User talk:Erpert/Archive 3

Nomination of Jessica Bangkok for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jessica Bangkok is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Jessica Bangkok until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

CSD A1 and A3
Please consider waiting to see if the article is further developed before tagging it for speedy deletion under criteria A1 or A3; to quote the header at special:newpages: "articles should not be tagged for speedy deletion as having no context (CSD A1) or no content (CSD A3) moments after creation, as not all users will place all their information in their first revision." Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 01:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Born This Way

 * I'm really sorry. I kind of clicked the wrong button. I was just editting some info about it. I really never had the intentions to do that. Sorry again. Thanks! Quinnd16 (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I apologize to you.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 03:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No, no it's fine. I did make a little mistake on the page, and I found it too. I was going right and left checking the pages where the mistake had went. Then I found out you corrected it for me. Thanks! haha (:

 Quinn Nguyen has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!

Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Martin Hosking sale of anti-semetic t-shirts

 * Redbubble is the only site in the world that carries these t-shirts with neo-Nazi slogans such as BACK TO THE FUHRER.  This is notable as part of the bio of the founder/CEO.  The link is just to verify the facts stated.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redbubbleroo (talk • contribs) 03:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not an advertising space. Please read WP:NOTADVERTISING.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 03:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not advertising - it is drawing attention to what the person the subject of a bio does. Not many people these days would proudly sell this kind of thing due to ethical concerns, but he does.   This is worth readers of the bio knowing as a matter of fact in the context of the rest of the bio.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.37.1 (talk) 03:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Use of BLPPROD on articles about bands
Erpert,

I noticed you placed a BLPPROD tag on the article Ted dibiase and the million dollar punk band. BLPPROD only applies to actual biographies, meaning articles specifically about a person, and not to articles about bands or other groups (even if those articles contain biographical information). In the past, I've asked at WT:BLPPROD if bands were coverd by the policy, and everyone who participated in that discussion agreed that articles on bands were not eligible to be deleted by BLPPROD. However, keep in mind that an article on a band which makes no claim as to why the band is notable is eligible for speedy deletion under speedy deletion criterion A7. Since the article Ted dibiase and the million dollar punk band seemed to make no claim that the band was notable, I've now tagged it for speedy deletion. Calathan (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Freedom
I, Alex W. Flinchum, would like to protest the deletion of my page. Why, you ask? Because when I am famous, I won't have the time or patience to start this, or worry about if someone has. This way, people can just hop on and add to it! But on a more serious note, I am real. My page is clean, simple, and accurate. I pose no threat to anyone, nor am I advertising. Come on, Wiki, let's be real. I will continue to edit and update my posts with accurate information and make it much larger.

Thank you, Alex William Flinchum

P.S. My fingers always hold the shift down accidentally. My birth certificate has a lower case L on my last name, in reference to the FLinchum title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex.W.Flinchum (talk • contribs) 04:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that isn't how Wikipedia works. Please read WP:AUTO.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 04:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Attack Page Warning
You gave me a warning for creating an attack page, but I wasn't the creator. I was trying to figure out how to delete the page. I was able to delete the text in it (just the letter "w"), but it took a little googling until I figured out the correct way to nominate the page itself for deletion. I kindly request that you rescind the warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maikul (talk • contribs) 03:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 01:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Dina Rae

 * All info was valid please restore Dina Raes wiki page. Aside from first 4 Eminem albums #13, including D12 Devils night, former Motown artist . Released single And? produced Scott Storch. Frst Daughter soundtrack, so much more...bio and disography on record  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.21.228 (talk) 09:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not in charge of restoring articles; you'll have to ask an administrator.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 01:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:PEACOCK

 * While I don't really oppose removal of unsourced material, what does WP:PEACOCK have to do with it? --Muhandes (talk) 09:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The unsourced assertion that those residents are notable.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 01:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you ever read WP:PEACOCK? It has to do with using puffery, nothing to do with unsourced assertions. I'm just suggesting a correct edit summary will ease the life of everyone. Best regards, and happy editing.--Muhandes (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like I'm not the only one who has a problem with your understanding of Wikipedia guidelines. Might I make a friendly suggestion?  I notice that only about a third of your edits are in the mainspace, and in fact, you have less than 2000 edits there.  The single largest contribution you have is to various users' talk pages, where you have over 500 edits with the vague edit summary "tag".  I wonder if that ES is something generated by a program, because I must tell you, I looked at a great number of those edits and found few cases where "tag" had anything to do with your message.


 * Despite your userbox indicating that you would never want to be an admin, your editing profile is exactly like a lot of editors who hope to impress enough to go to RFA. But if that is your goal, I gotta tell you, you're not going to make it.  You'd be a lot better off if you actually spent some time contributing to the content of articles, and learned about policies through article creation, instead of just spewing forth messages citing policies, especially when you do so in a not-so-bright manner, like the PEACOCK issue in this section. (BTW, what you did at Italian beef was not ignorant; you were within the letter of the rules, I just disagree with it, and I think a lot of editors would as well.  But others would take your side, I admit.)


