User talk:Deadbeef/Archive 3

Chuck Jacobs
Hey on the Chuck Jacobs page, it said he is not notable enough until he plays one regular or postseason game. Luke Marquardt has a page and hasnt played......so yeah I want Chuck Jacobs up.....thanks PLEASE consider it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helloimbryan (talk • contribs) 03:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi again,
 * The argument that other stuff exists doesn't really work. I've actually tagged the Luke Marquardt page for deletion, thanks for bringing it up (you can see and participate in the deletion discussion here; it will last a week.) It's not really up to me whether or not I should consider it; Wikipedia has lots of policies and guidelines about what makes a subject notable. Any football player who meets WP:GNG, Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline, or WP:NGRIDIRON, Wikipedia's notability guideline for professional football players, is presumed to be notable. If not, they are presumed to not be notable. Jacobs looks like he doesn't meet either guideline, so I moved the article out of "mainspace" and into a subpage of your user account so you can keep working on it. Other people would have taken it to a formal deletion discussion like I did with Marquardt. It's not up to me to decide that Jacobs isn't notable; based on NGRIDIRON and GNG, which are community-developed standards, it is pretty clear that the line is already drawn. Sorry, but that's what's necessary to keep Wikipedia from being overrun by everyone who wants an article about themselves or someone they know.
 * Let me know here if you have any more questions.  04:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Re-deletion sort
Hello, and thanks for all of your contributions to sorting AfDs! However, I'd just like to let you know that I reverted your sorting of Football on Articles for deletion/Luke Marquardt and replaced it with a sorting to American football, as the article was about an American football player. - Fim atic  (talk &#124; contribs) 04:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, that was dumb on my part. Thanks for the heads-up.  04:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Flutist
Regarding your edit comment, I would regard Flutist as a small article with a fat list. (And I'm thinking of making it even smaller by shaving several of the superfluous "vs." examples.)

I placed the NOTOC as a kludge to get around the annoying dead space issue, which we're currently discussing at the Manual of Style. If you had any input, it would be appreciated!--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 08:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

22:25:33, 25 December 2014 review of submission by 50.138.234.73
Hi Deadbeef, I am just wondering why my Kirk Minihane page was rejected from Wikipedia. His co-hosts, Gerry Callahan and John Dennis, both have Wikipedia pages and Kirk is a local celebrity in Boston just as Dennis and Callahan are. Minihane's name is also unofficially part of the Dennis and Callahan Show on WEEI. Thank you! Lucy Burdge

50.138.234.73 (talk) 22:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Lucy!
 * My main concern was that your submission lends undue weight to Minihane's interview controversy and its fallout. If his significance apart from the incident were established by reliable sources, the article would be acceptable (see his cohosts for examples). Thanks for your commitment to improving Wikipedia, and let me know if you have any more questions or concerns!  02:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

RE: AIV Report
Sorry about that, you were right. I thought they looked like a new and confused user, but after doing some digging, you were quite right. NativeForeigner Talk 08:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries! Thanks for getting it sorted out.  08:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Cheating
You blanked the content of geographical Similarities between China and Bangladesh and then used empty as the deletion reason. This was the sort of cheating that only admins are allowed to do. The page was pretty harmless - you should have left the AfD to run its course. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I had thought that was a valid thing to do per a CSD proposal I made a few weeks ago. I didn't think that was contentious, but I'll won't do it again if it's a concern. My bad. While you're here, did you get the message I put on your talk page earlier today?  11:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

1992 Peach Bowl
Thanks for creating that page.

I've noticed that there's a lot of pages regarding NCAA Football Bowl Seasons and games that don't exist and probably should. I'd do something about it, but I react to sports the way most people react to finance regulations, and react to finance regulations the way most people react to sports. Jsharpminor (talk) 06:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed on the bowl pages. I decided to start focusing on CFB articles a bit more and was rather surprised about how patchy the articles are. My (eventual) goal is to fill up NC State Wolfpack bowl game navbox, which is pretty bare. It'd be a bit easier if Google archive had literally anything on the games...  06:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The other other surprising thing is that the articles that do exist seem to actually be pretty good. They provide cogent analyses on the seasons, and why the Bowl Committee got its start, coaching fiascos, etc. I was pleasantly surprised. Jsharpminor (talk) 06:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

