User talk:Andyjsmith/Archive 5

Deletion of United Kingdom Political Parties by Political Position
I appreciate that you may have reasons o beleive that this article is worthy of deletion, but I feel that your reasoningis injustified. Due to the nature of the article, I beleive that there is nothing needing referencing, so instead I have included a list of sources.

I offer my arguements to you for your consideration,but may have to take action myself if nothing is done.


 * Thank you for pointing this out to me. You removed the prod and moved the article into your user space because, you said, it had been placed in main space by mistake It's now back in main space, not improved, so I've restored the Prod tag. andy (talk) 23:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Many articles of this type (lists) are mainly serve as reference guides and not to provide original research. 07bargem (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

?
I have no ideal what you just said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean-Carlo Salinas (talk • contribs) 12:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Your article is silly. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed it was a test rather than vandalism. Anyway, it will get deleted. andy (talk) 12:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Bingo Giogragio Hernandez
Hello Andyjsmith. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Bingo Giogragio Hernandez, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: there's an "under construction" tag, we should give the author a bit of time. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it looks like the under construction tag appeared a couple of seconds before I added my speedy tag with Twinkle, and I didn't stop to check. Thanks. andy (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * PS. I can't find any ghits for "Bingo Giogragio Hernandez"... andy (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll keep an eye on it. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Please
I beg you, do not delete the article Naatan. Thank you. Danoto Danoto (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not me who will delete it because I am not an administrator. I have simply asked for it to be deleted. You can always ask for it to be reinstated if you are prepared to fix the problems with it, although I can't see how you could do that because there is no evidence that Nataan meets wikipedia's criteria for notability at WP:BAND andy (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Crowded tooth
I just redirected it to Malocclusion. It's a reasonable search term. Bearian (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I wondered, but I'm not a toothyologist. andy (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Why?
Why is my link to the article Law of identity and Torah being deleted each time I add it to the article Law of identity? This link is being contested and discrimminated by people who have no knowledge on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hofman stern (talk • contribs) 00:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's being deleted because Law of identity and Torah is an article that contravenes several of wikipedia's guidelines and is certain to be deleted very soon. In my opinion and that of at least one other editor, a link from a good article to a bad article can be confusing for readers. If the link was left in it would have to be removed eventually anyway, as soon as Law of identity and Torah is deleted. andy (talk) 13:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Vision restoration therapy
I see that you tagged Vision restoration therapy with db-spam. The speedy deletion was declined by OlEnglish, so you may like to take the article to AfD for deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I saw that but I'm not sure I have the energy. VRT is snakeoil... probably. It's fairly well covered in the literature, mostly critically, but is borderline notable. andy (talk) 14:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Visendo Fax Server not notable ?
Hi,

is not notable the first solution that provide fax over smtp protocol ,14 years ago and first native x64bit ISDN fax software ? and the list can continue with a lot of other innovation points, that is history or ? i think you need to be more specific when you define - not notable

regards


 * Notability is very clearly defined in wikipedia, as you and your colleagues have been told on many occasions. You have provided no reliable sources that indicate notability. andy (talk) 11:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Hidden Nations, Enduring Crimes: The North Caucasus Between Past and Future conference
Hello Andyjsmith. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Hidden Nations, Enduring Crimes: The North Caucasus Between Past and Future conference, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''Seems to have plenty in it that isn't in the other one. Needs to go to AfD if you want it deleted.''' Thank you. Ged UK  17:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. It originally had nothing of interest but it's changed dramatically since I tagged it. andy (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Sports trainer
Before I open the can of worms that is this article, I’m trying to get more perspective but I can’t find any old discussions about it. From what I can find it seems that there were large discussions on the talk page but the only things I can find are your post and the post you were replying to. What, if anything, am I missing? ITasteLikePaint (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

"Two objections to criticism"

 * I recently received a message from user:Andyjsmith as follows: I understand where you're coming from but you simply cannot make unsupported statements about dietary planning and you must not misrepresent the sources that you use. The reference you gave simply does not talk about the consequences of an unplanned diet.

Please explain what is meant by "I understand where you're coming from"? Where exactly do I come from and why does it matter. Do I have to specifically come from somewhere? And where exactly do you come from? Its the genetic fallacy (logical fallacy). I find this conduct offensive, intimidating and hurting. WP:PERSONAL


 * The article is giving an impression that inappropriately planned plant-based diets are deficient in nutrients whereas inappropriately planned meat-based diets are not. This criticism is inappropriate. Any diet, by definition, that is not appropriately planned, will be deficient. This is why its called an "inappropriately planned diet". Animal-based diets are not automatically balanced.