 * Anyway, I'm sure you'll say you aren't trying to get a mop, and that's fine--I sure can't know what's in your head. But the one thing that you really, really need to do is to provide meaningful edit summaries.  I say that as someone who has a terrible record--percentagewise--of leaving summaries, but when I do leave one, I try to actually leave something useful.  Your "tag" summaries might as well be blank.  HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't you have anything better to do?  Erpert  Who is this guy? 02:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that's kind of what I felt like saying to you when I saw you doing your drive-by tagging on . . . what was it, Italian beef, I think? But instead of making an unhelpful comment like that, I actually explained what I was objecting to.  I may be gruff, but I do try to explain specifically why I do what I do.  That's my problem with (the admittedly little) of what I've seen you doing.  You place these tags on articles without explaining why they're there.  That's why the article has a talk page.  If you think something needs to be sourced, tell us what it is.  Don't just tag because you see something unsourced.  Let me ask you, would you tag the following for its lack of sources?

''Bears are mammals of the family Ursidae. Bears are classified as caniforms, or doglike carnivorans, with the pinnipeds being their closest living relatives. Although there are only eight living species of bear, they are widespread, appearing in a wide variety of habitats throughout the Northern Hemisphere and partially in the Southern Hemisphere. Bears are found in the continents of North America, South America, Europe, and Asia.''

''Common characteristics of modern bears include a large body with stocky legs, a long snout, shaggy hair, plantigrade paws with five nonretractile claws, and a short tail. While the polar bear is mostly carnivorous and the giant panda feeds almost entirely on bamboo, the remaining six species are omnivorous, with largely varied diets including both plants and animals.''


 * Not one source is there, and there's a lot of information. Should it be sourced?  Go ahead and tag it (it's the first two paragraphs of Bear) and see what happens.  You see, if you wantonly go around tagging anything that's unsourced, you're going to run into a lot of opposition, for reasons that I tried to touch upon on my post that you have not responded to earlier. Exactly what was it that you felt needed a source?  Because there's more unsourced material in those two paragraphs than there were in the entire article on Italian beef.  All I'm saying is that it is incumbent upon the tagger to explain himself when he says something is unsourced.  HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, leave me alone, and stay off my talk page.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 06:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever you want . . . I do recognize not everyone is up to a reasoned discussion of their actions. I won't be back. HuskyHuskie (talk) 07:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Tag

 * Wow, if this is the kind of work you're doing to improve the encyclopedia, I'll bet Wikipedia will be just about perfected in no time. Keep it up. HuskyHuskie (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have time for your sarcasm or your discourteous edit summaries. Go away.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 01:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. I'm sorry, but perhaps you misunderstood. Read my edit summary again; I had no "civil criticism of the article" to make.  The article was fine, but someone tagged it with no explanation.  Your new edit summary indicates that there are untagged sections.  Yeah?  Big hairy deal.  Over 50% of all the sections within articles on en.wikipedia are unsourced.  Are you gonna tag them all?  Look, the purpose of the tag is not simply to indicate that there is unsourced information, it is to indicate that there is unsourced information that the tagger suspects may be questionable.  If you don't believe that, then try tagging every unsourced section on the encyclopedia.
 * So if you believe in being "civil", why don't you do the civil thing and go to the article's talk page and provide some guidance as to what you believe needs sourcing. Chances are the major editors who work there don't recognize the article's shortcomings, and they need someone from the outside to let them know what is weak about the article.  But tagging the top doesn't do squat to help them know what you want.  I can put a "source" in every paragraph, but that doesn't necessarily mean I've done the article the service it needs.


 * Now of course, I'm sure you're not one of those editors who gets off feeling important because they put a big banner across the top of every article they can, but such editors do little to help improve the encyclopedia. You wanna help?  Then when you put a tag on an article take the time to go to the talk page and explain your reasoning, so that the tag can actually do some good.  It's drive-by taggers who are responsible for tags that sit on articles for three or four years or longer.  I tag articles, too, but I either try to improve them myself or else, if it's beyond my abilities, I at least leave an explanatory section on the talk page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Tricia Hunter
I hope I'm doing this right, as I'm new to wikipedia. The proposed complaint cites the lack of reliable sources. One of the sources is the California Secretary of State's office, which is very well-documented. As for her notability, the subject of the bio got a lot of press both in Sacramento and in the San Diego area during her yeras in office. Her most recent campaign was in 2004, which wasn't that long ago. I hope that this biography stays. If you can suggest some more sources, I'll be glad to seek them out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Readmoreagain (talk • contribs) 03:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Chaplin Distiller
I am in the process of creating the Chaplin Distiller article with a partner in my Masters program at University. We are in contact with the Western Australian Museum. -Chaplindistiller — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaplindistiller (talk • contribs) 04:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Jason Matthew Woodruff Deletion...
I am new to editing and creating here, I own a company which has been in operation since 1999. And I wanted to make a page on here about it, but in order to do so i made it like an autobiography. 12 years in business, and a locally known company that has and will host events is relevant to our community. To the people and places we operate it is very worthy of an entry on here, and i would like to know how to make it acceptable to Wikipedia? Sorry for making you waste your time on me and this, but it is something important to me and our community, and i would like to fight to keep it.

