User talk:FunnyPika/Archive 1

Thanks for noticing...
Thanks for noticing the possible copyright problem with Gaurav Tower. It turned out to be a little more complicated, I explained the issues at the Talk page, thought you might be interested.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  14:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Ronnie Pollock (DySFUNCTIONAL)
hi Pika

id like to request an explination Of the refusal of my article "Ronnie Pollock (DySFUNCTIONAL). Notability Is clearly established. As a Scottish recording artist having 30 thousand verifiable fans and having gained so much industry recognition and support in 2012. This makes Ronnie Pollock a highly notable Scottish person and recording artist given there are around only 5 million people in Scotland. DYSfunctional clearly has industry support in Scotland and further a field in the Uk from the likes of MTV and the BBC, as well as Scottish tastemaker, radio presenter and television personality JIm Gellatly.

I bring your attention to the acceptance to the article on sweet Electra http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweet_Electra   which has been accepted and I have edited. This was submitted and accepted with subjective / promotional text throughout and very few references confirming these subjective claims. The references in my article are superior in proving notability of the subject both locally and globally. The information is backed by relevant sources and references. Constancy across all articles is a must.

IF adequate reasoning is not shown I will have to resubmit the article and hope it is reviewed by someone with a greater understanding of the situation / circumstances.

Please also be aware that having been broadcast by a major broadcast organisation does make someone notable. Sufficient citation was provided to prove this in my article. I notice your also a very new user to wikkipedia.

Regards

Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth, reality and justice (talk • contribs) 19:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I can't see your article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ronnie Pollock (DySFUNCTIONAL) fulfilling the criteria for musicians in its current state. Pollock may have 30 thousand verified fans as you say, but popularity alone is not enough to justify notability. To quote the first criteria for music biographies:
 * "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself"


 * Going through the sources, the link provided for the MTV source is for Facebook. If you were to find a more reliable in-depth link to backup that claim, it might hold more weight. The BBC link only shows that a track by the artist was played once (and not in rotation), so in itself is not enough to imply significance. Gellatly's source is a nomination for his annual "greatest hits album", where he chooses three Scottish songs within a genre for selection. The artist's song in question comes in last place with 4% of the vote, which again does not necessarily suggest importance. The section on independent music press links at best to trivial content on blogs and would be best replaced with something more substantial. If you can improve these sections I'd have no trouble approving it. Funny  Pika! 20:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I thank you for your response and your opponion. in this case given the direct references by MTV in regards to DySFUNCTIONAL I have to disagree with you on the Facebook link. In 99.9% of cases i would have to agree with you but given this statement was made by such a high profile entity as MTV and is not a passing remark but Pollock is referred to as a virtuoso. This must carry weight. the statment is clearly and undeniably in existence I don't see how it can be over looked when added with the other info. It is verifiable and i doubt mtv would deny this statement. This stament isn't written on any old Facebook page in my opinion.


 * Regarding the article and the bbc playlist link, I'm not aware it is required to show substantial coverage from only one organisation. This helps to show multiple orginisations from the mainstream media are in support And given 30 thousand fans added to mainstream exposure and industry recognition. As well as continued exposure through Gellatly It is quite clear pollock is notable in Scotland and as a person from Dundee.. although strictly speaking you may be able to tick a box for some of these events on their own  to say not notable. When added to the bigger picture I think you should reconsider your views on the matter. This article does currently pass the golden rule in my opinion given the depth of evidence provided regarding notability.


 * In my opinion there are some double standards being applied also. E.g Play count for 1 particular station on its own does not prove notability. If an article was written and the only notable event was play count for a track or artist on 1 station this would be rejected. On that merit its not a requirement for notability. However having been recognised by 2 of the biggest organisation in the uk music industry (MTV uk and bbc). As well supported by local press when combined this is notable.


 * The previous article I made example of, sates nominations without mention of victories. No sources even provided but the article has been accepted. The vote for the greatest Scottish album isn't relevant. The turn out number would have been ridiculously low for this contest which ran on amazing radio. However the nomination is an accolade and the contest is recognised by Wikipedia so nomination is worth something. Again double standards apply as you reference the popularity in this as relevant but previously state the 30 thousand fans as not relevant. There are articles in existence with far less evidence and of far less notable artists and musicians.. Again I highlight consistancy be applied by all users of the site throughout all articles.


