Could you please help me to do a page for PORT designs like this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targus_(corporation) I try to do this couple of days but every time someone do delete it :-( Thank you in advance! Sergo

Your article was deleted because 1) it read like an advertisement, and 2) it gave no indication of why the company was notable. Notable by Wikipedia standards, that is. For the second, please check out WP:CORP for company notability requirements. If your company does not meet those requirements, then you are fighting a lost cause, and you will almost certainly not be able to create an article that will last on the project. If it does meet the requirements, and you can provide reliable, independant, non-trivial references to establish the company's notability, then you will need to get it written up in a totally neutral point of view. You likely also should check out WP:COI if you are directly involved in the company, for why it's generally a Bad Idea to write an article yourself about something you are involved with. - TexasAndroid (talk) 12:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So why is the article Technip not deleted? What I can see is it "Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a group/company". Please explain.

Thank you for taking time to delete articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turret99 (talk • contribs) 10:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this is about the deletion of Advanced Production and Loading (APL). If so, then please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. And if you feel this other article should also be deleted, WP:CSD gives instructions on how to submit it for such. - TexasAndroid (talk) 12:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for overwriting your edits. I had just spent a long time introducing the new content, and when I had skimmed through the edits (in the new version), I had noticed that there was a considerable amount of incorrect information (mostly song names and what not.) The Pussycat Dolls song is one that sticks out in my head. I decided that my edit had considerably more correct information and overwrote.

I apologize for any inconvienence that I caused. I have no problem with the way you're planning on working with the eliminated contestants. MrDiGeorge (talk) 03:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have zero problems with you fixing my information. It's having to go back and do things twice that's my problem. You fixed some things, and un-fixed many others, by choosing to move forward with your version over the version already at the page, instead of integrating your fixes with the version already there. Do know that, in general, I greatly appreciate having a second person putting so much time into the page. It's just that, tonight, we didn't just step on each other's toes, we stomped on them. And it was highly annoying. Enough for tonight. I'll look at things more in the morning. - TexasAndroid (talk) 03:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for "incorrect information", I guess I'm guilty of getting a little lazy. If I don't know the song perfectly well, I put up my best guess, knowing either you'll fix it, or I'll get the correct name from the RNO summary in the morning. Not the best way to do it, most likely. - TexasAndroid (talk) 03:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. In the future, I'll just wait for you to do the main edit and I'll just do cleanup afterwards. if you won't be available to do the main edit, just shoot me a message on my talk page, and i'll do it for you. I think we both got under each others skin tonight, but neither of us meant any harm. So, with that, if we just get a "schedule" and work with eatch other, this won't happen again.

If you want to do the major edits and I'll just concentrate on the minor ones afterwards, that's fine. Again, if you can't do it the night of, drop me a message, and I'll do it. Fair enough? MrDiGeorge (talk) 03:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'm really trying to walk a fine line here avoiding WP:OWN. I have a vision for how the article (IMHO) should flow from episode to episode. A vision that worked well last year. And by collecting notes and getting my format edits in first, I get that vision implemented. So that's part of why, at this stage, I'm trying to take notes and sit down to get them in within the first hour or so after the show. but I'm also aware that, by WP:OWN, I cannot consider the article mine to control at my whim. A fine line to walk, indeed. Anyway, goodnight for real this time. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 03:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See (1), (2). I couldn't recall where the RfC. ANI or AE complaint which prompted the new anon editing restrictions. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not sure you did officially "file" the CU. I don't think it's filed until you list it on the main WP:RFCU page, which this does not appear to be on. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you saw the RfCU using the anon. I wonder who it belongs to? It would be nifty to see who's pulling those particular strings?

It seemed that DG was railing against the injustice of the world, so I added my apology for presuming he would be uncivil. There's just no pleasing some people. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a bit premature and overly hasty don't you think? Abtract (talk) 20:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I'm not sure where you are going with that, but as it was, it was no more than a content-less placeholder, and placehoders, "under-construction" articles, etc. type articles are not considered useful around here. Nothing in my deletion prevents you from creating a useful article at that name, once you are ready to do so. I do think that whatever you are thinking of doing, it is likely already present on the project. Or at the least, the name seems problematic. If you are formatting some sort of list of the places, then I would think you want List of cites in Maine, List of towns in Maine, or even List of places in Maine. If you are looking at something more robust that a list, then I suspect you are looking at something better handled by the separate articles on the project. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. Abtract (talk) 20:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My fault - yes, this is a cut & past error (I added the template). Please accept my deepest apologies and feel free to add a ballpark picture from San Antonio. Tom Danson (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RFUP, I choose to directly ask you to unprotect Supporting Harry Potter characters. According to the suggestions made by those who removed images, the WikiProject HP will look for groupal images or maintain the level of individual images up to 4. I have currently removed individual images from other articles and replaced them with groupal, and will continue to do such in articles with more than 4 individual images. Greetings! --LøЯd ۞pεth 19:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please I put {{Inuse}} on Super Hits (Miles Davis album) because I was working on it; please don't delete it unless I have left it without being edited for several hours, per the template. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responding If you need to reach me, please post on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Inuse}} is fine for existing pages, but is pointless and unneeded for non-existent pages. On those, it is effectively a "Comming Soon" notice, and we simply do not do such on the project. If you are going to create an article, there's no point in placing some sort of Comming Soon notice at the article's title, even {{Inuse}}. Just create your article when you are ready to create it, do not announce it ahead of time, which places it on a number of reports, which is how I found these in the first place. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I'm new on wikipedia and I wanted to ask you, since I have started to create an article about the matrix ordinary differential equations, why did you delete it just now?

hey it is me again[edit]

please reply on my page

I;m new on wikipedia[edit]

Hey I'm new on wikipedia and I wanted to ask you, since I have started to create an article about the matrix ordinary differential equations, why did you delete it just now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vadimvadim (talk • contribs) 19:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the redirect at ==Matrix ODE's (Ordinary Differential Equations)==, because, with the leading and trailing equals, it was not a useful redirect, as it is extremely unlikely anyone would ever look for it with the equals like that. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The protection you gave to Scientific method has expired (on 2 September 2008) and it is now under attack by vandals again. Please re-instate the protection! JRSpriggs (talk) 00:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U have mentioned that Karthik Kumar N G page to deletion do u watch Indian Channel if so please then u might know which is Kannada Serial if not please watch some Indian Serials you will find the Information on Indian Serials.

It is called as TV show in other ciuntry. and in India now the Serials are popular nowdays —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karthikng (talk • contribs)

You will need to provide, yourself, some reliable, independant, non-trivial references to establish his notability if you want the AFD result overturned. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I am not mistaken, the copyright holder left a statement on Talk:The Wrong Object. I have the impression, they might need advice on how to deal with permitting re-use under the GFDL. I think a reply should be posted on that talk page. Regards, BNutzer (talk) 00:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from pages like User:Eml4500.f08.jamama.jan, these folks are still using us as their private Blackboard. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain what was wrong and which was fixed in this edit by yourself? I previously tried to find what was wrong with no luck. __meco (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a space between # and REDIRECT. I removed the space. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. __meco (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write the article, but I know that International Harvester S-Series trucks existed. Why did you tag it as being non-notable? ----DanTD (talk) 19:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Existance does not mean notability. WP:NOTE defines what is notable on the project. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the abundance of them that are still on the road doesn't matter much to you. And those notability guidelines say nothing about vehicles of any kind. ----DanTD (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines are for *any* type of article. There's no way that general guidelines like that could mention every conceivable type of article to which they apply. So the fact that they don't mention vehicles is pretty much meaningless. The guidelines still apply, whether they happen to mention a particular type of article or not. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Technological development in industry: a business-economic survey & analysis, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Terraxos (talk) 05:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certified College Planning Specialist Test Article It has been suggested by another user, that I create a test page, for individual review, before creating a main page. Could you please advise the specific elements of the article that lead to it's deletion per G11 - Advertising. Slamb2002 (talk) 06:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, at this point, you would be better off requesting assistance somewhere like WP:EAR. Guidence like this is really not my strong suit, sorry. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to let you know that I hadn't finished creating Chip Myrick's page and there is plenty more information I am going to add, so I apologize for putting it up so early. If you could undelete it I could finish it up. Thanks. Wikiracer4 (talk) 00:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have Userfied the article at User:Wikiracer4/Chip Myrick. That'll allow you to work on it there and bring it up to snuff, if possible. I am a bit skeptical that it *is* possible. In general, college players/staff are not considered notable unless they have acheived some special level of notability. See WP:ATHLETE for notabilkity guidelines. Unless your article's subject meets the requirements there, they are most likely to be deleted again at some point. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do you think failed assassins of Hitler should be labeled as criminals? Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg is included within Category:Failed assassins of Hitler which is part of Category:Assassinations. Category:Assassinations is included within Category:Homicides and Category:Homicides is subcategory of Category:Crimes. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even the article Homicide states Homicide is not always an illegal act. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a content dispute on a subject I'm not involved with. This sounds like something for debate on the talk page of one of the categories involved. I'm mostly wondering why you are coming to me on this issue. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just reading the articles and noticed the categories. Although you are not involved in the article, I asked you since you are an experienced user. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'm an admin, and my first impuse reading your question was that you were looking for me to do... something... in an admin capacity, rather than just for advice. Anyway, I really don't have a strong opinion one way or another, then. Sounds like this is a bit of a weakness in the categorization system, but I'm not sure that there is any real option. Removing any of the parenting links that you mention would leave other articles without proper parentage. So I'm not certain what, if any, solution would be proper to this. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You labeled the Z Corporation page I created as blatant advertising, even though the page met all article requirements, and included several third-party references, some of which are used in other articles. The Z Corporation article contained only factual, instructional information, rather than any promotional information. The Stratasys article however is highly promotional, contains no third-party references, yet remains live. Why? This seems to be an arbitrary and unfair implementation on the site. Please advise what needs to be done to that page in order to have it reinstated. Only seconds after being alerted to post the "hang on" tag, it was deleted altogether, with no time or suggestions. This is one of the most frustrating processes I've ever experienced. Asarkof (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jasynnash2"

The whole thing reads like ad-copy. It's extremely promotional in tone. Please see WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:NPOV for how articles need to be written. As for the other article mentioned, please see WP:OSE for an explanation of why this is not a winning argument. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that because the Stratasys article exists, the Z Corp article should, as you reference above. I'm asking you how you can consider the Stratasys article non-promotional in tone. It contains absolutely no third-party references, which is a requirement, and it is purely promotional, using superlatives to describe it's services/products. Did you check it out? It has been recommended for deletion and should be. The Z Corp page contained no promotional copy whatsoever, and contained several third-party, reputable references. This is so frustrating. There's no feasible recourse for authors, and before authors have a chance to edit/improve/fix their articles, they're removed - in seconds. There's a fundamental problems with this process. Please reply to my Talk pageAsarkof (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point of my reference to WP:OSE was that you really cannot point to article A to justify question the status of article B, especially if A has not been throguh a full deletion debate. There are many reasons why A may still exist, the biggest being that noone has noticed it yet to judge it. As for the Stratasys article, it still exists because the person who submitted it for deletion chose a different method of deletion. WP:PROD takes five days, no matter what the article. And the article was only submitted for it today, so it'll be a few more days before the PROD deletion completes. You article, on the other hand, was submitted for speedy deletion, a process which can happen very rapidly. The project has three different deletion processes, each with it's own unique parameters and quirks. That one person chose to use one deletion method and another chose another ends up with different sequences of events. You would need to ask the different submitters why they chose one method over another.

