User talk:Fiftytwo thirty/Archive 2

This is a copy of my talk page as edited by MediaWiki message delivery on 04:29 13 November 2016.

Archived
So I've archived my talk page, and have written this here to make it look a little less bare. If you need to restart a topic that is in the archive please make a new section here. Thanks. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

IDoubs Deletion
You cannot delete an article like this. Please give us more details. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.179.39.5 (talk) 11:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please visit Articles for deletion/IDoubs, you may express your opinions there. In short, to be included here at Wikipedia something must be what we call "Notable," Meaning that it has coverage in third party reliable sources. If you have any other questions, please ask. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

SVA article.
That's an error I don't often make and actually hate myself as well. Thank you for correcting it. WikiManOne (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No Problem! --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion
My page entitled Lloyd Sweeney was deleted by michig but I cannot contact him as he is on a "wikibreak". I am trying to either get this page moved to a userspace (I believe it's called userfy) so I can complete it, as I wasn't even done with it before it was deleted, or if that's not possible could you delete the page entirely so it does not show up on google search results? Any help is greatly appreciated. Eleet211 (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The page is entirely deleted, but Google search results will keep the page in its cache for a while. I cannot restore your page because I am not an Administrator here at Wikipedia; you received a message from me because I tagged your article for deletion and then Michig saw the tag and deleted the article. To have an article at Wikipedia, an article's subject must have coverage in third party reliable sources; not just everybody can have an article here. I am sure that If those sources are found, Michig will undelete your article. If you are or are writing on behalf of Sweeney then you should also see our conflict of interest gudelines. If you have further questions, please ask. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (Moved here for clarity) I appreciate your time. One last thing, I didn't know how to build the article once I started, I stopped to research how to do it correctly, and you guys deleted it, I hadn't even been a member of wiki one full day yet. That's pretty quick, I hope in the future you guys try to help someone out first before just deleting the work they spent time on. It is because of this frustration I don't even want to finish the page and Michig wouldn't have found the information I planned to submit because it's not things you can just go find on the internet, which is why I building a wiki page, amongst other things online. The importance of a user, or his information shouldn't be judged on whether someone else can find information on it or not, sometimes that information is NEW and/or isn't easily found, as im my case. Given the time I would have proviced you whatever you needed as proof however I had to, to validate the information but you guys are too quick to judge and delete and I don't want to contribute to any organization that works that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eleet211 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Deletion, particularly speedy deletion, is very controversial here at Wikipedia. As a new page patroller, I try to keep a balance between maintain a high level of accuracy and verifiability and driving away new users, who generate so much of wikipedia's content. I've seen everything from elaborate hoaxes and vandalism to articles that get featured on the main page, in the process tagging hundreds of articles for deletion. A7 (The deletion criteria your article got deleted under) gives more leeway deleting companies, people, and bands because so many articles are created that are not anywhere close to the inclusion criteria. I usually try to Google A7s before tagging, but of course there are print sources too. Wikipedia is not really the place for new information, it is really only for established concepts that have had secondary source coverage. Again, feel free to ask any questions you may have, I am happy to answer. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 00:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

LSA
I created an article for La Sierra Academy, however, most of the information is out of it's student handbook/website/profile and La Sierra University's website. There is not question that it is a notable school judging by the number hits on Google News and such, it's just hard to verify information about the school. If you could give your thoughts and maybe even help a bit on the documentation side I would appreciate it. Also, do you think it would be appropriate to have the history section sourced primarily from primary sources? (it doesn't seem controversial...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiManOne (talk • contribs) 15:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As you probably know, most schools are considered inherently notable as long as they are verifiable and are or contain high schools. It's fine to have primary sources right now, and I might take a look for some secondary ones if I get a chance, but I am pretty busy at the moment. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

About the Swartz & Schulner
Hello Fiftytwo thirty Sorry, I am new to Wikipedia, I just want to know why this is on a speedy deletion status. Please let me know what I should correct to validate and stay away from erasement :)

Thanks in advance,

Marky2728 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marky2728 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, we have a policy called notability which determines whether an article should be included. All articles need to have third party reliable source coverage. For bands, people, and companies, we have speedy deletion criteria which require that those articles assert why they are important. If you do not feel that the article meets these criteria, add hangon and explain why on the talk page. If you are writing about your own band, see our conflict of interest guidelines If you have further questions, feel free to ask. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

