User talk:InShaneee/Archive/Jan/2013

hello
Why do you delete my page Violeta - The Biz !? I'm the one in that bio

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Violeta01 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Metamagician3000
Hi - can you throw some light on this diff, do you know User:Metamagician3000 or are you connected on wiki topic areas? - You  really  can  02:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a rather strange diff. If I had to guess, I'd say that's some sort of copy/paste gone wrong. If I've ever interacted with this user before, I don't recall it (though as I've been away for close to five years, it's certainly possible it happened). A quick look at his edit history doesn't show a lot of possible topic intersections either. Sorry I can't be of more help. InShaneee (talk) 12:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No thats fine - thank you - I agree it could have been some copy paste glitch with the other user, no worries -regards and thanks for the reply - You  really  can  12:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey!
why was the page - Praboo Ariva deleted? Praboo Ariva is an upcoming movie director and has works submitted to international screening events/film festivals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.101.123.222 (talk) 12:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It was deleted based on our standards of notability. In short, to have a page here, a person need "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Or, in other words, there needs to be a good amount of information directly about the person from external sources (most often news sites) that are known to be reliable. An 'up and coming' director likely wouldn't meet those standards, but once he's made a film that gets some good coverage by major media outlets, then would be the time to make a page on him. If there's anything else I can answer, please let me know. InShaneee (talk) 12:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Michael Slive Page Discussion
Hello InShanee,

I would like to discuss with you the Controversy section of the Michael Slive page. I have reached out to the user that keeps blanking that section in an attempt to work with him/her to try to clear up any concerns and address any issues that he/she have about that section. I feel that when a person of power is in a position in which there are controversial decisions made, then such items are important - as it directly ties into his/her rulings and status of position.

In reading your report on the user I noticed that you felt it may need some tidying up, as it may have a POV influence. I would welcome any suggestions/alterations you may have in order to ensure that the information is presented in the most non-biased format possible.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.251.248.28 (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, really, the 'Emperor Palpatine' thing should probably go. I mean, yes, there's a source for him being called that, but as far as I can tell, it was just the one time (as part of an article comparing sports figures to Star Wars characters), so it's probably not really notable. As for the Controversy section itself, aside from the language needing to be a bit more neutral ("turned a blind eye", for example, sounds like outright condemning), I'd personally like to see a citation that supports the notability of the controversy, not just proving 'it was a bad call'. Take this with a grain of salt, though. I don't know anything about this guy (or the issues in the Controversy section), so I'm just spitballing here. Hope that helps! InShaneee (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I'll sit down this week and change up some of the wording. The 'Emperor Palpatine' statement wasn't one that I added original. I'll remove that line from the page and rework the controversy section to clean it up. Thanks for the additional input, it's certainly appreciated. I also created an account so that it would be easier to discuss any changes. I noticed that that page cannot be edited any longer at this time, as it's under "semi-protection". Should I submit my proposed changes to the Talk portion of that page? SECFootballFan (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I have updated the Talk section of the page with more citations and cleaned up the language to make it more neutral. Can you take a look at it when you get a chance? Thanks. SECFootballFan (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE - someone edited the page and completely reworded everything. By the user's comments in the Talk section, it's very apparent he is an Alabama fan. His edits were biased and should be removed. Can you help? SECFootballFan (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Do you mean the user KuyaBriBri? Unless I'm missing something, I actually liked what he did with the section. I don't think it's a perfect solution (a bit too concise from what it was, I think), but it looks like it still does list off all the events that were there before, and is much better at conforming to the neutral point of view (that is, neither supporting nor condemning anything). I really don't think his edits have anything to do with supporting one team or another. Is there anything specific you don't like about the edits? Would you be willing to propose a compromise text and post it on the talk page to discuss? InShaneee (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

why have you deleted the scientific evidences, true facts are hosted
Dear InShaneee,

why have you deleted my page, my websites are being suppress by political pressure.

www.ucy.in/pocc/  contains the evidence.

I deserve 5 nobel prizes.

What is happening in Bharat and Congo, do you know, its easy to delete sitting in room.

i have spent over 5 lakhs and 2007 i have been into the research and enlightening people, fighting the Evil.

I am the only person who can bring peace to the world.

Dare to let my pages remain and let the world cyntists challenge me the evidences and devastations are more than enough.

hope you co-operate.

cspr

http://ucy.co.in/sp/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucycoin (talk • contribs) 08:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello. Wikipedia does not allow original research, which your additions appear to be. Our policy is to only add information to articles that is verifiable through major, reputable sources. If you believe you have such sources, please mention them on the talk page of the articles you wish to add to and discuss your proposed additions with other editors first. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. InShaneee (talk) 09:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear InShaneee,

Visit http://www.professorbalamohandas.in/ which will be redirected to http://www.ucy.in/professorbalamohandas/

you can either directly talk to him to confirm my research and help me in leading the world to safety especially 200 crore + humans deaths over next 30 years.