White supremacy
You are being overly generous on White supremacy, but thank you nonetheless.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 05:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Red links for companies
Greetings, Deadbeef. About the 2014 Music City Bowl, here, that seems reasonable to me. I've noticed one other article about this year's bowl games where the sponsoring company doesn't have its own article -- 2014 Quick Lane Bowl. Feel free to put a red link in that one too, or not, whatever you prefer. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks for the heads up.  10:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

GOCE 2014 report
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Question
Hello I noticed that my article could be deleted but I want to say that I am the creator of Fallen Destiny.. So I don't really have references from myself since I'm the creator overall... So what can I do to prevent deletion over my articles? It is a indie project so its nothing huge as of right now. I hope to hear from you soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EHEBrandon (talk • contribs) 08:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi ,
 * A common misconception among new editors is that the existence of something proves that it is notable. However, Wikipedia actually has strict guidelines on what qualifies an article for notability. The biggest one is the general notability guideline, which states if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Your show does not seem to have attracted any meaningful coverage (think mainstream media or the biggest anime-related media outlets), and certainly not enough to clear that guideline. Information in articles is required to be verifiable, which means sourced. That means that, although you may be planning some episodes and have the idea for them in your head, it isn't suitable to make an encyclopedic article about them. As you don't own the articles you create, anyone could edit the articles to say anything, and they would be just as right as you since neither of of you sourced your claims reliably.
 * Further, the article is largely speculation about events that may or may not happen. Per WP:CRYSTAL, all articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. As you can see, the articles you have made are not verifiable, and have not attracted "sufficiently wide interest" to merit inclusion as if the shows already existed.
 * Finally, please take a few minutes to read this guide to Wikipedia's policy on conflicts of interest. You clearly have one, and that page would help you understand why conflict-of-interest-editing is strongly discouraged, and what you can do from here.
 * As I wrote this, another user moved your Fallen Destiny page to a draft page. This means it is no longer an article on Wikipedia, but you can continue to work on it in the event that it becomes notable enough for inclusion and more details about it solidify. However, I strongly recommend that you let me or another experienced user know before you try to republish it, or it will likely be deleted for the same reasons it was just up for deletion.
 * If you have any more questions, feel free to leave them here and I'll get back to you when I can. Thanks,  08:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Interview for The Signpost
This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Articles for creation

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Articles for creation for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (interview)  @ 20:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

the star wars file
Abbythecat (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Hi, Deadbeef, I put the mention of the Star Wars File back on. I know it's unsourced. I don't know exactly how to source it. I have the fanzine, so I know it's real, but how can I source that? It's 2 pages (front & back) stapled together. Came out in early part of '77. Is dated '77 on page 1. Was written & self-published by Richard H. Campbell. Many fans bought it (you could only buy it from him). Perhaps other SW fans remember it. If you want to delete it again, fine with me. But it is odd -- I mean, I've had this fanzine since '77, I'm looking right at it now, but I don't know how to prove it to you. The front page has the words "Star Wars" cut out of a Marvel comic, if that helps. There's a brief "The Words Of George Lucas!" article in it. Some photos and some drawings from Marvel SW comics. I can give you the guys address if you want it (if he still lives there!) but should do so privately (in case he still lives there). It's printed on page 1. Anyway, do as you will, best, AbbythecatAbbythecat (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC).
 * Hi Abbythecat,
 * Offline sources, including books, magazines, etc. are fine. We have them all over the site. However, there are more problems than that. Firstly and centrally, (as I am admittedly not deeply into the comic book world), it seems that the "Fanzine" is what it implies: created by fans and unofficial. Thus, discussion of it would be inappropriate in a section about official merchandizing and more appropriate in a discussion of Star Wars-inspired fan creations.
 * Second, I'm guessing by your wording that the fanzine itself doesn't claim to be the first one ever. This would mean that you could only arrive at that conclusion if it was stated somewhere else, or by figuring it out yourself. The former possibility would be OK if the "somewhere else" is a reliable secondary source (as the claim could be contentious), but the latter violates WP:OR, which disallows original research in articles, and WP:V, which states that article content would be verifiable. However, again, even if the first thing is true, putting the statement in the section about official Star Wars merchandizing is still inappropriate.
 * Hope this helps! Let me know if you have any more questions.  05:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Abbythecat (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Thank you, Deadbeef, all good points that I agree with. Somebody else already deleted it again anyway. I won't restore it again. Best. Abbythecat (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC) Abbythecat.

