User talk:ArcAngel/Archive0021

Help
Hello friend! I have given so much references of the article Mindstorm Studios, instead it has the tag of deletion, please help me and Wikipedia in improving this article, please remove this tag and tell me about what kind of references should be given on it, I hope you will help me, thanks...--—just feel it (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the tag on it is not for deletion - rather it outlines the list of problems with it. First off, there are way too many references using Mindstorm as the source.  Secondly, blogs cannot be used as sources.  What is needed are reliable, third-party sources that offer significant coverage of Mindstorm in some way to establish notablility.     ArcAngel    (talk) ) 18:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

ACUF
Excuse me, but I don't understand why ACUF meets the critery for speedy deletion... My idea to create this article was that a user may enter acuf or ACUF as search term if she/he either searches for the first or for the second entry. What is wrong with that? --Cyfal (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not using the hangon tag. So you are saying its condition two of the CSD tag? But how can I then achive that a user who entered ACUF (e.g., if you read Maud Rise) finds the fitting of the two articles, either American Conservative Union or United States Board on Geographic Names? --Cyfal (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, condition 2 is valid for that page. I can easily see a redirect for ACUF to the American Conservative Union, but I do not see how it relates to the USBGN.  Hatnotes are generally used for less than three articles with similar names.     ArcAngel    (talk) ) 19:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I see... Maybe I put it on my to-do list to extent USBGN with the Board on Geographic names or write an article for Board on Geographic Names of its own. I may then try to define one of the two ACUF meanings as primary topic or something else. Thank you for your explanation. --Cyfal (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Deleting disambiguation pages
Hi. You may want to take a closer look at WP:TWODABS. Speedy deletion is only applicable when there is a clear primary topic. The pages you've nominated do not appear to have clear primary topics. They would have (diambiguation) in their titles if there was one. Thanks! - Eureka Lott 20:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll try to be better selective then.    ArcAngel    (talk) ) 20:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Schoolboy Records
Hello ArcAngel. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Schoolboy Records, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Label has signed a distinctly notable artist, which is sufficient indication of importance to pass A7. Thank you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:Proposed deletion endorsed
Thanks for your work in the PROD process. It is much appreciated! I just wanted to let you know that unlike prod, the template proposed deletion endorsed is not supposed be substed. Substing proposed deletion causes the page to show up in Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates, which is a bit of a bother to clear out. Thanks for reading this! — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 22:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your non-concern. I always use PROD2.  Thanks.     ArcAngel    (talk) ) 22:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Impact! show :O
Fix all articles with the words TNA Impact! to Impact! Show. It's been renamed for some reason. :O 72.70.203.28 (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate of Mићко Марковић anyways
Hi ArcAngel. "For Pete's sake": how did you know my real name? Oh, forgot, it's on my edit notice. Please do WP:G3 both. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A10 was already on Mићко Марковић, and I A7'd the other because there was nothing to signify importance.    ArcAngel    (talk) ) 10:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * All gone! :-) A pleasure to be working with you. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

WWE Over The Limit (2011)
The purpose of the Article Incubator is to keep articles that need to be worked on for future moving to the namespace in a less visible location. Why are you redirecting the main space article, WWE Over The Limit (2011), to the Incubator? Just curious. Logan Talk Contributions 20:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you look at the history you'll see it was redirected there before, and I feel until it comes out of the incubator, it's better than having a redlink there for the time being.    ArcAngel    (talk) ) 20:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You are not understanding the point of the incubator. See the instructions for incubating here, which state that "Any redirect left in mainspace at Foo article must be tagged for speedy deletion as a cross-namespace redirect using db-r2."  I am tagging the article as an R2 per those instructions.  If the article were appropriate for viewing in the main space, then it wouldn't be in the incubator.  A redirect simply does not make any sense here. Logan Talk Contributions 20:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Naming Impact
Hi there, I notice you updated the name of TNA Impact, which was done more responsibly than that guy who thought the company changed... anyway I wanted to go over this with you and reach consensus about something. The way it is now, Impact! (TV Show), I'm not sure if it is right. For example, Impact! redirects there. If there is nothing else that uses the name impact with an exclamation mark after it, do we even need TV show in parentheses? It seems like we might be able to drop that and just have the shorter name.