My Ground Breaking Chat Site with New Technology Keeps Getting Deleted
Hello 5230,

My article named chatlantis keeps getting deleted. we are not a business. we have a new chat environment that changes the way people communicate... please look at it in google chrome. this involves the w3 and browser wars both are topics in wikipedia. please let me know why they keep deleting my articles and what I can do to fix it so that it does not get deleted. The site is http://www.chatlantis.com

Its cutting edge technology

thanks

Mike in Colo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jetskiimike (talk • contribs) 19:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because the site is an organization and not a company does not mean that the content is not advertising the website. If you think that there are third party reliable sources about this forum, I would recommend using the articles for creation interface to do so. Not everything gets coverage in Wikipedia; it must have coverage in another source beforehand to be notable --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Fusion b2b
Hello Fiftytwo thirty. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Fusion b2b, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I'll take out the client section and I think it'll be OK. Thank you. Ged UK  14:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

deleted images
What was wrong with all those files. They were all licensed for commercial use and creative commons. Daniel Christensen (talk) 21:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The first you deleted was already on wikipedia. I just cropped it. You could have fixed my errors instead of deleting them. Daniel Christensen (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello there. All of the images I tagged for deletion were listed at Flikr as being either for noncommercial use or no derivative images. All files to my knowledge were from Flikr as originally published; which image is that a crop of? If you believe that the files were originally licensed as just by or by-sa, then please talk to User:Explicit, who was the administrator who deleted the images. Since I am not an admin, I cannot restore the images. Thanks --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I always go to advanced search on flickr and check two boxes making it: "Showing Creative Commons-licensed content for commercial use". That's what I always do. Plus for like such as the colortrak 2000 image I had specific permission. Daniel Christensen (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/globetrottingmatt/2760144197/ There's a link to one where they gave me permission but then I found out they had to change the license, I asked and they did but it was only to CC with no commercial use. Daniel Christensen (talk) 22:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You have to check both "Find Content to use commercially" and "Find content to modify, adapt, and build upon" (For example this image, one of the ones deleted, is free for commercial use but does not allow derivative images and therefore not allowed on WP. If you have specific permission then consider e-mailing it to OTRS. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Were you talking about this image? It was never tagged for deletion. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * How is putting it here a derivative work being built upon? I thought that just meant you could not alter/tramsform it, such as with paint. Daniel Christensen (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And yes, whoops, I was talking about that image; I got them confused. Daniel Christensen (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Respose at Explicit's talk for clarity. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge tag
Please comment at Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories. You added the merge tag (which I agree with), please add your reasoning. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

boston tea act
i am confused on the boston tea act. tell me —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandyman22 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you are asking... I have not edited anything related to this. If you are looking for general information, see the pages on The Boston Tea Party and the Tea Act or ask a question at the WP:Reference Desk. Thank you. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 02:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Oneupweb page question
Hello!

I am referencing this site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneupweb.

I am hoping that you can let me know what needs to be done with this article to remove some of the tags that are present at the top, especially the deletion tag. I have spoken with another editor and I received some good general input, but she directed me to you for more specific answers. Any help that you can give me in making this article fit into Wikipedia's guidelines would be greatly appreciated. My email is (Removed your e-mail address; I will not contact you via e-mail and do not think it good to have here) Thanks for your help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.248.134.66 (talk) 15:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The deletion tag has been removed (for now) because it has already been through AfD, a different Deletion process. Anyway, I suggest that you read the conflict of interest guidelines; it is generally not a good Idea to write about your buisness. I will elaborate further tomorrow about your concerns because I am busy IRL today, but it could be helpful if you provided a link to the prior discussion you mentioned; I cannot find it in this IP adresses's history; I assume it is dynamic. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 02:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Firstoff, are you User:HershByTheBay? I cannot see who you are if you are not logged in. The main points for Wikipedia articles are that they are notable as evidenced by third party sources; primary sources do not count even if they make a major assertion of importance. (See this deletion debate where the article was deleted) The second and perhaps more important issue is that the article is written in a neutral point of view. Before I started editing, this page was dripping with promotional language. Particularly with marketing companies, and I have delt with several that have written their own page on Wikipedia, it is essential that the page is WP:NOTADVERTISING the company. Again I will stress that you read the WP:COI policy. If you have further questions, please feel free to ask; I have made several edits to make the page slightly more neutral, but problems remain. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 01:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Holland Island
-- Cirt (talk) 12:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Cuhuyhavu.jpg
Cu Huy Ha Vu is a public Figure, ..."a photograph of a public figure may be used without permission...", "If the person is a public figure (a celebrity, a politician and the like) or is a private figure but one who is involved in a matter of public concern (a news story for instance) and in both instances the use of the photograph is directly related to the person’s public status, then the courts have said that in those instances, the right of the person to his or her privacy gives way to the public’s right to get the public information."