Email to him and confirm and let the NOBEL PRIZES COME TO ME THEN LET THE WORLD REALIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF MY DISCOVERY AND HARD WORK.

EXPECTING YOUR GOOD CO OPERATION — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucycoin (talk • contribs) 09:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Please read Wikipedia's policy on verifiability here, specifically what makes for a reliable source, and what kind of sources we don't consider reliable. Unfortunately, a theory or research work that isn't published and/or covered by multiple reliable major sources is considered original research, and that's what your work appears to be at the moment. That makes it against our policies, as you can read about here. Please take a look at those pages, as those are what we use to judge what can be added to Wikipedia, and what can't. If there's anything else I can answer, please let me know. InShaneee (talk) 10:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Unjust deletion of post!
Hello InShaneee

As i stated in my header the information is VALUABLE TO THE GENERAL HEALTH OF THE POPULATION and is relevant in all aspects to indicate the importance or significance of the subject).

I therefor make a complaint, and if not rebuked by you I will complain to your official. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weightlessjapan1337 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Why was my page deleted?
I am currently updating facts about a law firm in Indy. Every time I post something will it just be deleted if it pertains to a law firm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JenniferNBurgess (talk • contribs) 14:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion. We do allow pages on law firms (as well as other businesses), but to have a page on Wikipedia, a business (and its article) must meet our guidelines on notability. I'd suggest you take a look at that page, but in short, it says that a topic needs to be able to cite significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Certainly, not every law firm will meet that requirement, but some will. To put it another way, Wikipedia is not a directory; to have an article here, it's not enough that a business exists, it must be noteworthy somehow in a way we can easily verify. If you think it's possible for this law firm to meet those guidelines, you've got a few options. What I'd suggest is that before you recreate your article, work on it in your sandbox a bit first to get everything looking good for when it becomes official. Once you're done, if you'd like, you can submit your article to our Articles for Creation process, where an experienced user will look over your article and let you know if it still has issues or not. One other thing to note is to make sure to avoid conflicts of interest. If you're at all associated with this law firm, you need to make sure not to make any potential article into an advertisement, or something that only shows one side. If you've got any other questions, please don't hesitate to ask. InShaneee (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Melissa Luke
has re-created Dr. Melissa Luke twice already, with the same copyvio content... I added a UW to his talk page. Hopefully that will do the trick. § FreeRangeFrog croak 00:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's about all we can do at this point. Well, whether they take it to heart or not, I appreciate your diligence! Thank you! InShaneee (talk) 08:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Page deletion ; Terminal cheesecake
I have duly followed instructions and sent an email explaining that I do have copyright /permission to recreate an old article for this new page..

do I need to supply further evidence ?,

many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by LobsterMadras (talk • contribs) 15:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not 100% sure what they require. I do know they'll need something to tie you to the text; for example, I could send an email from me@gmail.com saying I own the copyright to every Bob Dylan song, but that doesn't really prove much. However, these people do this type of thing all the time, so I assure you, if there's anything else they need from you to clear this up, they will let you know.


 * However, I do want you to be familiar with what'll come next. Having text that's copyright-cleared isn't the only thing that you need to have an article here. For bands, the two things that we look for are notability and verifiability. I'd recommend you take a quick read through those two pages, as they list in detail the guidelines we use when judging an article about a musical group. Unfortunately, not every band is going to meet those criteria.


 * While you're waiting for Wikimedia to get back to you, if you'd like to start working on a non copy/paste version of the Terminal Cheesecake article, feel free to do so in your User:LobsterMadras/Sandbox, so you can get it looking how you want it when you hear from them. Also, when it is ready, if you're worried about it getting deleted again, you might try submitting it through the Articles for Creation process. Here, an experienced editor will look over your article when you're happy with it, and they'll let you know if anything needs to be taken care of before it can be made into an official article.