 * Regards


 * Truth, reality and justice (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I've asked for a second opinion here if you'd like to continue this discussion. Funny  Pika! 14:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you, your time is appreciated. I removed my message originally as I decided sourcing even more material for the article is a good idea regardless of when its accepted. I thank you for asking for a second opinion. I'll keep adding when I find more info. The bbc system for Scottish artists appears to be lacking in ugh of the info, artists from some other parts in the uk. I'm still slightly concernd Pollock's location is being overlooked.


 * Regards


 * Truth, reality and justice (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Burning Music Productions
Hi Pika -

Confused about your rejection of the Burning music page. I am a burning spear scholar so lots of quotes would be from me and I've used them. Also, I have contacted the subjects and footnoted each clarification or piece of information they gave me. In additon, I cited wikipedia pages for simple information such as the discography and a few dates. I added some more citations. Hope it's ok now. It is a work in progress. Writeous (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)doug writeous


 * Hi Writeous, I declined your submission because the article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Burning Music Productions didn't contain any secondary sources. This is used to ensure that the company's notability is verifiable. Try and find other sources to backup claims. Funny  Pika! 20:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Funny,


 * The problem with a small company like 'Burning Music Productions' is that even though it is important to understanding Burning Spear's legacy and career decisions (he is a very famous musician who has won two Grammy awards), it is his music that is often discussed by the press and not the details of his business life. The business is successful and long lasting.  All of my sources are from the people who set up the business. I sourced the output of the business using the Burning Spear discography and the website. I have done my best to offer the origin of all statements.  Who would know better than Sonia and Winston Rodney when they formed the business? I have no interest in writing untrue things. This can all be backed up - unfortunately as a Burning Spear scholar and biographer, I am often citing myself.....I would really like to move forward on this.  The Rodneys are quite old and they want their business and all its successes noted online and at wikipedia.  I don't think it's unreasonable.  I will continue to look for secondary sources, but you have to understand that this isn't a widely reported story - though the company is respected and successful and important to the history of reggae music.
 * Writeous (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)writeous


 * I commend your intentions but articles about companies on Wikipedia must be notable in their own right. This is done to prevent businesses from arbitrarily listing themselves here. Perhaps adding the information to the article about Burning Spear could be a better option instead. Good luck with the hunt. Funny  Pika! 23:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Pika -


 * I hope you noticed that I resubmitted the Burning Music site with citations from a Jamaican newspaper, all music guide, and other musical sources other than myself. I have also firmed up references for dates of business etc. and backed them all up with confirmation from the business owners.    I have not finished with all of the information, but I hope we are on the right track now. As a talk point, I notice that there are many, many small record labels of no more importance or level of success than Burning Music who have listings on wikipedia.


 * looking for movement on this,


 * WriteousWriteous (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Pika,


 * Writeous here again in pursuit of the Burning Music listing. As to your complaint that I needed secondary sources - I have added several. In Jamaica, Burning Spear's actions are definitely 'noteworthy' and 'notable' according to your definition. I added sources discussing the company and its history from 'american society of independent music' and 'rateyour music' each of which discusses the history of the company. I want to hear from you so that we can move forward.  This is an important company in the history of world music and it is very troubling that there is no listing yet. writeousWriteous (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I tweaked the article a bit because the references weren't showing up, but I have to stand by my previous comment. Wikipedia articles are used more for links than as citations. It seems that the only thing the company is notable for is releasing Burning Spear's records. No other musicians have released music with this label. Mentioning it on Burning Spear's article would be more beneficial than creating a new one. Funny  Pika! 00:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Pika -


 * I am disappointed by your decision. If I may point out as an exception - Tuff Gong Records is listed at wikipedia and as far as I understand, Tuff Gong only exists to distribute Bob Marley's music.  There's no difference and as I previously mentioned, at recording conferences Burning Music is often discussed as the ideal model of a boutique recording company, and I would argue that winning two Grammy awards and being nominated for a dozen more should surely make the label 'notable' by any standards. I ask you to reconsider.  This is extremely important to the subjects. They feel being listed is an essential part of their legacy pre-retirment.


