User talk:Davidwr/Archives/Archive 11

May 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=556028836 your edit] to SIM lock may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page]. {| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 1px solid silver; margin-top: 0.2em;" |- ! style="background-color: #FAA;" | List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page (Click show ⇨ )
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white; " |
 * provide an IMEI unlocking service for DCT4 and DCT3 Nokia mobile phones. citation needed|date=May 2013BracketBot (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * provide an IMEI unlocking service for DCT4 and DCT3 Nokia mobile phones. citation needed|date=May 2013BracketBot (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding my bad faith edits
Hello, I wasn't clear about the goals of Wikipedia and thought it similar to many Wikis available on Internet like wikia.com. But i've understood i was wrong. You've been patiently making me understand the issues. I will definitely visit the Treehouse to understand the policies and you won't find my edits disruptive from now, i promise. Thanks!--NyGuha (talk) 07:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I assumed good faith and was willing to give you a second chance. Yet unless the results of Sockpuppet investigations/Nickaang are wrong, you were lying through your teeth the whole time.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  02:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

REGARDING PHOTO DELETIONS
Dear Davidwr,

Please note that I have changed the description of Alberto Gonzalez Family Photo to state that I, the user, took this photo at a family gathering for Alberto Gonzalez birthday. This was not for profit. As a family member, I had full access and own my photo. Please remove the request for deletion of this photo.

Regarding the others, I have no objection to deletion as I did not take them, and many of this publications are not in operation, but I ignore whether or not there could be any claim. Therefore, I understand that it is best to be prudent and avoid conflicts.

Again, only the Alberto Gonzalez family photo is the one I took and authorized it's use for the Alberto Gonzalez webpage as well.

I hope this clear the matter, regards, CGLUQUE1958 50.73.7.225 (talk) 15:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

William "Billy" Wilson
Please see my note on User talk:Theonesean. DGG ( talk ) 20:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [ Articles for creation help desk], or on the [ . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  00:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Dating to help out the archive bot. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  23:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Adminship
Hi Davidwr,

I got your message. Thanks for the advice!

&mdash;Σosthenes12 Talk 21:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

the worst AFCH mess I've seen
Databet. (not the article, which might be OK, but the mess the AFCH bot made of it.)  DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's red and there is nothing in the deletion log. Ditto Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Databet.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  15:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk header
Hey, here you added talk header to an empty talk page. Per Talk_page_guidelines, this is discouraged. That's all. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 03:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  16:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oliver Kilbourn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ellington (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Manzo
Hi, all four should now be SALTed to prevent re-creation. Thanks, GiantSnowman 08:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I was about to ask you to un-salt the AFC pages but I see they are not salted. They need to be left open in case he becomes notable (or is notable already) and someone other than those who have been submitting articles so far submits a suitable article, but they need to be heavily watchlisted.  Salting them would just cause the person who is re-creating unsuitable articles to be more creative with the name.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  17:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry, just four mainpage variances of the name have been SALTed. GiantSnowman 10:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!
I just wanted to thank you for the templates at MOS Accessibility. This time there is a spirited discussion rather than an edit war, so the templates are having the desired effect. I would have preferred BRD to BRRD, but at least it isn't BRRRRR...P (the P is for page protection). Thanks! --19:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The thing you want to avoid is ...Administrators Noticeboard or ARBCOM. :). Spirited discussion where everyone has the same ultimate goal - making a better Wiki - and where everyone can behave like adults (I haven't seen anything to the contrary here) is a good thing.  I hope you all get to the point of consensus fairly soon, but if you don't after a few more weeks, WP:AN/RFC may be the route to take.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  20:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