If we do for some reason keep something in parentheses, I question the capitalization of the 's' for 'show'. For example, if we look at Justice League (TV series) we use a lowercase S because things like 'show' or 'series' are neither initialisms or a proper name.

That also makes me wonder, since Impact has been an ongoing series, should we call it that rather than show? I mean I know it's both so I'm not entirely sure. I think that since there is a continuity of storylines that series might make sense, as opposed to say like the "daily show" which doesn't really have much continuity and is pretty spontaneous and disconnected.

Of course, what to call it or capitalize it won't be an issue if we drop parentheses altogether, which might be preferable. What do you think, would you support a vote to move it to simply "Impact!" ? Perhaps it might cause problems down the line if something else uses that name and becomes notable, but I don't think there's any notable competitors which would require it to be used as disambiguation, so we could win the shorter name. DB (talk) 03:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The way I originally had it Impact! Wrestling is the way it should be because I changed it with a reliable source. Though there are other articles with impact in the title, I feel that Impact Wrestling is enough to disambiguate it from the rest.  There are some here who don't follow the MOS naming conventions, that's why you saw the capital S in show.     ArcAngel    (talk) ) 03:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

JoMo
hey, I think JoMo can be considered an official nickname for John Morrison? Apparently you thought it was shorthand used in the story but I have to point out that WWE writers don't use shorthands for any other wrestlers, therefore it really should be a nickname?

Starship.paint (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I disagree with you. It's not an official nickname unless another reliable source uses it.  Until then please keep it out of the article.     ArcAngel    (talk) ) 11:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I really do think that as the official website wwe.com is surely the most reliable source. So here's wwe writer Greg Adkins (who I originally quoted) using JoMo in his article. http://www.wwe.com/shows/raw/2011-05-02/results Here is another WWE writer Ryan Murphy using JoMo. In the same article, Murphy also calls Morrison by his other nicknames like the Shaman of Sexy and the Monday Night Delight. http://www.wwe.com/inside/thq/john-morrison-visits-thq So I saw PW Torch was listed as another reliable source. Here's James Caldwell using JoMo: http://www.pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/TV_Reports_9/article_28613.shtml Here's Joshua Hansen using JoMo: http://www.pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/The_Specialists_34/article_47342.shtml So, is that enough? Starship.paint (talk) 13:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey AA, it's been a few days and you haven't replied. I'm adding JoMo to his nicknames now. I've provided various reliable sources above which I believe is sufficient enough. Starship.paint (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
ArcAngel, I received your message. Thank you very much. I understand and will avoid such errors in the future. Thank you also for making the amendment. I really appreciate your help. Once again, thanks. RegardsVizbucks (talk) 07:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

BLPPROD
BLPPROD only applies to articles created post-March 2010. So Antonia Simigis can't be deleted under that process. Fences &amp;  Windows  23:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

AfD: Cort Webber and Bobby "Fatboy" Roberts
This is a courtesy notice given your prior involvement with Articles for deletion/Cort and Fatboy or its deletion review (Deletion review/Log/2011 April 10) that these related articles are currently listed at AfD at Articles for deletion/Cort Webber. As attribution issues are involved, closure of this current AfD may result in the restoration of the earlier article, as a list of contributors would be necessary if the articles are retained. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Urgent Question
I have sources that are not online. Can I still cite them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puppeteerman901 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As long as they are verifiable, yes.    ArcAngel    (talk) ) 09:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you help me? I'm not sure how to cite a letter or email that doesn't have a URL. Puppeteerman901 (talk) 10:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, unfortunately letters or e-mails cannot be used as sources.    ArcAngel    (talk) ) 10:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I have been able to provide more sources but would like your opinion on how the entry is looking. I'm comparing it to other's like it and I think its has as many sources as the others if not more. Thanks for your help through this very interesting process. Puppeteerman901 (talk) 10:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You repeat many sources, which is frowned upon. Each source (or reference in this case) should only be listed once.  Does the Hebrew Watchman have a website?  I was not able to find it, so if there is one, please add that also.     ArcAngel    (talk) ) 11:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Butting in for just a second with what I assume is a redundant remark--ArcAngel is correct, sources don't have to be online. As for letters, they can be used if they were published. If you got them from a box in the attic, or received them privately (I have a set of love letters that Madonna wrote me), they can't be used. ArcAngel, can you show them how to consolidate those references, with "ref name"? Do one of them, and then they can figure it out, I think. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I could do that, but I am not sure it would be worth the effort as I haven't found anything to establish the notability of the person. I am thinking about sending the article to AFD since the last speedy tag I placed on it was declined, and it was already prodded.  The sources on the article now don't look very convincing as far as establishing notability, really.     ArcAngel    (talk) ) 15:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

