User talk:ArcAngel/Archive0010

Ben archer
i think my edits were good and i was not trying to wp:vandalise wikipedia. If at all he article should have been tagged with db-bio, not vandalism. thx 4 ur time —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archer56 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * An admin agreed with my decision of the tagging, sorry. ArcAngel (talk) 18:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Brown Bottom
Thanks. -- Testing times (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. :) ArcAngel (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy tagging
Hullo ArcAngel; I've disagreed with your choice of tagging of the articles Galaxy wizards, Glass is green, and Bella merlin; let me know if you'd like to know why or if you'd prefer not to be notified in future. Cheers, Skomorokh,  barbarian  13:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * By all means, please let me know. Not knowing would hinder my CSD progress.  :) ArcAngel (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Nicole Rogerson Wikipedia Entry
Hi ArcAngel

Thanks for adding commentary to my initial page for Nicole Rogerson.

I appreciate the input.

I am trying to figure out where to put the hangon on the page. I am not sure where the speedy deletion is in the page to insert this...

I started the page yesterday with the intention of creating a page on Nicole, but need to get some information from her in order to build out the entry. Hence the minimimalist info inserted.

I believe that Nicole is a figure who should absolutely have an entry. Other than the fact that she is a family friend, which is neither here nor there, she is one of the leading figures in early intervention in Australia at present, and as such, is a leading social influence in Australia.

My intention is to provide linkage to information on The Lizard Centre, the facility that Nicole runs, Autism Awareness, the charity that she is associated with.

I would appreciate input into what is acceptable practice for this kind of entry, though.

I would plan to build this entry out over the next month or so.

Regards

Chrisgilbey (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Nicole Rogerson
An editor has nominated Nicole Rogerson, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
 Btilm 05:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

H2S vH2O
No sweat, we shall see what comes of it. Vinithehat (talk) 05:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerihan Football Club
Hey there. Author of the article Clerihan Football Club removed the CSD-A1 tag you put to the page. I first reverted his edits, but then noticed that the page is not in the criteria of A1 anymore as the author put more content to it.  Ilyushka88   talk  11:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for letting me know. It now falls under the db-club criteria.  ArcAngel (talk) 11:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Baby Shakes does not look like a hoax, just insignificant
On the article Baby Shakes, even if those two records do not exist, the article does not look like a hoax. It is just insignificant. :) Merlion  444  09:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I see assertion for meeting WP:BAND as the article says they were on a national US tour, so I declined the speedy deletion. Speedy needs to be extremely obvious with no assertions of meeting notability standards. I think you should list it at AFD or PROD - maybe someone will improve it. I had a little time (finally!), so I was checking the speedy deletions. I hope that you are doing well!  Royal broil  14:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh no. I did not know the band was significant because of "a national US tour". :( Merlion  444  18:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh, no worries. It appears I will put the article through an AFD at this point as I have not found any significant coverage of this band.  ArcAngel (talk) 19:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yea, no worries! If someone finds a source that states that they've been on a national tour or anything about their upcoming international tour (as found on their MySpace account), then the article (in theory) would be kept in an AFD discussion. I see this would easily get it kept - that's a mention at Rolling Stone! Another source is All Music Guide which used to be consider real big |SHAKES&sql=11:kifixztgldje~T2. I think you should reconsider listing the article at AFD.  Royal broil  14:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarifying sources
In regards to the Lynn Pett article you tagged as Single Source. You might be unfamiliar, but the Deseret News is a newspaper. Two articles were from that newspaper were cited. Also, there were additional two sources, a book and the Salt Lake Tribune article were added as supporting sources but were not added at the time of the initial posting of the article. Are four citations sufficient Stundra (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be better if you had ONLINE sources so as to pass verifiability. Though you referenced two different articles, they are still from ONE source.  The more online suorces you can add, the better.  ArcAngel (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Online sources are only a convenience, not a requirement to meet WP:V. "Dead tree" references (such as to books & newspapers) are perfectly valid & adequate; attempting to needlessly disqualify these actually strengthens WP's systematic bias. Incidentally, your request for online sources has been partially filled on this particular article. Additionally, based on your interaction with User:Stundra, you also may find Newbie treatment at CSD enlightening. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Converted to PROD: Flaskerud
Hello ArcAngel, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have changed a page you tagged (Flaskerud) from being tagged for speedy deletion to being tagged for proposed deletion. The speedy deletion criteria are very narrow to protect the encyclopedia, and do not fit the page in question. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks again! Skomorokh, barbarian   04:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for letting me know. I hope to continue improving on my page patrol.  :)  ArcAngel (talk) 04:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries; I'll get back to you about those other ones in a while. The problem here was that the topic is a name, not a specific person. Keep up the good work :)  Skomorokh,  barbarian   04:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Please Reinstate Homeowners of Texas
I also asked C.Fred to please reinstate my deleted page (Homeowners of Texas). This is my first article, and I did read the guidelines, but his Speedy Deletion occurred too fast for me to respond in time. I responded to his TALK page afterwards, explaining the three issues he raised and told him I would send this to permissions-en@wikimedia.org tonight from my personal ID at home. I will copy my work ID so I can resend from there in the morning.