News Regarding the Amma Organization
This is important for the public to know as many people are being harmed by this cult organization that is simply money and power focused. Only about 5-10% of hundreds of millions of dollars raised actually goes to any form of charity. There is rampany tax evasion and also many accounts of shocking abuses. Please see the following links below. The organization actively tries and cover up the truth by trying to silence and discredit critics and ex-devotees. It's all about money and Bhakti business. This lady is but the latest in a long line of false "gurus". There is a great deal of news that is being covered up, yet since the publication of some recent books and articles, the truth has been coming out regarding this cult. See this info. If you google "Amma" and "Cult", anyone can see all the information on the internet. The organization tries to control media sources as well, yet there is now too much to cover up and people in the U.S.A. and other countries are recounting many tales of what is wrong from top to bottom with the organization. See the following weblinks as a small sample that is now out there:

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/the-hugging-saint-20120816

http://amma-taavi-kassila-sex-cover-up.blogspot.com/2012/08/amma-violence-corruption-rolling-stone-magazine.html

http://guruphiliac.blogspot.com/

http://gailtredwell.com/meanings-revealed-not-memories-recovered/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.162.126.29 (talk) 14:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

HELLO
Hello there

You undid some constructive changes I did to a page

You said they appeared non constructive to you

Let's talk  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaotlacatl (talk • contribs) 07:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, in your two edits you completely changed the name of the subject throughout the article and changed information on the page without providing a reference. Please see your talk page for more information.  07:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello < I don't know if you received my previous message where I said you said my changes were not constructive and I disagree

I like to say why I disagree Yaotlacatl (talk) 07:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I replied directly above your message. Please see your talk page for more information. Thanks  07:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Ohhh, I see what you mean

Well, I can explain.

See, if you notice , I did not make any changes to The Spanish version of the article

I believe I am making a constructive contribution to English speakers by showing how it is pronounced in English.

Spanish and English assign different phonetic values to the same letters , so "Zinancantan", as pronounced in English , does not reflect its true pronunciation.

In Mexican Spanish, which is the way "Zinancantan" is written , the "Z" is pronounced like the English "S"

Seattle for example, would be written Ziatl , if Seattle were in Mexico and an American English speaker were to see this name, he would incorrectly pronounce the name "Ziatl" instead of its most accurate "Seattle"

Here is another difference :

European Spanish pronounces all "Z's" and "C's" as the English "th"

So, for example, in European Spanish , the name Zinancantan is pronounced "Theenancantan", this is due to the diference of phonetic values that both countries give to the same letters in exactly the same language, lol

So, if Seattle were in Mexico , in Mexican Spanish it would very likely be written Ziatl, an American , instead of saying Seattle , would say "Ziatl" and a European Spanish would say "Theeattle"

Here in the US, when people see Zinancantan , they incorrectly pronounce the name with "Z"

The name is of Aztec origin.