 * WriteousWriteous (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you feel that way, but the AfC submission policy is based on Wikipedia's notability criteria. I chose not to decline your last submission to allow someone else to have the opportunity to review it. In the mean time, you could ask on the help desk for information on how to improve the article. Funny  Pika! 17:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Submission declined for the Wyscout page
What kind of improvements I have to do to the Wyscout AfC page ? Thank you, I'm at wikipedia disposal :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djsnake86 (talk • contribs) 08:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Last I checked Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wyscout was submitted on a blank page. I'm not sure whether that was your intention or simply accidental so I placed it down as a test edit. If you'd like to submit some content, feel free to apply for another review. Funny  Pika! 12:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I posted the article in the "Project Page" section of Wyscout; so do you mean I have to post the article in that talk page section? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djsnake86 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It mostly depends on where the AfC template is placed. If you place it on one page and your article on another, chances are they won't know it's there. I'll go take another look at it. Funny  Pika! 14:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, let me know if it is ok, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djsnake86 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

If possible, try and provide another non-Italian source to support its worldwide status. Funny Pika! 22:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * From the sources it seems like a notable company. I've made a few edits to correct some grammar and to remove some promotional sounding terms, but it still needs a reference for:"Nowadays Wyscout is the most used soccer scouting platform."


 * I edited that sentence to: "Nowadays the Wyscout Platform is used by more than 300 Football Clubs" and I set as reference this UK magazine: http://www.fcbusiness.co.uk/news/article/newsitem=2183/title=more+than+120+clubs+and+the+top+agencies+meet+at+emirates+stadium+for+the+wyscout+forum


 * Let me know if it is ok, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djsnake86 (talk • contribs) 09:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi FunnyPika, I'd like to upload the official logo of the company, this one: http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/2759/wyscoutlogo.jpg and I'd like to put it on the article; I think I'm an autoconfirmed user, but the "upload button" to upload the image is gray, do you have any advice or maybe can you upload the logo for me? Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djsnake86 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter; it's ok now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djsnake86 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

WT:GAA
Hello there, I'm contacting editors who have recently contributed to this project page to let you know about an ongoing discussion to do with the naming and categorisation of GAA counties, teams and players. If you'd like to give an opinion this would be very welcome. Many thanks! Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  08:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

User Page Header
Hello, my name is Howicus. I saw the header that you have on your User page, and I was wondering if I could "borrow" it for my user page. It looks so nice and convenient. Howicus (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Of course you can. It's just a rehash of some menus and icons found here: User page design center/Menus and subpages. Feel free to edit it for your own use. Funny  Pika! 03:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Redirected page
AdamLiwinski (talk) 12:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC) Hi! Wanted to ask what should be changed in the article about TEDxWarsaw to make it appear again, instead of being redirected to TEDx section in article about TED. Couldn't really see a big difference from nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/TEDxAmsterdam (and I don't suggest the latter to be redirected as well). We were just about to post names of all our speakers (with links to their talks on YT) and add a couple of links to media coverage when page got redirected. There really aren't many reliable sources apart from our website - a few blog posts and articles on other websites, vast majority of them in Polish. Cheers, Adam


 * Hi there. I redirected the article TEDxWarsaw to TED because the sources don't seem to show that the individual event is notable outside the scope of TEDx. Wikipedia limits the creation of articles to those based on its inclusion guidelines, shown in what Wikipedia is not and the general notability guideline. Given the number of TEDx events worldwide, only the those that are shown to be notable in their own right are kept. You could undo my redirect if you want, but some links to independent media coverage should be provided to show that the subject meets the notability criteria for events first. Thanks. Funny  Pika! 14:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