 * Another of my edits were removed in which I wrote: Even in a society where all human life is considered of equal value, humans are killed or allowed to be killed for the reasons of self-defense or uninterrupted functioning of the society, to the "criticism": "ideologic vegetarians," whom he claims believe that "all life is sacred" and that "all forms of life have equal value," saying that these beliefs "can lead to absurdities such as allowing mosquitoes to spread malaria, or vipers to run loose on one's premises."

Similarly, if ALL human lives are considered equal, it "can lead to absurdities such as allowing thieves to steal, or murderers to run loose on one's premises."

This is not a valid criticism. And I do not think that Wikipedia is a place to debate veganism. If this is debated in the actual article, then rebuttals should also be allowed. Otherwise, the readers will only get one side of the story and a biased view. This criticism itself is not an WP:NPOV. I propose the criticism to be either removed, or a fair ideological rebuttal allowed. Since the criticism is not of scientific (but ideological nature), no scientific sources can be sited and the rebuttal itself can only be of ideological character. Manujchandra (talk) 09:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have replied on the article's Talk page. andy (talk) 10:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

S plane revert
re the revert my edits to the S Plane. The $$\int_{-\infty}^\infty f(t) e^{-st}\,dt$$ is simply wrong. The $$0-$$ is the correct term for starting this integral. This is to allow the dirac impulse function which is key to Z transform theory and the basis of digital music and control theory.

I honestly feel that, unless someone has at least an MSc in digital signal processing they should not be let near a page such as this. Can I ask you what knowledge you have in s plane theory/ these equations ? Could you for instance solve a first order differential equation using s plane thoery ? If you don't understandd it dont edit it. I feel that admins out of their depth in a given subject are ruining wikipedia and put people off from editing it. Robin48gx (talk) 14:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You created a hoax article twice. You also made a number of other edits without explanation. It's reasonable to assume that these other edits were vandalistic. If you want to make them again please give proper references to reliable sources - I don't trust you. andy (talk) 14:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't trust your ability to understand frequency domain calculus. The WOLK page ?? Just google for him. The SDS 930 page was not a hoax. That was deleted by an ignorant admin. That was re-created (I think) by the people in America who actually have one and are restoring it. There are still significant mistakes its wiki page. But you do seem to be by-the-backdoor admitting you don't understand s domain mathematics. However you are happy to revert stuff on the page. Fairly typical. Trying to get a barnstar for anti vandalism are you ? I promise you its wrong. But I have already cancelled my standinjg order to wiki, and can't be bothered to fix anything anymore.Robin48gx (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If you supply meaningful edit summaries, and reliable sources where appropriate, then your work on wikipedia will not be deleted or reverted. This is something that all editors are expected to do, myself included- simply provide a justification for any changes that you make to wikipedia. andy (talk) 14:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

reliable references to fix the $$\int_{-\infty}^\infty f(t) e^{-st}\,dt$$ mistake ? Robin48gx (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * would that http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LaplaceTransform.html and that http://mathworld.wolfram.com/DeltaFunction.html be considered

Speedy tag removed
I have removed your A7 tag from Top Gun Youth Sports Magazine because I doubt magazines are covered by A7. However, if you think I'm wrong, go ahead and replace it, please. Guoguo12 --Talk--  15:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No, you're right - it should be but it isn't. Prodding instead. andy (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. Guoguo12  --Talk--  15:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Interestingly enough, the page was recently deleted under A7 by NawlinWiki. Guoguo12  --Talk--  15:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010
Hi Andyjsmith. Thank you for your work on patrolling pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I just wanted to inform you that I declined to delete Mogwanja Martin, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion because of the following concern: the criterion you used does not cover this kind of page or the reason you specified is not a valid reason for speedy deletion. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion and especially what is considered non-criteria. In future you should rather tag such pages for proposed deletion or start an appropriate deletion discussion. ''Rejected G12: It's a UN Press Release. Notability is another issue to be looked at. '' Alexf(talk) 19:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree with you here. The copyright notice applies to all material on the site, including press releases, and states that "None of the materials provided on this web site may be used... except as provided for in the Terms and Conditions of Use of United Nations Web Sites". The terms and conditions, when you check them out, fall very far short of wikipedia's requirements - in particular wikipedia does not receive the right to allow third parties to copy and/or modify the content. On that basis I'm restoring the speedy tag. andy (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. I take your point. Speedy deleted. Thanks. -- Alexf(talk) 20:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ta. andy (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