The photo Cuhuyhavu.jpg is created by me, I don't need permission to draw a public figure as long as my created photo is not use for commercial, while the underlying art may be in the public domain and thus free to use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thuytrangnguyen (talk • contribs) 06:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Reference sources: http://www.ivanhoffman.com/photos.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thuytrangnguyen (talk • contribs) 06:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Response at the PUF page. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Edits to Deborah Forte
Hi, You undid a change I made for a wikipedia page for the producer of WordGirl / Deborah Forte. I cleaned up the article so I was wondering why you put the flags back? I couldn't find another way to remove the flags other than just taking them out of the code; is there another procedure that's needed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WordGirl8987 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that you made some changes to the page, but you did not fix the underlying problems of the page being completely promotional and lacking third party reliable sources for all claims. That is what the tags are about. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixing a new article
You commented that may page, Holly Creek Retirement Community, was marked for deletion. I looked at similar sites, like The Village or Classic Residence by Hyatt and tried to edit the copy accordingly. But it won't let me post those updates as the page was marked for speedy deletion. How is someone supposed to learn how to fix something, then fix it, only to not be able to repost it?

All of the instructions are super confusing. I get that Wiki wants to read encyclopedia-like/factual, and I'm trying to do that, so why does this have to be hard? Who reads the newer copy to see if it conforms to Wiki style? How do you get passed the "marked for deletion" issue?

Why would someone sign HCWikiSigler (talk) 04:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC) and not their name? Is there a simplied version of directions? So what happens now? No matter how much I improve the copy will it never be posted?

Thank you...

HCWikiSigler (talk) 04:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello. First and foremost, Wikipedia is not a place for promotion, and as your username suggests, you seem to be editing on behalf of a company. As well as being written in a neutral tone, all topics must be notable, meaning that they have coverage in third party reliable sources. Articles are checked by a group known as new page patrollers, who tag some pages for deletion. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Linda Fleming entry
hi i am wondering why the Linda Fleming page was tagged with a cleanup request. I created it and from the history it looks like i'm the only one who has worked on it. can you tell me what i should do to comply? thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammedboxer (talk • contribs) 05:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You appear to be editing on behalf of or as Linda Fleming, so I tagged the article you created as needing to be checked for neutrality. It is generally good if a third party does this check. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Glentel
Hello Fiftytwo thirty, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Glentel, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 11:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Another unfree image from the late PM David Thompson uploaded
Hello Fifthtwo thirty, A while ago we were dealing with unfree images of the late PM David Thompson of Barbados and those images are gone since. Now I discovered that the same User:MichaelCurtis89 uploaded a portrait of David Thompson copyright to AFP, again he stated it's his own. Well, I hope I reacted correctly in marking the image as pufc, leaving a message on MichaelCurtis89's talkpage and listing it at Possibly unfree files/2010 November 21. I think the image should be taken off asap and as the user's uploads are likely to be all disputed, he should be banned for a while or for good. What's your opinion? Joerg, the BajanZindy (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've put the necessary tags on the articles that MC89 uploaded. I will put another note on his talk page. Just so you know, Images have a bit of a different policy for deletion here on Wikipedia. To get the full story, head over to WP:CSD, but in general: Images that clearly come from another source on the internet can be tagged for immediate deletion with db-f9, Images without a claim to be free or fair use (Lacking a license tag) can be tagged with and images that have a license tag but are authored by someone other than the author without credible permission can be tagged with . Possibly unfree files is used only for some select circumstances where someone believes an image may be unfree, but is not obvious or might be open to debate. If you have further questions about image policy, feel free to ask; many of these tasks can be made a lot easier by using twinkle. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanx very much! I activated twinkle quite some time ago, but never used it as yet. Your explanation helps me a lot. Anyhow, I'm sure, as I follow many (not only) Barbados-related articles, there will be more cases like this coming, even from MC89. Should I have questions later, I will be glad if I can ask you then. Joerg, the BajanZindy (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