In the very writing of "Aztec", in the Us , we have a mispronunciation of the name, since in Mexican Spanish it is spelled as Azteca , American English speakers incorrectly pronounce this tribal name as A"z"tec instead of the most accurate Asteck

And that's the reason why, I wrote Zinancantan in phonetic values which can enable English speakers to more accurately pronounce this name :

Ceanankannttann, Cea as in Ceasar , nan as in nanny , kann as in cannabis and ttan as tanning

Being a speaker of Mexican Spanish, American English , and having direct knowledge of Nawhattle ( Asteck) and Tsoughttsell, inaccurately pronounced by English speakers with "z's" in place of the "S's" because of its "Tzotzil" Mexican Spanish writing, I have noticed that most difficulties of English speaking pronunciation of Mayan and Asteck names, comes from the lack of proper phonetic value arrangement of Mayan and Asteck names into English

Here are some other examples:

If Manhattan were in Mexico, in Mexican Spanish would be Manjatan , this pronounced by an English speaker, would render this name incorrectly pronounced, given the different phonetic value Mexican Spanish gives to "J"

Cuauhtemoc, the last Asteck king.

In Mexican Spanish is written Cuauhtemoc, if he had been from Washington State, his name very like would be :

Kwowtemock, Kwow as the "wow" in "pow wow" , "te" as in "teller" and "mock" as in mocking

Whenever I show this one, "Kwowtemock" to English speakers , they find it easier to pronounce and they pronounce the name more accurately than when they try to read "Cuauhtemoc"Yaotlacatl (talk) 08:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's fine if you want to add a pronunciation guide in the beginning sentence of the article, but it inappropriate to replace every mention of it throughout the article. I went ahead and put a pronunciation guide at the top, let me know if it looks wrong. Thanks,  05:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

AFD advice, please
Hi. I noticed you recently relisted debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/With: Live Tour 2015. Could I get some advice over what it's going to take to get the debate closed? The article (written in December 2014) concerns a tour that doesn't begin until late February 2015. The article contains no information from secondary sources save one mention of its existence (the other three "sources" are the group's own websites) and is just a list of planned dates. The editors objecting to deletion are doing so because of conflicts with me elsewhere on Wikipedia. I don't see how this egregious violation of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NTOUR continues to exist on Wikipedia and why the AFD can't be finalized. This is pretty cut and dry to me, and just because there aren't many knowledgeable editors interested in kpop doesn't mean we should have to suffer through this. If you could provide any advice on how to bring this to the finish line I'd be very grateful. Thank you so much for your time. :) Shinyang-i (talk) 11:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi ,
 * I relisted the AfD a second time because it didn't appear that consensus had developed on whether to delete the article or not. If you really feel that the opposing editors are disagreeing with you for personal reasons, feel free to make a note of it in the discussion and the closing admin will take it into account. That said, the discussion will probably be closed around a week from now. AfD's are generally not relisted more than twice, and will probably run for the rest of this one's term (6 more days) before it is closed. When this happens, it will be closed as either keep or delete if there seems to be consensus to do so; if there still does not seem to be a consensus, the closing admin will mark the closure as no consensus. In that case, the article will be kept by default. Let me know if you have any more questions.  12:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. I don't think there will ever be a consensus, as those people don't want it deleted.  They have no leg to stand on and can't justify keeping it, they just don't want it deleted.  This happens all the time in kpop.  I can talk until I'm blue in the face and they won't change their mind.  That doesn't justify keeping the article.  If all it took was a couple of dissensions for no good reason, things would rarely get deleted, no manner how inappropriate they are.  Isn't the fact it violates all those guidelines make deleting it the right thing to do, even if a couple people object?  Not all editors care about policy; many just care about their own personal desires.  I thought the quality of the arguments given was supposed to be what's important.  How can anyone honestly think a tour that hasn't started yet, has little press, and has ONE independent source simply confirming its existence is notable?  This, to me, is really quite shocking, being told that *every single person* has to agree to deletion and that "keep" votes don't have to have any validity at all to kill an AFD. Shinyang-i (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I suppose I misspoke. The closing admin will evaluate the policy-based consensus; that is, numbers are not more important than strength of arguments. I relisted the discussion because I thought it was borderline and thought the discussion could benefit from another week of discussion, but the closing admin may well decide that the strength of the deletion argument is stronger. That said, keeping or userfication (moving the article to a user's draftpage) seem a bit more likely than outright deletion given how close the tour is to beginning. You're always free to add comments to the discussion (or reply to comments) directed at the closing admin that explains your policy-based position and why you think the keeps are weak, but it will still be a judgement call on the part of the closing admin. In the event that the page is kept, you could always renominate it in a few months once it has had a chance to merit WP:NTOUR; that would do away with the CRYSTAL arguments and it would be able to be evaluated on notability alone. If the tour is demonstrably nonnotable at that point, there should be little resistance against deletion.  18:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying and for taking the time to respond. I really appreciate it. AFDs are very frustrating in kpop due to low participation. :) Shinyang-i (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Shinyang-i, there's no rush. So what if it gets relisted--with relatively few comments, it's anyone's call whether something should be relisted or not. I doubt very much that Deadbeef would have closed it as keep anyway. Yes, it's not votes, it's arguments, and explicitly pointing out that some votes may not be policy-based can be helpful for administrators. Closing AfDs is not the most fun job around--Deadbeef, thanks for taking the time to answer the question, and for your service to our beautiful project. Drmies (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And thank you,, for helping to explain a bit more and for your words. Much appreciated.  14:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Kirk Minihane
Hi again Deadbeef!

