User talk:Helohe/Archives/2008/January

Copyright violation in CannaTrade
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on CannaTrade, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because CannaTrade is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting CannaTrade, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 05:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of political composers
An editor has nominated List of political composers, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't hesitate, delete
Hi. Thank you for the edit summary for this edit of yours. This appeared in my watchlist as Fortis is one of the various articles on watch companies that I've recently taken a too-quick look at and from which I've removed obvious garbage or tagged claims as needing references. (Clearly there's something about expensive wristwatches that causes grown men to lose their critical faculties and recycle PR gibberish.) I hadn't bothered to google for that particular factoid; you did, and you found it on a retailer's page. Good, thank you, but next time you find something similar, please remove it.

Further, this is a copyright violation of stuff that wouldn't be worth copying even if it had been marked "copyleft under GFDL". Pretty obviously, retailers want to move product, and they'll uncritically recycle whatever PR pap is sent to them by the manufacturer or distributor. I don't say that worldlux.com is either lying or redistributing others' lies, but I also have no particular reason to believe them.

A problem with the so-called "luxury goods" industry is that people whose interest in it isn't morbid/sociological are likely to have been driven gaga. They're helped on their way by newspaper hacks and others who cover such stuff and are themselves likely to have been deprived of their critical faculties by invitations to "exclusive" (non-) events and so forth -- even (if they're lucky) outright junkets -- and the pressure to write "news" that will do nothing to decrease revenue from advertising. But I suppose that somewhere there are intelligent books about these baubles that aren't content just to witter away about "mystique", "grand complications", etc etc. -- Hoary (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Religious Jokes
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Religious Jokes, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of Religious Jokes. hateless 03:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Religious joke
Another editor has added the " " template to the article Religious joke, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the  template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 15:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)