User talk:Gnfnrf/Archive 1



has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Moreschi 22:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 16:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your editorial help on the Texas Ranger Phil Ryan article. 76.187.17.173 03:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

History of the Internet
A couple of IPs have been vandalising that article all day. Want to keep an eye on it? --iriseyestalk 20:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

TTEthernet
Hello Gnfnrf,

I put the TTEthernet article online again - but I completely rewrote it and I think now it is really as it has to be to be conform with the wikipedia rules. I am looking forward to your feedback and thank you for your help with giving me advices. --Gnalk (talk) 11:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The music Man
Hello Gnfnrf, you created an article The music Man, but I think the article already exists at Santouri (film), someone has nominated your article for deletion, but I've updated Music Man to include a link to Santouri. I think that all the points you made are in the article. I hope that all makes sense, If I've got that wrong and it is a different film, please write me a note here or on my talk page.  ℑonathan ℂardy  (talk) 12:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Four Wise Monkeys
An article that you have been involved in editing, Four Wise Monkeys, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Four Wise Monkeys. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Movingboxes (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
Hi, you've just marked a page for CSD, good! Can you tackle new pages via Special:Newpages and then mark them as having been "patrolled" that why the rest of us working the list don't bother with the one's you've done. The best way, I find, is to open the new page up via Special:Newpages and then mark it as having been patrolled then go into the new page and then tag it. Thanks fr33kman (talk) 04:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've tried the whole 'patrolled' thing, and it just doesn't work for me. Too many times I see patrolled pages where either the original patroller's solution (prod, csd, whatever) is subsequently removed.  So, my theory (on CSDs, anyway) is that I shouldn't tag them patrolled.  That way, if the tag is removed, another NP patroller might look at it and retag the page.  I do mark patrolled pages I see on newpages that I expect will stay in the encyclopedia.  Cheers.  gnfnrf (talk) 04:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: Flat Creek Baptist Church (Oakwood, Georgia)
I also posted this message on another user's page.

I see your position, and understand your reasons. I'm really not a bad user, and I literally spent alomost all of Labor Day Constructing that article. It's just kind of depressing that that old building had no significance in the eyes of the world. It sure ment a lot for me. I read the notability guidelines, yes, and I can guarentee the existence of both that book and the newspaper article. If you would like, I can scan the church's constitution (assuming that most churches don't have one) and the newspaper article in question if it can save that article. It's 6:40 AM here on the Eastern Seaboard, and I may be able to obtain that article by sundown on September 3rd (Eastern Standard Time). I'll scan it, quote it, whatever it takes, I just want one of my contributions to survive more than seven days... just once. My apologies for annoying you. I really am not a vandal, but I never have been that good of a contributer as far as content, since I always have been terrible at citing them. I guess I'll just stick to existing articles. I do believe, though that my contributions in that article fell upon the "Be Bold" policy, and I did my research alright, most definitely. TurtleShroom! :) †Jesus Loves You and Died for you!† 10:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC) P.S.: The fact that you stated that you trusted my citation on that book, that meant a lot to me. Thank you, sir. Have a great day. P.S. 2.0: Unfortnately, that newspaper article ran in the 1950s, so it may be hard to track down.

Repost articale as is. Siting "Neutral point of view"
I am siting wikipedia's Neutral Point of view rule to have this articale Unknown Creature, The (2005 Movie) be reposted as is siting that those comments supporting it be deleted where in violation of wikipedia's Neutral point of view. Articale for deletion. The comments also sounded to favor the bigger man over the smaller man, and had no clear idea on how far $200.00 can go when your just shooting on VHS and already have the equipment on hand. The money was used to buy tapes, pay for automated sound mixing(to provide Dolby Digital 5.1)and DVD athoring software that coasts alot plus blank DVD and DVD cases bought wholesale that put the project overbudget.