In terms of licensing
What if I upload an image twice, to two differnt places with a different lisence in each place. Besides being frustrating for someone seeing the same image on flickr as all rights reserved and here as CC 3.0, is there an actual rule about doing that? Like is the All Rights Reserved license valid if an image that is clearly identical is found somewhere else as Creative Commons or lets say Public Domain? Would releasing an image in the public domain here in some way invalidate the license elseware if the image is clearly the same? And there would be no debate over weather or not it is truly the same because I have seen wikipedia recognize identical images if I accidently tried to double upload. I don't care about any images being used I was just wondering. Thanks. Daniel Christensen (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The only person who can release the images is the content creator or the copyright holder (You cannot release someone else's image, they must release it themselves). In general, licenses are irrevocable, so the least restrictive license would generally be applied. If someone credibly releases an image as CC-BY-SA and then claims that it is fully copyrighted, it would still be released under CC-BY-SA. Note that the same cannot be said for derivative works, croppings, reductions, etc. unless it was released under a license that specifically states that derivative works must be shared alike (-SA). I am not sure what the GNU licenses do in terms of share alike. The issue for images claimed here at Wikipedia as under one license, but actually stated on the source as another is that there is so much mis-tagging already prevalent that we make the assumption that the source page's copyright notice needs to be followed. If you think a source page's copyright tag has been changed (and is therefore facing deletion), or if you are the one who is the copyright holder of an image with a mistake then contact OTRS. I hope this answers your question; if not please ask! Happy New year! --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a happy New Year 2011!
... from over here in cold Berlin. Joerg, the BajanZindy (talk) 13:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and a Happy new year to you from an unusually balmy Washington, D.C.! --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC) (And despite the timestamp, it is still new year's day here)

Message deletion
Well if you are retired, then why did you delete my message? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.34.90 (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I really don't know what I deleted. You will have to give me a link. Thanks. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

An RfCU
An RfC/U about has been filed - I know you have expressed concerns about his conduct at a previous time and encourage you to participate.·Maunus· ƛ · 15:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Commented. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Newbie needs Help with Maria Ferrante page
Hello and thank you so much for your warm welcome! I am obviously new to Wiki writing, and am happy to learn more about what's needed to have my information approved.

When writing about a living person, can you tell me what is acceptable as proper substantiation, and how to I correlate it within the body of my article? In other words.... where do I put any links to newspaper articles and such?

I'm certainly also a novice at writing code, so it's taking me a long time to figure out the actual logistics of it all too! Can you give me an idea of how long I have to figure all this out before I am "speedily deleted"?

Thank you so much for any help and advice you can offer! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariaferrante (talk • contribs) 22:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello, I don't think I ever welcomed you, but I am happy to help! First of all, you are appear to be writing as or on behalf of Maria Ferrante, which is a conflict of interest. In general, it is best to not write your own article, but wait for someone else to write it. Second, not just anyone can have an article on Wikipedia, they must be "notable," meaning that there is reliable, third party sourcing, and that the article is not written like an advertisement or a resume. You can participate in the Articles for deletion debate over your page, see the link on your talk page. Let me know if you have questions, but it might be a better idea to ask someone who is more active here on Wikipedia than I am right now. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Jonny Arnold
This is Jonny Arnold, I have created my own page and all the information I have provided is 100% true. Please do not delete this page. I have the proof of it. if you need some sort of certification i will contact the Atlantic league of professional baseball and have them contact you.

any questions  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnyarnold17 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Look at my response to Maria Ferrante above, it applies here too. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Amway Merger
I was reading the merger discussion on Amway / Global / Aus, At last discussion the Amway Australia page was going to be "beefed up" so no action was taken by you, but I discovered the beefup was extremely unreliable, majority third party sourcing, and written like an advertisement, some obvious conflict of interest happening. I cleaned up the serious violations, and what's left isn't much, even the meat of the company info lacks citations.