RE: CSD G12 and copyright problems. A portion of the text in my Wikipedia article came directly from homeownersoftexas.org, the website I created and own. I represent HOT and have permission to use this material. Also note that on our site (not in the Wikipedia article) we include full text of several published articles with highlights and added commentary for educational purposes under Fair Use rules as a nonprofit.

RE: CSD A7 and notability. Homeowners of Texas is notable because it’s the nonprofit organization successfully that took on the powerful lobbyists of a $35 Billion Texas homebuilding industry and won notable changes in Texas laws governing homebuilding. It is an ongoing enterprise that is expanding its scope and legislative agenda nationally, making it even more relevant to Wikipedia audiences. If you don’t agree, then please explain why powerful industry associations can be listed on Wikipedia but the nonprofit (i.e. underfunded) organizations that watch out for consumers and keep the big guys in check are tagged for Speedy Deletion. Our organization’s success is widely described in the mainstream media and recognized by elected officials, at least in Texas. Soon we’ll be well known nationally, with or without Wikipedia.

RE: conflict of interest. I understand the issue and will gladly declare my interests in Homeowners of Texas so people can judge the validity of the article for themselves. I’ll note that in the TALK section, but should I also include it in the ARTICLE? I have nothing to hide. COI is more likely with small nonprofits than large industry associations, where any association member can create and edit articles without being an “officer” in the organization. TXhomeowner (talk) 05:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Since I am not an admin, I cannot undelete the article, sorry. If the deleting admin felt the article passed Wikipedia's notability guidelines, he would have declined the speedy delete tagging.  ArcAngel (talk) 06:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

America's Army - controversy section
The section I added information to was controversy, so it's as germane as it gets, this is a controversy surrounding the game, there was no indication made as to how all Veterans feel about the game or how Veterans feel about it period, only how one Veteran was treated, there was some mention of feelings that some people have regarding the game and it's staff. Though you say forum posts are not reliable, there is no other indication that the forums were down for a week to point to, just like I can't put a game browser in here for you to see how few players are left, so while they may not be reliable in your opinion they are the only sources available.

Further, there are also links to several email scans .jpg, in those it is acknowledged by the Army's staff that a Veteran was banned for saying another user who showed support for several domestic terrorist actions "may" have been brain washed by terrorists because he showed support for people taking up arms against his own government and some reference to how silly other warnings leading up to the ban were, i.e. bashing a non-existent group ( cavemen ), there was no denial on the Army's part in any of that either, the other shows that yes there was an incident of terrorists contacting forum members asking them to come to their terrorist site, again no denial on the Army's part, the banning of the Veteran because he stood up for his country and exercised his loyalty, when the Army and the game want to teach children these are good values is controversial, it is also controversial to warn someone for bashing a group when it's obvious to anyone that the group is non-existent, it is also controversial to allow children access to possible terrorists propaganda as terrorists have used the forums in the past to PM users and the Army has allowed people to discuss their support for several domestic terrorist incidents, like waco and ruby ridge, it is controversial to preach loyalty and then drop two operating systems you started supporting like a hot potato with no official explanation or apology and lastly it is controversial to shut down your forums for a week without notice when your game is barely surviving.