 * I hope that clears some things up, and if you've got any other questions, don't hesitate to ask. InShaneee (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

bdsm
where can I find bdsm articles there should be a category — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metaphidippus manni (talk • contribs) 23:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a category, located here. InShaneee (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

thanks insaneee is there one for cbt too — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metaphidippus manni (talk • contribs) 23:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Labmagister
Hi, it is not clear why did you delete Labmagister file? I made this file after content of the existing file called Thalesnano. It is just a simple description of a small company. Several other comapany profiles can be found on Wikipedia, including Wikipedia. I would like to ask your help to suggest me changes in order to Labmagister file will be acceptable as Wikipedia file. Best regards, Endre — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikusendre (talk • contribs) 11:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi! There were a couple reasons why this page was deleted. First off, it's important to note that per our policies, we can't have articles on every company in the world. So, to have an article here, a company must be able to establish its notability first. Our guidelines on what makes a company notable can be found here. In short, this means you're going to have to show some verifiable, reliable sources external to your company to provide the information for the page. A good page for a chemical company might look something like this. As you can see, the text is cited from sources such as the SEC, the New York Times, as well as just the company itself. If you think this company can meet these guidelines, you might want to first try working on the article in your sandbox, and perhaps from there submitting it to Articles for Creation, where an experienced user can look your article over for any potential problems once it's ready. Please, read through those pages I linked, and if there's any other questions I can answer for you, don't hesitate to ask. InShaneee (talk) 11:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, again. I understand your point. Concerning notability. Labmagister Ltd is a spin off company of Sanofi Co. LTD which is the 4th WW pharmaceutical company. We have contract based running programs with both Sanofi and Genzyme Co.LTD. Moreover, Labmagister uses the equipment and laboratory surface of Sanofi at Budapest site and the owners of Sanofi are the ex-principal scientists of Sanofi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.187.175.203 (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a good start, then, since Sanofi does have a pretty good page, but keep in mind, per our policy, notability is not inherited, meaning that having a notable parent company, or having a notable person at your company, doesn't automatically make your company notable. So we're clear, as well, I'm not here to judge whether your company is notable or not; no one is, really. We're just here to judge whether an article about a company properly establishes notability through reliable, verifiable sources. So, if you want to try rebuilding the page in your sandbox, I'd be happy to help you out, and let you know if it's got the sources needed to stay here as an article. InShaneee (talk) 02:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi
I saw the delete notice, and I am only one person so been trying to fill in what every one wants. I edited here about 10 years ago and I remember pretty much that everything needs to be based on good sources. The first time I had the article up, it was nearly deleted before I could make the second edit. I thought a person could take at least 15 minutes. Anyway that was okay, and he said it just needed a good definition. So I put that one there and it was fine and I had that sourced okay. Then a few days later without any sort of notice at all, it was gone. The reason was because of just "G6" (I think) and there was no other explanation, and there was no talk page too. So, I read the link and all it said was there was no basis or reason for such a thing to exist. So thinking about that, I figured the person didn't actually read what the sources said. So, then this last time I put the things that were in the sources and made the footnotes for them by copying how the other footnotes articles looked. This is a pretty large article or maybe its small, if it looks like an essay then maybe one of the better editors should look at it and adjust it. I have just been trying to dig up all the facts on the matter and the database searches are fairly difficult since they only allow name searches instead of numbers. Anyway, I have been putting some time into it, but would certainly appreciate your help in changing whatever parts you think are essay or whatever you are seeing that's not suitable. When they said there was original research I figured they wanted me to dig out what those filings said, so I did. If that isn't right, then please advise. There is a talk page where I have been keeping notes, but instead of talking, people are just slapping notices all over the article and all it gets from me is more head scratching whats in their head. Truthfully, I couldn't care less what the top end of the article looks like or how its structured. I just wanted to get all the data dots connected and make sure it was a real thing. Hope this all makes sense. ImthatIm (talk) 09:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said on the AfD, this is entirely about the organization the page is named after, and nothing else. No amount of citations to shore up the legal position/actions taken by the organization is going to change that. All we're looking for notable, verifiable references to the organization itself, by name. The relevant policy we're looking at can be found here. I'd suggest you read through that, and if you have any questions about the policy itself, or its implementation, I'd be happy to answer. As for helping, as I noted in the AfD, when I listed the article, I did a search for citations that would have fixed the article. Had I found any, I would have added them, but I didn't. About the only thing I can say is that you seem to be misunderstanding the no original research policy (found at that link). The policy doesn't mean that if you can back up an argument, it's OK to post it. Rather, it says that we, as editors, shouldn't be making arguments at all. We can just link to notable persons who've already made an argument, at which point we offer what they've already said without comment. One other thing for future reference as well: if you'd like a space to work on an article without people coming down on it before it's finished, I'd recommend starting a page through the Articles for Creation process. This creates a special page where you can work on an article with little to no outside interference until you yourself deem that it's ready for publication, at which point an experienced editor will review the article and let you know of any potential problems with it. That might be more the thing you're looking for. InShaneee (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Mode Shanghai
Hi,