Looking at Minihane's cohost's pages, the references are also almost exclusively from the Boston Globe and boston.com, which are independent of WEEI and Gerry Callahan, John Dennis and Kirk Minihane. I have also used articles from these sources on Minihane's page. In terms of other references, I used the Huffington Post and the NY Post, which are entirely unaffiliated with Minihane. His cohost's pages also place weight on their controversies, while establishing how they are notable, as I have done on Minihane's page.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucyburdge (talk • contribs) 20:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Lucy,
 * I'm still not confident Minihane isn't a case of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS, which would invalidate an article about him. I've done some cleanup in the article, but I'm going to have to table this one until I take a deeper look for sources. He doesn't seem to be on the same standing as Callahan and Dennis; if I'm understanding the situation, they are the two primary hosts of the Dennis and Callahan show with Minihane being on the level of about a correspondent. Thus they aren't good parallel examples of outside notability. I'll get back to you when I've had a chance to dig around a bit; this is a rather borderline case. I'll likely approve the draft, but I just need to feel better about it first. Thanks,  22:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane Roberts Stoler
Adding your vote as the nominator is something I see done regularly, is there a policy stating this should not be done? And if so could you please point me to it, otherwise I see no reason for you to strike out the vote, also my vote could change depending on the flow of the discussion later on, so it is not necessarily "implied" as you say. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi ,


 * As far as I know there's no guideline against it but it is generally struck as being essentially a duplicate !vote (note that "!vote", meaning "not vote", means opinions expressed by users in the AfD. AfDs are not polls, and closing administrators have no obligation to follow 'vote tallies'.) AfD is not a process like RfC where you have to declare your !vote in the discussion; the fact that you brought it here implies that you want it deleted unless you say otherwise. Supplementing your own delete in the comments is not "done regularly" and I invite you to look through daily log pages to confirm that. If your !vote does change, you are welcome to say so in the comments, and you are free to withdraw your support for deletion. If you really want your comment unstruck for some reason I'll revert the edit, but there is really no reason to keep it there. Thanks,  01:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe I wasn't clear, I didn't mean to imply that it is always done, or done more often than not, just that I've seen it done a number of times and at no point have I ever seen anyone take issue with it, so I just found it odd that you'd go out of your way to strike it out. I understand AfD is a discussion and not a binding vote, however, it is a tool used by the admins when making a decision on consensus. Either way, I'll leave it alone, it just seems unnecessary. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I just saw it while scrolling down the page, thought I'd take 30 seconds to strike it. It's really not a big deal, it's probably more of a style thing than anything. I didn't really take a look at the AfD so I'm not trying to be malicious, but (from what I've seen) the SOP if an OP !votes on their own AfD seems to be to strike it.  04:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