Thank you for your time, and sorry again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason M Woodruff (talk • contribs) 02:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * As an example of why this should qualify, FUBU is allowed to be present, but they are not only no longer a "hot fad", but are not on the tongues of most Canadians. (only example i could think of) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason M Woodruff (talk • contribs) 02:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You might be a little confused as to how Wikipedia works. I suggest you read WP:AUTO and WP:COI (and, because of your FUBU comparison, WP:OTHERSTUFF).  Erpert  Who is this guy? 02:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the "Jason M Woodruff (talk) 03:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)" information, and regarding the conflict on interest, it is meant to be a company page, is the owner or an employee allowed to submit a wiki based on the company? Did me using my name (I was not sure how to write it) make it an issue, if I submit a a wiki for my company will it see the same as a personal page? (Jason M Woodruff (talk) 03:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC))
 * Yes, but the conflict of interest concern would still apply. More importantly, the company has to be notable before it is allowed a Wikipedia article.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 04:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Providence education and remediation centre
How a hoax? Dloh cierekim  13:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

New Scout Generation

 * Acroterion, you should not have speedied my article New Scout Generation. It's not about an organization, it's about my generation. Just like we have articles on Baby Boomers, Generation X, etc. It does nto qualify for a speedy. Please undelete it. Madison &#39;95 (talk) 02:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * First off, I am not Acroterion (which you should have been able to easily tell by looking at my username). Second, the article was about a name you gave to the generation, which does not account for verifiability by Wikipedia standards. (And as for your comparison to baby boomer and Generation X, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 03:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Alexis Houston (Nominated for Deletion)
Hi Erpert,

My name is Bob and I posted the page for Alexis. I'm not a rep of the record label, I'm a personal acquaintance. I set her up a login with the All's Well Music name, which may have been misguided. As I'm certain you surmised, it's my first attempt at a Wikipedia page, and I apologize for circumventing any conventions. I appreciate any guidance you can give me.

I would ask you to consider that this is not an unknown singer, but an emerging one, as she has album credits, is signed with EMI, and now has an IMDB page for an upcoming movie.

Also, this is the singer who has been associated with Matt Lauer. When I pressed "Save Page", I had unintentionally left out the following paragraph, to address this:

Tabloid Stories In a May 2010 a posting on the celebrity news site, Radar Online and an article in the National Enquirer, Alexis was linked romantically with NBC Today Show host, Matt Lauer, an allegation both parties have vehemently denied. Accompanied by attorney Gloria Allred and actor, Matt Lunsford, Alexis held an impromptu press conference, outside of Michael's Restaurant in midtown Manhattan, to address the allegations in an attempt to quell the intense press interest in the story. A New York Post article later alleged that Houston, like Lady Gaga, was a trans-gender woman. However the chronology of the assertions in the story, as well as Houston's own denial, brought the article's creditability under intense scrutiny. Earlier online blogs have also linked Houston New York Mets third baseman, David Wright and British actor, James Purefoy.

Next, I intended to add citations, especially to the above paragraph.

Thanks for your time. I would very much like to preserve this page in Wikipedia. Can you please let me know what changes would help this case?

Rob2330 (talk) 03:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Additional Information: The Tabloid Stories section, along with a Personal Life section, were removed by another editor. Rob2330 (talk) 03:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:MUSICBIO.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 03:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Anak BAthala Books and Games

 * Hello Erpert. I am just letting you know that I deleted Anak BAthala Books and Games, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 04:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I tagged it as a hoax because "anak bathala" resulted in zero Ghits.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 04:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

A1 and A3 deletions.
Hi. Thank you  for patrolling  new pages. One minute is far to fast  to  CSD anything  other than the most  serious breaches of Wikipedia page creation  policy. Please see WP:NPP and WP:CSD before patrolling more pages. If you have any  questions don't  hesitate to  as  me on  my  talk page. Happy editing! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Tagging procedure
I just tagged an article, Psychic Friends Network with the NPOV banner. I kinda messed up, because I didn't put an edit summary on there (that's a bad habit of mine). But I did read the tag, which says, ''The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page.'' So you know what I did? I actuallly went to the talk page and initiated a discussion on the article's neutrality.. Wasn't so hard.

So now I come across this article, which was just tagged about a week ago for having NPOV problems. Tagged by you. So where's the discussion? Nothing on the talk page, despite what the tag says. Hey, I'm looking over the article and perhaps I'd like to fix it, but I can't tell what you think the problem is. In fact, the article looks fine, to me.

Do you see why this is a problem? HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Didn't I tell you to stay off my talk page? Bother me again and I'm taking it to an admininstrator.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 07:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Acknowledged. HuskyHuskie (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Use of "minor" checkbox
Please read WP:MINOR - your edit at Abby Elliot was not actually minor. Any change to the text of the article beyond a single capitalization or spelling correction is not considered minor. Thanks. --Lexein (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)