User talk:FredoMurphy

Re Borat Sagdiyev - the news articles you cited refer to a film that hasn't yet been released. I would say it's too early to include the cross-reference in the Borat article. Let's wait until the film is actually available. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your kind note Mr. NawlinkWiki. Since the movie has been covered extensively by major media outlets and is in production I believe it is worth noting in the article on Borat. After all it is a highly notable subject very relevant and significant to the subject of Borat. Thank you generously for your warm consideration. Jagshemash! FredoMurphy (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of My Brother, Borat


Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as My Brother, Borat, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Uncle Dick (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Dick, the aritcle is obviously not inappropriate. It is a highly notable Kazakh film by a well established director and has been covered extensively in mainstream media. Thank you sensuously for your apologies. Jagshemash! FredoMurphy (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of My Brother, Borat


A tag has been placed on My Brother, Borat requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Uncle Dick (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

How do I add pages to my watchlist?
 * Click the little star next to "View history". See this page for more. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  01:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of My Brother, Borat for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article My Brother, Borat, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/My Brother, Borat until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

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

And as the notice above stated, you are always quite welcome to comment at the deletion discussion. I personally wish to thank you for starting the article, as it has been a real treat to expand and source.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

My Brother, Borat
The discussion closed as a "Speedy Keep"... indicating that there was enough coverage of the topic to show the notability required by Wikipedia, and to allow expansion and sourcing while the above AFD was in process. Thanks for starting this article. For the future, make note that if you start an article in a WP:SANDBOX such as User:FredoMurphy/sandbox, you'll have time to yourself expand and source articles before placing them under immediate scrutiny,thus allowing them to be expanded and sourced before a WP:MOVE to mainspace. Feel free to check out my essay Newcomer's guide to guidelines where you might find some helful advice. And again, thanks for starting the article.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

2010 SEC Championship Game
I have again removed your list of "notable participants" from the article. I don't see any good reason why such participants need to be listed, or what the criteria are for including some but leaving out others. I also checked other articles; 2010 Big 12 Championship Game doesn't have "notable participants," and like the article for the SEC game, it doesn't need it. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Haha. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for My Brother, Borat
Gatoclass (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC) via  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Cool! :)   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sue Herrera


A tag has been placed on Sue Herrera requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you.  Waterfox ~talk~ 22:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of John T. Morton


The article John T. Morton has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No evidence of notability. Just one passing mention in the only source cited.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Why do you think Sue Herrera is an unlikely redirect for Sue Herera? Considering that her name has been spelled that way in one of our articles, it strikes me as being quite plausible.
 * That you think the director of ICE isn't notable seems absurd to me, but I would certainly be interested in your justification. Have you bothered to search for coverage in reliable sources? FredoMurphy (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Previous Accounts
A trawl through your contributions leaves the very clear impression that this is not your first account. Something tells me that there may have been problems with your previous accounts. For the sake of transparency please disclose your previous accounts. If you would prefer to do this off wiki you are welcome to email me. Alternatively, if you wish to keep the previous accounts private please email the arbitration committee with the details and I can confirm directly with them that everything is OK. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 14:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

 * Its quote obvious that you are not new, you have declined to address concerns about this and your recent aggressive belligerent behaviour clearly denotes a previously blocked user returning. Spartaz Humbug! 20:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You have failed to address my concerns about why an article was improperly deleted and the article's history misrespresented. But you have all the buttons. And so it goes. My efforts to restore an article on a notable subject are transparent, just as the lies and deceptions I've pointed out in the actions carried out by Guy and supported by you are clearly established in the history. You are in the wrong here and are abusive. FredoMurphy (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to be unblocked try addressing the concerns rather then attacking other editors. Now where have I seen behaviour like that before? Spartaz Humbug! 06:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The Matthew Hoh article was deleted via AfD on March 6. Hoh won the Ridenhour Truthtelling prize on April 14, 2010. That fact was a key to the DRV that unaninimously supported restoration of the article with that addition. Yet Guy deleted the article this week saying it was the recreation of deleted material and wasn't improved (among other falsities and smears).
 * I understand that some partisans came and distorted the article to disparage the subject, but the solution to that is to clean it up and make sure it stays clean. The history of events is clear and the dishonesty and abuse carried out by you and Guy is clearly established by your refusal to recognize the facts and your ongoing misrepresentations and attacks. The fact is that the encyclopedia has been damaged and a key voice in opposition to the Afghan War strategy has been disappeared form Wikipedia because of the lies, deceit, and abuse of you and your buddy. That you want to try and blame me for your disgusting behavior doesn't surprise me one bit. FredoMurphy (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You catch more flies with honey rather the vinegar and you might want to consider using that approach with your next incarnation. Good luck. Spartaz Humbug! 17:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please, oh please, your eminence would you be so kind in your generous goodness as to restore an article eliminated in the very best of good faith by one of our esteemed admins who, perhaps by accident, saw fit to mistate their reasoning and to cast aspersions instead of seeking truth. This humble soul who has such fondness for your wonderful insight and grace would be forever thankful if you saw fit just this once to put the encyclopedia ahead of the egos of you and your wondrous comrades. I beg of you to do what's right instead of what's expedient just this once, even if the action I seek isn't soothing to the noble whims of your majesty. Thank you thank you thank you for considering my humble plea. I am but I a mere lowly editor seeking to improve the encyclopedia, a scintilla of nothingness next to your eminence. FredoMurphy (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Afghanistan Study Group


The article Afghanistan Study Group has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Non-notable group, nothing to suggest notability."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JayJayWhat did I do? 00:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Erkin Rakishev


The article Erkin Rakishev has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Lack of notability and fails WP:FILMMAKER. All news regarding subject is based entirely around My Brother, Borat. A merge is not recommended as there is no substantial information in this article that could be added."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MimirIsSmart (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)