To give a quick overview of the deletion processes, we have:

1. CSD/Speedy deletion. Fast, but limited to only very specific situations. Designed to take the load off of the other methods.
2. PROD/PROposed Deletion. For any or all reasons, but only for non-controversial deletions. Only takes a single protest, before *or after* deletion to invalidate this method.
3. AFD/Articles For Deletion. The big one. Full deletion debates on a article by aritcle basis. The most involved of the methods by far, but gets the most thourough results, usually. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello; you deleted and protected the Himson page; I placed there some bio a year ago that I wrote my own but also had in other sites; and guess it was too promotional and not encyclopedic; but now I want to put a short one like this in spanish thats live here http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himson and let it there for if anyone else who wants to extend it. Below I post exactly what I'll put in the paje if you unprotect it and if you think it's ok.

You can reply here; but if it's possible to get an email reply at "cargolot AT gmail DOT com" id be thankful (I really dunno how this works or even if i'm doing right, sorry).

Thank you so much. Cargolot (talk) 11:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC) (pretended page info: Himson is is the musical entity leaded by the spanish multi-instrumentalist, producer, songwriter Moises PLL. Musically close to bands like cómo Jimmy Eat World, Dashboard Confessional, Smashing Pumpkins, Red House Painters.) Cargolot (talk) 11:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given how the page was repeatedly spammed onto the project, and that no indication was given at any point that the group met the project's notability requirements, at this point it'll be on you to first show that those requirements can be met. If you want, I would be willing to userfy the page into your user-space for you to work on. You will then need to edit it to provide some reliable, independant, non-trivial references to establish his notability. See WP:BAND for notability requirements for musical acts. If he does not meet these requirements, then you are fighting a losing battle, and he is simply not going to get a page. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for email replies, I really prefer to keep project business on the project. Sorry. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well; as I really didn't know how this worked; I tried to put several times with minor changes cause I didn't understand why it was deleted (the main part of the times it was posted was because I tried to add the same bio I already uploaded on another site with minor changes; to see if it still blocks the info; what I didn't knew was that it could be blocked after a few attemmps...

Ok; I placed the page to my user space : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cargolot . If it's not what you meant then tell me what to do; id like to let it that short to let it available for anyone who wants to edit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cargolot (talk • contribs) 03:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please. please read the WP:BAND link. I see nothing in your article that shows that it meets the project's requirements. I also see no independent sources to back up anything that is said there. Links to the band's own sites are not independent, and thus simply do not cut it for the project. Look at the three words I bolded above. Each means something different, and each is critical. The band's own sites are not independent. A blog would not be reliable. And a list of bands in a city would be a trivial reference. Reference links need to meet all three. If you cannot show that your band meets the WP:BAND requirements, and verify it with valid references, then you really are wasting your time with this. - TexasAndroid (talk) 03:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page for Himson[edit]

Created into my userspace : Can you move it to the "himson" currently protected page? Thanks. Cargolot (talk) 03:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments above. What you have there is the starting point of the userfying process, not the end point. It is still just as far from being a suitable article as it was when it was previously deleted, and is thus still not suitable for the main article space. Working on it in user space gives you a chance to bring it up to speed without the constant threat of deletion, but you still need to do that work. Again, read what I posted just above for details of what needs to be done. - TexasAndroid (talk) 11:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You pointed out some directions that needed exploration, and sourcing was easy enough... and I am myself surprised it had not previously been done. I went ahead and improved the article per WP:MOS, wikifying it, cleaning it up, and adding cites and sources reliable within his field to show both his notability past AGT and within his peer group. I think it's okay now. Any suggestions? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing the way. Regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear TexasAndroid How you can say no meaningful. Can you tell me which part is no meaningful. My calculation and the result is actual. Everyone can examine it. You know "Tractatus logico phlosophicus" by Wittgestein has no reference. Ali Vaseghi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali Vaseghi (talk • contribs) 09:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a series of images. That's not how a wiki works. Your text must be editable by others, and when presented as images, this is not the case. Text is the content, not images, and thus there was no wiki-quality content. - TexasAndroid (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help! I'm confused! The comment above by Ali Vaseghi shows up as his very first contrib, but there must be some prior history to this. The "Natural Mechanics" article he created today is pure OR and needs to be deleted, but I would like to understand its history so that I can set up the AfD properly, if there isn't some justification for speedying it. Looie496 (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot see the previous edits, as they have been deleted. Basically the entire article had been submitted on three images, then displayed onto the page. Since the latest version removes that problem, I have restored the older edits so that they can be seen in the history. GL with the AFD, I'll be watching for it. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had edite my article and make it editable. Please find it
Ali vaseghi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali Vaseghi (talk • contribs) 21:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Ina Fried, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ina Fried. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rklawton (talk) 12:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I filled out Physical art more since your tags. It is contrasted with conceptual art. It is also used in the context of reference to it is in the aesthetics of mathematics, as physical art is never a mathematical object. Please check and remove the tags if appropriate, or let me know if more is needed.

Please reply on my page. Thnx Tautologist (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Wu was A7 deleted and then protected due to repeated recreation in February by you. Wu is a youtube internet celebrity who goes by Kevjumba, and someone recently made a page for him under that name.[2] I worked on it and think it now passes our notability requirements. The sources weren't avaibable in February, but a number have come out in the past six months. Thanks - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are going to need to take this to deletion review. I was all ready to move it into place, when I saw that there is an outstanding deletion debate on it. Until/unless you can get the old debate overturned with your new sources, I cannot by myself overturn the older AFD debate. Sorry. But at least I can give you a path forward. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there was also this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevjumba. It said it could be recreated if sources were found. The problem is that it doesn't follow our naming conventions. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that you want a WP:DRV review. There are now two outstanding AFDs on the subject, with mildly contradictory terms (allow recreation vs not), and both are technically still in force. A DRV review will be able to formally overturn them both, and officially bless that the new sources are sufficient. Even if I was to un-salt the page myself, without a DRV to overturn the AFDs, especially the more recent one, you could be looking at another admin down the road deleting the page once again as a recreation. An overturn at DRV would formally prevent that. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Kevin Wu[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kevin Wu. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why, why? I said that I didn't know how to make it Notable enough to be important, undelete now! I mean it, I want it to be undeleted, someone should help with the page, seriously, me, alone, article creation of a band, man you peoples just don't understand me when I say that I don't know how to make it more important, someone could help! But nobody did! [[  User ]] (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC) PS: I'm really pissed today! Please reply on my user talkpage :)[reply]

Hey TexasAndroid, I am new to wikipedia, and am a bit confused as to why you deleted my post. I thought I followed the guidelines for creating a new post ^[1], including putting the posts on my user page before posting live as well as disclosing my employment by the company. Also my company, a radio and podcast broadcaster has show hosts, guests, topics, and partners, who have pages and reference us,^{[2][3][4][5][6]} which as I understand it makes us worth of notation. Mnederlanden (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnederlanden (talk • contribs) 20:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:WEB, which gives details about notability requirements for web content. Advertising/spam is more a matter of tone and style. See WP:NPOV. The advert problem may be the more easily fixed. If you do not meet the WP:WEB requirements, your article is simply not going to remain no matter how you rewrite it. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the person who asked for my help in this section. I do not know how to help you, but I know where to go to ask. In order to maintain your privacy, I have deleted your edit from this page. If you want to follow the responses I get to my requests, I will be posting a link to the Admin Noticeboard where I ask for help very soon. As a general matter, specific edits may be oversited out of a page's history, but I'm not sure that it's possible to do the same with the deletion log. We shall see. Anyway, I'm not expecting a response from you here, as such would defeat the whole privacy deletion I just did. - TexasAndroid (talk) 12:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've started the discussion here. A couple of notes. If what you want is even possible, it'll most likely be through WP:OVERSITE that you can request it. Also, if the core problem is one of what Google shows for Wikipedia, then do be aware that even deleting it from here will not necessarily solve the issue. Google maintains information long after it is removed from the web source, and that is something that we here on Wikipedia have absolutely no control over. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The response is that, if Oversight cannot do it, they should be able to pass the request onto someone who can. So check out the link in my previous paragraph, and then head to Wikipedia:Requests for oversight for actually submitting an oversight request. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted 18:07, 24 September 2008 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs) deleted "Travelonly" ‎ (A7 (group): Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a group/company/etc.) but I have indicated the importance and have found notable eveidence to prove the significance. Can you please let me know what I could possibly do to improve this article? I have read all the guidelines. thank you. --ftymchuk (talk) 17:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:CORP for notability requirements for companies. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The blanking of the page Khalifa was due to a merge with the article Caliph. I had proposed the merge a month before I actually performed it, although it wasn't a controversial merge and I could have done it straight away. Wish you had seen the history and read the talk page before reverting. --Farzaneh (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BLANK. Blank, or near blank pages are not useful to the project, whatever your reasoning. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But could you not try to avoid edit conflicts when you know that someone else is at it at the moment? --Farzaneh (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "edit conflict". It had been three hours since you last edited it, the blanking, so there was no edit conflict there. And you did not revert me until 2 days later, so no edit conflict there either. So I'm not sure where we ECed.