RadeonPro: Radeon Profile Tool marked for speedy deletion by you
Hi Andyjsmith, I'm not sure how to start this but I wrote the page about RadeonPro after looking at similar pages of ATI Tray Tools and Rivatuner, which are software of the same class and do have similar entries on Wikipedia. I have edited the text to make it look less promotional (the original text are a copy/paste from official web site). Please have a look on edited text, compare it to ATT/Rivatuner counterparts and let me know if they still differ for classifying RadeonPro wiki entry as an invalid one. Thanks. Mautari (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I still think it's deletable and more to the point so does an admin who's now deleted it. andy (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, someone else deleted it. Can you restore the article to sandbox so I can ask wikipedia editors how to make the article valid? Or such article would never be considered for addition on wikipedia? Strange enough is seeing other utilities with articles for the exactly the same purpose on wikipedia, they are not even verified as there's no mention to what wikipedia call as reliable sources on other articles I mentioned. Mautari (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin so I can't do that. You'll have to ask the admin who deleted it. Reliable sources are very clearly explained at WP:RS andy (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will, thanks. I read that but I can't find anything that could make those other 2 articles (Ati Tray Tools and Rivatuner valid, as they do exactly what I did, give the wikipedia readers a chance to read about a community-driven tool used by thousand of users. Mautari (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe they're not notable and should be deleted. You can mark them for deletion if you wish, using the tag. However I can see that one of them claims to be in wide use and the other has a long history, so you'd have to make a pretty strong case. andy (talk) 09:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course I'm not doing that, I just asked you because the semantics of the articles are exactly the same. I agree the articles I took as examples are around there for a long time, maybe that's why they're still here. Anyway thanks for the tips, I'll see what the admin can do. Mautari (talk) 12:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Your edit to Risk (game)
While the Risk (clone) article will almost certainly get deleted, is really just throwing fuel on the fire. The AfD for the clone article is already contentious enough, no need to provoke it any further. Let's just wait for the AfD to end before adding or removing any links to this article. Thanks. Snotty Wong  verbalize 00:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Maguire
You deleted the start of am article on Maguire. I had hoped to add to to it as he was a member of staff at the Ulster Museum and I know of some publications but needed further information. OK Osborne 09:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I didn't delete it, I merely flagged it as a possible candidate for deletion because it didn't appear to meet wikipedia's guidelines. The person who deleted it was NawlinWiki. You can ask him to restore the article into your user space where you can work on it until you think it's ready, then maybe get an opinion from him before moving it into the main encyclopedia. andy (talk) 10:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Need help with creating a page.
Hi!

I needed to know what do I have to do to create an informative page about a company on wiki. It's not an advertisement, and I don't mean to earn any profits for creating the page. Would I need the @company.com email address for this purpose?? I tried creating one before, and it turned out to be infringing copyright from the website. I've got the whole article written again in custom language (but english)... and was hoping to ask and recieve a reply regarding this.

I also intend to upload 2 images, one of the company logo, and the other a scan of a product manufactured in the company.

This company is a leading Manufacture of Medical Disposable Products in India, and so I needed to make this wiki page so that doctors, patients, and anyone in the medical business can know about it through wikipedia.

Please could you provide any help regarding this?

Thanks. -Mohit.

--Mohitk117 (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not the place to promote companies. The only companies listed here should be those that pass the rather stringent tests that are outlined at WP:ORG. Unless there's something really special about this company you'll probably not succeed. andy (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

--Mohitk117 (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a quite popular company in India, among doctors and hospitals... It manufactures Disposable Medical Products. I have re-edited the whole page, and added Product Category (only info), and the history of the company. I've also got the logo image and a products cover scan. I have good sources too... please do let me know where can I post the demo page on wiki to be verified... so that I can finally create the page. It's not advertising, don't know why there would be ads on wiki, ads contain price details and stuff like "we're the best and the great" ... I've only described about the company, and in hurry, had copied from the .com website... but this time, I've taken enough time and have created the page... it's being edited further currently, but need to know where on wiki I can ask for help regarding this. Thanks.


