User talk:Bped1985/archive

Katie Farris
.. not sure if this qualifies for A7, but it certainly looks spammy. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 04:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Do as you wish with the template; it's certainly spammy, but may also be salvageable. Your first template was probably removed by a sockpuppet. Hairhorn (talk) 04:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Katie Farris
I have revised the article. Thanks for your comments and speedy response. Let me know if there is anything else I can do to improve it. ik001f — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ik001f (talk • contribs) 05:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Katie Farris
Many thanks, again, for your speedy response! I have placed links to both items in the Awards section. As you can see there is history to both of these institutions at Wikipedia. They may not be the Pulitzer Prize, but most people about whom the articles are written at Wikipedia certainly don't have the Pulitzer either. Pushcart Prize is a long respected institution. Phillips Exeter Academy is also certainly well known. I would be glad to many additional corrections if necessary, just let me know. Meanwhile, could you please remove the remaining two tags? Thanks very much for your quick responses, and attentiveness! ik001f — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ik001f (talk • contribs) 05:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The Walrus Was Paul
I've removed the csd tag you placed on this article because, while it's a very short article--just one line--it's not lacking in context: it's about a book, the author's name is stated, and so is the topic. I don't actually think it's notable, but there is no csd criterion for books, so I've PROD'd it, which will at least allow the original editor, or someone else, the opportunity to improve the article and prove me wrong. regards Jimmy Pitt   talk  13:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion notices
Hi Bped! Thank you for patrolling new pages. Just FYI, speedy deletion notices should be put on the creator's talk page, not their user page. I have fixed this in the case of User:Sf lwc. Thanks!  Jujutacular  talk 04:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh. Huh. Seems I must have posted that one there by accident. Thanks for catching it!Bped1985 (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

akoya
I think you put that on there before I added the emporis thing. Daniel Christensen (talk) 04:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. I did. But still, don't take it off yourself... Post something on the talk page of the article or of the person who tagged it to have it taken down. Bped1985 (talk) 04:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Winter's (chocolate)
I am guessing that you nominated my stub Winter's (chocolate) for speedy deletion because of the lengthy product list (that I put a lot of time into, by the way). So I have removed most of the list hoping that will help to put it back into active stub status. Please look at the page again with a couple of new items I have added. I feel the third-party sources (the couple I have so far) are good, and I am confident that I and other editors should have no problems finding many more third-party sources. Also please read my note on the talk page of the article stub. Thanks --Jeffrey Scott Maxwell (talk) 05:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, for starters, the author NEVER has permission to remove a speedy deletion tag from their own article. So don't do that again. On to the article. This revision is a bit better, but I'm still not seeing how this content is encyclopedic. It seems advertisement-like. Ask yourself, whats the importance? Bped1985 (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please check the history my friend. I DID NOT remove the speedy deletion tag from my article.  According to the history, it was removed at 05:56, 22 December 2010, by username Beeblebrox who gave the following reason for removing the tag, "decline per hangon reasoning and good faith efforts to correct perceived problems."  But thanks for the information.  I am learning, and I will be working on this to make it a respectable article in time.  Thank you for your time and consideration.  --Jeffrey Scott Maxwell (talk) 04:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Source Sound Player (SSP)
Hello Bped1985. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Source Sound Player (SSP), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''Not overly spammy, but probably not notable. As software can't be A7, so I'll take to AfD.''' Thank you. Ged UK  19:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The page made was relevant. The band has hundreds of followers that want to know about it. Fortunately I know this information about them as I went to the same school, while most of them were there.

Can it be sent to me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aftermathmusic (talk • contribs) 05:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

deletion
The page made was relevant. The band has hundreds of followers that want to know about it. Fortunately I know this information about them as I went to the same school, while most of them were there.