COI you're dealing with
With respect to your note here, see this page also.  DGG ( talk ) 16:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
I've made some comments arguing for the talk page template, and I would like your thoughts. Nathan2055talk - contribs 15:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Gaelic Games Portal
Hi David I will approve those now, but please do not submit portal components to AfC, rather create them directly in the Portal space. They are not new articles - most are in fact simply structural elements and the parts that do have "content" all come from already existing articles anyway. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * They weren't my submissions. I declined one of them and the editor who submitted them (rightfully) chewed me out for a bogus decline reason.  I saw that you had already approved the "main" portal page that he submitted so I asked you to take care of the rest so the editor could get the consistency that comes with having the same reviewer do them all as a set.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  19:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As long as everyone working on the portal understand not to send stuff to AfC, then it's all fine. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the main guy seems to be an IP editor. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  19:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zeke Durden
My article was rejected by Nathan2055. I went back and forth with you several times to perfect the citations and add quotations and resolve trademark issues after you said that the subject was a good one. Now it appears that I spent a lot of time on this article for nothing. What recourse do I have, if any? If my article didn't meet the notability guidelines, why was I asked to do all of that formatting work?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AshtarSheran (talk • contribs) 03:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I thought it was one of those close cases where the only reason I couldn't see the person's notability was because there weren't good references. You can ask  if he made his notability judgment based on what was in the submission or if he made it based on his own research.  If he made it based on his own research then you are probably out of luck, because it means he tried to find good references and couldn't.  If he used just the references you submitted, then I would suggest reading WP:Notability and any other relevant notability guides then read WP:Reliable sources and try to find multiple reliable sources that clearly support the notion that this person meets one or more specific notability-guideline criteria, then work those references into your submission and rather than re-submitting the work, ask Nathan2055 to take another look.  You may also want to read WP:42 before talking to Nathan2055 again.  If Nathan2055 is pre-occupied, then add an afc comment above your submission outlining which notability criteria were clearly met by which references, then re-submit.  Yes, I know it's a lot of work, but it beats the alternative:  Getting the article into the encyclopedia then having it sent to WP:Articles for deletion for possible deletion.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  03:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Plantify, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Windsor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me understand Wikipedia
Thank you for guiding and helping me understand the Wikipedia policies. I certainly appreciate your help for also reviewing articles I created. Ken Seh (main page) (talk) (contribs) 20:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

disambiguation notes
Hi Davidwr, Thanks for your attention to many new article topics. I don't want to drag your attention away from what you do regularly, to bring it to not-very-important area of disambiguation, but I a) happen to know a fair amount about disambiguation, b) do wish for u to increase trust in my judgment in this area so you won't have to feel you need to correct/teach/add value when you see that i am creating disambiguation, c) mildly do want to get the disambiguation related to "Echo School"s fixed properly.

I have in fact created the majority of what is right now 3,471 disambiguation pages disambiguating amongst NRHP topics, and I have dealt with many issues and disambiguation-focused editors, including at WikiProject Disambiguation where i am a member (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation for a current discussion there). User:Doncram/NRHP disambiguation is an old summary of my disambiguation work. Disambiguation is a big area for WikiProject NRHP, because there are so many ambiguously-named houses, churches, schools, etc.

One small thing: please don't remove "WikiProject NRHP|class=dab" from any Talk pages; WikiProject tagging is at discretion of Wikiprojects and the practice in NRHP is that I/we do note and track the dab pages having all/some/few/even just one NRHP item. There is no attempt to claim "ownership" vis-a-vis Wikiproject Schools or any other wikiproject, it is more that no other wikiproject (except perhaps WikiProject Military History and Wikiproject Ships) get much involved in disambiguation. Me and some others in Wikiproject NRHP have been way out ahead, in terms of creating disambiguation pages "pre-emptively", including redlink items (with properly supporting bluelinks per MOS:DABRL guidelines), to avoid page-location issues, to avoid page-moving / ownership issues, to avoid problems of type that were coming up before the system of NRHP dab pages was built up. And I spend time monitoring/maintaining the dab page system; having the Wikiproject NRHP tags helps in that.

Also please watch "Requested move" at Echo School (disambiguation). It's no big deal, the RM process is orderly and noncontentious and slow; you can comment or not;  i predict a few uninvolved regulars in disambiguation and in RM will concur over the two-week normal processing time that there is no one Echo School that is "highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term" (wp:PRIMARYUSAGE).

Hopefully you can just watch / learn a little by osmosis and not waste much energy in this. Cheers, -- do ncr  am  12:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the information, particularly on the teamwork going on in the NRHP WikiProject.
 * When I make recommendations or decisions on things like whether a page should have a WikiProject template on it, or what is the "primary" entry in a DAB page and whether the primary entry should "get" the main name or whether it should go to the DAB page, I try to put myself in the shoes of John Q. Layman (subject of course to policies, guidelines, and other evidence of an existing consensus on a given issue).
 * Coincidentally, I recently opened what I thought would be a common-sense discussion to move "Echo," "Echo (phenomenon)," and "Echo (disambiguation)" but I didn't do my homework and it looks like, much to my surprise, leaving "Echo" as the DAB page may be the right thing to do. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  23:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your help with my file and for making edits to my pages. I'm sorry it took me so long to upload my own image.

Thomassw (talk) 21:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject AFC needs your help... again
 WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive! The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from July 1st, 2013 – July 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive. There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code cleanup, and more page cleanups. If you want to see a full list of changes, go to WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Development page. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. Delivered at 12:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC) by EdwardsBot (talk), on behalf of WikiProject AFC

Article for Creation on Copy Data
Hi Davidwr, I'm writing in regards to an article for creation that you recently reviewed and declined. It's the article for creation on Copy Data.