I'm sure you will get it now. Robert (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC).
 * While I nominated the article in question for deletion, I did not actually delete it, and I have no way of restoring it. To do so, you would first want to talk to the deleting admin, User_talk:Seicer.  If that fails, then you would need to take your case to deletion review at WP:DRV.  gnfnrf (talk) 12:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Or he could just, you know, stop wasting everyone's time. ^_^ JuJube (talk) 03:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Or maybe you've taken the time and have the patience to help make this editor more constructive. We need to increase your activity/experience level, but I was wondering if you had any plans to make this a blue link. Dloh  cierekim  20:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thought, but I'm in a transitional life period right now, and I don't know what my editing habits will be like at the end. I'll think about it again in a few months once things settle down. gnfnrf (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I won't change my mind.
Get it straight dude, if you say that the administration are the editors then you should just log out right now and never log back in again. They say on the page for my exile from wikipedia is that you need two people to present evidence. You got a few, but those others that still have a problem with me, and trying to get rid of me now are faced with another problem that I bet they wheren't expecting; and that is in my responce I in-criminate myself just to make a point, and that point is that I am willing to admit that I made a mistake. If you guys are the administration then I suggest you hand.

Did you delete my articale about my movie because it was never in theaters or that I never went to film school; or if it was just poorly written? Poor writing is a skill I don't have, just poor critisium coming from every which way. Cause face it, you and I got clowns on the left of us and jokers on our rights and where suck in the middle.

I can tell that your own my side but you still have to enforse the rules, and that puts you in a tight spot. Roberttheman2008 (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've explained my reasoning for the deletion nomination several times, not the least of which is in the AfD itself. To clarify one last time, the article was not about a notable subject (WP:N, was not verifiable (WP:V)through reliable sources (WP:RS), and it seemed likely that no reliable sources could be found to verify it.  The quality of the writing was not a factor in my nomination decision, because deletion is intended for articles that cannot be fixed, and bad writing can be fixed.  As an aside, I too have participated in the making of an independent film, which you can see the website of here .  The film is real and finished, and you can buy copies.  However, I know that this film will likely never warrant a Wikipedia article, due to the policies I cited above.  As for who's side I'm on, I think that the policies I've mentioned are good for the encyclopedia, and that is why I help enforce them.  I don't want to be against anyone who contributes to the encyclopedia in good faith, but I don't want the project to suffer because of contributions that don't help. gnfnrf (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You hipicrite! I had valid information on that page. Just as valid as the information you just showed me on yours, same exact stuff. The cast, the plot, where to buy a DVD, an offical website; all of it!!! Roberttheman2008 (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You missed the point. Really Decadent Guys doesn't have an article on Wikipedia.  Likely, it never will.  Even though (just like The Unknown Creature) it's a real film, that is out on DVD and you can buy, it just isn't notable enough for Wikipedia.  My film (or, to be more accurate, my friends film) is on its own webpage, and yours can be too.  But mine isn't on Wikipedia, and neither should yours be, because Wikipedia is not a webhost, (WP:NOTWEBHOST)). gnfnrf (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

opper fiber
I would hope that if you are going around trying to delete entries that are clearly commercial, you should look into Sharpie markers, 3M, McDonalds, Boeing, Post-it and virtually every other million ACTUAL product entries that are in violation of advertising a product. this entry has more historical significance in its alpha stage than the actual microfiber wiki entry itself. Your mark for deletion is inappropriate and unacceptable. Integrity suggests you review every product you wear on your body or use daily and I bet you will find it on here. This entry does not have 10% of what those entries boast in commercialization and advertising value. It is a wrongful tag. accept it, be accountable and please remove. Repotox (talk) 22:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Foster Cass
Can you check out his page and tell me what you think concerning the notability of him? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like it was deleted before you left the message. I'll retackle the creation tomorrow. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Mummy 1770
Thanks for that. Change to CSD to nonsense, talking on article talk page. PoinDexta1 |  Talk to Me  | 00:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Karen Cooper Fairgate MacKenzie
Thank you! I hate it when CSD:A7 is misused. CSD:G12 was the right way to go. Nice work! &mdash;  X   S   G   04:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Steve Samuelian
It seems like joshcc is trying to turn the page into a promo piece for California Consulting. Your guidance would be appreciated.Flackthehack2008 (talk) 02:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC) I am concerned about the Steve Samuelian page. Joshcc appears to only edit Steve Samuelian and the earlier work on the site was practically a promo site for california consulting. Your guidance would be appreciated.Flackthehack2008 (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC) Please keep an eye on the Samuelian page. Their are users trying to turn into a promo piece!!!Flackthehack2008 (talk) 23:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC) The Steve Samuelian page needs attention again. Thanks.Flackthehack2008 (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

DARK WOODS
JUST DID AN INTERVIEW WITH THE CAST MEMBERS OF DARK WOODS. IT IS NOT PUBLISHED YET, BUT I CAN TELL YOU THIS FILM DEALS WITH CANCER AND DEMENTIA OF A WOMAN, EVEN THE ALZHEIMER ASSOCIATEN IS INVOLVED IN THIS PROJECT. A REALLY MOVEING STORY.

