User talk:Canis Lupus/20081201

Revert on 2008 NLL season article
Hello, I've reverted your edit on that article because of the amount of deleted content I saw. If I made a mistake, then I apologise. Schfifty Three  03:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * nope, I made a mistake and somehow blanked the page. I would have fixed it but you reverted first. Canis Lupus 03:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphan pages
Hi, You have added the orphan tag to a group of pages such as Abboushi, which I created as part of Suggestions for name disambiguation. They are all surname pages. As that has a dab-like function, it doesn't seem appropriate to tag them as orphans - they will be useful for people who search on the surname, but there shouldn't be any links going to them directly. Perhaps you could undo your additions of the tag? PamD (talk) 07:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've reverted 11 of them - please watch out for dab-type pages and don't tag them as orphans in future! PamD (talk) 07:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you added the orphan tag to Liviu Cangeopol page. I had to undo the change because this page has articles linked to it. Please review and let us know what to do.


 * Hi, I come across many articles on my random meanderings that you've tagged as orphans, and try to add backlinks where I can. In some cases an article, for example Guy Marchais, may have a few links to it and cannot expect to receive any more; in such cases I'm not sure what value the orphan tag adds.  Since the tag detracts from the article I'm inclined to remove it, but would welcome an understanding of your thoughts on the subject first. -- Timberframe (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * when I tag a page as orphan its a true orphan. that means there are no other pages on wikipedia in the article space that link to the article. if its a relatively obscure topic then adding one or two links to it to un-orphan it would be good for removal. I also think that the orphan tag is abused too much my self. if it has several incoming links Im inclined to remove the template. Canis Lupus 19:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Finding orphans
I see you're the orphan-tagging master. How do you find them? -- Ja Ga  talk 01:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Conectopalatus
Can you please explain why you tagged this article for speedy deletion as vandalism? Hut 8.5 11:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * yeah, take a look at this it clearly shows that, that creature does not exist. its classic hoax vandalism. Canis Lupus 12:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It really is not surprising that there the internet doesn't contain many mentions of an obscure variety of ichthyosaur. The creator has been editing for nine months and has more than 2,500 edits - seems an unlikely hoaxer. G3 only applies to extremely obvious hoaxes and you should use the proposed deletion or articles for deletion processes if you want to get an article like this deleted. Hut 8.5 13:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Adele Scheele
Hello. I cannot find the URL of the web page you believed this article to be a copyright infringement of, so I am going to restore it and tag it for the issues it has. Feel free to re-add the g12 tag when you locate the URL. You should not use that template without the corresponding URL, and I should not have deleted it without further research. Please try to be more thorough; I'll try not to be so quick on the delete button! Cheers and happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 11:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Dab
Apologies for removing the link, it was just a mistake, it wasn't anything malicious or disruptive DJDannyP // Talk2Me  13:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

warning
Please do not leave messages on the talk pages of IP addresses. Many IP addresses are public computers used by many people, and a warning against vandolism is pointless as it will never be read by the vandal. Moreover, all you accomplish is to create a new talk page for a user who does not really exist. I know you meant well but it was a mistake, just do not do it again. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 00:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please ignore this message. See Administrators'_noticeboard.
 * Seconded. Your warning was entirely correct and you should ignore Slrubenstein's message. -- Rodhull andemu  01:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I knew that warning was inappropriate as our vandalism policy clearly states that such IP warning are required prior to getting an IP blocked. Canis Lupus 01:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Anthony thomas candy co.
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Anthony thomas candy co., suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 03:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Liviu Cangeopol
I don't understand why you proposed that this article be deleted. It has plenty of references. Did you bother to check? Please email me at danafree122@yahoo.com and let me know.

Of Mice and Men (film) deletion
The disambiguation Of Mice and Men (film) has been proposed to be deleted under WP:delete content fork: as it is merged into Of Mice and Men (disambiguation). The links have been corrected. This name space should be avoided to ensure that unsuspecting editors do not accidentally link to it and forces them to search for the exact film (there are three). Since you created the page, I thought you might be interested. ChyranandChloe (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Notification of deorphan
I have been deorphaning some articles. I see you link to them on your sub pages. Would it be helpfull if I to tell you when I do this? --Sultec (talk) 11:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Multiple reverts at Croton Dam (Michigan)
Hi, I see you've been in a minor reversion repetition at Croton Dam (Michigan). Let's take this to talk. I've given my view at Talk:Croton Dam (Michigan) already. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 04:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

OC Transpo: Appropriateness of External Links
Please consider joining the discussion. Eigentone (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
I notice that you tagged the page Image:Nanotechnology.jpg for speedy deletion with the reason "this image is copied from an unspecified source, which is claimed not to have a license compatible with Wikipedia, and there is no credible assertion that the image is public domain, fair-use, or available under a free license". While that's a valid reason for speedy deletion in general, this page does not qualify for speedy deletion under that criterion because because you have not specified the source, it is impossible to verify that the image has been copied. If you still want the page to be deleted, please consider tagging it with a speedy deletion template which does apply, redirecting it to another page, or using the WP:PUI process. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 11:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

*.encyclopediavirginia.org
Hi, I have Buck v. Bell‎ on my watchlist, and I notice that you keep undoing some anonymous guy's attempt to include a link to the Encyclopediavirginia.org article on the topic. I've never heard of this website, but at a quick glance, it seems to be a legitimate website associated with the University of Virginia. Could you explain how it violates External links? --M @ r ē ino 22:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * yeah its been added to many webpages as bare links in a method called spamming. most of the time its done by someone assocaitated with the website. had this not been added to 10+ pages by the same user, (repeatedly) I would not be removing it. Canis Lupus 23:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/encyclopediavirginia.org. Canis Lupus 23:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, yeah, the spam report is pretty convincing. --M @ r ē ino 03:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Karnbre
I declined speedy deletion of this page because I did not find it to be excessively promotional and per WP:BITE. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Acro dance: Erroneous image removal
I reverted your edit that removed Image:AcroLawnmower.gif. This image is an important part of the Acro dance article and it does, in fact, exist at wikimedia commons, so I'm not sure what you meant in your earlier, similar edit in which you made reference to a redlink image. It is my understanding that wikimedia commons images are referenced identically to wikipedia images, so I can't understand the purpose of your deletion. I don't mean to offend, though, so please forgive me if I have made a mistake here. If you still feel there is a problem with the image, perhaps we can discuss it on the article's talk page before you delete it again? Lambtron (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * sorry about that I was getting a redlink. Canis Lupus 02:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

your edit
would you please explain why you removed this image from biruni article. the problem with its display can be solved. thanks.--Xashaiar (talk) 09:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was just removing redlinked images, if the file exists feel free to use it. Canis Lupus 02:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

orphaned page
I am inclined to revert the orphan tag from Omar Amanat article but wanted to check with you first. It seems to detract from the page. Or perhaps you can suggest how I can link articles to it. thanks!-- Rumination (talk) 04:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I re-added it as no other main space pages link to it, (its still an orphan) Canis Lupus 02:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)