I was hoping to take a minute to explain why Copy Data is different from data deduplication and data proliferation. Simply stated, data deduplication can reduce duplicate data within “silos” of information that exist within an organization. Data backup is one such silo where data deduplication is usually applied, but there are several other silos of information that data deduplication does not address.

Take the example used within the article for data deduplication... it reads, “a typical email system might contain 100 instances of the same one megabyte (MB) file attachment. Each time the email platform is backed up, all 100 instances of the attachment are saved, requiring 100 MB storage space. With data deduplication, only one instance of the attachment is actually stored; the subsequent instances are referenced back to the saved copy for deduplication ratio of roughly 100 to 1.”

In this instance, deduplication is being applied to the backup copy of the email system, but that is just one silo where many others exist. These silos can include backup, snapshot, disaster recovery, business continuity, test and development, analytics, information sharing, and compliance. These are all separate copies of entire systems that companies are forced to make, and this is what’s referred to as Copy Data. Deduplication is often applied when making these copies to help reduce the amount of data being stored, but it does nothing to eliminate the fact that multiple copies of entire systems are being made. As you can see, this is a major driver of data proliferation. In fact, Copy Data may be the reason behind 85 percent of all storage hardware purchases made in 2012. Here’s another organization talking about it just this week: http://www.formtek.com/blog/?p=3847

I can add this and other links to the Copy Data entry, but first wanted to further explain the rationale behind this entry. As you mentioned, much of the article you reviewed discusses the management of multiple copies of data. This is because it is important to understand how and why these copies are being made -- it is the Copy Data.

If I made some of these clarifications to the article, would they address your concerns?

Thanks, Reills78 (talk) 15:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Due to time constraints I can't give a proper re-review. I went to the AFC Help Desk and asked for others to review the submission.  See WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk for details.  While they can comment on the article without you re-submitting it, they may prefer that you to click on the "resubmit" button before commenting.  They cannot accept it until you re-submit it.  Please hold off re-submitting it until they ask you to do so or they indicate that it is ready to be accepted.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  15:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Query on Polytrichum alpinum
Hi Davidwr and thanks for your note. You're right that this is a long wait for a response, although I suppose it is holiday season. I wouldn't normally rely on checking back with an editor, but certain areas of the article were confusing because of the sentence structure and I was unable to verify source material. Having looked at a couple of other moss articles, this does seem to be reasonably in keeping with descriptive styles. I think it might be best for me to do another check of copy against the original and then put it through with a follow-on note to the editor. I would also add a note on the talk page asking for a second read from someone who knows their mosses/botany. Does that sound like a good plan to you? Libby norman (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Asking for a second read is good. If the editor is unavailable, you might try asking for help on a relevant WikiProject.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  11:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback - Aggie80
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aggie80 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)‎

Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission
You are invited to join the discussion at WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

AFD Articles for deletion/Joseph Booton (actor)
Hello Davidwr. I wanted to let you know that I have posted the following on the administrator's talk page who concluded that my article should be deleted folleing the AFD discussion. Your request has not been answered and it would greatly help me in my future page edits so I requested the following from User:Mark_Arsten. Apologies but as I am fairly new to talk pages I did not know if there was a way of linking you in to the post on User:Mark_Arsten's talk page?

"Hello Mark. You have just concluded that my first article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Booton (actor) should be deleted . Could you please advise me where I can find the source code so as to improve the article for possible future consideration? Also, could you please provide an answer to the request by davidwr (the AFC reviewer who initially accepted the submission) when he request the following: "Note to the closing admin: This should only be deleted if either he fails WP:ENT (I contend that he passes WP:ENT, but that's obviously open to interpretation and discussion) or if he passes WP:ENT and is therefore presumed to be notable, but someone takes the trouble to do a deep search for evidence of notability and comes up dry or mostly dry. I am requesting that if the article is deleted, the closing admin specify whether, in his opinion of the consensus, the person fails WP:ENT or, despite passing WP:ENT, has been shown to fail WP:N. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC) Thank you for you consideration. Papawazo (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)" Papawazo (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up. The typical ways to link to a user's talk page are:
 * User talk:Papawazo, which produces User talk:Papawazo,
 * Papawazo's talk page, which produces Papawazo's talk page, and
 * , which produces


 * Notes: The first form is by far the most common.  The second form is called "piping" because the vertical-bar is called a "pipe."  Basically, the part to the left of the pipe is what get's linked to, the part to the right is what is displayed.  The last form, using the template called user, is not commonly used if all you need to do is link to the user's talk page.  In addition to linking to the user's talk page, it also links to the user page and the user's contributions.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  03:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