Blank pages are not good for the project, whatever the reason. They can be subject to speedy deletion/A3. Blanking of pages can be considered vandalism of the project, it's that serious an issue. Blank pages are simply not left standing around, they need to be fixed. You disagree with my choice of a fix, ok. I've now done a different fix. But one way or another, the page cannot remain blank. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted Amaranthine as A7. I agree that the band does not appear to be notable, but there was a hatnote explaining the different meanings of the term, and it would be good if you could restore the article, eliminate the information about the band, and turn the hatnote into a disambiguation page. Thank you. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the hatnote if you would like to construct such a disambiguation. I see no problem with the idea...

Amarantine, also spelt 'amaranthine' is a betacyanin plant antioxidant and pigment, a shade of deep purple-red, an adjective with several meanings including unfading, and an album and song by Enya.

- TexasAndroid (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted an article on Marie of Blois-Chatillon, who I and others deem to be historically significant to both French and English history, especially through her descendants (which include Margaret of Anjou, a leader in the War of the Roses). Not sure why this is not viewed as significant, and would much appreciate some feedback. Ruby2010 (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Or ancestored. She needs to be notable for herself, not for who descended from her. The article gave no indication at all that she had any independant notability. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I see your point. Until I find time to compile more information about her actual life, I'll leave the page deleted. Ruby2010 (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your help. This guy is the CEO & Founder of Sohu, he was ranked as the 20th richest man in China by Forbes. Speedy Delete & AFD would not stand. Thank you again. TheAsianGURU (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFD may stand, I don't know. But it certainly did appear to me to have proper "assertions" of notability, which is what is needed to get past Speedy Deletion. The bar at AFD is generally much higher, and more than just asserting notability, the person must actually *be* notable, and generally properly referenced as such. So the issue is far from settled, if someone wants to send it to AFD. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TexasAndroid, I think is important to document this public company and its history. I don't understand why you delete it. --trs80 (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CORP for notability requirements for companies. You company needs to meet the requirements there if it is to have an article on the project. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you are right, saw it now. --Xeeron (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Category Gnome (subspecies of WikiGnome. Wiki categories are one of my strongest areas of expertice around here. I may not be perfect when I work with categories, but I get it right the vast majority of the time. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey TexasAndroid, thanks for deleting all of those spam edits - I appreciate your work on that. Happy editing to you! -FlyingToaster (talk) 22:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edited: 03/10/2008 12:25

hi there i find it weird that a LTD company that puts an article in wiki about its main product gets a "not neutral" sign while a private person who develops a freeware! gets his article deleted completely for "advertisement" reasons (you can reply here) Emailaya (talk) 09:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what article you are referring to as your first one. If you are referring to someone else's actions, then you will need to talk to them for explanations. If you are referring to something that I tagged, then I cannot comment on it until/unless you tell me exactly what article you are referring to. I tag and/or delete many articles each day, and have no way of know which one you refer to unless you tell me.

As for your article, you actually have two problems. Advertising/spam is the easier one to handle, though it may be difficult given it's your own software. Read WP:COI for why. Advertising/spam is more a matter of article tone and purpose than of the subject beign a for-profit thing. Non-profit organizations and freeware can be spammed just as easily as for-profit companies. If your purpose in writing the article is to promote your software, or "increase awareness", then you are spamming, and the project is not the place for you.

But beyond that, you have the issue of notability. Only articles that meet the roject's definitions of notability are generally allowed to remain on the project. I see no sign that your software meets the notability definitions. Which means that, even if you get the article written to not look spammy, you will still likely be deleted as not being notable. The way to show notability is to provide some reliable, independant, non-trivial references to establish it's notability. Each of those three words mean something different, and each is key. Your own web site would not be independant. Blogs are not reliable. A list of freeware that just listed your software would be a trivial mention. References to establish notability must meet all three of those aspects. If you cannot provide such references, then you are fighting a losing battle here. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok, here is the article i was referring to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incredimail . also look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_thunderbird . are you telling me that those articles are not here so "people will know about them"? Mozilla thunderbird is clean of signs, incredimail got a "not neutral" sign, and mine was deleted completely. do u see the difference in actions? do you consider this fair? (this is a really innocent question to understand why im treated differently). after my article was deleted the first time i wrote the second one according to the highlights of mozilla thunderbird (more or less) in order for me to be as politically correct as possible, but with no luck i guess. funny thing is that when i showed the article to some people i know they asked me why is it so empty and none unique, so it's ironic that people who are not me (and should not be COI) might write an even more favorable article than i did, will it still be considered as advertisement? about notability: i want to make sure i understood what u mean: r u saying that i wrote an article about something that does not exists and i need to prove its existence? thank you for your detailed answer. Emailaya (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Wikipedia exists not to increase awareness of things, but to document the existing awareness. That is a key difference. If something has reached a certain level of notability, then it gets an article. If it has not, then it does not. As I said, the advert/spamming issue is the easier one to get by, as that is, ultimately a matter of rewording. You don't have to be bland and say nothing, but what is said must be from a neutral point of view (NPOV). And writting about things with a NPOV when you are closely linked to the subject is very, very difficult. WP:COI goes into details. Being involved in the subject you write about is not forbidden, but it is generally discouraged. It so often ends badly.

Not really sure what you are asking with the "does not exist" question. I'm not sure why you would be writing about something that does not exist, and you could obviously not be asked to prove that it exists if it does not. But for things that do exist, you must establish that they meet the notability requirements of the project. A write-up about your software in an established software journal, for instance, would go a huge way towards establishing notability, by showing that they considered it notable enough to write about. And repeating of press releases does not count (fails the "independent" criteria mentioned before).

finally, please read WP:OSE. It explains why pointing to other pages on the project to bolster the existence of your page is generally not a winning argument around here. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thank you again for a detailed answer. i can conclude this issue with the following 2 points and please correct me if im wrong: 1) i should let someone else to start this article so he wont have the COI problem but as i mentioned before, according to the comments i got about my deleted article the result might be even more favorable (and therefore will have a more advertised tone in it). my application was published in several newspapers (on paper and internet) in my country, will it be enough to be considered as notably? <cynic>i hope my country is not considered as too small to be regarded</cynic>. last thing: the 2 articles i gave u as examples have no attenuating circumstances (I wonder who wrote them...) comparing to me, considering the above 2 main reasons my article was deleted but ofcourse im not calling the shots here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emailaya (talk • contribs) 15:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you do indeed have two articles from your local newspaper, and especially if you can provide direct links to the articles, then you have a good step forward there. I have no idea what your contry is, but I at least would not automatically dismiss something just because the country is small. As for the COI issue, again, you are not forbidden from writing the article, it just makes things difficult. And if you don't do it, you'll need to wait for someone else to think your software is notable enough to write it up, which might be a it of a wait. Even by the strict notability requirements of the project, there are massive numbers of things in the world that would be considered botable, but noone has yet bothered to write them up. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

funny u said that, because a lot of people asked me why it doesnt appear on wiki, so next time someone will ask me i will tell them that the wiki guys didnt let me so they should start the article themselves :). i must admit i dont really know what was it exactly in the article that u considered as "advertisement", after all, i simply gave some info/facts about it, so i cant really know what i should do in order to fix it. i hope my next question wont be rude: my first article was deleted by someone else, he gave me some pointers and i re-edited it, post it and then u came along and deleted it. i know u r in charge here but is it fair that one person decides whether someone's article should be deleted or not? i mean, let's say i re-edit (again) my article so i get an OK from you, who can promise me a 3rd guy wont show up and decide this is still not good and will delete it again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emailaya (talk • contribs) 16:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noone can promise you that. There are over 1,000 admins, and many more users than that. In both cases your article was reported by a different generic non-admin user, and then examined by an admin. There was also a person who examined your second try, tagged it for problems, but did not flag it for deletion. So five different people looked at your article and used their own judgement on it. There's no guarantee for a next time. How about this. For now, I'll userfy the article, so you at least have access to your previous work. Read the various links that I and the other admin have shown you, get a better idea of how things work around here. Then add your newspaper article to the user space version and do any other improvements that you can think of based on the links you have been given. Then get some people to look over the article and give you feedback. Things that are in progress in user space are given a whole lot more lattitude than things in article space. As for who to look it over. I and the other admin can do so, and I can give you links to other places to ask for assistance. Does that sound workable going forward? - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i will appreciate it if u can send me the deleted article into my talk/user environment and i'll see what i can do from there.thanks. Emailaya (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to have not mentioned this earlier, but I userfied it at User:Emailaya/EMailaya. - TexasAndroid (talk) 04:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the article for The_National_Amusement_Devices_Co.(NAD) permanent blocked. What can I do to get it unblocked or re-instated, only half of the article was transferred