 * If you put it into your user space I'll take a look. What you need to do is create a subpage which you do by adding a slash and the page name to your user page, for example User:Mohitk117/test. Further details are at Subpages andy (talk) 13:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks.. I'll post the page on sub page, and let you know. Thanks. --Mohitk117 (talk) 10:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Your signature
Would you mind changing your signature to say Andyjsmith instead of andy? There is another recently active editor named Andy, and you probably don't want to be accused of WP:SIGEDITORIMPERSONATE. Logan Talk Contributions 00:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't be a prune. He's not using my signature and I'm not using his. I'm andy and he's Andrew. If he decides to change his signature to andy maybe you can warn him? andy (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion?
Sorry, I was gobsmacked that a really famous person such as Chris Howland who was for a whole generation of Germans the Englishman per se is considered unimportant. There is already a huge German article on Howland in the wiki. His TV shows have been controversial and his feature films were everything but art (somethng that is true for many actors who have their bio in the English wiki), but still that`s not necessarily a reason to delete him retroactively from history, is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NordhornerII (talk • contribs) 23:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The Voder
This is a sub section connected to the IVR main page. It was written to show that speech is just a collection of Audio waveforms. The research on Voder is based currently known information (I am a specialist in this area see my resume)and that based on other web sites. I have modified the text so that it is not seen as Plagiarism, however I do wish to include the web site reference as It is a useful source of additional information.

This is not the same as Vocoder as this mainly refers to music and not speech.

Happy to modify text to comply with Wikipedia rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmduffy (talk • contribs) 15:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

February 2011
Hi Andyjsmith. Thank you for your work on patrolling pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I just wanted to inform you that I declined to delete Elizabeth Obisanya, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion because of the following concern: the criterion you used does not cover this kind of page or the reason you specified is not a valid reason for speedy deletion. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion and especially what is considered non-criteria. In future you should rather tag such pages for proposed deletion or start an appropriate deletion discussion. There seems to be enough potential notability hidden in among the mess of an article... UtherSRG (talk) 10:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Bah... stupid template... you get the point though... - UtherSRG (talk) 10:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. I had a look for notability but darned if I could see it. Prodding instead. andy (talk) 10:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll have a little go at WP:wikifying the article. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Twiddled my decoder ring, and it turns out it was an attack page. Well done you for picking up on it in the first place. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

User-page frolics
Hi Andy. I just wanted to thank you for reverting the vandalism on my "offensive" user-page. Cute vandal, though. I guess I rather walked into that! Haploidavey (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome andy (talk) 12:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hoax
Would you mind informing me why Konstantin Chterev bolivian general has been deleted?


 * Because it's a silly hoax. andy (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the peer review, could you please be more specific?
You caught me at a bad time but I believe with more citations you will see it's all non-OR.  गीता Brother Can You Spare A Dime - Unsparingly correcting prejudicial POV edits 
 * Taking your point but requesting maintenance of original deadline and guidance on options to proceed.Brothercanyouspareadime (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Eric
Regarding "Norby Test". I can't get back to you until after February. School is out until then, no I'm not in school, but using a computer that is tied to the school schedule. I've stopped the speedy deletion until then. But will comply with you after some discussion. Yes. It is my own research, and clearly doesn't match Wiki's requirements. Please work with me if you can help. Thanks.

However, I'm not able to publish it anywhere else. My hope here was to garner some discussion from higher up, than I've been able to access, and if there is any problems to quitely remove it myself. However, if it is a valid viewpoint it should be published for the AI people to use and reflect on. I'm sorry that I have no other way of protecting my own work at the present time. Please let me know if you have an alternate way of protecting, my idea's, that are within my abilities.

Eric Norby (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but the reasons you state - your own research, unpublished - are precisely the reasons why it is not suitable for wikipedia. It's all explained at WP:OR. andy (talk) 10:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Jim "Razor" Sharp
Your speedy on this was perfectly justified, but enough has been added to the article since to escape A7, so I have de-speedied it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Zionist Occupation Government
I didn't catch it until now, but thanks for the backup on Zionist Occupation Government.

kind regards, --UnicornTapestry (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. andy (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

New York Food Tours
Hello Andyjsmith. I noticed that you tagged the article New York Food Tours for speedy deletion. I sincerely want to create the page and would really appreciate it if you could help me make it better. What changes could I make so that the article may stay up? Thank you very much. Superdeed (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see any way that you could make changes that would prevent it from being deleted. Even if you removed all the promotional language it would still be an article about a company that does not meet wikipedia's notability requirements - see WP:ORG andy (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Gary Hustwit
Hello Andyjsmith. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Gary Hustwit, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 15:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Shane Neilson
Hello Andyjsmith. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Shane Neilson, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't see it myself. The article makes a claim of notability but scarcely a credible one. Prodding. andy (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For CSD A7 there only has to be an assertion of importance or significance, which is a much lower standard than notability. Having listed publications with ISBN numbers and mentions of awards puts it well above the threshold for an A7 deletion. With his writings appearing in works such as The Globe and Mail and coverage in the Canadian Medical Association Journal I don't believe the deletion is uncontroversial and have therefore removed the PROD as well. You are free to pursue deletion via AfD if notability remains a concern. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That article, regular clay
I know about that clay article. But that one covers ALL clay types. Mine covers only the regular clay group. >:O — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlekaJanuary1003 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Clay Mining
Why did you mark "Clay Mining" for deletion????? It is real, not a hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlekaJanuary1003 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * At best it was a very silly article. andy (talk) 08:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