speedy deletion
Hi. You marked an article I was working on for speedy deletion. At first I objected but then I read up on better practices and I understand where you are coming from. I wonder, however, why it was necessary to speedily delete the page instead of marking it as an article to be considered for deletion. That would have given me a chance to weigh in on the subject.

If a band doesn't meet notability requirements can articles still be created for albums they have released, assuming they are on notable record labels?

Thanks for your help. There Is No Me (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to read up on WP policies and guidelines. As the page is deleted I can't go back and look at it, but I seem to remember it falling pretty squarely in line with WP:A7 in that it makes no attempt to explain the significance of the band. For example, of course I could write an article on my garage band, but if I don't make an attempt to prove that my garage band is important in any way, then it probably shouldn't get an encyclopedic article. (A small note that the claim has to be credible: for example, I could write that my band was the first to play on the moon, but that wouldn't keep it from being speedy deleted.)


 * Claim of significance is the bar for speedy deletion. If I had taken the article to Articles for Deletion, as you suggest, it would be a discussion based on notability, which is a higher threshold. Notability for bands is usually defined through the general notability guideline and the notability guideline for bands. A band that passes at least one of those is presumed to be notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. You can read those yourself, and I hope they are helpful in helping you decide if you want to try writing about the band or not again. Generally, though, if an article can be deleted appropriately through speedy deletion as it was, this is preferable to starting a week-long community discussion to resolve that yes, the article should be deleted. It is also possible for any individual editor to tag the page with a speedy deletion tag, even if it's being considered at AfD.


 * To answer your final question, yes, we can have articles on albums whose band isn't particularly notable (see WP:NOTINHERETED). Before you spend your time on it, though, make sure it meets at least one of (and ideally both of) the general notability guideline and the notability guideline for musical recordings.


 * While you bring up "best practices", I would suggest that you submit your article through Articles for Creation next time. This is optional, but it would cut down on the chance that the article gets deleted off the bat, and let other experienced editors help guide your article to a point where it would survive a deletion discussion.


 * I understand that I just replied to your questions with a wall of text. Sorry about that! If any of that was confusing, or if you need any more help, feel free to comment again under this one and I'll try to help you out. I'll also put a welcome template on your page that has a bunch of links you might find useful in developing your future articles. Thanks for commenting!  23:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the wall of text! Thank you for taking the time to provide this easy-to-understand information. Cheers! There Is No Me (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1978 Tangerine Bowl, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ted Brown. 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) 09:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

El Monstero
Regarding your decision about my article on El Monstero, I respectfully disagree with you. This disagreement is based on 3 points: 1. Multiple times, I drew inspiration for what to write based on other existing Wikipedia articles, most prominently the article for the band, The Australian Pink Floyd Show. I kept the tone of the article as neutral as possible, given that it is reporting on a specific band and it's members, and therefore needs to showcase what they have done.

2. I included as much as possible in a short amount of time from reputable news sources here in St. Louis. This band has been around for 16 years now, but I've only been following them for about 2 years; consequently, my knowledge of the band it's activities is limited, which brings us to...

3. I wrote this article not for any personal gain, but because I believe this band has become notable in the Midwest region of the USA, and I'd like people elsewhere to be able to read about them. I noticed no Wiki entry on the band, and thought that if one was created, fans around the country could contribute and make the article bigger and better than I could alone.

I don't intend to rewrite my article; as I see it, it stands as is. I ask that you please reconsider your decision.

Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asml8d (talk • contribs) 13:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Asml8d,
 * Regarding your article, I declined it in equal parts because it appeared a bit like an advertisement and because the notability of the band was not demonstrated in the article. I'll walk through both of those points:
 * Advertisement: The neutrality of the article is compromised by phrases such as authentic Pink Floyd concert experience (according to whom?), El Monstero has become a holiday staple in the lives of St. Louisans (maybe to you, but that's still very rosy, unsourced language), but also tweaks the audiences ears (oh, really.) None of it reads like a particularly neutral, encyclopedic article, but more like a presser from the band.
 * Notability: Wikipedia has several guidelines for notability, which is a required attribute for articles to have. The two in regard to articles on bands are the general notability guideline and the guideline for notability for bands. The first requires that the band be significantly covered in multiple, reliable sources that are independent of the band. Only the fourth citation in the article (this one) comes close to being one such qualifying source; to demonstrate notability, the article would need several more sources of this quality. The article also does not meet the latter guideline, which delineates several clear criteria which indicate that a band may be notable. Bands which are notable will demonstrably meet at least one of these criteria and ideally both; your article meets neither.
 * It is very possible that the band is notable, and if you can establish that in the article, feel free to do so and resubmit. However, the neutrality issues require work as well. I strongly recommend that you read this page and take a second look at your article before doing more work on it. You are free to work on and resubmit the article as many times as you wish; however, it is not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia as is, as you claim. Let me know if you need anything else, or if you would like me to take another look after the issues above have been addressed. Thanks,  02:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Closing "no quorum" AfDs
Hello, there is a discussion that may interest you at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process. As you have recently closed some AfDs of this type, you would be welcome to comment there Noyster (talk),  13:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of John Norton (soldier)
Hello! Your submission of John Norton (soldier) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Congrats... You have joined a team of awesome helpers!


Star Wars
Sorry for my temper. I just know deep down inside that the truth sides with me. Although it may be a while before I can come up with the correct sources to shine light on the subject. I'll come back in about a year to the matter possibly, maybe then will I have the right stuff to challenge the consensus. Sorry, again. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 20:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I know your heart is in the right place man. I know you're just trying to make the project as accurate as possible. But you really should just leave the issue as it lies. After this current nomination, the pages will have been closed three times with strong consensus each time not to move. That kind of solid consensus will not magically change in the next year, regardless of what kind of evidence you bring to the table. Especially if it is you bringing the nomination again. You have an infinitely better chance of finding yourself at AN/I than you do of getting consensus to move the pages. You need to recognize that even though you absolutely 100% believe you are right in that the expanded names are the correct ones for the article, the community does not. When I asked you to drop the issue, I really meant to drop it. You are not going to win this one; not now, not in a year. I'm not trying to gloat, I'm trying to get you to see the situation as it is. As far as the community is concerned, the issue has been put to bed. As far as your temper, no harm done.  21:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to continue to pursue this subject. But I am still making evidence/arguments located here.  Is my argument/evidence being done more correctly here than I presented at the nomination? Thanks. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 01:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Eric, in all the WP pages you discuss, you have one glaring omission. You seem like you have a bottomless pit of time to spend researching the common name, which is great, but somewhat unique to you. Most people who came to the nomination, including myself, went through this train of thought: The requested page move was proposed three months ago. It was closed decisively. It was the second time it had been proposed and closed decisively. Some new kid is proposing the exact same change yet again with three more tacked on. They look like they're arguing COMMONNAME in a rather WP:WIKILAWYERish manner. They seem not to care that this is a well put-to-bed issue, and the whole damn thing looks like a farce. Oppose.
 * I didn't look through your page because the issue has been decided. It's done. Maybe you're right, maybe you're not. But you seem rather unaware that WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is a thing. The page has been nominated three times. The desire to move has been a far minority three times. If you had proposed your charts and whatnot the first time I doubt it would have passed because—well come on, man. I have no clue why on earth the previous consensuses decided to move these pages to what they are now. People claimed that nobody says "Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope" and rather instead say "Star Wars". That's just really odd to claim. It's all just so ex post facto and ignoring the well-established consensus that you were never going to change any minds. No one is interested in arguing it at this point. Not now, not in a year, probably not for several. I'm asking you to please. Please, drop the stick. It's a waste of your time to draw up giant user subpages devoted to explaining why you think you were right in a single page-move discussion. I'll quote part of it here as I'm pretty sure you will never read it: If the debate died a natural death – let it remain dead. It is over, let it go. Nobody cares anymore. Hard to stomach, but you're going to have to live with it. If you reply here again, it will be ignored.  02:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I care. If they cite COMMONNAME and I can prove that per COMMONNAME that I was in fact right, I see no problem in eventually bringing it up again. . Not anytime soon, at least, I will drop the stick right now. However, I'll pick it back up when I HAVE the evidence to prove otherwise.  If you read my subpage you'll see that I have evidence already that NEARLY PROVES I was right all along... Since 1999, all English corpuses (based on ngrams) have declined the usage of the mere "Empire Strikes Back" title etc, and "Star Wars Episode V" etc have been on an increase in two English corpuses, specifically American English and standard English corpus.  Ignore me. Go ahead. I can't FORCE (no pun intended) you to realize the debate did not die a natural death, it was murdered and the investigation must continue in my eyes. Rome wasn't built in a day. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 05:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