I feel it should be merged. Will you find time to do this still? Financeguy222 (talk) 02:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with your paring down of that page, and am still very much in favor of the merge. All of the articles about Amway tend to be POV forks and full of COI, POV, and OR, and just about every other problem in the book. I have not been very involved here lately, as the banner at the top of my page states, and unfortunately, I have no time to do the merge, and will not get any for another two months, at best, perhaps not for three or four. Feel free to do the merge yourself, and ask if you have any questions. The merge will not be an easy task or one free from controversy. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 02:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply
Hello,

Thank you for your message. I'm new to Wikipedia editing and trying to make individual articles for the books. I thought I would first set up the articles and redirects, because of the long book names and later add the content in the next few hours. I also want to get the redirects to work from this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavoj_%C5%BDi%C5%BEek_bibliography#Books — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ergeirgfd (talk • contribs) 01:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. I recommenced that you put sources together in your own personal user page first, and then move those pages if you want to create articles. Creating almost blank articles will get them deleted! To link something, just type: What you want linked in brackets as such. Click on the link at the very top after you have been redirected to go back to the original page to edit it. Finally, make sure any page you make has sufficient third party reliable sourcing, and does not infringe on any copyrights, else it also may be deleted! Good luck and feel free to ask if you have more questions. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
thanks for taking the time to welcome people, Mr. not-quite-so-retired :)

Scholartype415 (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC) 
 * Thank you for the kitten, probably the first thanks I've gotten in two years of Patrolling new pages. And thank you for creating a great new article for me to patrol (and not delete!).


 * Yeah, I'm back. 200 edits in seven days isn't exactly retired ;). I've made it official. If you have a question, drop me a line. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 02:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Helpforafricanstudents, Inc (H.A.S.) deletion
About the page Helpforafricanstudents, Inc (H.A.S.)

As the many nonprofits listed below, all we did was to create a Wikipedia page about our Nonprofit and for reason that we do not understand the page was deleted. Every single word and the image included are our property. If the image is a problem we can remove it. Can you please please tell us what to do to fix things.

Several nonprofit organizations have a page on Wikipedia (see below for examples; there are so many other examples).

Helpforafricanstudents, Inc. is simply a USA 501 c 3 nonprofit, incorporated on January 22, 2009. The letter of determination from the IRS was received on August 2010. Our website: www.helpforafricanstudents.org

Please; this is urgent.

SAMPLE LIST OF NONPROFITS WITH A WIKIPEDIA PAGE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Kindness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Affairs_Councils_of_America http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Brothers_Big_Sisters_of_New_York_City http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Affairs_Council_of_Dallas/Fort_Worth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gordie_Foundation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Affairs_Council_of_the_Desert http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Affairs_Council_of_Northern_California http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Affairs_Council_of_Seattle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_on_My_Feet_%28non-profit_organization%29

Best Regards Speedhelpfor (talk) 02:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello. I understand that you are a legitimate nonprofit organization, but there were several issues with the article. First, you appear to be editing on behalf of that organization, and thus you have a conflict of interest. You should not write your own article, and instead wait for a third party to write it. Because you copied and pasted from your website, the article was promotional in nature and to be legal would need to be released by a free license by your company, which is likely not the case. Finally, along with being neutral and non-promotional, all articles need to have third party reliable sources. Not just any company or organization can have a Wikipedia page, you must be "notable". If you have further questions, please ask. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 02:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

(Old writing restored for clarity) We have change our mind about having a wikipedia article BUT THERE IS A HUGE PROBLEM WE URGENTLY NEED YOUR ASSISTANCE WITH.

When you type the name of our organization in google. The page with the highest rating (first page to appear) is the wikipedia page mentioning: "Helpforafricanstudents, Inc. - This page has been deleted."

Please you are free not to accept our article but can you please delete the article completely; removing our account completely if possible.

As you, we are a company and have an image to maintain.

PLEASE REMOVE THE PAGE COMPLETELY

We are no longer interested

Speedhelpfor (talk) 23:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello, the page has been completely deleted, but Google will continue to show the search results for a little while until its databases are updated when it recrawls the web. This will likely occur in a few days to a few weeks. You cannot delete your account, though you can clear out your talkpage if that page is showing. My talkpage is not indexed by search engines. Again, your Wikipedia page is completely removed, this is Google's issue, and should rectify itself in time. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 00:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Rj Gagan Talwar
i only want to say you that my fans know me from this name only ..

