User talk:ArcAngel/Archive0016

Roger C. Field
Hi ArcAngel. Can you help me with this? I did tag this for deletion, but I feel there is a portion of value, (the Foldaxe), just not the inventor. See discussion there. The majority of information about Roger C. Field does not seem to fit the purpose of Wikipedia. I have never tagged for deletion before so thought I would ask for some help. Thanks. -Bruce Airproofing (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would let the PROD stand, and if removed, then put the article through AfD. According to the discussion I saw on the article talk page, you note that most of the refs are not easily verifiable, so the article would fail WP:V at the very least.  I am not convinced that the Foldaxe is notable either, but wait and see what happens with the PROD.  If the article gets deleted with no objections, then there's nothing more to worry about.     ArcAngel    (talk) ) 17:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help. Another editor removed the PROD and suggested an Articles for Deletion, which I did, although he thought that action would be controversial. Airproofing (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Orion records
The Stereophile article is the sole source that I know regarding Orion, and to be honest I was surprised the label had received that much coverage in such a mainstream publication: after all, Orion, like so many small classical LP labels, was a tiny operation driven by one individual with sales that were negligible by the standards of pop, or even major classical, labels, and its recordings were hardly the sort of "audiophile" productions of most interest to the magazine's target audience. Nonetheless, classical collectors encounter its products, which include a good bit of interesting material in terms of both musicians and unusual literature, fairly often on the used LP market and are likely to be curious about the company, especially now that some of its material seems to be achieving reissue on CD. (Page view statistics seem to support that conclusion; they show that the article has received a small but steady stream of views, gradually increasing over time, ever since it went "live.") I doubt that tagging the article would chase out much more information beyond, possibly, something of dubious objectivity derived from trade papers or the like. Incidentally, I'm not quite clear why reliance on a third-party article in a recognized periodical was "original research"--I'd think that Stereophile would qualify as a perfectly legitimate secondary source, as long as the article was not an autobiographical piece or press release. Drhoehl (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The way the article is written, none of the statements made are referenced, which is way I said it could be considered original research as the claims made in the article cannot possibly be verified. Admittedly, I am not familiar with Stereophile, but from the quick glance I had of it, I am not sure of it's reliability as a source.  I will tag the article with the appropriate issues as I see them and let things take their course from there.     ArcAngel    (talk) ) 19:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The article lacks inline citations because, when I wrote the original submission, nearly everything came from the Stereophile piece cited as a reference, and you can verify every claim in the Wikipedia article by reference to the magazine article. Annotating every sentence or paragraph individually with notes to that effect would simply have littered the article with redundant clutter.  Stereophile is a long-established specialist publication aimed at the audiophile community, well known and respected in audio circles, particularly among those with an interest in high-end equipment--specialist periodicals with roughly equivalent stature would be American Rifleman in the gun collectors' world or Motor Trend (coincidentally, I've just learned, a product of the same publisher) among auto enthusiasts.  If you have a look at the stub in Wikipedia about Stereophile, you'll note that it's no Johnny-come-lately but has been in continuous publication since 1962.  Honestly, I think you might have done better to familiarize yourself with the publication by more than a "quick glance" before rushing to judgment and placing tags questioning its reliability, especially on a low-but-steady traffic article on a specialized subject where there probably is little more information to be had, meaning that the disfiguring tags will probably just persist for the foreseeable future. Drhoehl (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

My Article
Thank you for moving my article while I get the publication of it and verification of it dealt with. Perhaps you can help me. I am ready to publish it with all the references that can verify the information I listed in the article and yet it was not accepted. I researched why that could be and the only thing I came up with was because I am a new user and have not had "10 edits." I did however see that you can request it be moved regardless of those issues but I could not find the "move" link that was referenced in those directions. Unfortunately I am new to Wikipedia, but not new to the industry as I am an agent for talent, and Asian. I noticed the actor "Di Quon" did not have an article and so I wrote one since there are so few Asian Actors out there. Advice? Nouqderf (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I could move it, unfortunately it requires a bit of "cleanup" first. I would recommend reading the links I provided on your talk page and learning how Wikipedia uses "code" for the articles.  I would assist you with that, but I am short on time today and unfortunately cannot fix the article as it should be.     ArcAngel    (talk) ) 19:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me. I will "cleanup" as best to my abilities today and if you can move it afterwards, I would be very thankful. Unlike traditional publications, where you turn them in, they are edited and printed, this proves a bit more challenging for me. Nouqderf (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