 * Thanks, and good luck. My Wikipedia time is limited.  If you need further help with this or any other AFC submission, ask at the AFC Help Desk, WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  16:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC User-davidwr-AFCscripttest (August 30)
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [ Articles for creation help desk], or on the [ . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  17:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC User-davidwr-AFCscripttest (August 30)
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [ Articles for creation help desk], or on the [ . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  17:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Manual move issue
I am sorry about manually moving All the Rage! and Talk:All the Rage! to All the Rage!! and Talk:All the Rage!!, but I did not mean any harm. If it is ever possible to use Wikipedia's "Move" feature, I always do, but some pages have titles that are on a blacklist, which requires me to manually move them. I did the same to Tomorrow We Die Alive→Tomorrow We Die ∆live and Just Got Paid (EP)→Just Got Paid, Let's Get Laid, although the problem was not a blacklist error with Just Got Paid (EP)→Just Got Paid, Let's Get Laid; the problem was that Just Got Paid, Let's Get Laid was already a redirect to Just Got Paid (EP), so it would not let me move Just Got Paid (EP) to an already existing article space, and blanking the Just Got Paid, Let's Get Laid redirect page didn't work either. If you would educate me on what to do in these situations, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks! &mdash;  Tha† emo over †here (talk)  23:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think MOVE has information on how to do a move when technical problems require an administrator to make the move. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  01:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * There is a large backlog at the moment and unless by chance I'm the one that grabs it, odds are someone else will. In general, if I become "invested" in a submission I leave it for someone else to eliminate bias one way or the other.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  01:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Vista Equity Partners
Is removing chunks a contribution? ;) Fine with me! heather walls (talk) 02:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You had 3 edits, which was enough to get you on the notification list. If you aren't neutral on the question of whether the PROD was appropriate, consider either removing it or endorsing it with prod2.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  02:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of that template. Done! Thanks, heather walls (talk) 21:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Faculty Of Engineering And Technology/Jamia Millia Islamia
I have actually deleted as an implausible redirect; as and when you feel able to create a full article then I will be more than happy to restore the appropriate history. GiantSnowman 14:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Given the recent changes to the redirect-target, this is appropriate. Actually, I didn't create the article you deleted.  You may wish to notify the creator of both it and the creator and other major contributors to Jamia Millia Islamia of your recent edits and the reasons for them, so they don't restore the information without fixing the problems.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  14:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: Jitendra Ravia
<div style="background-color: #BBDDFF; border: #4169E1 1px solid; margin: 2em 0 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em; font-weight: bold; overflow: auto; vertical-align: middle; background-image: -moz-linear-gradient(left, #ED7A32, white, white, green); background-image: -ms-linear-gradient(left, #ED7A32, white, white, green); background-image: -o-linear-gradient(left, #ED7A32, white, white, green); background-image: -webkit-linear-gradient(left, #ED7A32, white, white, green); background-image: linear-gradient(left, #ED7A32, white, white, green); border: 2px solid blue; textstyle = color: #6D7184;">'Namaste'', Davidwr. You have got at least one new message at the Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Please continue the discussion there!''' Message added by Tito ☸ Dutta 03:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC). You can [ remove this notice] at any time.

Ernest So
Thanks for message. The former version was highly promotional and references only to his website, the new posting looks fine  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  05:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have cross-linked this discussion to Ernest So and the two related AFC submissions.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  17:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Runway Star (Conflict of Interest)
Hi Davidwr,