New Cosmological hypothesis: Double Torus for the Universe. My article for Wikipedia you declined.
Hi, FunnyPica. After the first rejection I added a preface to my article. However, you rejected it (second time rejection). I would like you to ask to reconsider this, because three theoretical hypotheses (loop-quantumtheory, gravity-entropy and M-theory - five stringtheories-) also are hyper-theoretical hypotheses and not proved experimentally! I have at least three experimental evidences to correlate to my hypothesis, the Double Torus Universe. Moreover, it is time to recalculate the principles of "Wikipedia Not": More chances have to be made possible to integrate knowledge from outside the institutional walls. Please, send me an email to discuss that, if necessary. But I hope you reactivate the rejected article into an unconventional Wikipedia-article. The public has to know!! Kind Regards, Dan Visser, Almere, the Netherlands, date: February 10 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danvisser (talk • contribs) 17:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi there. I rejected Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Double Torus hypothesis for the Universe because Wikipedia does not currently publish original research. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, your hypotheses would need to have reliable secondary sources supporting your stance before an article can be written. I'd suggest that you look at publishing your theory in a reputable scientific journal before seeking a page here. If you'd like to debate Wikipedia's exclusion criteria, you can do so here: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Thanks Funny  Pika! 16:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
My mistake the wording blocked the article and thanks for your great time and help.

Ladytwentytwo (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC) 

Hi FunnyPika, if I can ask that you check out the Bad Tune Men article for Creation again, I would be ever so grateful, thanks again. (Ladytwentytwo (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC))

Hello FunnyPika, please could you look at the Bad Tune Men article again please, it was hidden by mistake, please have a look, thank you very much.(Ladytwentytwo (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC))


 * Hi there, sorry for the late reply. I did take another look at Articles for creation/Bad Tune Men but I'm not going to accept the article right now. The article would need to meet the criteria for musicians and be supported by reliable external sources to merit inclusion. From reading the article, I can't see how the band fulfills the notability criteria. I wouldn't consider the blog sources to be reliable either. The other references only verify that the band existed and don't contribute to establishing the significance of the band. Take a look at the above links and try to improve the article. Funny  Pika! 15:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi there, I see your concerns and I had a look at the criteria for musicians. The Bad Tune Men checked out on points 1 = They had 7 musical reviews from highly independent, reputable national music newspapers NME, Sounds and Melody Maker; point 4 = Received independent notable sources whilst supporting the Cardiacs in concert; point 7 = The Bad Tune Men's syncopated style of beat influenced The Cardiacs and Blur. Verifiably, that style is still heard in TV series today such as Tracey Beaker's theme tune. point 12 = Their single 'Do The Swamp' was placed in rotation nationally by famous radio 1 DJ John Peel in 1986, when he discovered them. To leave this band out, would be leaving out a piece of the jigsaw that was after Punk and before BritPop. Melody Maker said they were the band for 1987, please reconsider FunnyPika, thanks for your time.(Ladytwentytwo (talk) 11:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC))


 * I'd feel more comfortable if you could provide more reliable sources than the ones given. I understand there might not be that many internet sources for this band but even if you could supply offline citations, like an NME page and edition or a 1980's newspaper reference, it'll be more credible than the fan sites supplied. Also, try and place the AfC template on the same page as the article. Reviewers tend to decline pages when they can't find the submission. Funny  Pika! 18:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

corporate articles
I want to thank you for your good work screening these articles, but there are two recent ones which I need to bring to your attention.

As reviewing administrator, I have declined your deletion of YSI -- from the information presented, of being the first to develop numerous important products, this is certainly at the very least a claim to importance. Awards are listed also--this too is a claim to importance. If the material can be sourced from 3rd party sources, it will also show actual notability, It should certainly be able to.

Traffic Group Ltd may or may not be notable. But again, awards are stated for their work, and a list of notable international clients are given. These particular awards may not be enough for notability, but that's a question for AfD, not speedy. (the article is highly promotional,but since its basically factual, it does not qualify for speedy on that ground either;) I'm sending it to PROD--if the prod is removed, I will use AfD

I remind you of the general principle, that in order to satisfy WP:CSD, it is not necessary to be notable, or even probably notable ; it is only necessary to have some indication of plausible importance. This is a very low bar, and deliberately so. Even an undocumented article  is not A7, for someone might find documentation. The criteria in WP:CSD are applied narrowly, as explained there and at  WP:Deletion policy; there are very extensive discussions & explanations  of this in the archives at WT:CSD

The purpose of speedy deletion is to clear out the hopeless junk, of which there is a great deal--I myself have deleted over 15,000 since becoming an admin. In order to keep from drifting towards excessive deletion under the increasing flood of hopeless submitted articles, I make it a point to reread WP:CSD and WP:Deletion policy every once in a while.