GOCE March newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Formal apology
I have come to realize my actions were disruptive and unprofessional; my actions were uncalled for and too soon. They were good-willed but unnecessary and tedious — possibly even dickish — and I'm sorry. I do realize nobody is going to be left thinking the official title is Star Wars and even if they do, it doesn't matter. I need to let it go for now. Possibly a long time. Like maybe even three-movies worth a long time.

Anyways, we got off to the wrong foot. This should have not forced me to "retire" although I did not. It should not be a reason for me to leave the community because it is downright silly.

I'm sorry. I hope you understand why I was so uneasy about this. I'm not the Jedi I should be But I hope more that you can forgive me and not look at me as a mischievous editor due to this. Everything I do, I do in an attempt to help. And I think I may have gone about it incorrectly. Screw it, I did it incorrectly.

Anyways, I'm sorry. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 23:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize and nothing to forgive; everyone has things from time to time where you get too involved to see the forest for the trees. Everyone has their own idea about what's right and a lot of those ideas conflict. I hope you understand that nothing I did was personal and never thought poorly of you personally or took your actions personally myself. I hope you stay on the project; looking through the rest of your contribs, you look like a good, productive editor who would be an asset to the site. Thanks for leaving a note here. We had a slight weapons malfunction, but uh... everything’s perfectly all right now. We’re fine. We’re all fine here now, thank you.  20:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * LUKE, WE'RE GONNA HAVE COMPANY! Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 20:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

April 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

20:09:55, 8 May 2015 review of submission by Lauriespratt
Lauriespratt (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC) Hello, I am revisiting getting a Wikipedia article for artist, Malcolm McClain. Another employee submitted and it was rejected, citing sources are not reliable. I don't understand why the articles provided are not adequate....his contribution to his art is clearly defined. Also, as I find this entire process baffling and have struggled just to get the article submitted as a draft, why is he not notable. He is in his circle, albeit small.

I would very much appreciate some guidance.

GOCE June 2015 newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Reply to my questions from 5/8
When will I receive a response to my questions regarding my subject, Mac McClain? Or, if you have posted a response, where will I find it? I see nothing on my "talk" page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauriespratt (talk • contribs) 18:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

GOCE August 2015 newsletter

 * sent by via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Fold3 Wikipedia Library check-in
Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Fold3. This is a brief update, to remind you about that access: Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.
 * Make sure that you can still log in to your Fold3 account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information.
 * Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
 * Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email me and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Thank you,

Gamaliel ( talk ) 19:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)