Now that I understand that the revised version of Runway Stars page was a "conflict of interest", is there a way to revert her wiki back to its original writing until we get someone to make the proper wiki corrections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefuture2027 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Despite the conflict of interest, I would recommend adding a single WP:reliable source reference to The Makerz and, once you do, removing the Prod blp template. At this point your request will be moot.  If The Makerz is nominated for deletion through WP:AFD, you can make the request above during the deletion discussion.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  17:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Fly Union & The Greater Than Club
Could you please review the articles that I wrote for Fly Union and TGTC (The Greater Than Club) (Album). Feedback would be greatly appreciated as these are the first two articles that I have ever written on Wikipedia. Malcolmrevere (talk) 04:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Need help with restoring an article that was wrongly deleted
I need your help with restoring the "Beautiful Onyinye" article that was deleted. According to User:STATicVerseatide, the article fails the WP:NSONGS. I dissected the WP:NSONGS paragraph and here's what I posted on User:STATicVerseatide's talk page: - According to Wikipedia, "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." Here are several notable links: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lY2H2ZP56K4; http://www.okayafrica.com/2012/06/12/video-p-square-x-rick-ross-beautiful-onyinye/; http://www.bellanaija.com/2012/06/12/bn-video-premiere-p-square-feat-rick-ross-beautiful-onyinye-remix/ "1.Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts." African songs aren't popular like American and European songs and there's not a lot of information online. Also, there isn't a major music chart website like billboard. The closest thing to Billboard in Africa is Afribiz Top 100 chart, a weekly chart that compiles music from West, East, Central, and Southern Africa. "2.Has won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award." Again, something that's not known worldwide can't possibly get nominated for the aforementioned awards, can it? "3.Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups." Beautiful Onyinye has been released as a recording. The track is on iTunes. Here's the link: https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/beautiful-onyinye-feat.-rick/id580462837?i=580462842 I've dissected Wikipedia's statements and don't see why "Beautiful Onyinye" doesn't qualify as a "notable song". Wikipedia also states:"Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created." According to the above statement, you don't have the right to delete the single because if it isn't "notable", the information should be "contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created." Whatever angle you look at it from, you're wrong for deleting the "Beautiful Onyinye" article. I see that you've written numerous hip hop articles. How would you like it if I deleted your articles and tell you, "WP:NSONGS"? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't appreciate people who don't give 2 cents about your contribution to wikipedia. versace1608 23:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

P.S, there are numerous hip-hop, pop, country, and etc songs that haven't been nominated for any of the awards listed above. Yet, there are articles of them on Wikipedia. The last time I check, Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia aimed at educating the word through information. If articles about P-Square (one of Africa's biggest musical duo) and other african musicians aren't created, how can people who are trying to learn about these artists know about them?

The rest of what I said is here:Beautiful Onyinye. This administrator isn't making sense. He deleted the "Beautiful Onyinye" article without giving me any irrefutable claims that are substantial. His viewpoint is that if a song hasn't recieved accolades, it doesn't deserve to have a Wikipedia article. The "Beautiful Onyinye" article meets Wikipedia's music guidelines notability and isn't a stub, thus, it deserves a Wikipedia article. I would appreciate it if you restore the article. Here's the link to what he deleted: versace1608 00:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * First, he is not an administrator. However, he is an experienced editor with years of editing, over 100 articles created, and he has several user-rights that are normally granted only to experienced editors who have a history of positive editing.  He also has done a lot of work in music-related articles.  Based on his musical work and his history, I'm inclined to give his opinion more weight than I would someone who either didn't have extensive Wikipedia experience or someone who didn't have significant musical-related Wikipedia experience.
 * Second, he didn't delete the article, he merely turned it into a redirect. You have the technical ability to undo his edit.  He can redo it, but he probably won't.  Instead, he will probably nominate it for deletion (see Articles for deletion) where the community can discuss it for 7 days and, based on the outcome of the discussion, an administrator will either close the discussion with "keep" or "no consensus to delete" in which case the article remains, "redirect" in which case it will be turned into a redirect and probably "locked" so it stays a redirect, or "delete" in which case it will be deleted outright.
 * Based only on what is in the article right now, if this were nominated for deletion, I would probably recommend leaving it as a redirect on the grounds that the article does not demonstrate that the song meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. With that in mind, I'm recommending that you not change the redirect back into an article until or unless you have something to add to the article that will make it very clear that the song meets Wikipedia's notability requirements.
 * By the way, most songs, most albums, and most musical artists do not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines and therefore they cannot have a stand-alone article. See Notability and the subject-specific guidelines linked from that page for more details.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  03:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind words, and taking the time to write this long response to this user, hopefully he/she will understand more clearly now.  STATic   message me!  04:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Greetings davidwr, I found a webpage showing P-Square's Worldwide iTunes Performance. The website updates the info daily. "Beautiful Onyinye" has charted in six African countries. If I create a table displaying that information, can I create a separate "Beautiful Onyinye" article? STATic reverted the "BO" article because it didn't have chart positions and wasn't nominated for any awards. I believe "Beautiful Onyinye" deserves a separate article now that there's information on its chart positions. Here's the website: I will appreciate your reply. Thanks. versace1608 (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Per Record charts, single-vendor charts like iTunes charts should be avoided., do you have any take on this? davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  18:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pinging me David, it is generally in consensus with WP:NSONGS and WP:Record charts, that iTunes charts are not to be used, and would not constitute any additional notability then the article already had. Also the reliability of the source provided can be in question.  STATic  message me!  20:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks you two. The "Beautiful Onyinye" single will remain as a section in "The Invasion (album)" article. versace1608 (talk) 00:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)