rest your issue i will make it correct but ...please do something about the tittle of my page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rj Gagan Talwar (The Love Guru) (talk • contribs) 16:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am unsure what you are asking. Your page was speedily deleted because it was an advertisement and a copyright violation. It is strongly discouraged that you write an autobiography; Instead wait until you are notable enough for someone else to write it. Let me know if I can clarify. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 17:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Instigator (album)
The artist was redirected to the album back in April. I've since re-created an article on the artist, who meets WP:MUSIC by having two charted singles. Ten Pound Hammer and company • (Otters want attention) 00:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for being more conscientious with your !vote than I was. Supported your redirect. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 00:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hizb
Hey there - I had to remove your POV tag from Hizb ut-tahrir America, because the rule on that tag is that you must explain actionable POV concerns on the talk page. If no one knows in which way you believe the article to be POV, the problem cannot be fixed! Feel free to restore the tag, but please start a section on the talk page explaining what you see as the POV issue with the article. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 07:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my bad tagging. I think the article needs work, but one of the primary reasons I tagged it was a misunderstanding on my part now that I read the main article more clearly. I plan to keep my hands off of that article, just came by in NPP. Not my area of expertise at all. Again, sorry to cause trouble. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem - sometimes people don't know that POV tags work that way. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Tan Tao Group's operating fields
Hi, I am allowed to publish the information by Chairman of Tan Tao Group, and keep the source of information. I think I can't violate the copyright regulations.Looking forward to your feedback Daovietthang (talk) 01:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The section I removed was directly copied; if you have specific permissions they need to be cleared through WP:OTRS else they are a copyright violation, and will remain removed. If you have a connection with that company, you should also read the conflict of interest policy. If you have further questions, ask. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 01:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Www.redrummusic.com
Hello Fiftytwo thirty, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I deleted Www.redrummusic.com, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided. The speedy deletion criteria are extremely narrow and specific, and the process is more effective if the correct criterion is used. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I tagged that as A7 as you deleted it in a db-multiple tag with G11. Perhaps CSDH just doesn't know how to read db-multiple? --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 00:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

People In Aid Code of Good Practice Deletion
Hullo there,

You recently tagged the "People In Aid Code of Good Practice" for speedy deletion - it has since been deleted. I was just wondering if you could give me some feedback as to exactly why it was deleted, with examples? I read the reasons, but obviously without the text of the article to hand I'm unable to see where I went wrong. I'd like to avoid these mistakes in the future and, if possible, amend the article to Wikipedia's standards and get it live. Again, any feedback, comments or advice about "userfying" you have would be very much appreciated. Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthysk (talk • contribs) 11:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It was tagged for deletion under two criteria, G11 and G12. This was because it was an article that was exclusively promotional in tone, and also was a copyright violation coming direct from another copyrighted source. Some important guidelines to review would be WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:COPYRIGHT. Likewise, if you have any connection to this group, see WP:COI. Above all, things on Wikipedia must meet a standard for inclusion called notability. One question is if the code of this organization is notable outside of the organization itself. My feeling is no, but I could be wrong. I am not an administrator, and cannot userify your article or see it; Because it is a copyright violation I do not think it will be userified, but for that please talk to the deleting admin, . Thanks, let me know if you have further questions. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Last "Gredy" page speedy deletion
Hi, please review my reasons of disagreeing with speedy delition of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gredy I'm wondering and heard from other people, why you basically try to delete any article you are not really in business? Should community work on contest of your deletion as powerful user? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterBizz (talk • contribs) 03:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason that your page was deleted is because it was unambiguous advertising. Wikipedia has a policy against using Wikipedia to Advertise, see WP:NOTADVERTISING. If you have a question, please contact the deleting administrator, . I have since nominated your article for the highest level of deletion debate, Articles for Deletion, because it is not "notable", in other words, it does not meet the standards for inclusion here. Do not take this personally, Wikipedia just has some standards.