Please read and comprehend before you edit and in any case deleting all of someone's contribution based on the fact that you apparently don't understand the meaning of controversy is unreasonable at best. It is under controversy, so look that up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.69.67 (talk) 10:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I do not agree. The content you added adds nothing to the article and the sources you provided are considered unreliable.  ArcAngel (talk) 10:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Moreover, this "controversy" as you call it is limited to the AA forums - "localized", if you will, that does not meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. As your content stands, it is mainly original research and not neutral in tone.  Also it is not me that is saying that forums are not reliable sources, but it is Wikipedia policy, and that is why I reverted your edits.  ArcAngel (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, it's under controversy, perhaps you should look that up, the fact that so many people disagree on each side of this only proves that's where it belongs, look the word up sometime.

You say it's localized, but you apparently fail to understand that the forums in question are the official forums for the project and the AACM ( America's Army Community Manager )appearing in the email stating they support the ban based on previous ridiculous warnings and a formor soldier speaking up against someone boldy stating that they support past domestic terrorist actions is a paid employee of the Army project, this isn't just some person's forum that is unrelated to the project and this is no volunteer.

The game attempts to teach the Army values and basicly evolves around them, having such values is how the player is scored, one of which is loyalty, yet the project staff steps on anyone showing that value as this person did, a Veteran of the Army even, someone that learned this value from them, so what does that say I ask and how can you possibly not see that as a controversy, to put it simply, it's like hey kids become a soldier, be Army strong, have loyalty just don't ever let someone know you have it, what the hell is that, if the other things you say are true, that still doesn't mean it should be simply erased, just as the other errors in the article do not mean the whole thing should be erased and there are a lot of mistakes in the articale as well as numerous points made that are not neutral in tone.

As you may note, assuming you actually read it, I have made an effort to make it more neutral and am fully open to that, but what you and some others have done is nothing short of the same vandalism you accuse others of doing, so instead why not edit it and try to make it more in line with whats expected rather than destroy the information completely as it is controversial and in the controversy section and the nature of controversy is that people disagree.

Please understand that I am simply trying to put this controversial information out there so people can judge for themselves, nothing more and nothing less, however the Amry is a propaganda machine, I am not and as such they do not leave such information available, even in their own forums it is often erased to prevent anyone from knowing the truth and then some poor sap who starts the conversation again, even though they have no real way of knowing it happened will get a warning for reopening a closed topic, this is the way they are operating, so again, there just isn't a lot of proof out there on these things unless you follow along or read their forums regularly, in this case, again the forum links only exist to prove the forums were down for awhile without notice and that the players numbers are getting very low, everything else mentioned is in the two emails attached. So help do it right rather than attack, not eveyone spends their days and night here man. Again it's not mere opinion, much of it is fact, check the cites.

Anyway, why don't you nazis keep you wikipedia to yourselves, I certainly will never cite it again as I now see how it works, only those given moderator powers here actually have a say, so the information is worthless and can not be trusted. 75.0.69.67 (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What you seem to fail to understand is how Wikipedia operates. Forum postings, by their nature, can not, by policy, be included as sources in articles.  That's policy.  It can not be bent, it can not be broken - it is the way it is.  Information added to articles must have reliable, third-party sources for it to be considered valid.  Your content was unencyclopedic, and could not be reliably sourced, simple as that.  I'm sorry if that upsets you, but that's how things work here.  ArcAngel (talk) 04:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: TOMC3
Hello ArcAngel, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of TOMC3 - a page you tagged - because: '''A7 does not require any sources or meeting WP:BIO. The article claims that the subject is important/significant which is sufficient to fail speedy deletion. Use WP:AFD.''' Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know.  So Why  08:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * sigh* I'll get a clue one of these decades. :)  Thanks for letting me know.  ArcAngel (talk) 08:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Jaggedstar13
Re your message: That's pretty funny. Well, I've been called worse. =) I see I'm part of an ANI discussion, too.  I think I'll let somebody else decline the unblock notice just so he can't use the excuse that I shouldn't be declining unblocks that are due to me supposedly hacking his account.  Thank you for the laugh. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)