One more question, I have read through all the links and I am a little unsure about the verification. Some of the references I used were links to the actual music video, for example. I am not sure how to "code those". Thank you again for all your help. I had no idea by doing this I would be opening this big of a can of worms. Nouqderf (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

EyPi RecordZ
Hi,

While I agree that EyPi RecordZ does not look notable and I have prod 2'ed the article, as I said Empty Buffer's talk page I do think that as it has an article for the time being it can be listed in List of record labels: A–H and ask you to reconsider your removal of it. Codf1977 (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea, sorry, wasn't thinking - duh!    ArcAngel    (talk) ) 20:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter
A new newsletter has been released; WikiProject Professional wrestling/Newsletter/Issue 072. Delivered: 17:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Albums produced by Howard Willing
Category:Albums produced by Howard Willing, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or 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. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Albums produced by Jonathon Wyman
Category:Albums produced by Jonathon Wyman, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or 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. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Albums produced by Ted de Bono
Category:Albums produced by Ted de Bono, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or 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. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Something to drown your sorrows


HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
 * Sorry to see your RfA go like that- I now from experience it's not a pleasant experience. That said, I hope you take some of the good advice you've been offered there and use it to make yourself a better editor and, hopefully, better admin one day. If you want some advice or a chat, feel free to drop by my talk page or email me. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My advice would be to withdraw your nomination. As I type, you have 4 supports and 20 opposes - there is no dishonour in withdrawing your nomination, in fact many people see it as a positive sign: it shows that you can use your common sense - a trait which is invaluable in an admin! Realistically, you would need to have at least 44 more supports and no further opposes to reach the 70% support level, which is the guideline figure for the level of support at which an editor is likely to become an admin. I hope to see you again at RfA (in a few months, perhaps) and to be able to support you - if you want any advice, please feel to contact me! --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 12:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Your RFA
Congratulations on your timing of a very gracious withdrawal, and well done for watching the comments so far. I voted neutral, and I look forward to being able to support next time. I think you struck an excellent balance on how long to leave this running to gain experience from the responses. - Begoon (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I closed the RfA after your request for withdrawal. I just wanted to emphasize that there were a good number of people who hope to see you run again in the future. All the best, Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 18:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I now know where I need to improve at, and I will work on that as I can.     ArcAngel    (talk) ) 18:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter
A new newsletter has been released; WikiProject Professional wrestling/Newsletter/Issue 073. Delivered: 12:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

WikiProject NASCAR Newsletter
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Nascar1996 at 20:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC).

Notification
Please see Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents, and the subthreads above it. You are being notified as you were one of the users who proposed or discussed the original sanction. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter
A new newsletter has been released; WikiProject Professional wrestling/Newsletter/Issue 074. Delivered: 15:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter
A new newsletter has been released; WikiProject Professional wrestling/Newsletter/Issue 075. Delivered: 15:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

NASCAR Newsletter August, 2010
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Nascar1996 at 00:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC).

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter
A new newsletter has been released; WikiProject Professional wrestling/Newsletter/Issue 076. Delivered: 15:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter
A new newsletter has been released; WikiProject Professional wrestling/Newsletter/Issue 077. Delivered: 13:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

September 2010 WP:NASCAR News
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject NASCAR at 00:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC).

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter
A new newsletter has been released; WikiProject Professional wrestling/Newsletter/Issue 078. Delivered: 21:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

Wanna Barnstar?
Good morning, fellow editors. We are currently in the process of launching the October wikification drive. If you would like to participate, please sign up here. Please direct any questions to Mono or WikiCopter or the project's talk page. Thank you!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 06:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC).

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter
A new newsletter has been released; WikiProject Professional wrestling/Newsletter/Issue 079. Delivered: 07:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter
A new newsletter has been released; WikiProject Professional wrestling/Newsletter/Issue 080. Delivered: 09:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

WP:NASCAR Newsletter (October)
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject NASCAR at 00:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC).

Proposed deletion of Nyleptha Roberts


The article Nyleptha Roberts has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Trivia, Fails WP:GNG, practically no reliable sources, WP:NOT

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. David in DC (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Please confirm your membership
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 19:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC).