User talk:Cobaltbluetony/Archive15

'''DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.'''

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 2008-10-01 and 2008-10-31.

The Thaw
What did you mean when you placed the notability tag in the article The Thaw (film)? What needs to be fixed about the article? I did my best to follow the conventions of other goods film articles, though apparently I did something wrong, and I can't figure it out because Wikipedia's guideline language really confuses me. Anonymous9498 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC).

Mullinesque...
has been recreated. &mdash; Ceranthor (formerly LordSunday)  ·  (Testify!)  16:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Summer Brave
How can anyone think a play by William Inge isn't notable??? LiteraryMaven (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you familiar with other articles about plays? I don't recall ever reading any that said (or implied) "this is notable because ..." The very fact this play is a revision of the Inge Pultizer Prize-winning play Picnic and includes a quote by the playwright explaining why he chose to revise it makes it notable. I have no idea how you expect me to make that any clearer. LiteraryMaven (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm new here, so please bear with me. I don't understand the tag, "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." In looking at other articles about plays, many use the Internet Broadway Database as a sole reference. Apparently this source is authorized by the Wikipedia Theatre Project. Everything I included in the article is confirmed by that source. Where am I supposed to find other references, and why are they necessary? Thank you. LiteraryMaven (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, I can't remember one Wikipedia article about a play that specifies why it is notable, other than mentioning it won a Tony Award or Pulitzer Prize or the like, and even then such a detail is presented in a matter-of-fact way. Maybe you need to be a theatre buff to understand the significance of Summer Brave. Personally, I think the very fact a playwright chose to rewrite a highly successful work for which he won the Pulitzer Prize for Drama makes it notable, given that doesn't happen very often. LiteraryMaven (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion that Summer Brave be merged with Picnic suggests you clearly are not a theatre buff and don't comprehend the importance of the play as a work unto itself. For someone who claims "Admins don't actually have power," you certainly are going out of your way to exert some! LiteraryMaven (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Cobaltbluetony, I suggest letting LiteraryMaven have a month or so with the article before tagging it variously. Definitely Wikipedia needs more and better theatre articles and this one appears quite notable.Homely Features (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Summer Brave
It's not our job to try to divine what you meant. That wasn't the only problem with the sentence. It included another spelling mistake, and used a weasel word. I have also removed the verification tag as all information currently in the article is sourced in the reference given. DionysosProteus (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * By "divine" I mean that it was by no means clear what the sentence was intended to mean; if it was clear, I would have corrected its mistakes. I did attempt to check the article and found that it was unavailable to the general public. The editing philosophy is simple: meaningless and unclear statements ought to go. I can only assume, from the quotation that you have provided, that you haven't understood what the reviewer was saying. The de-contextualised quotation is obscure, to say the least. "To many its re-emergence is imminent"? This appears to be saying that it is about to re-emerge (i.e., no spelling error), rather than that it has "eminence" (which is a pretty strained expression, if that's what was meant). The sub-clause of the quotation is grammatically incorrect as well ("which is ... and in"). The error I pointed to was your "predacessor". I looked for the presence of "knowledge" in the statement, but found, and still can find, none. DionysosProteus (talk) 00:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you very much CBT. At least there are a few editors on Wikipedia that know there way around. :) --MSMStudent (talk) 01:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I will remember to do that whenever I possibly can. --MSMStudent (talk) 01:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk page for National Amusement Devices
Hi, Cobaltbluetony. I saw you moved this page to its current title as I was starting its talk page under its old title. Would you please move the talk page too? (Just in case the article survives a db-repost or afd-corp.) Thanks! A More Perfect Onion (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Angiosperm Phylogeny Website
Hello, I totally understand Template:one source and Template:copyedit (I am french) on Angiosperm Phylogeny Website. But not Template:importance: So, I added references to prove the importance of this site. Could you look at them and tell me what more I can do for you to suppress Template:importance ? Thanks Liné1 (talk) 14:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Check how much reference to this site is done on wikipedia: List of wikipedia article referencing Angiosperm Phylogeny Website
 * And the page is already well referenced: Special:WhatLinksHere/Angiosperm_Phylogeny_Website
 * (Of course I made the links but look at my last commits I only replaced Angiosperm Phylogeny Website with Angiosperm Phylogeny Website )
 * I added 2 links that proves that NCBI uses it as a resource and Kew Gardens considers it as a useful website.
 * Is it enough ? What else can I do ?
 * Thanks Liné1 (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

National Amusement Devices
Sorry. But it's been CSD's three times and he keeps posting the exact same content. A7 over and over again gets boring. :D -- Logical Premise Ergo? 17:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Typo redirect "Butare Four"
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on "Butare Four", by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because "Butare Four" is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting "Butare Four", please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Tony Curtis
Don't be too fast, man ! I didn't even have the time to add informations to the article (I'm currently translating it from french wiki). Slengteng resurrection (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm creating both articles at the same time. I don"t really understand your 'notability' thing. We don't have the same on french wiki, where issuing at least two albums (for a singer) is a proof of notability... Slengteng resurrection (talk) 15:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's why you have to read this (I gave the link below) :

''"Wikipédia:Notoriété de la musique

Musiciens et ensembles

Un musicien ou un ensemble (groupe, chanteur, rappeur, orchestre, « crew », DJ, etc.) est considéré comme notoire s'il remplit au moins une des conditions suivantes :

A sorti deux albums sur une major ou un label indépendant important

A été diffusé au niveau national par des radios importantes"''

Slengteng resurrection (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I understand. So if you want to delete it here, you're free, I will not create the page again and again. But please leave it on the french wiki, where it meets at least one notoriety criteria (Two albums on major labels minimum), and maybe two : rotation on a national radio. Thank you and have a good time ! Slengteng resurrection (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Shyamal Mitra
I agree, I've speedied the article. WOuld you kindly delete it? Seems like you and me just keep running into each other. &mdash; Ceran  thor  [Formerly LordSunday] 15:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for having such trust in me. I never thought I was that good of a judge of speedy delete articles, but according to my last 15 or so everyone but one has been deleted. &mdash;Ceran-elda  (Fly! ) 18:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The Real Macedonia
I don't quite understand why my attempt to create a new page has allready been diregarded by the admins, when I have not even published the content but only tried to preview it. Is it perhaps that although Wikipedia has a strict policy regarding propaganda material, it is in fact the one which is creating the propaganda. I trully DO NOT understand that a new page titled the Real Macedonia, that would provide material based on scientific facts and that would in no way be used to express personal views on the matter, but pure facts in order for people around the world to learn about Macedonia has been deleted.

It is unbelievable and sickening just to even think that you are producing and maintaining the propaganda. A disgrace.

The Republic of Macedonia does not exist as a country. There is no such thing. The country is called Former Yugoslavic Republic of Macedonia. There are people that are flooding Wikipedia with false terms and names such as this, and Wikipedia is doing Nothing.

Get things straight guys. Either have the same policies for all members or give it up.

Regards --Ikaros29 (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see how it is ok for others to flood Wikipedia with the term Republic of Macedonia or Macedonia for short when the actual name is FYROM.


 * This is a hot-button as you say and I am only trying to prevent the worst. I own a group on facebook with approx. 70,000 people reagarding this topic. You can imagine the chaos if they were to join wikipedia on this topic.


 * The term Macedonia should not be used to describe The Former Yugoslavic Republic of Macedonia. Wikipedia should not allow this.


 * Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikaros29 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The way the term is presented on pages of Wikipedia, shows that Macedonia is actually FYROM. Which is completely untrue. There is no connection whatsoever between these two names.


 * You are giving a false impression to thousands of people. This is called propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikaros29 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes that is correct. The FYROM uses its constitutional name and that name is used only in documents that are proposed to be viewed by countries and their citizens that accept the constitutional name.
 * When this name is used in pages or documents that will be viewed by thousands of other people, Wikipedia should be more careful.
 * The constitution of each country can choose whatever name they want. That does not mean that, that is the correct name ethically.
 * There is an ethical issue here. And it has to be resolved.
 * Its like France changing its constitutional name to England. Wikipedia wouldn't agree to something like that would it? The only difference is that FYROM has actually stolen the name and flag that have been around for over 3,500 years. Over 2,500 years before their tribe actually appeared in the region.
 * The UN, NATO and the EU do not recognise FYROM as The Republic of Macedonia. Only three countries have done so.
 * Basically, Wikipedia is supporting the minority view.
 * That again is the definition of propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikaros29 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have done my research and I would like you to refrain from ironic comments.
 * My point is that the constitutional name has not been aceepted by all countries. The sheer fact that Macedonia is actually a Greek word should make everyone really think about the whole matter. How is it that a country that has nothing to do with Greece, or speaks Greek or writes Greek, appeared in the region 2,500 years after the Greeks and now claims that their name is Macedonia.


 * Furthermore, although you speak of consitency, Wikipedia is inconsistent since it is using the name Republic of Macedonia everywhere on its site. Even when one tries to search for FYROM, he is redirected to Republic of Macedonia.


 * If Wikipedia is actually trying to promote the views and opinions expressed by the minority of the countries recognising the institutional name then just say so.


 * You cannot have it both ways. Either there is a name accepted by everyone therefore you can present the facts or there isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikaros29 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for CityCare
An editor has asked for a deletion review of CityCare. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 08:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Soffront page
Nuzhatara (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to check if this page is OK to go public now

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nuzhatara

My Complaint
My Complaint is as follows. Michael Moffat is a real person the artical is not ment as promotion. Take a look at Alex Jones. He clearly is self advertising and trying to sell his docuentries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertcan (talk • contribs) 19:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

David Alexander Smith.
Why did you delete the page on David Alexander Smith literally only minutes after I wrote it?

I provided sources for it, at least two of which could be regarded as independent, and from web sites which could be regarded as authoritative in their field of science fiction. He is a published science-fiction author. How am I meant to establish his notability? Just how famous does someone have to be to get a Wikipedia article? There are plenty of articles on people no more famous than this; do you go round deleting all such articles you find?

I consider it rather high-handed of you to do this without even discussing it with me, and I will consider whether to put it back or not. M.J.E. (talk) 13:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you're being very pedantic over this. I cited two different science-fiction web sites in my article - ones I consider amongst the more authoritative sites on science-fiction on the Internet. Would you be satisfied if I found a third (discounting the author's own site which I also mentioned)? A fourth?

With the attitude you seem to have about an article of this sort, I think you could find yourself a lot of work deleting other articles of similar type which you may find no more notable - and you would be removing a lot of useful information from Wikipedia that may be difficult to find elsewhere.

Clearly if I reinstate the article any time soon, you will likely remove it again. I will leave it for now, and consider whether to reinstate it later. If I decide to do so later on, I will add more information and references if I can find them.

I would regret it, though, if Wikipedia were stripped of useful information because of people deleting articles too readily as I believe you have done here. I have often found Wikpedia useful in researching particularly less-known authors, and would be pleased if you could reconsider your attitude to such articles. M.J.E. (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This is getting a bit like lawyers wrangling; but few sources explicitly state that their subject is notable - so what do you expect? A critic to say that "so-and-so is a notable author, a great author", or whatever? Do you have to be famous, a well-known name, to be considered notable? And I am wondering whether you are being stricter than many other editors would be, when in the end it seems to be a bit subjective whether someone is well-known enough to meet the definition of "notable". I can tell you, there are *lots* of authors no better known than Smith is but who are to some degree or other known figures in the science-fiction world, who have articles which are not explicitly stated to be notable. By similar logic you should just as readily delete these; I hope you won't, though, because these articles are often very useful for researching. But I repeat myself.

I regret that you and a few other editors take this attitude. Science-fiction is an area I do have some knowledge of, and I like to share knowledge I know to be reliable, especially if it is difficult to find; it is one area where I can make modest but perhaps useful-to-some-people contributions to Wikipedia. And it isn't as if I totally failed to provide references; and I still don't quite understand what your problem with these is. But am I wasting my time creating articles like this, even when I know them to be accurate? M.J.E. (talk) 14:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Skylor Haagensen
Delete this page if you like. I only created it because he was red-linked to a page I was editing. I thought somebody else would expand his article, but nobody has really. The deletion proposal now seems absolutely reasonable.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 10:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Rick Nolan
Hi Cobaltbluetony!

There was a guy named Ckatz that added bad remarks, for no reason, to our article about Munax. He has also removed good refs to our article from other articles, for instance the article about audio search (that's what Munax does).

Would you please check our Munax article and give us your thoughts what needs to be changed. For instance, you can compare it with the Picsearch article that, obviously, Ckatz is defending.

Thanks, Rick —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick.nolan (talk • contribs) 14:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Jeuce
Hi Cobaltbluetony,

I am writing in response to you deletion of "Jeuce" page. I hope you can find it in yourself to re-consider this matter and re-instate the page. I feel the page was initially deleted unjustly and was not given an opportunity to dispute the case before it was deleted. That is why i re-listed the page, however i did make some changes to page in order to emphasize Jeuce's notability and credability. I read over Wikipedia's guidelines for Musicians notability and supplied the necessary information in my changes to the page. I have found the other administrators criticism very un-constructive; simply stating they wanted the article deleted and not informing me of anyways in which to go about editing the article to improve it.

As the article stands, i feel there is clear evidence that Jeuce are a popular and well know music group in England, more so than many other musicians featured on Wikipedia. Their music is known and sold worldwide to a great number of people. For Jeuce, wikipedia is a very effective portal for their many fans to come and find out ready information on the bands future, past and present. In doing so, their fans are also able to find out more about other articles on wikipedia through links on Jeuce's page.

I really hope you can re-consider this action, and this matter can come to an effective and positive conclusion.

Kind regards,

Yoshua115 (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Green day untitled eighth studio album
Sorry missed it ! Waterden (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Tiffany Yanke
Rather than a speedy delete, I think this article could have been cleaned up to meet standards. The subject is the current Miss Teen Nevada Internation title holder. I don't know if that counts enough for notability, but I think it was worth an AfD discussion. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

User Page
Thanks for the revert of my user page. Waterden (talk) 14:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Munax
Tony, Ckatz does not even look at the new content. Would YOU please have a look at the new content and advice me if there is something that needs to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick.nolan (talk • contribs) 16:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ckatz changes every edit
Rick.nolan (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC) Hi Tony, as you remember ,I asked you if everyone is allowed to edit in Wikipedia. I really wonder if that is the case. I edited the three following articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_search_engines

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_search_engine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_search_engine

..and immediately after doing so, Ckatz removed my edits and reverted the pages to his own liking. What is wrong with Ckatz ????? If there is nothing wrong with him, then what was wrong with my edits ????
 * The problem, Rick, is that you are using Wikipedia to promote a company. All of your edits are related to Munax, which is what Wikipedia refers to as a single-puropse account (and a probable conflict of interest as well.) --Ckatz chat spy  18:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Rick.nolan (talk) 07:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC) I am not "promoting". Or, do you mean like Carl Sarnstrand, manager at Picsearch, at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carl_Sarnstrand

who is editing articles everywhere in Wikipedia about the Picsearch search engine / company ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picsearch

Check his contribs at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Carl_Sarnstrand

As the list says, his contributions are almost only about the Picsearch engine/company. His last edit was 23:34, 15 July 2007 when he added products in the infobox. As I remember it, you erased everything about products in the Munax article. Should'nt you do the same for the Picsearch article ? Or, for any other article that is listing products ?

So, again: I am not "promoting". Do you see Rick Nolan on the Munax web site ? This is my first article in Wikipedia, true. It just happens to be about Munax/PlayAudioVideo. I, and many others, like the search engine PlayAudioVideo. We like Wikipedia too, so we think the info about it should be present in Wikipedia, just like any other search engine: An article, plus at following three appropriate places:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_search_engines

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_search_engine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_search_engine

Thanks, Rick

Thanks Tony !

Just a couple of more questions.

As I see it, PlayAudioVideo has enough references in the article from independent sources (there should have been more, but Ckatz "edited" them too). Thus, the link to PlayAudioVideo should be there. Or, do you suggest that I lift out the part about PlayAudioVideo from the Munax article, create another article about PlayAudioVideo only, and re-use the refs ?

Or, do you suggest that I edit the article about the company Veveo. The company article have 7 links to their search engine Vtap.com, including one in the info box and another under "External links". If you want to, I can remove all such links and put only one link in the info box and that should be the link to the company, i.e. the company site URL http://corporate.veveo.net/. Actually, the Picsearch article must then be edited the same way. The company's site is http://about.picsearch.com/, nothing else.

Would'nt it be easier to see the companies and their search engines being one and the same, regardless of the URLs being used ? While waiting for your answer, I have put back the link to PlayAudioVideo in the Munax article, plus made another page, a page redirecting a search for PlayAudioVideo to the Munax article. Just the same as when somebody searches Wikipedia for Vtap and then comes to the Veveo article.

Tony, I understand both your and Ckatz's concerns about Single-purpose account. I cannot help that this is my first article. I will write more. Rick.nolan (talk) 02:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of "Ebase Technology Ltd" page
Hi,

I have noticed that you have deleted the "Ebase Technology Ltd" page. Could help me find out why as I would like to restore this page to Wikipedia (along with related products).

Cheers,

Andyhinds (talk) 09:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject New Jersey Newsletter (October 2008)

 * Newsletter delivery by xenobot  13:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD on 2008 attack at Beijing Drum Tower during Olympics
You have previously contributed to the debate on the article, and may like to express your views on the deletion of this article here. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)