Can it be sent to me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aftermathmusic (talk • contribs) 05:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Nitty Gritty Dirt Band - The Christmas Album
I modified the reference to more specifically explain where I got the information. I now only have one reference, because all the information came from the album liner notes. Does this satisfy your concerns? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrowingObsession (talk • contribs) 01:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the long response time here. I took a second look and that is a good improvement. However, a healthy album article should include somewhere around two references, even if it is two versions of the same thing. What I would suggest is trying to find another version of the track listing, somewhere else. You could do this by going to an online music store and giving the URL of the album on that music store as a reference. If you can't find anything, let me know and I'll do some hunting. Bped1985 (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Paul Justin Compton
Hello Bped1985. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Paul Justin Compton, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''Any Emeritus professor is notable enough for CSD. This needs to go to AfD if you think it should be deleted.''' Thank you. Ged UK  14:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, was not aware of that. But now I know. Thank you sir! Bped1985 (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's kind of an unwritten rule of thumb. It crops up on the CSD talk pages every now and again, and virtually 100% of CSD admins have said it's an indication of notability. It doesn't necessarily mean that he would pass WP:PROF though. CSD is intentionally a lower bar of notability than WP:N. Ged  UK  12:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well thanks again! I appreciate all the information. I'm just starting out on WP:RCP so still learning all those nifty un-written rules ;) Cheers to you sir and thanks again! Bped1985 (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The critical thing to remember with CSD is that it's intentionally supposed to be a lower threshold of notability. Is there a reasonable indication of notability? For me and other admins, that would include a professor, knight of the realm, a band signed to a notable label (ie one with an article) or with a band member notable enough to have their own article etc. But clearly just because they get through CSD, which is only ever one user's opinion (not even an admin necessarily), doesn't mean that it would survive at AfD. Any questions, feel free to ask! Ged  UK  11:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: 2013 Suncheon Garden Expo Korea
Hello Bped1985. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of 2013 Suncheon Garden Expo Korea, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''G4: Not previously deleted via a discussion. If I am incorrect, please give a link to the AfD on my talk page and I will delete it if appropriate.''' Thank you.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 06:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Crap. I could have sworn it was on my watchlist as deleted when I looked a few minutes ago. Terribly sorry about that and thanks for catching it! Bped1985 (talk) 06:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: E-crowd
Hello Bped1985. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on E-crowd to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 06:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Braun - Thanks to you, as well
Your note and award really cheered me. Thanks.

My biggest concern on this one right now is that I think there was a hearing last month and I can't find news of it. It's a BLP problem if the criminal case is left out there with another shoe waiting to drop. It's a much bigger problem if the shoe has indeed dropped. FWIW Garth Drabinsky's article poses the same problem. I'll keep an eye out. Thanks again, and Happy editing. David in DC (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I try to give people props when I can. Either way, do you think it would be OK if I just took section of him being arrested out entirely? I mean, the way I look at it, in 20 years, people aren't going to treat his arrest as a big deal... Because it really isn't. And since it might be expired info it should be removed. I didn't write it, so I wouldn't be too heartbroken if it was taken out. Bped1985 (talk)


 * I think the arrest belongs in here. It's covered in reliable sources and the whole Roosevelt Field event is notable. If he's convicted, that should go in. Similarly if he's exonerated. It's just that with pending criminal cases, we need to make it accurate. I wouldn't delete it.  Measures short of that could be either to move it to the talk page, with an explanation that it's to be moved back to the article when the results of the December hearing (or the fact of its continuance) can be sourced, or to hide the text with a similar kind of note. I've hidden some text in this posting. If you want to go that way, look at the coding of my post here, in "edit" mode, for an ad hoc hiding template.  Happy editing! David in DC (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay that was cool haha. I will go for hiding the text. I just feel like with the whole blurb about the arrest makes the article un-balanced. I mean, it goes from shortly after college to a few months ago. Skipping like 8 ish years of his life. Plus, the results of the case are TBD. Thank you again! Bped1985 (talk) 05:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

RE: Scooter Braun
I'd help you if I could, but I only discovered that information by following Scooter's tweets. I also noticed that Scooter claimed his legal name, as it appears in the article, is incorrect http://twitter.com/#!/scooterbraun/status/24098195856429057. I searched the internet for Scooter's correct birth name, but was unable to find it.Paparazzo Presents (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC) If you could get Scooter to put that information into public tweets, you could use the URL's of those status updates as references. If the information is communicated via private Direct Messages, Wikipedia may have a problem with accepting the information, since they have an archaic prohibition against "independent research." Paparazzo Presents (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Here at Wikipedia, there are no hard and fast rules--everything is open for debate and nothing is etched in stone. The main conflict seems to be between pompous academics who are out of touch with the times vs. those of us who advocate for common sense practices in keeping with popular culture. Yes, once upon a time, the stuffy, heavy handed conservatives held sway, deleting any information posted on social networking sites (including Twitter), calling these sites "untrustworthy" even if they were officially verified. (I supposed they considered trustworthy references limited to dusty tomes in public libraries.) After offending and driving away countless contributors to Wikipedia, the pendulum is now swinging in the opposite direction, and common sense is prevailing (at least for now). If information seems credible (i.e., not obvious vandalism) and it's not controversial, it won't be deleted without sufficient discussion and debate. I suppose that, if a referenced tweet is no longer accessible, the information will stand if enough people checked the reference when it was available.Paparazzo Presents (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)