Thanks - Dgeehot (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was blocked because it had to be repeatedly deleted, three times for lack of notability, once for copyright violation, and you showed no signs of paying attention to the deletions. Please read WP:CORP for information on notability standards for companies. You must meet these standards if you want the article to remain, and must also deal with the copyright issues expressed in the one deletion. It would be best at this point to work on a version of the article in your user space first, then show it to someone to get opinions of whether you have met the requirements. Preferably one or more of the various admins who have deleted it already. Your only other alternative is to protest the deletions and protections at Deletion Review. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason there are multiple incoming links is because of a typo in a template that has been corrected. Wikipedia just hasn't updated it yet. I will revert your edit once it's been refreshed. -Dewelar (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. You might mention that as well in the revert, so that the next admin does not decline it again just because it was declined already. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thanks. -Dewelar (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you move Kevin Wu to KevJumba (note caps on J). The DRV is now over, and it looks like Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Use the most easily recognized name says it should be at KevJumba. Thanks, - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, another admin took care of it. Thanks anyways. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. This is my first time on WP in a day or two. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I undeleted three airline articles, Jordan International Air Cargo, Privilege Jet Airlines, and Meelad Air. General notability guidelines are at Wikipedia:Notability (Transportation)#Airlines. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From your link, "Cargo and charter only airlines are generally not notable." This fits all three of these. So how are they notable? - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, good point. The inclusionist in me only read what I wanted to see, "Commercial airlines offering services to the public are notable". I've asked the applicable project to comment, I'm not sure if Wikipedia:Notability (Transportation), admittedly still a proposed guideline, has been accepted by them. Also, the way I read CSD A7, these articles do give a reasonable indication of why they might be notable. For now I'll tag them with {{notability}} and you can put them up for AFD, if you wish. This would be preferred because it will create precedent for further deletions, if required. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware of the status of Wikipedia:Notability (aircraft) and Wikipedia:Notability (Transportation)#Airlines. The former is inactive and the latter is only a proposed guideline for discussion. WP:AVIMOS#NOTE is, as I can tell, an essay that is the closest thing we have to a current guideline.LeadSongDog (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. IMHO the three should have stayed deleted under WP:CORP failures. But I was reversed, and thus left with the choice of fighting the reversal at DRV or just AFDing the lot. Whether it's by WP:CORP or ariline specific requirements, I just see no sign of notability in the three. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delet my page? That was rude and I wasn't even done yet! BTW, please replay on my disscusion page. Thanks!(Shannon Marie (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Replied on the user's talk page as requested. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Brand name food products (which you created) and its subcategories have been nominated for renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 08:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

just curious why this page was deleted 19 October 2007. the reason for deletion was stated as: (CSD A7 (Corp): Article about a company that doesn't assert significance). however, according to Wikipedia:CSD#A7 aren't school articles ineligible for deletion by this criterion? sorry it's a "little" late (almost a year later) Cjwlabasst (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot give you any real answer at this late date. Memories of why I performed any individual deletion almost a year ago are long gone from my brain. That said, you are correct. But there was basically no content on the article beyond "it exists", which does not make for a useful article. I will restore what was there, and then redirect to either the city or school district page. This is the preferable action for sub-stub school pages these days. Then it will be there ready for anyone who wants to expand it into a real, worthwhile article. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you! I'll see if I can dig up some good information and hopefully turn this stub into a useful article. Thank you for the work that you do to help keep Wikipedia clean, concise, and informative.Cjwlabasst (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

given you deleted the first kid acne site, despite it's previous recovery after a previous admin deletion. I've rebuilt it. however you've now tagged it as having insufficient / only first party references. I've included one from the observer (national uk newspaper and the bbc) and thus would like you to remove the refernces tag. cheers User:Andyblack —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Evidence songs, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Evidence songs has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Evidence songs, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and did the C1 delete myself. If it's empty, it's empty. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I thought I had indicated in the {{db}} tag, this category is not part of any WikiProject structure. Neither WP:FILM or WP:KOREA use this category, and the category is not poulated by either WikiProject banner. I have therefore reinstated the speedy tag. Regards. PC78 (talk) 19:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have opposed the CSD, but this time I've done it via {{hangon}} and the category's talk page. This will let another admin make the final judgement. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock the page, The Oz Principle, so it can be re-written by a third party, besides the user:mnpil.Swedewiki (talk) 20:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I think you are best off building a version in your user space and then seeking unsalting once you can show a non-spammy, notability proving version. After a strong spamming attempt like was done on it, I, at least, am hesitant to unsalt without seeing the non-spam version first. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I was wondering why my article got removed when just few weeks ago i got it through here with the help of the admin called AGK. There was relevance pointed to him so why do you find it not relevant. And also - please do bring it back or atleast email it to me. These pages take ages to make.

Syndicated85 (talk) 21:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AGK removed a speedy tag with a comment of "Delisting tag: accidentally added, it seems". Nothing about that appears to indicate him declining it as asserting notability standards. And I still see nothing in the article that would indicate that it asserts notability as required on the project. Please read WP:BAND for these requirements. That said, I will gladly userfy the article for you so that you can have it to work to improve. If/when you feel that it meets the WP:BAND requirements, you can ask me or AGK to check it again, or you can appeal to WP:DRV for a wider opinion. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's now at User:Syndicated85/Medicated (band). - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. The article was deleted before (as there was no source for Aleksi being in the band and as a former vocalist of Imperanon and as an artist of Warner/Chapell) and after media took interest in Medicated we had that relevance added. AGK looked through the article and removed the tag from there WHICH i had myself accidentaly pasted as i pasted the original article as the base for the new one. Thats why it was removed and AGK checked the article and everything seemed okay. So how many administrators do you think, have to accept the article until it is left alone?

Syndicated85 (talk) 07:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did AGK say anything about checking the article and things being OK? I see him saying he removed the mistaken tag, but i see him saying nothing about having looked over the article. Reading anything more into his actions than he has explicitly expressed is making assumptions based on nothing. There's no indication that he made any judgement about the article one way or another. I'll ask him, though, to join in on this discussion to clarify it one way or the other. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is precisely why I prefer to keep as much communication as possible on-Wiki. I've been approached by Syndicated via Skype text chat, with regards to this matter, and asked to review the article. My opinion presently is that there has been some sort of assertion of notability, and the criterion for WP:CSD#A7 to not be applicable have therefore been satisfied. Having said that, I wish to note that there is a common misconception that criterion A7 is the "be all and end all" of an article's notability; it certainly is not. A7 simply demands that an article suggest why the subject matter is notable; it does not require notability to be conclusively proven... Wikipedia:Notability, on the other hand, does. My advice looking forwards, therefore, is to take this article to articles for deletion, where a consensus can be reached as to whether the subject—that is, the band Medicated—is notable enough to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia. This will, on a procedural note, require the article to be undeleted. Anthøny (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. That clarifies how we got here. Very good. It's not currently deleted, but rather userfied. I will put it back in article space and get an AFD rolling on it then. Thanks for jumping in so quickly. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A userspace → mainspace move could work in place of a full undeletion, yes. I'll watchlist the article and comment if I have anything to say on the ensuing AfD. And no worries; I'm glad to help. ;) Regards, Anthøny (talk) 13:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read your message. Thank you for your response. I am pretty new using the tags. Sorry if that had bothered you. Can you provide some more examples? Thanks. Prowikipedians (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OrgiAnal Arschgeil appears to be lacking context. I don't get why it gets to stay. This is merely a list of songs and just a very short description. Prowikipedians (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Typed this up after the first comment. I'll now respond to your second comment.)

If there is enough context for an average person to understand what the subject is, then A1 - Context speedy is not appropriate. From one of your submissions, "Could've Been" is the third single released from Tiffany, the debut album of American teen-pop singer Tiffany." To me, that very clearly and consicely lays out exactly what is the subject of the article. The context of the article is plain.

A3 - No Content is generally for very short articles. Articles that consist only of images, or only external links, or nothing at all. One or two sentences of text is all that is needed to be past this speedy deletion criteria.

The project has many, many short articles. We have a whole classification of article called stubs. Stubs are articles that are at a starting point. Nothing is wrong with these, in general.

My declining of your speedy deletion requests does not mean that the articles are great, wonderful articles, just that the specific reasons you gave were not valid. Speedy deletion/CSD is the fastest type of deletion, but is also the most limited. If something does not meet the specific requirements for CSD, then it cannot be deleted that way.

What might be a more useful way for you to try to delete things like this is via WP:PROD. Proposed deletion is the next step up from speedy. You can nominate articles for PROD deletion for just about any reason. Then, they sit waiting for five days. If, during that time noone disputes your deletion submission by removing the PROD tag, the articles will be deleted.

The next step up from PROD is WP:AFD, Articles for Deletion. AFD is full five day deletion debates.

I hope this clarifies things a little. Feel free to ask any more questions. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The one sentence at OrgiAnal Arschgeil tells exactly what the article is about, telling exactly the context of the article. I agree that there's not too much useful information there beyond the track listing and info box. But the context of the article is clear to me (album for a certain rock band), and there's at least a small amount of content, so IMHO neither A1 nor A3 CSD criteria apply. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TexasAndroid. I am one of the people working on behalf of WP:LAW to increase Wikipedia's coverage of law firms. I was hoping you would be willing to undelete the article on Thompson Coburn and restore it to my user space so I can work on it. I have done this before, and I have had a pretty good amount of success with rescuing other articles from deletion. I thank you in advance for your assistance. --Eastlaw (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll take a few days to work on it and bring it up to standards before moving it back to mainspace. --Eastlaw (talk) 16:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I rehabilitated Thompson Coburn so that it meets the format of the other law firm articles. Thanks again for your help. --Eastlaw (talk) 03:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, on the above AFD that you closed this morning, there were two articles up for deletion. The band article, and one for their albums. You appear to have missed handling the article for the album. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?

Done. In future, please tag articles like this as {{db-afd|name of deletion discussion}}. Stifle (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I used your wizard this morning. After getting no response, I ended up giving the same message on your main talk page, and this time got a prompt response. So I would say that, in this case at least, the wizard was far from a faster response.

As for the tagging, your point is misplaced, as the album article was tagged, correctly or not, by User:TenPoundHammer, rather than by me. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That page says "Please don't leave messages on this page, rather, choose the appropriate selection below." The wizard is designed to answer minor issues or redirect queries which any user could answer to an appropriate noticeboard. You clicked through a bit too far anyway; to get there you would have needed to visit User talk:Stifle/wizard/deleted, which has a heading on "incomplete multiple AFD closure" which tells you to do just that.

The tag {{db-afd}} is intended for use where an admin has closed a discussion as delete but omitted to delete the article, and would have been entirely appropriate here. It doesn't have to be the original AFD nominator who uses it. Stifle (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I now see your point on the db tag. I mis-read your original point, and thought you were complaining that the original afd tagging on the album page was somehow done incorrectly. Totally my misreading of your comment. Issue settled, and your point now fully understood.

As for the wizard, I'm still quite confused. User talk:Stifle/wizard is the page with the "appropriate section below" notice. But that's not where I left the comment. I clicked the "Other AFD closure" closure link, one of the "appropriate sections below", and was taken to User talk:Stifle/wizard/AFD. So I bypassed totally the User talk:Stifle/wizard/deleted page you mention. The AFD page does have a Wizard tag, that says not to leave a message there, but the previous page said that I *was* to go there to leave the message, and the new page gives no hint that, if it is not the correct place, where is? Conflicting instructions, one of them must be wrong, and I assumed it was the AFD page that was wrong.