There is another factor more important than A7. Much of the content of YSI at the time you saw it was copied from the "history" page on their website. This is a much more critical problem than lack of notability, and the article really should have been tagged as G12, copyvio. I would have deleted it as such except that I know it's a famous company and within my field of interest, so I am rewriting it. (I rarely have time for that, but I try to do it once a week) Were I not prepared to do it, I would have deleted it without hesitation.  DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to leave feedback. I realise I do tend to get a bit wary of company articles, especially when it comes to advertising. I'll try and keep this in mind for next time. Funny  Pika! 21:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out.
Because I hope you will be kind enough to have another look at Bad Tune Men as the article wasn't blank but hidden behind something, thanks for helping out FunnyPika.

Ladytwentytwo (talk) 13:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC) 

Hi
Hey I have no idea how this works. I did an article on Michael Talei, you declined it, then I updated it with more content and sources. Can you please take a look and let me know what else I need to do? I'm not even sure if what I writing here is the right way to reach you. I want to write a lot more so please help.

(Cumash26 (talk) 06:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC))


 * Hi there, you've come to the right place. I declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Talei because it didn't seem to meet the criteria for biographies, and more specifically the criteria for politicians. Unless reliable secondary sources can be provided to show that a person meets the general notability criteria or the ones stated above, they tend to not qualify for pages here. As a candidate for an upcoming election, Talei is not classified as a notable politician but if you can find sources to meet the other criteria feel free to try again. Funny  Pika! 18:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

CSD tag
The page Sidekick Kato looks like it may be a valid CSD, but I prefer not to delete a page unless the creator has been notified. I understand that sometimes automated tools fail to do the notification for some reason. Not sure if that was the case, but could you make the notification? SPhilbrick (Talk)  17:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Kelly Hall
Hello FunnyPika - I declined your request for Speedy Deletion of this page. While I agree that the person referenced may not be notable, it at least asserts notability, in a sense, and should be brought to WP:AFD for community consensus. There is a whole list of models at the Page 3 girl entry, not sure how Kelly Hall is any different, and I'm not familiar with the topic. Regards, Keeper  |  76  02:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Survivor Sucks (3rd nomination)
Thanks for fixing that. My only excuse is I was tired.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries, randomly noticed it in the current Afd list. Glad I could help. Funny  Pika! 01:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Quoted you
Hello. I've quoted you at an AfD. Please correct me there if I mis-quoted you, or quoted you out of context. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Jeet Singh
Hi there - I noticed you flagged the Jeet Singh page for deletion because it requires an external reference. Jeet provided me that bio directly; is it possible to prevent it from deletion if he creates a Wikipedia account and authors it himself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreakremer (talk • contribs) 12:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi there, in short no - as a primary source, autobiographies may constitute as original research and are not considered reliable sources here on Wikipedia. The policy on living biographies is to have at least one credible reference to avoid contentious material from appearing. Failing that, the article may be proposed for deletion. Another thing to consider is the person's notability. Currently the page does not seem to meet the criteria for biographies or the general notability guideline, so this may also lead to it being nominated for deletion. Try and improve the article by adding more reliable sources to the claims made on the page. Funny  Pika! 14:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Chinaman (porcelain)
As a participant in Articles_for_deletion/Chinaman_(porcelain), please see Talk:Chinaman_(porcelain).--Yaksar (let's chat) 10:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Blur (film)
Hi there. I see you put up Blur (film) for speedy deletion as a hoax. That was an article written by an IP address written in talk space - it was going to be deleted because the article didn't exist. I figured it would make a good article, so I decided to salvage it by putting it into article space. I'm not one who likes deleting perfectly good articles. I didn't realize it was a hoax; I should have done more research on it. Just wanted you to know about that, because I'm not someone who makes hoaxes for the sake of vandalism. From what I've seen of your contributions, you do a great job here. Keep up the good work. Lugia2453 (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it, we all make these sort of mistakes. I just found it odd that there was no mention of it on IMDB. Though what got it for me was the Damon Albarn connection, his band Blur (band) mentioned in the title and members of his other band Gorillaz in the plot. Funny  Pika! 17:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Telluride Mountain School
Hello FunnyPika. I am just letting you know that I deleted Telluride Mountain School, 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. Ged UK  11:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)