I POSTED ONE LINK MORE ON THE DARK WOODS SITE, BUT I WOULDN'T REMOVE AN INDIE FILM WHO DEALS WITH SUCH A SERIOUS THEME.

BEST, ROBERTO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.18.201 (talk) 10:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

A Bullet in the Arse
Hey, I saw your response on the AfD for A Bullet in the Arse. Like you I originally thought it was going to be a delete but I saw a number of sources which changed my mind for the most part. Take a look if you'd like and see if anything I found changes your mind too. --Banime (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

royal swedish navy youth band
Hello. I am quite new on Wikipedia and I saw your comment on my article about the royal swedish navy youth band. It has now been cathegorized and motivated and I hope that you will find it decent for this website! Regards, (Theophonium (talk) 08:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC))

good catch
good catch on the hoax at Carrera Vilcas. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 13:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Betsy Fagin
Hi, I have not had internet access for most of the month so have just discovered the deletion of the Betsy Fagin article. I believe that the current generation of New York poets should be represented by articles. Can you tell me how the article on Anselm Berrigan (one of Fagin's contemporaries), for example, meets the notability guidelines while the one I started on Fagin did not? Lillipeg (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

terraskin
My article was removed due to violations. I was wondering what exactly I can do to remake the page so that it fits the guidelines. I am in no way interested in promoting any business. I just want to add the facts about this product, that may very well be the future of packaging and paper. Was there key things that were in the article that need to be removed? Was it the entire article? Should I try to be more brief? Explain more? Any help in guiding me in the right direction would be great. If there are users who specialize in creating pages, can I send them the information? Thanks ahead of time for your understanding. Bobbyksehgal (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help.

Bobbyksehgal (talk) 21:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: Soft Charisma
1. The COI guidelines clearly state that it's strongly discouraged to not COI edit, however, they state that you should follow the neutral point of view policy. I have done this with the article.

2. As for notability, that's probably correct. Anyway, I'd rather not be notable by Wikipedia's 'standards'. This middle ground is a much more suitable environment.

--Sc0ttkclark (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

About The Glocester Sea Serpent and misunder standings
Frist of im sorry about the missunder standing and second of i didnt have as much information as the other artical because i started it yester day and I was saving it so i wouldn't lose the information.

§C.JD 22:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)--C.JD 22:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Mrs. Spencer
Good call on the redirect for Mrs. Spencer - knowing nothing about The Simpsons, I didn't spot the link! Unusual? Quite TalkQu  21:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Kyle Justin
This discussion has courtesy redactions to remove personally identifying information about another Wikipedia editor.

Hello Gnfnrf, I am contacting you because I am in need of help and you have helped me previously. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia. I noticed some reverted edits by user IP COURTESY REDACTED to the Kyle Justin article performed by another moderator. This IP COURTESY REDACTED user has edited the article several times, performing destructive edits. I believe these edits are covered under the vandalism policy as they are repeated and unnecessary. She has edited the article more than a few times, deleting necessary information, claiming it as redundant, when it is not. The information she has deleted is either not referenced elsewhere in the article or is necessary to repeat in order to properly lay out a time-line of events. I created this article for a musician I am fond of and myself and several others have contributed edits and citations. I believe we have cited the article well. I am looking for help to prevent further vandalism by this article, as she has performed these same edits about 5 times. The user IP COURTESY REDACTED is actually PERSONAL IDENTITY COURTESY REDACTED. I know this because EVIDENCE REDACTED. I believe she has also has attempted to vandalize other articles. I believe she is removing information out of spite and for her own motives, not to make Wikipedia or the article better. I am seeking help in preventing further vandalism. I sought help from another user named writingmodification but I don't believe they are an administrator. Any help, advice, or recommendations are greatly appreciated. Thanks ahead of time. I am perturbed and perplexed. -Matt, M. W. Eilers 03:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godblessyrblackheart (talk • contribs)
 * First, I'd just like to say that I'm impressed with how much you've done with the Kyle Justin article thus far. I'll admit, when I first encountered it, I thought it was never going to reasonably meet Wikipedia article standards, which is why I redirected it.  You've demonstrated that I was wrong, and I commend you.  On to your current situation, now.  I agree with your assessment of the edits in question; while there is some repetition, that is OK on Wikipedia.  In fact, everything in the lead section of an article should be repeated, in greater detail, later in the article.
 * However, it appears to me that your fundamental difference with this user is a content dispute. That is to say, I don't see any reason not to assume good faith and believe that they are making edits that they believe make the article better.  Just because someone is wrong does not mean that they are a vandal.
 * So, what do I recommend you do? Try to engage the user in a discussion about why you think the article should be the way it is.  I would use either the IP's talkpage at User_talk:69.239.112.1 or the article talkpage.  Leave a polite and detailed note, explaining why you think the article should read the way it does, citing article style guides as appropriate (WP:BETTER is a good place to start for those).  If your changes are reverted after you've posted this, refer to it in the edit summary the next time you re-revert (and watch out for the three revert rule.
 * If this doesn't work, then you can try some of Wikipedia's dispute resolution tools, like a third opinion or a request for comment. Of course, if the other user becomes more obviously disruptive, then you have other channels open to you.
 * Lastly, I'd just like to point out that I am not an administrator; I'm just another editor like you. Nearly everything on Wikipedia can be, and is, accomplished by regular editors.  Administrators are just regular editors with a few extra technical tools to accomplish a few tasks that ordinary editors can't (like user blocks and article deletion).
 * I hope this has helped you. I understand that dealing with another editor who seems to be worsening articles is frustrating, but remember, Wikipedia consensus is a powerful force that can be very effective at keeping good edits and purging bad edits, if you let it work. gnfnrf (talk) 06:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * When I left the talkback tag, I noticed that it looks like you've gotten some other editors involved, who may be treating this a little more like vandalism and a little less like a content dispute. That may be a better way to go, but I'd still try to assume good faith and open a discussion about the edits, even if only because it can show later that you really tried to do things by consensus. gnfnrf (talk) 06:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Treating it like it might be a COI problem actually. But excellent reply, saved me a lot of typing you did. Prodego  talk  15:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Norman McGuire
Hello, I am Ginger Simmons, agent for Norman McGuire. I am adding Mr. McGuire's information to Wikepedia and it looks like the system is trying to delete the information. Mr. McGuire is an up and coming actor who has had 3 very big roles this year. He has worked on two shows with one Emmy Award "Breaking Bad" and the other a Emmy Nomination "Friday Night Lights". Mr. McGuire is also being cast on several other TV Shows in the next few months. If you look at his information you can see his information in acurate. His IMDB page will verify his information: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3179896/resume

Mr. McGuire has also been cast as one of the principal actors on the film "Cottonmouth Creek" with notable actor Billy Bob Thorton.

Please keep the information on the site as the fan base increases there will be a listing. As of now it is an embarrassment to have the "This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy" come up on the search.

Thank you, Ginger Simmons Manager - Norman McGuire Twin Light Films —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcguiresys (talk • contribs) 05:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. While I nominated the Norman McGuire article for deletion, you should state your reasons for keeping the article at the deletion discussion page here Articles_for_deletion/Norman_McGuire, where a consensus on whether to keep the article will be reached within the next 5 days.  However, there are some specific things I'd like to address.
 * First, please read WP:COI, specifically, the section on "promotional article production on behalf of clients". Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view.  As the subject's agent, it is nearly impossible for you to do this (as it would be for anyone in your situation).
 * Second, please look at Wikipedia's guidelines for the notability of actors at WP:ENTERTAINER. I do not see how Norman McGuire's credits, as listed on his resume, meet this standard.  The IMDB, being built from user submissions, is not generally considered a reliable source on Wikipedia, and certainly doesn't demonstrate notability.  In this case, it's even worse, because Norman McGuire has no credits in the IMDB database.  The only thing he has is an uploaded resume, which has not been even been fact checked to the extent the credits database has.
 * Please understand, I have nothing against Norman McGuire. But unlike sites such as the IMDB, Wikipedia does not try, or indeed wish, to include all actors.  Wikipedia only includes notable actors.  Norman McGuire is not yet a notable actor, and should not have an article on Wikipedia. gnfnrf (talk) 06:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

removed - Norman McGuire
To protect the interest of Norman McGuire I have removed his credit information based on the "delete" suggestion you made. It is very unbecoming to have someone look at his information and be plagued by some derogatory remark. Whether you believe my information or not, I think that your verification tactic is baseless. Just because certain actors are not in your households vocabulary does not mean they are not noteworthy. And what is all that business about "self promoting". It is not "self promoting" to say an actor worked with another who received an Emmy. I just don't get the logic on this site. I guess some people have nothing better to do than discredit information. I mean come on... it's such an innocent thing. If you would have let me finish the cinematography I would have linked his reel from You Tube.

Tired of venting on this.

Ginger —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcguiresys (talk • contribs) 07:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it IS self-promotional to say that he worked with another actor who recieved an emmy when his role was "Man At Auction". You are implying that the collaboration was significant and noteworthy when, quite frankly, it was not.  The AfD would not have closed for five days, you had plenty of time to add reliable sources to the article.  However, You Tube is not a reliable source.  Wikipedia is a tertiary source, which means that we use secondary sources to build our articles.  Video of the actor "proving" that they appeared in a particular role is a primary source, not a secondary one, and to use that to create a list of credits is original research, not something we do.
 * Since you were the only substantive editor to the Norman McGuire article, I have placed a Speedy Deletion G7 tag on it (indicating that the author requests deletion), and it will probably be removed shortly. However, be aware that once you submit material to Wikipedia, you no longer control it.  On every edit, you agree to the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows others to edit your work. gnfnrf (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Uruklink
Just a friendly note on Uruklink. I declined your speedy deletion request because there was definitely enough context to identify the subject. Something else going on here that I'm not seeing? -- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  15:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In my first reading, I didn't see where the subject of the article was mentioned in the article, tucked away as it is. However, it was my bad, A1 was not appropriate. gnfnrf (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem!-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  23:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Aaron Jacobs
Aaron Jacobs should not be deleted. He is a relevant name in Illinois politics, a notable figure at Michigan State University for a time, and has many political achievements. He worked directly under Kirk Dillard, a prominent state senator, and for house speaker hastert and henry hyde. He also has close ties to the NHL Goal2001 (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Goal2001.
 * Show some of that with substantive references in third party reliable sources, and I'll probably agree with you. But working for someone notable, being friends with someone notable, or having a letter published in a college paper are not sufficient to demonstrate notability.  Also, you may wish to present your arguments on the deletion page itself, not here. gnfnrf (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion
How come the new page I created was deleted but pages like BeatThatQuote.com are permitted - they are exactly the same type of service (financial products comparison) and the C&S site has been around for years. Sc3499a (talk) 13:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The article for BeatThatQuote.com demonstrates notability by making substantive references to third party reliable sources, thus passing the general notability guidelines and the specific guidelines for websites. The article for CompareandSave.com did not.  It also, according to the deleting administrator, read like an advertisement, not an encyclopedia article.  Please note, that while I marked the article for speedy deletion, the actual decision to delete was made by Lectonar. gnfnrf (talk) 14:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of: The Orme School of Arizona
Hello, my name is John Sanderson. I am a writer for the Orme School of Arizona's publications division, and have been recently asked by the school to create a Wikipedia page for informations-sake. I was informed that what had been created in the past concerning The Orme School of Arizona's Wikipedia page was removed due to advertising conflict. A couple of days ago, I tried to create the article again, following the guidlines of other private school Wikipedia pages, and the article was again deleted. There are tens, if not hundreds of private school wikipedia pages; The Orme School simply wishes to post a page about the school for the same reason that all of the other private schools have: to inform the public that we exist. We are not trying to promote the school, just as "The Matrix" Wikipedia page is not trying to promote people to buy their film.

Please contact me ASAP to discuss what we can do the fulfill whatever guidelines we seem to be missing. We are eager to create a page of The Orme School like the hundreds of other private schools across the nation, and would love to know what we can do to make that possible.

Thank you, John Sanderson


 * Creating a new article on Wikipedia, while technically very simple, involves a number of complicated policies and guidelines to insure the quality of the encyclopedia. Unfortunately, in this particular case, these guidelines and policies set roadblocks inherent in the situation, and are not something simply worked around.


 * First and foremost, as an employee of the Orme School, you have an inherent conflict of interest when writing about subjects related to the school. When paid by the Orme School to write about them, there is no reasonable way to believe that your writing would be neutral and unbiased.  Therefore, as the Wikipedia guidelines at WP:COI (also linked above) state, don't do it.  If you succeed at writing an article that positively reflects your employer, you haven't followed Wikipedia guidelines on neutrality.  If you succeed in writing a neutral article, you haven't served your employer.  So rather than try to judge how closely you (or any editor in your situation) walks that line, it's just better if you don't write the article, or make significant edits to existing articles.


 * That right there is pretty much the end of the story, in this case. But for general reference, Wikipedia articles must be verifiable from reliable sources, demonstrate notability, be written from a neutral point of view, and be on an appropriate subject for an encyclopedia article.  This is all discussed in greater detail at your first article, a guide to new editors.


 * So what should you do now? There's not really much to do.  Some day, someone else may create an article about your school.  If you really think your school is notable enough to be documented on Wikipedia, and you have the third party reliable sources to support that, you can request that another editor create the article.  You can do this at requested articles section, or ask for help at the Schools WikiProject.


 * If you have more questions about any of this, feel free to ask here on my talk page. As a last note, while I marked the Orme School page as a speedy deletion candidate, the deletion itself was done by User:Orangemike.  gnfnrf (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Introductions
Hi Gnfnrf, I'm being bold and introducing myself. My name is Christian Hejnal and I play in a band called Scarling. with my wife Jessicka. I've noticed there's been a little unnecessary mud slinging in her direction by a disgruntled person. I just wanted to put it out there that if you had any issues with any pages related to my wife, my band, our roommate Lisa Leveridge, my co-worker Rickey Goodling or myself, please don't hesitate to come to me directly. I'm happy to help.

I am new to wikipedia and currently trying to get familiar with all the rules and protocol here. I believe whole heartily in a neutral stance but also would like things written about any of the previously mentioned pages to be factual. I'm about to do an interview with a third party publication to set some things straight. Until then I just wanted to introduce myself.

take care, Xtian1313 (talk) 02:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Editing of archive
Hi,

I've removed a paragraph of text from one of your archives of talk pages; I hope you won't mind my taking this liberty. It's a long, ongoing saga - a user has requested that certain personal information/attach comments be removed from several places; the user has also requested that they are oversighted, but in the meantime I agreed to remove the offending comments. The edit is here.

Hope this is OK; revert if not, let me know etc. --  Chzz  ►  20:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be much more comfortable with a more narrow editing of the comment, removing the assertion of the IP's real identity but leaving the explanation of the user's problems with the IP. Or, if that

much needs to be cut, I'd like to replace it with a summary of the user's comments, so the conversation still makes sense. But I don't know how this part of Wikipedia works very well, and I don't care all that much. gnfnrf (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Me neither :-s I'm trying to do the "right thing" to assist a user with complex problems; it all stems from a helpme request. I have taken advice from various folk, and this was the suggested acrion. Anyway - the user has already requested that the text be oversighted, in which case it will become a moot point. Cheers --  Chzz  ►  00:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

joe son
go to talk page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.3.30 (talk) 04:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hanbury
Hi ! An article you have created, edited, or contributed to, still has no  refereces at  at since being  tagged in July 2009. As the article reads like an essay its lack of verifiable sources could suggest a blatant  WP:COPYVIO which  will result in the article being  reduced to  a one lone stub, or even deleted.. If you are able to help with these major issues please see talk:Hanbury, Worcestershire and address the various points if you can. Thanks. Kudpung (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Capturx
Hello Gnfnrf. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Capturx, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. Ged UK  20:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of stations that air Casey Kasem's American Top 40: The 80's
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of stations that air Casey Kasem's American Top 40: The 80's, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. B.Wind (talk) 07:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Fictional history of Spider-Man
This article is nominated for deletion here. Please contribute on discussing the consensus there. Spidey 104 contribs 16:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

February 2011
Hello, thanks your your message and thats ok i understand your point. --Smokeyfire (talk) 05:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Smokeyfire --Smokeyfire (talk) 05:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Innovision (disambiguation)
Hello. I've tagged Innovision (disambiguation) page under CSD:G6, it seems like it clearly fits the criteria so no need to wait for the prod to expire. France 3470  ( talk ) 21:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

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) 02:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Bill Hammons for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bill Hammons 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/Bill Hammons (2nd nomination) 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.

You participated in the first AFD discussion, the article was recreated and I thought you might want to comment. Coffeepusher (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

ProElite 3
Hey! I have replied to your concerns. --Pro Elite Fan Man (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)