Looking at it now, if it is not the right place, the only other link there is directly to DRV. But DRV is only supposed to be used *after* an attempt to discuss the situation with the closing admin. (And DRV was definitely not the right place for my message.) So if your intention is to direct all complaints about your closes directly to DRV, without allowing people to question you directly... I can see that causing problems in the future because of it being at odds with the steps that people are supposed to take before DRV. Plenty of times at DRV I've seen review requests criticized or even !voted against expressly because the requestor did not first try to discuss with the closing admin. And yet here you are setting up a system that does it's best to prevent people from even getting a chance to do the discussion that they are supposed to do... Do you even have a place in your system for people to officially notify you of DRV actions against you? Again, notifying you is supposed to be a required part of the DRV process, but I see nothing in your wizard for how to do such notifications, short of sidestepping it for your main discussion page. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Y did you delete Yung D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davion360 (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:MUSIC for information on notability requirements for performers. Your article showed no signs of meeting those requirements, so it was deleted. Since this was the eighth time it was deleted for a lack of notability, I also WP:SALTed the article name. Enough is enough. - TexasAndroid (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Y did u delete yung d that doesnt make since —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davion360 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not allow articles on everyone on the planet. People must meet the project's definition of notability before they can have pages on the project. WP:MUSIC details these requirements for performers. Please read that link for your explanation. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NO PUT YUNG D BACK OR WE WILL HAVE SOME PROBLEMS  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davion360 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

Hmm, So it's threats now. Sorry, but no. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could I just query your decision to decline a speedy on this article. I know the title of the organisation includes the word 'school', and it is a place of learning, however it is not an educational establishment in the sense of mandated learning, nor is it aimed at providing a balanced education - it is a money-making company which people can choose to go to. If it had been called 'Verbum learn spanish Ltd.', then would the speedy still have been declined ? Or, if I set up a company called 'CultureDrone's learn Klingon school', then would it really be classed as a school ? Secondly, the company (because that's what it really is), provides no indication of notability, and imho therefore fails WP:CORP. CultureDrone (talk) 07:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that it met notability, or that it should stay, only that schools are not subject to A7 speedy deletion. The article could still be deleted via WP:PROD or [{WP:AFD]]. Speedy deletion is for uncontroversial deletions only. School deletions far too often get active debate, and so it's needed for that debate to be allowed. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Why are you deleting this page? There is not more advertizing in it as in any other page describing software product or any other product listed here Comparison of disk encryption software. This page should be restored as this program is a great example of a CSP usage and the article did not contain any advertizing information (any prices, terms or any other). What this article had is a two sentence description of what it is and small features description. Moziru (talk) 08:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a matter of tone and purpose. Please read WP:SPAM. But even if it was not deleted for being spammy, the article gives no indication that the product is in any way notable. You'll need to provide reliable, independant, non-trivial references to establish the notability of the product is you want to have any hope of it not being deleted. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the answer. It is more clear now. Moziru (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enough. The back and forth edit warring over the fictional character categories between the two of you needs to stop, now. You two need to find a place to discuss the situation and try to work things out between the two of you. Continued edit warring like this benefits noone, and is bad for the project. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, there's edit warring?

It looks more like a misunderstanding to me. Which I noted on their talk page. (Before you posted to mine.)

But that aside, you may wish to note that while this case was a C1, in the past, this same user has recreated CfD-deleted categories. Category:Planet devourers, for example. - jc37 15:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a totally different situation. I processed the G4 on that one yesterday. If he is acting against a CFD, that is one thing. If he is only acting against your opinion of what is or is not a good category, as appears to be the case with the Lords/Ladies/Dukes/Dutchesses categories, then it's another thing. In one case you have an official consensous to back you up. In the other, it's just one editor's opinion verses another. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and the next step depends on the result (if any) of my post to his talk page. - jc37 15:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C1 deletions[edit]

As for the C1 category deletions, IMHO your actions are against at least the spirit, if not the letter, of C1 speedy deletions. C1 deletions require the category to be empty for four days before it can be deleted that way. This is because it is only supposed to be used for uncontroversial category deletions. For truely unused categories. Edit warring to keep a category empty for the four days shows that the deletion is most definitely not uncontroversial. At that point WP:CFD is the proper place to take the deletion attempt, rather than speedy deletion. If you truely beleive that these categories should be gone, then I would suggest you let Jupiter populate them, but start a deletion discussion. If you are able to persuade others that deletion is the proper direction, then the result will be delete, populated or not. And the edit warring can stop. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, and I'll be happy to be mistaken in this, but I thought it was a situation where I tag, and wait for the 4 days for a deleter to decide to delete. (It's how WP:PROD works, for example.)

As for the rest, as I noted above, that's exactly my intention, and I'm waiting for whatever results from my post to their talk page (if anything). As I sincerely would like to think that this is just a misunderstanding. - jc37 15:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

I tried to add an informational entry for CAHPERD and it was deleted. I tried to use information that was already on Wikipedia from similar organizations and I thought I did everything right (references and internal links). Please tell me why this entry was deleted so that I can move forward with one that will not be.

Thank you, Bear Williams

CA2327 (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:ORG for notability requirements for organizations. Basically, your organization has to meet the project's requirements for notability, and you need to provide reliable, independant, non-trivial references to establish the group's notability. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I originally wrote the notice on Beauty ("why not send flowers instead?"); moving it to a header notice is a great idea. I wasn't aware that could be done. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I propogated it to other pages last November. I was not aware of the header notices myself until this morning, when I saw a mention of it on one of the admin noticeboards. Wikipedia:Editnotice gives details. Only admins have the access to do the needed edits. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TexasAndroid, My Lateral Link entry was recently deleted due to being labeled as advertising. I would like to be able to work on the article a little more as I believe that this company is a really notable one (please see the sources listed) and I believe it should be on wikipedia.

Regardless, is it possible to have a link to the wikicompany site on the wikipedia entry in the interim? I would like to have people be able to read about it while I'm fixing the wikipedia article. It would be great if they could be redirected to the wikicompany entry in the meantime.

Please also give me any suggestions on how I can make the article better.

Thank you. I hope to hear from you soon! LegalB123 (talk) 20:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)LegalB123[reply]

I'm really not a great one to give advice on making an article read less like an advert. It's one thing to look at something already tagged for spam deletion and agree that the article as it exists is spammy. It's another to be able to constructively assist in removing the spammy tone. I can do the one, but I'm not a good one to assist with the latter.

As for a link back to the company page, that's exactly the wrong thing to ask for. Wikipedia is not here to drive traffic back to your site. Pages that consist of only external links are very quickly and properly deleted.

So what *can* be done. First off, I can easily userfy the deleted article, placing it in your user space for you to work on to improve.

Second, I can point you towards people who might be better able to assist you. WP:LAW, for instance. If you read a few sections up my talk page you'll see a member of that Wikiproject get me to do something similar so he could rescue a deleted page on a law firm. He, or someone else from that project, might be willing able to assist you. Similarly there are people more expert on dealing with spammy articles in general that you could be directed to.

If you disagree with my deletion descision, you can allways request a more public review of it at WP:DRV.

Finally, I suggest you take a look at WP:COI. While it's not forbidden for people to write about companies with which they are involved, it is generally discouraged. Far too often it ends badly. Wikipedia *must* be written from a neutral point of view. If you are too close to the subject of an article, then that can often be difficult or impossible to do.

Anyway, if you want userfication or referrals, just let me know. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - jb was deleted as what I believe to be 'not enough evidence of a real person'? Just as a quick note, he is alive and well, and has made a gigantic contribution to the record industry, working in numerous genres from Peter Frampton to Garth Brooks. To see him in vivid color: http://www.dotcommusic.com/ears2u/

Hope that clears up his reality - thanks for your good work otherwise!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.227.17 (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would need to know exactly what the article name was to be certain, but I would be that most likely the issue was not whether he was real, but rather whether he was notable. Wikipedia has strict requirements for who gets articles. See WP:MUSIC for notability requirements for performers. - TexasAndroid (talk) 11:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I think you're talking about JB (audio engineer), and if so, I was right. The issue is not existence, but notability. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cant stand u!!!!!!!!! U deleted my page that was important! Screw u MAN! U wanna talk computer nerd? COME ON!!! I wanna give u a peice of my mind! HOW DARE U?!!!

whoops i deleted this cuz it didnt seem to have any importance! Sorry! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kraai Flamel (talk • contribs)

I assume this is over Sonomian Society. Please read WP:GROUP for the notability requirements for groups. If you can show how your group meets those requirements, then your page would be likely to stay. Otherwise, it'll continue to be deleted, and you will quickly find it blocked from recreation. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok i did jump off the deep end, but its important to me! U had no right to say anything! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kraai Flamel (talk • contribs)

I'm an administrator here on Wikipedia, entrusted by the community specifically to help enforce the policies and guidelines of the project. So, I'm sorry, but when it comes to enforcing the policies here, I most certainly do have "the right".

Wikipedia has strict rules for what can and what cannot have articles here. It all resolves around the concept of notability. Something has to be considered notable, by Wikipedia's definitions of the notability, before it can have an article here. That's the site's policy. You are wanting to come onto Wikipedia, you are expected to operate under the rules of Wikipedia, just like everyone else. Notability is one of those rules. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I ment that you have no rights to say anythin; to me personaly! Ok, i was tryin to appologize, but screw it and you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kraai Flamel (talk • contribs) 03:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone hates u! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kraai Flamel (talk • contribs) 03:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe DeMarzio is a notable actor with notable credits. I provided references and links and you still deleted my article. Why?

(Joed1118 (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

IMDB is not considered a reliable source, sorry. As for the notability, please see WP:BIO#Entertainers. Nothing in what was written shows me that the subject meets those criteria. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone on here uses IMDB as a source. I read the WP:BIO#Entertainers, and I did not see one thing in my article that did not meet that criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joed1118 (talk • contribs)

IMDB is listed here frequently as a "More Info" type link. It's not suitable as a reference, given it's nature as a user-sourced site. Wikipedia requires more reliable sources.

As for WP:BIO#Entertainers, please tell me specifically which criteria your article asserts that he meets? None of the three points are anywhere near met by the info in the article (multiple signifigant roles, large fan base, or unique contributions). And given that no sources were provided to show "signifigant coverage" from the general biographical material, I don't see the article meeting that as well. Unless you can point to a specific criteria as being met, your article does not meet the requirements. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about the fact that I posted that he was in two movies(multiple roles). With an upcoming reality show and book(unique contributions)? I'd consider that all of your creteria as being met. (Joed1118 (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

In addition to that. There is plenty of "celebrities" on here without even real sources, with NO important ex.[[3]] Here I am, providing real information about a real entertainer, and mine is the one to get deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joed1118 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two "background" roles (as described in one of your versions of the article) is a far cry from the requirement of "multiple significant roles". And a unreferenced "rumored to star" mention for the reality show? Sorry. That just does not cut it either. If/when there is actually a reality show on the air, that would likely be good enough. But unreferenced rumors? See WP:CRYSTAL for that one.

As for the other unreferenced pages, if you feel they do not belong, you are welcome to submit them yourself for deletion. I wish you luck with that. - TexasAndroid (talk) 23:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud computing and infrastructure as a service are recent growing phenomenons in need of documentation. AppNexus is especially notable as it has Fortune 500 clients, something unusual in the cloud computing industry, which has generally catered to small companies and startups. AppNexus has been documented by external neutral sources.

Also, this entry is as notable as the several other companies in the Cloud Infrastructure category:

• Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud
• GoGrid
• RightScale
• Scalr
• Skytap

and

• Sun Grid

Please either do not delete the AppNexus entry, or delete all of the above entries. To include some companies in an industry but delete others distorts the historical picture of an industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amchaudhry (talk • contribs)

Please see WP:CORP for notability requirements for companies. And WP:OSE for why pointing to other stuff around the project is not a winning argument. - TexasAndroid (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:OSE 'When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because "other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc."' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amchaudhry (talk • contribs)

Hola,

Apologies for the blanking, from what I can tell per MOS:DAB, none of the entries were correct (and obviously I think the page shouldn't exist). I didn't redirect because redirecting a page that ends in (disambiguation) doesn't make sense - who would type in that exact combination of words unless they knew they were looking for a DAB page? I've since gutted and prodded, since an AFD is such a pain in the ass and seems unnecessary. I don't suppose you're a DAB page expert? I believe my reading of the MOS and understanding of DAB pages generally is correct, but I always doubt when it's trying to disambiguate something that falls in the do not disambiguate category. I'm basically looking for a reasonable solution besides deletion (not for any particular reason, except it seems like there should be one). The only other thing I could think of would be a redirect to Stalk (disambiguation). Is there an option you think makes the most sense? Should the page redirect instead of prod? WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 20:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know, sorry. I know enough to form basic disambiguations, but I'm no expert on them, sorry. My area of most expertise on the project would likely be categories. So sorry, I don't think I can really help you. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, thanks. In which case, could you look at Diana Napolis? I created the page yesterday and added categories. Categories are my kryptonite, I hate 'em. Though HotCat makes things slightly easier. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 21:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to give a detailed analysys this weekend, but I'll give it a good look on Monday if I can. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis has been performed on the talk page of the article. I hope my opinions there prove useful. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else, it's assured me that I'm not totally incompetent, so thanks very much. Is there a magic to categories, or is it simply knowing them pretty well and going through logically? HotCat has certainly helped with adding them via the search feature, I've always found their use rather bewildering. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 03:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No real magic. They tend to be fairly logically based and systematically laid out. I have a very logically oriented mind, which is part of why I ended up in computer programming as a profession. But the same eye for detail that helps me in coding also helps me to see the structure of the categories. As for HotCat, it's a tool, one that I use as well. But it's really just a way to do things more easily, it doesn't help much with knowing what to do in the first place. So it's nice, but it's not intended to demystify categories, just to make editing them more easy from a technical standpoint. Fewer mouse-clicks, etc. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for your review and advice, it was helpful to see the process you use to decide on the categories - definitely took some of the mystery out! WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 15:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted the first version of an article for Davka, a software corporation and manufacturer of various titles including home computer games from the 1980s. Less than two minutes after I'd posted it (and while I was still editing it), it had been flagged for speedy deletion because it didn't indicate the importance or significance of the subject, with instructions that I should add a {{holdon}} to the page if appropriate. Before I could add the {{holdon}} with the justification, the page already been completely deleted.

Speed is admirable, but if the speedy deletion template solicits holds or justifications from a contributor, the article should be allowed to persist for at least a few minutes while the editor makes the necessary additions.

Thanks Huwmanbeing ☀★ 17:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point. It's back, with a Hangon now on it, but it's still up for further CSD deletion. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Huwmanbeing ☀★ 18:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Texas,

This article, That Guy with the Glasses was up at AFD before you deleted it for an A7. I suspect someone dropped the AFD notice. TexasAndroid deleted it. I was going to relist the discussion as there is presently no consensus. What do you want to do since it shouldn't have been speedied under these circumstance. What do you think? The AFD is [[4]]. JodyB _talk 20:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article, and AFD notice restored. I'm not adverse to CSDing articles already at AFD, but I like to make that choice knowingly. The AFD notice was removed yesterday morning improperly, it was CSD tagged this morning, and then I deleted it, unaware of the AFD. With a couple of Keep !votes already on there, I would prefer to let the AFD decide it's fate. So close or relist as you see fit. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you would feel that way but I didn't want to presume. JodyB _talk 21:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being persistent, however, as the editor for the Soft Charisma article, I was not given an appropriate amount of time to respond/correct the problems with the article before it was deleted. Sc0ttkclark (talk) 23:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BAND. Your article needs to meet the criteria listed there. You do not get to define what makes things notable enough for Wikipedia, you need to meet the existing definitions. - TexasAndroid (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i've just found that you deleted a page that was for our record label and club night 'earko'. i'm not sure of the contents of the article as i did not write it, but i would like to evaluate it and, if necessary improve it, so that it can be reinstated. can you let me know how i start this process. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.191.160 (talk • contribs)

First, you really should create an account. I can userfy it for you, but IP address can be fluid, so we generally do not userfy to IP addresses. If you create an account, you'll have a known single place for the article to be moved for improvement, and your work will be easily tracked as yours. I suggest not naming the account after your company, as such account names are often blocked (I don't have the link handy for the poicy for that.)

Some links you really should read before embarking on this attempt. WP:CORP - notability rules for companies. WP:NPOV - neurality requirements. And WP:COI - Conflict of interest. Notability explains what your article must show if you do not want it to be just deleted again. NPOV describes how things must be written neutrally. And COI explains why, though writing about yourself or your own company is not prohibited, it is often a Bad Idea, and very often ends badly. For one example, it's very, very difficult to write neutrally about something you are involved with heavily. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note to say thanks for deleting that subpage for me. Going off-wiki for a while so wanted to thank you first. Cynical (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Texas, Could you rename this category as "Herbaria" or create a redirect that will allow for both "Herbariums" and "Herbaria" to be used? ciao Rotational (talk) 06:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Categories cannot be renamed. As for redirecting them, see {{Category redirect}}. You'll need to pick one or the other to be the active category, then use that template on the other. A bot will then regularly move any entries from the redirected one to the active one. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - done Rotational (talk) 07:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that User:BlueSalo who had apparently retired after an Afd gone wrong had the article he created deleted per G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. Not sure whether that is true, but the timing and the deletion notice on the article pages suggest this. The articles are Prize of the Ecumenical Jury, List of German companies by employees in 1907 and Chemische Fabrik Kalk. I checked via Google cache, and given that the articles look quite good I am wondering whether I can recreate them via Google cache or whether that will be policy or copyright problem (assuming that the original author requested the deletion). I also left a note on this users talk page. Novidmarana (talk) 01:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recreating via Google is likely the worst path forward here, as that would be violating the GFDL to restore the content without the history. But as for the rest, I'm really not sure. I'll post a question at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, and you can watch the answers there with me. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thanks, you restored them, less work for me then. Novidmarana (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly think speedy deletions of basketball student sections are acceptable, especially when articles had been around for years and not been tagged. Given that two have recently survived AfDs, this action doesn't seem appropriate to not give editors warning and a chance to find sources. matt91486 (talk) 15:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmm. The reason that Grateful Red was still around to go through AFD was expressly because I declined the speedy deletion on it and four other student cheering sections. So I'm not too certain what your point is in criticising me. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was caught off guard today to find the Barnyard article deleted with no warning and then no apparent discussion on its deletion even though it was a long standing article. matt91486 (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I don't expressly remember deleting that one (while I do specifically remember declining the others). <shrug> I don't have a good explanation. But looking at it now, if nothing else, I should be consistant. So it's back. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you might think that aerobatic formation page is unmeaningful but it lead to a couple of pages about flying in formations and now i can't find the page i'm looking for because you deleted it, Btzkillerv (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll tell me exactly what page name I deleted, I'll look into it. Not knowing the exact page, I cannot look to see why it was deleted, nor can I try to give you alternatives. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the name of the page is Aerobatic Formation Btzkillerv (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aerobatic formation maybe? The capitalization is important. There's no deleted content at Aerobatic Formation. But at Aerobatic formation the only deleted content was an {{underconstruction}} template. So I'm still not sure we are looking at the right place, because that does not fit your description. - TexasAndroid (talk) 12:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! How do I get the User: part off of the article now? What's the next step? Jmh153 (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the moment, you don't. It's now in your user space, not article space. Let the DRV debate play out over the next few days. Whoever closes that debate will decide, based on the strength of the arguments made, whether it should be moved back to article space or not, and if it's moved back, whether it'll need to go through another deletion debate. So, for now, you need to let the process play out. You are welcome, however, to continue editing the version in your user space, hopefully improving it and improving it's chances to sruvive another deletion debate if the DRV ends up going that way. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TexasAndroid,
You recently deleted a stub which I created about the small press publishing company Imperator Publishing. (Mere minutes after I created it, I must add...)
Whilst I think I understand Wikipedia's notability policy to a reasonable extent, I had thought that publishers were more-or-less exempt from it so long as they had published books, based on other pages in the Small press publishers category. Several other pages there contain no more details or citations than the one I just created.
I'm not complaining about the deletion exactly - I appreciate the fact that Wikipedia is a good clean resource - but I would very much appreciate it if you wouldn't mind explaining what the rules are around publishers, and why Imperator is less suitable than some of the other very small presses on the list, so that I can avoid making similar mistakes again.
Thanks, caesarsgrunt (talk) 23:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. The presence of other pages does not mean much around here. It may simply mean that noone has noticed yet that there is a problem. In general, companies need to meet the criteria laid out at WP:CORP if they are to avoid being deleted on the project. I'm not aware of publishers being under any different, more lenient notability rules than other companies. Though I have been proven wrong before. - TexasAndroid (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I understand - even if I think the policies are a little odd... :) Thanks for your help, TexasAndroid. caesarsgrunt (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply notice at the bottom "If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere." was covering up messages. I've added a fix to the positioning. Shouldn't cause any more problems. Just wanted to help, I had noticed this for a while.