100
Feels pretty good, actually. Some editors with whom I've butted heads in the past are supporting my nomination, and I am humbled by that. So yes, I'm really happy. But did you see some of the members of the 200 and 300 clubs? Some of those nominations failed! I think anyone who complains that RfA is way too cantankerous a process should look at some of those earlier ones. And what I find interesting (based on anecdotal evidence...) is that a lot of nominations get bogged down and fail because of off-wiki conversations--blogs, IRC, etc. I've never posted on those sites and never read them, and I don't even know (luddite alert) what IRC is. I aim to keep it that way. BTW, I have seen you around as well--keep up the good work! Drmies (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yea, I had a look at those pages also (didn't know they existed until I hit WP:100 lol). Pass or fail, you are still a part of it.  :)  And thanks for the kind words.  Trying to muddle through my past mistakes as best as I can (but still making some here and there).     ArcAngel    (talk) ) 15:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So it goes. I owned up explicitly to one on my talk page just yesterday. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Nabou notability
Hi there. I'm copying a message from the talk page of Nabou. Any information or hints you can give will be much appreciated. --> "Rather than removing the notability tag again, I'll briefly state here why I think it meets WP's general notability guideline. The guideline states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." I have provided three independent sources, one of them a scholarly monograph, all of which discuss Nabou. Do I need inline citations, or is that a separate issue?  Nabou is one of the most well-known SF novels from the GDR, and I'm curious why it is felt not to meet the notability guidelines as a stub whereas an article like this is. What can I do for this stub so that the notability tag can be removed?" Sindinero (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It does need inline citations to help imrove the establishment of the book. For the guideline regarding books, see WP:BK.  As an alternative, the book might be better suited on the German Wikipedia.     ArcAngel    (talk) ) 14:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have the citations, and I'll be adding them in the (hopefully) not-too-distant future. Thanks for the book notability guidelines; Nabou definitely meets those.  Sindinero (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Adding Labels
As per you message. I just added existing record labels that I deserve to be in the list. If they are existing record labels like others on the list why are you calling it promotional or advertising? Please let me know, was I not supposed to edited or add to the list? If that is the case I did not meant to, please tell me how it could be done. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tafal2525 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Adding to List
Hello, As per you message. I just added existing record labels that I thought deserved to be in the list. If they are existing record labels like others on the list why are you calling it promotional or advertising? Please let me know, was I not supposed to edited or add to the list? If that is the case I did not meant to, please tell me how it could be done. Thanks (Tafal2525 (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC))
 * "Deserving to be on the list" is not the same as notability. Entries on those lists must have their own articles, in which the entries you attempted to add do not.  Also, I felt those entries were very close in nature to Cykxincorp, the article you also tried to create, so that is why I deemed it promotional.     ArcAngel    (talk) ) 15:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Czyz Records
Hi. The template said this: "If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. However please explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, it should not be replaced." Don't you think that this suggests that if the article is you improved the template should be removed? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Your edits did not significantly improve the article, nor did they address the notability concerns.    ArcAngel    (talk) ) 22:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably not much point inviting me to discuss the deletion at AfD then. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * By all means, give your opinion there. I just came up empty in my search, but others may be aware of sites I am not.     ArcAngel    (talk) ) 22:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * By when? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * AFD's typically run for 7 days.    ArcAngel    (talk) ) 12:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not been easy to find anything on this label that would make the article more notable, but the information itself might still be of interest. I think it could usefully be added to the Marshall Chess article. I'm not sure why wikipedia has to be so ruthless with regard to small/ stub articles. This is just one tiny part of the much immense "record label jigsaw". I see it as kind of analagous to wikitionary - just because a word is obscure or little-used, that's no real argument for deleting it. I have added a note at the AfD. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Agnes Obel concerts
An IP contested my PROD and your PROD2 (and called it vandalism in the process), so I've AfD'ed it. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 04:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for letting me know.    ArcAngel    (talk) ) 05:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)