 * Please note that I am not an administrator and cannot delete your pages, I merely tag them, and an administrator reviews it before deletion. I stand by my tagging and work here on Wikipedia, if you think my behavior uncivil and thus against policy, consider bringing a complaint at WP:RFC/U. Let me know if you have further questions. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Help
Dood I created some pages earlier here .... can you please give me the content of those pages. It would be great help. The pages were Abhineet Singh, Rahul Aggarwal, HN Clan etc .... If you give them to me , i will put them on Indian wiki .... That would save me from recreating it. Rajatkalia (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello, your pages were deleted because they did not assert importance as to why they would meet inclusion guidelines. If you would like the content to use on another website, please contact an administrator to email it to you; I am not an admin so I cannot help you. I would recommend contacting the admin who deleted your page, . Thanks, let me know if you have other questions. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedily deleted
Why was eloquent landscapes deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zk105668 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your page was deleted because it was a copyright infringement, meaning that it was taken directly from another copyrighted source, and it was also advertising a product or service. Please read the linked policies for more details about Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion and ask me if you have further questions. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of National Social Assistance Scheme
Care has been taken not to copy paste from any source, online or offline, whatsoever. Paraphrasing has been attempted at. Kindly let me know where copyright infringement is occuring in the article. Thanks! (Rasha09 (talk) 03:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC))
 * The content appeared to be directly copied from a book called "Chronic poverty and development policy in India," By Aasha Kapur Mehta, Andrew Shepherd. The text can be accessed here. Please talk to the deleting admin, if the tagging is in error (I cannot see the deleted text). Let me know if you have further questions. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of page
Can you explain the reason for tagging it for speedy deletion. I the actual owner of the content and no one has right to claim that it is theirs. I could content with anyone

Hence can you reinstate the page Vaduvur Sri Kothandaraswamy Temple.

Warm Regards

Rajesh

Dear Rajesh.parthasarathy,

The Wikipedia page "User talk:Rajesh.parthasarathy" has been changed on 12 October 2011 by Fiftytwo thirty, with the edit summary: Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Vaduvur Sri Kothandaramaswamy Temple. (TW)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rajesh.parthasarathy&diff=0&oldid=452575935 for all changes since your last visit. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rajesh.parthasarathy for the current revision.

To contact the editor, visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fiftytwo_thirty

Note that additional changes to the page "User talk:Rajesh.parthasarathy" will not result in any further notifications, until you have logged in and visited the page.

Your friendly Wikipedia notification system — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajesh.parthasarathy (talk • contribs) 18:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello. Your page was deleted because it appeared to violate copyright. The site where the material was found has a clear sign at the bottom saying that its content is copyrighted, with all rights reserved. I cannot restore the page, as I am not an administrator. If you have sufficient evidence that you own the content on that website, then please submit a claim to WP:PERMIT. The deleting administrator is ; you can contact him to restore the page, but I am sure he will not restore it without adequate permission first. If you have further questions or do not understand me, please ask. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

John Berthier
Talk: John Berthier

Thank you for contacting me! The article does include some excellent external website references, including a newly published book which is already in print. The information can be verifed by checking the references; everything is accurate. Having one's Cause for Sainthood opened is newsworthy because it is so unusual and extraordinary. Please do not delete it. I can update it periodically as the Cause for Sainthood progresses. Thank you.

SacredFamily (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)SacredFamily

New Page Triage engagement strategy released
Hey guys!

I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox -.

It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for help concerning energy...
Hi,

I noticed you listed yourself as a participant of the Energy WikiProject.

There are 2 new outlines in this area that attempt to consolidate Wikipedia's coverage of their respective subjects, gathering and organizing the articles about them into one place and including descriptions for convenience. The purposes of these outlines are to make it easier for readers to survey or review a whole subject, and to choose from Wikipedia's many articles about it.

The new energy outlines are:


 * Outline of solar energy
 * Outline of wind energy

Please take a look at them, and....


 * if you spot missing topics, add them in.


 * if you can, improve the descriptions.


 * add missing descriptions.


 * show parent-offspring relationships (with indents).


 * fix errors.

For more information about the format and functions of outlines, see Outlines.

Building outlines of existing material (such as Wikipedia) is called "reverse outlining". Reverse outlines are useful as a revision tool, for identifying gaps in coverage and for spotting poor structuring.

Revising a work with multiple articles (such as Wikipedia) is a little different than revising a paper. But the general principles are the same...

As you develop these outlines, you may notice things about the articles they organize. Like what topics are not adequately covered, better ways to structure and present the material, awkward titles, articles that need splitting, article sections lacking Main links, etc.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines.

Thank you. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 00:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC) P.S.: see also Outline of energy

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Alexandria City Hall
The meeting place of the Unionist Virginia Convention of 1864 at Alexandria is sourced to the “United States District Court Room” for Virginia during the Civil War. I would like to illustrate the building exterior. Was it located in the Alexandria City Hall? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not know, sorry. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers
Hi ,

In order to better control the quality  of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)