Adding some text from the previous section to test the positioning:

Whilst I think I understand Wikipedia's notability policy to a reasonable extent, I had thought that publishers were more-or-less exempt from it so long as they had published books, based on other pages in the

Works! Sc0ttkclark (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I never saw the problem on my browser, but if it was rendering badly on other browsers, then anything that fixes that is good. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, you might want to bring it up on the talk page for that template. I've actually seen this before, so you can provide the code I've made on that talk page as example code to be reviewed as a replacement. Should I do this or would you like to? - Sc0ttkclark (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to do it. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Wikipedia history is a history of arrogant hidebound censorship(What you do not like or cannot find in the internet is not true...). I bet you have accomplished virtually nothing by yourself in real live. Apparently you are simply envy. People like you are a shame for Wikipedia. Wikipedia will be destroyed by people like you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.189.13.202 (talk) 12:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Romeo notice has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.Cenarium ^Talk 00:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Axion Estin Foundation Page again was deleted. However, as explained previously, we hold the rights to the posted text, and I have emailed permissions-en@wikimedia.org with an email address affiliated with that website, yet the page was still deleted... again... Can you please explain why? I followed all of the directions regarding possible copyright infringement (which this is most certainly not). Axionestin (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When did you make the email? I saw nothing on the page or talk page from anyone official to note that the permission had been received. Are you also fully aware of exactly what you are doing, by releasing the material under the GFDL. You are not just allowing Wikipedia to use it, but *any* other downstream user, as long as the rules of the GFDL are followed, which mostly pertain to giving proper attribution. The GFDL is a powerful tool for sharing material, but it has it's quirks.

And that all said, you still need to show why the organization is notable, and thus should even have a page on the project. See WP:ORG. If you cannot show the organization's notability, then this discussion of copyright is all moot, and the page will be deleted for the notability issues even if copyright/licensing is solved. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick response. This article is notable because it discusses an organization which promotes an area of music that has very little awareness, but is incredibly important to the formation of western music. Also, I sent the email last night at 16:59. Furthermore, I was instructed to post this particular block of text by the author., so we understand what will happen. Thank you for your help.Axionestin (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to show why the group meets Wikipedia's definition of notability, not your own definition, sorry. Please do read WP:ORG. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the issue with the 518 Fever page i posted? I submitted this two times now. The second version is longer in content and is a total summary of the business. Is there a particular edit you need? Let me know! I own this business so the information about it is correct. I can make corrections immediately but i do not know how much more resourceful and useful information i can possibly provide. Please let me know, thanks!

ASDiMoro (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:WEB for inclusion criteria for websites. If you do not want your page deleted, you must show how it meets the inclusion criteria described there. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read through the criteria:

The work I submitted is independent and original content about the site 518 Fever. The resources are true and valid. I wrote this all by hand personally in hopes of proving this is resourceful information. I've read other articles on wikipedia and find far less information on other pages which is confusing. According to the guidelines you referred me to, I see no reason why this was deleted and request it is indeed posted. Please re-read and post. I have supported this site and feel this work I have posted meets all your guidelines and in fact surpasses some previous article postings. Thanks you, I will keep an eye out for your response and hopefully this is posted.

ASDiMoro (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excatly which of the three criteria listed at WP:WEB do you meet, and how? - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. 1 - the conent is independently written and not copied from the website. If you read the site, you'd see that.

1. 2 - Although I have not received an award, I am well known in the capital district and respected amongst search engines.

1. 3 - I have been linked to by local newspapers, colleges, and people have commented on blogs about the site.

I do not know how much more you need than that. Is this a fair measurement where you are actually going to the site or are you just brusing it off? This seems to be a really discouraging process especially when i see far less contenton other posts. If you can point out the big sticking point why your not posting this, then by all means do so. But I see no reason why it's being denied.

Thank you

ASDiMoro (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your points #1 and #2 show nothing about how you meet the WP:WEB criteria. A full article in a local paper would go a long way towards showing the notability of the site, but simply linking to it would be a trivial reference, which is expressly excluded.

Wikipedia has strict rules on what can and what cannot have pages on the project. As the person wanting a page here, it is up to you to show that you meet these inclusion requirements. So far, I still see no indication that the requirements are meet. Comparing your site to other sites that may or may not have articles on Wikipedia is pretty much meaningless. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous, I have no interest now in doing this. Leaving this up to solely your determination (which is clearly biased and flawed) seems to be more trouble than it's worth. I have to agree with a prior post that you are taking away from the spirit of the site. At first I was excited to write an article for this site, and really took the time in doing this. But now, i regret even donating the money to this site after dealing with this.

I also would strongly discourage many people with a similar goal from posting here. What is a "free encyclopedia" seems to be something completely different. You clearly DID NOT look into the site at all. Furthermore saying that comparing to other posts/pages is meaningless is just unintelligent. Posting a list of guidelines and asking people to follow them is going to invite analysis of other posts. If it is truly meaningless, than do NOT post the guidelines. Clearly it is biased here, a shame. Wikipedia is truly a good site but dealing with this facet of it has been extremely discouraging.

I hope in the future more than ONE reviewer with a skewed perception can be added to this review process. Leaving it up to your personal feelings and then claiming it's a free dictionary is really misleading.

Thanks for the time, I do appreciate the read through that you did do and taking the time to answer my posts, but I have lost the drive to continue to attempt edits on this. I sincerely hope in the future these issues are addressed. Have a good day

ASDiMoro (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need results from all gruops (A, B, C, D), why you deleted that articles? They are useful!!!Larfingas (talk) 11:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ULEB Eurocup 2008-09 First preliminary round for the deletion discussion that lead to their deletion. - TexasAndroid (talk) 12:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I agree that after 20 years it won't be so useful, but you should accord to fact, that are people who needs results, it's awful opinion... Maybe after those 20 years wikipedia won't exist...... Larfingas (talk) 07:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the catch - misread the dates there - my bad :( I restored it and put a note on the user's page. Thanks... Skier Dude (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Done it a few times myself. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thought I was doing a good thing removing no content nonsense, but life is just too short. Off to do something Wiki useful instead. Ardfern (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, is there any way you could un-delete Niner Bikes? It has been deleted 3 times, this last time by you. It's notability included being the first and only production company soley dedicated to 29ers. Thanks. Dictouray (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to show how it meets Wikipedia's definittion of notability, as expressed at WP:CORP, rather than your definition of notability. Sorry. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a newcomer related to Wikipedia and was surprised when I saw that my article related to ebIX was deleted. As far as I understand the article was deleted under section A7 because it “does not indicate why its subject is important or significant”. Actually ebIX is a European organisation similar to several other organisations already present in Wikipedia, such as ETSO, IEC and UN/CEFACT. Could the article be accepted if I add a introduction paragraph explaining the objectives and members of ebIX? I.e:

“ebIX, European forum for energy Business Information eXchange, is a non-profit European organisation with the objectives to advance, develop and standardise the use of electronic information exchange in the European energy industry. ebIX was founded in 2003 as a European organisation continuing the previous work of Ediel Nordic Forum ([www.ediel.org]). The main focus is interchange of administrative data for the internal European energy markets for electricity and gas. The members of ebIX, per November 2008, are swissgrid (CH), BDEW (DE), Energinet.dk (DK), TenneT (NL), Statnett (NO) and SwK (SE). In addition ebIX has observers from Transmission System Operators and national associations of Distribution System Operators from Austria, Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Poland, Romania and Slovakia.”

OveOve (talk) 10:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:ORG. That explains inclusion criteria for organizations. You need to show how those criteria are met. - TexasAndroid (talk) 12:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TexasAndroid, I know there's really no way to prove this but I swear I am not a political opponent of Mr. Debicella. I live in his district but I really didn't have a strong opinion on him either way. I started editing the article two months ago because it was literally a copy & paste job from the subject's website. It has come a long way since then and if you look at the edit history and talk page history I have consistently worked to compromise and work both sides into the article. What has gone on in terms of suppressing information and spinning the facts to favor Debicella has been simply astonishing, and at least some of the edits have been made by Debicella himself, as evidenced by IP addresses originating from his place of work. And now he/his allies are accusing me of being someone named "Michael Brown" whom I have never met, saying that the IP address I used was linked to a comment Mr. Brown made on a news article, which is not the case. I would love to have some third party intervention as I am at a loss of what to do and have become too angered and personally invested in this ordeal to consider myself truly neutral at this point. Thank you for your help. 66.159.181.120 (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I discovered the situation through User:3RRBot/bot reported disruption and 3RR violations. Please read WP:3RR for the policy that was at issue. I could have easily blocked you both for the ongoing edit war, but chose instead to just semi-protect the page, as that effectively blocks you both from editing that one page for now.

I have also reported the situation at both the Conflict of Interest noticeboard (WP:COIN), and the Bio of Living People noticeboard (WP:BLPN). Both these reports are to exactly what you appear to want, get more prople involved with the article.

The semi protection blocks the page from edits by IPs and by newly created accounts, but allows edits from slightly older accounts. So the page is not fully locked down, but rather just partially protected. So most any other editor coming off COIN or BLPN will be able to make changes as needed.