TimetoPlaymag.com
Hi Andy. Can you please explain why you deleted TimetoPlayMag.com in January? They are the #1 toy review site and the article I wrote offered several sources from the New York Times, NBC, etc. that cites the website and its owners/reviewers. I don't understand why it would have been deleted... please explain. "Speedy deletion nomination of TimetoPlayMag.com If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article. You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles. A tag has been placed on TimetoPlayMag.com, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding "hang on" to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. andy (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)"


 * If you go to TimetoPlayMag.com you'll see that it has now been deleted three times, because it was a promotional article. The deletion warning on your talk page explains this and also gives you links to articles about wikipedia's guidelines and policies that cover articles of this kind. andy (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Re speedy of United States v. Navajo Nation, 2003
Andy, this was an article by a Montana University Student in the WP:USPP project that should have been created in their user space first. There was nothing wrong with the nomination but I moved it back into the user space. Just a heads up. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. andy (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Datawatch/David Alexander (author)
Hi. I have declined your speedy, because that is not a valid criterion to speedy a userspace draft. You could take it to MfD, though it might be better to wait a bit; discussions there tend to allow some time for possible improvement before agreeing that something should be deleted per WP:FAKEARTICLE.

Two technical points about userfying: the right template at the top is Userspace draft, not user page, which has the extra benefit of automatically NOINDEXing the page so that search engines don't pick it up; and categories should be commented out with. I've done that for this one. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 13:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. andy (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of IDF's withdrawal from Sinai and Gaza (1956-1957)
FYI I have removed the proposed deletion tag you placed on IDF's withdrawal from Sinai and Gaza (1956-1957), because the article has been userfied and therefore cannot be prodded. Its new location is User:Coin945/IDF's withdrawal from Sinai and Gaza (1956-1957). &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 14:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It was userfied by the author after I added the prod. andy (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Saba Wahid
I have declined your PROD on Saba Wahid, as it is clear that the deletion is not uncontroversial. It seems that the author wishes to contest the deletion, but probably does not realise that for a PROD, unlike a speedy deletion tag, it is OK for them to remove it. I am not expressing any opinion on whether the article should be deleted, only on the fact that it does not qualify for deletion via PROD, which is only for uncontroversial deletions. You may like to take it to AfD. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * That's reasonable. I'll AfD it. andy (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Historical irony
I can't see it as a deletable attack. It doesn't demean anyone or any particular organisation (except perhaps the Infernal Revenoo and that's nothing actionable). I've no objection to you trying another category, or if you can't find one, prodding or AfD. I'm not sure exactly what it is, but it don't look encyclopaedic not nohow. Peridon (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "The U of Chicago registrar" is a named individual who will "screw you" - sounds like an attack to me. andy (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "can screw you for a late bill" sounds like part of their function in work. I wonder if 'context' could be used here. Peridon (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Come on, it's clearly intended as a sarcastic dig at various parties at least one of whom (Chicago Uni) might well be in dispute with the author for all we know. If someone writes an article that implies they've been screwed by someone we should nuke it even if it's a good article (which it isn't). It will fail my prod anyway. andy (talk) 16:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed the registrar and seconded your prod. Agreed it's someone who's upset. Just looking into something... Peridon (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirected it to Irony. Historical Irony is mentioned there, but not in quite the same terms. If you prefer to revert to the prod2, I've no objection. Peridon (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

CSD A7 on Sporty's Pilot Shop
Hi, just dropping by to let you know I have challenged your CSD A7 on Sporty's Pilot Shop. In my opinion, the claim that the subject of the article pioneered 3-day ground schools indicates why the subject is important. As such I think the article survives criteria A7. The article is still in questionable notability territory, but there are some reliable sources in there that make it borderline. If you still think the article should be deleted, feel free to use an alternative deletion process. Monty 845  18:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)