As far as proving identity, there are ways to do so, but I'm not certain whether they are very meaningful in the current situation. WP:OTRS links to the place to get such started, if it comes to it. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I wouldn't have minded if you blocked both of us from editing the article. I would feel much more confident about its integrity henceforth if user 76.23.169.18 was barred from editing it. If I would also have to be banned for that to happen then so be it. Thank you for your efforts to get others involved; hopefully that will be fruitful. Best, 66.159.181.120 (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Jinok Kim, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Subject may not qualify for article under notability requirements.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. 68.187.12.42 (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Why was that page deleted on Nov. 17, 2008? It's a real association with real members, not an advertising vehicle.--Mediaverse (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the page that was written like an advertisement for the organization. Nothing about the organization being an ad organization. Please read WP:ADVERT for details. But also, it was deleted because the page gave no indication of why the organization met Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Please see WP:ORG for relevant information. - TexasAndroid (talk) 01:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Was wondering whether you could unprotect the Damian Smith article to make way for a disambiguation page. There are a couple of Damian Smith links around so I think this could be useful. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You blocked this user about an hour ago for edits to Birmingham International Airport. I'm not that familiar with blocking policy, but I'm a little puzzled as to why you felt it necessary to institute a new block. Pmbma (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Pmbma Note - before you think I'm the same user as 81.174.158.200, I'm not ![reply]

As I said in my block reason: "Edit warring: and continuing the exact same edit pattern that caused the previous block.". They returned from the first block and immediately resumed the same pattern of edits that got them blocked the first time, including edit warring over removal of one piece of information. And no communication at all, including no edit summaries. So edit warring, no communication, and showing no signs of having gotten the message from the first block lead to a second, slightly longer block. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TexasAndroid, would you be so kind as to userfy the article for "Kurt Oldman". I have seen in above posts that you can put it in a Sandbox. Is that correct? I would like it to go into my Sandbox so I can work on it and hopefully bring it up to 'code' with new references. The page was deleted: 18:21, 2 October 2008 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs) deleted "Kurt Oldman" ‎ (A7 (bio): Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a real person). Can you please email me at littlepiemusic (at) gmail (dot) com instead of this post? Thank you. --Lexme123 (talk) 03:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's now at User:Lexme123/Kurt Oldman. - TexasAndroid (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was wondering why the society 1 page has been deleted. I would like to start off by saying that I am in no way linked to the band, any other related band or any record company. Second, I was aware of the shortfallings within the article, and had started to restructure and rewrite the article to fit the Wikipedia guidelines. If you can check the history, I was the last one to work on it, and had started to include references. I was about to spend the morning going through the article referencing every bit of information I can, fleshing out relivence and information, and generally making the article worth while. I believe the band Society 1 is justified within Wikipedia as they have been signed to a Major lable, have had and still do have a presence in music (still have their photos at The Underworld in London), their lead singer is a still a promonat figure (recently doing a 6 hour suspension, breaking the old world record), and most importantly the artice is important for contextualising the US calfornia metal scene. For example, guitarist Sin started in the band, and has since worked with Ministry and Revolting Cocks. Ledgendy bassist Raven of Killing Joke, Prong, Ministry (ect) also worked with them. Removing this article leaves a hole in the contextualisation of the scene and the period, which is why I believe it should be reinstated and reformatted to meet standards (as I was in the process of doing.--Kyral (talk) 08:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BAND, and let me know exactly which criteria they meet. #5 is the one for major label, but the requirement is two albums from a major label, not just signing with them.

I WP:SALTed the page because it has one of the worst deletion histories I have seen in a non-salted page in quite a while. It has been deleted 9 times, by 7 different admins. Five times for A7 notability, 2 for it being an attack page, and 2 for it just being nonsense.

If you want to work on it, I can easily userfy the mess for you, but at the moment, I am very, very wary of unsalting it without a solid indication, including references, that WP:MUSIC is satisfied. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here are some two majour lable releases:

• Exit Through Fear (Earache, 2003)
• The Sound That Ends Creation (Earache, 2005)
• The Years of Spiritual Dissent (Crash, 2006)

For reference, here is the amazon link: [5] --Kyral (talk) 01:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. That looks good. Earache looks to meet the #5 criteria. The page desperately needs a lot of work, but at a minimum I'm now convinced that it meets WP:MUSIC. It's been restored. - TexasAndroid (talk) 06:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Texas, You've upset the 85 members of the Chicago Film Producers Alliance by deleting the page that I posted. The reason you gave was "A7" - something about not having a legitimate reason for our article. Are you mad? The group has 85 producers who have completed award winning films. One of our members is Kartemquin Films (Hoops Dreams) and are currently up for an Oscar. How is an alliance of 85 producers, a group that is winning awards and is open to the public, not worth noting in Wikipedia? If this is not worthy, on what grounds do you include Warners Bros and other film company and organizations? What do I need to do to get our organization accepted? --ATurnerIII (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:ORG. That page details the inclusion requirements for organizations. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You say our post in not notable, from third party sources and might be an advertisement. None of that is try and this is getting highly annoying. Our organization is notable because it's one of the few successful independent film producers groups in the country and the only one in Chicago. I provided articles that show our work, Yet, you threaten to delete us because no separate article has been written about us. Guess what/ We are a PRIVATE GROUP. So, that won't happen as much as with other companies. Regarding third parties sources, I gave you BLACKFILM.COM, WITHOUTABOX, REELCHICAGO, IMDb, and CHASE BANK. Those are 3rd Parties! Regarding advertising, THERE IS NONE. The article only talks about who we are. It does not ASK people to join or ASK people to buy anything. YOU ARE READING IT INCORRECTLY. I read it and don't see a problem. The page has been modified and placed back. If you have a problem, please be more specific in your feedback. It is impossible to keep going back and forth like this without knowing your issue. What's it gonna take to get our legitimate, notable and professional film organization listed???--ATurnerIII (talk) 01:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:RS for information on what qualifies as a source on Wikipedia. I'll have to look through your sources one by one to make comments on them, but in general, for a reference to qualify for the project it must be reliable, independant, and non-trivial. IMDB, for instance, is never considered as a valid reference for information on the project, since it's information is user submitted, and thus not reliable. I'll have to look at the others.

If you are going to threaten to delete my post, you SHOULD take the time to look through the articles. What are you doing? Simply BLINDY threatening to delete the posting without reading the linked material? What sense does that make when it's the linked material that provides the justification?--ATurnerIII (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for notability, you need to show how your organization meets the project's definition of notability, not some definition of your own creation. Do read the WP:ORG link I gave above. That details how notability is defined for organizations. Secondary sources are the key. If reliable secondary sources are writing independantly, non-trivial works about the organization, then it can be shown to be notable. If not, then generally it's not. I'll be back with opinions on the other sources. - TexasAndroid (talk) 03:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I demonstrated that the organization was notable by providing links to news article referencing our work. You need to read the sources before concluding that the proof is not present. Regardless, it's clear to me that this process is based on your subject opinion, which is coming off as simply an abuse of power.--ATurnerIII (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.

1. IMDB is not reliable, as already mentioned. I

IMDb is not reliable? Do you know the intense scrutiny they send posters through to check and verify that films are legit. Obviously, not. IMDb poster have to provide GREATER proof of their work than you request here on Wikipedia. This is another problem with your process. You don't even know what sources are respectable and valid.--ATurnerIII (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Chase and Withoutabox you mention, but I see no links in the article to these, so I really do not know in what way they would be considered a reference for any of the information.

The Withoutabox link is the source used for Partyline in the Current Membership section. Again, you would know this if you took time to actually check the links because threatening to delete then. The Chase Bank information is on their website.--ATurnerIII (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. The Meetup link in the article is obviously written by your organization, and thus fails the "Independent" point.

The Meetup link is merely a link to our website and not an article. Are you even paying attention?--ATurnerIII (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. The Blackfilm link in the article is to a film in a challenge, and says nothing that I can see about the organization.

Blackfilm.com has "The Porter" film on it's website. Proof of CFPA's role in in the end credits of the film. So, you'dhave to "watch the film". You asked for source and I gave you an actual movie. As far as is know, this is okay by your rulld. In the end credit, the alliance and many of its members are listed.--ATurnerIII (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. The ReelChicago article mentions the org twice, but the organization is not the subject of the article, and the references to the organization are trivial, as far as references go.

The reference is trivial? That is how organization and peopel get credit in film. And, unless you haven't be paying attention: "THE DIRECTOR" of the film, Vincent Singleton is a member of CFPA. So, the ENTIRE ARTICLE is about what we are doing.--ATurnerIII (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, to deal with the three tags that I have placed, one by one.

Notability. None of the references, in the article currently, serve to establish the notability of the group, as far as I can see.

You have not reviewed some of the source material AT ALL, as far as I can see.--ATurnerIII (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Sources. Wikipedia cannot be the original source of information. And preferably information is taken from secondary sources about a subject, instead of directly from primary sources such as the organization's own web site. None of the information in the article is sourced to secondary sources, thus the tag.

You comments don't make sense. Wikipedia is not being used as the primary source. And, the group's website is being giving as a reference, not as a write up story or proof of the article's truth.--ATurnerIII (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advert. This is much more about tone than about the article being directly looking for people to join, etc. Wikipedia requires that all articles be written from a neutral point of view. The article as written reads like a press release, and thus fails WP:NPOV.

You are over reaching by trying to call this article a press release. It clearly only defines the organization and its members. If you don't agree on this point, we need to elevate this point to the next level to get a second opinion. I have removed 1/3 of the article for you already and now this is getting silly.--ATurnerIII (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And thus the tags. You are seeking to place an article on Wikipedia, you need to follow the rules and meet the requirements of Wikipedia. At this point in time I am not threatening to delete you, I am placing the tags showing where I feel the article is deficient. If I wanted the article gone, I would have submitted it for a deletion debate instead of tagging it. Or I would have deleted it myself for it's lack of notability. I am holding off on those options, giving it a chance for improvement instead. But IMHO, as the article currently stands, it still does not meet the projects criteria. Sorry. - TexasAndroid (talk) 03:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear to me that, under your rules, no article that we submit will get approved. I find your position unreasonable, simply argumentative and completely subjective. And I find your/Wikipedia's stance on some of these point hypocritical. There are other film organizations on this site that have very much the same approach as we do to their posting.--ATurnerIII (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

I tried to add an informational entry for the organization Adventures In Missions [[6]] and it was deleted. I tried to use information that was already on Wikipedia from similar organizations and I thought I did everything right (references and internal links).

Please tell me why this entry was deleted so that I can move forward with one that will not be and help me with how I can make this a better entry in the future.

Thank you, Jeff.goins (talk) 16:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Jeff Goins[reply]

Please read WP:ORG. While the latest deletion was for spamming, the more underlying issue is notability/inclusion criteria. You need to show why the organization meets the project's rules for article inclusion, as shown on the link I gave above. Unless you can show that, you are simply not going to get an article about them to remain. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]