I tried to edit "Mode Shanghai" to make it less promotional and more informative, but it was deleted before I got a chance. It also said copywrite infringment, but I'm not sure why. I only copy pasted from a document I wrote a couple of months ago. I linked the page to other relevant wikipedia pages and had sources...was there a specific external link that made the article seem like spam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danirlopez (talk • contribs) 11:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello! I'll address the copyright problem first, as that's the easiest to explain. Copying text from anywhere that can't clearly be shown to have an open license such as Creative Commons, or preferably Public domain, is against our rules, and is considered by Wikipedia to be a potential copyright infringement. You can see the relevant policy WP:CV. For the advertising part, the key is to make sure that you keep a neutral tone; this means not saying how great anything is, or anything else besides the bare facts that are backed up by reliable sources not affiliated with the organization itself. One other problem you'll also want to be aware with should you try rewriting the article is that we have a policy on what makes a company notable enough to have an article here. Not every company is going to meet those guidelines, but reading through there will give you a good idea of what is expected. As a suggestion, if you think you can rewrite the article to meet those requirements, you might want to try going through the Articles for Creation process. Here, you're given as much time as you need to edit the text of an article, and once you're ready, an experienced user will review your article and let you know about any possible issues. If you've got any questions about any of this, please don't hesitate to ask. InShaneee (talk) 11:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

?
Can I ask why you deleted my page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hindru1 (talk • contribs) 11:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. I deleted the article under our speedy deletion policy as an article about a band that doesn't explain it importance. As for what exactly 'importance' means, I'd ask you to take a look here at our notability guidelines for bands. It has the specifics, but at the very least, as with any article here, an article about a band is going to need to be verifiable, meaning that it cites multiple, reliable sources that are unaffiliated with the band itself (so not press releases, facebook, itunes, ect). If you think this band can meet those guidelines, you might want to consider rewriting it through the Articles for Creation process. Here, you'll have plenty of time to edit your article to get it just right, and when you're ready, an experienced user will look over it for you to point out any potential issues. If you've got any questions about any of this, please let me know. InShaneee (talk) 11:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

TARKIM AIR
Hi, I really could not understand how I have to create this article (Tarkim Air). I try to correct it but it is deleted everytime I post the article... Please help me on this issue, I'm tired of just posting the article again. My efforts go in vain. Waiting an answer from you. Thank you very much indeed. I.kartal (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi! It looks like you've already started a Articles for Creation page, which is a good way to start! However, it looks like you haven't fixed the issues that were brought up when your article was declined there, and until they are fixed, it's likely your article will be quickly deleted if you try to recreate it. The issue is, as explained on the AfC page, that the article doesn't have enough reliable sources. For information about what we consider a 'reliable' source, read here. For what kinds of sourcing we expect from an article about a business, look here. If you think you can rewrite your article so it meets those standards, then the next step is to do the rewrite on your existing AfC page and then re-submit it. As before, an experienced user will look it over for potential problems. If they find any, read the links they provide, and see what needs to be done. If you've got any other questions, feel free to ask. InShaneee (talk) 12:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Global Islamic Finance Forum (GIFF)
Why my page was deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acongfikri (talk • contribs) 01:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. Two reasons, primarily. First off, the page was a copyright violation, having been copied word for word from the GIFF web page. As Jimfbleak explained to you in October, Wikipedia does not accept any text that is not clearly labeled as Public domain; under our policies, copyright violations may be deleted on sight. Aside from that, the page also failed to explain the 'importance' of the company using reliable secondary sources, per our policy on notability of businesses. Please read those policy pages, as they should help you get a better understanding of what we're looking for here. If you think you can rewrite the page to meet these standards, you may want to consider doing so through our Articles for Creation process. Here, you'll be given as much time as you need to write and edit your article, and once you're happy with it, an experienced user will look it over and let you know about any potential issues. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. InShaneee (talk) 02:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi InShaneee... Thanks for your prompt reply and detail explanation. However, i do not copy paste directly from other website. I do refer to other website (as a source), and re-wrote it back. In order to improve it, I will put the source for my articles and i will add few more important points. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acongfikri (talk • contribs) 03:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI: Eduardo Paulino AfD
Eduardo Paulino AfD: Diff.

InShaneee, the most recent relisting of this AfD is a classic example of the problems inherent in non-admins closing XfDs and performing many of the related administrative tasks. Most non-admins simply do not have the experience to make discretionary decisions, often leading to controversy when they push the envelope to demonstrate their "skills" as future RfA candidates. Contrary to your edit summary for the diff above, no "productive discussion" has occurred in this AfD since January 12, 2013. Simply relisting the AfD again because there have been no new comments since the last relisting on January 16 shows that the second relister had not reviewed the matter in any depth. The January 16 relister MBisanz's logic (see diff), such as it was, was that there was a late comment on January 12 which other editors should have the opportunity to consider. That opportunity was given, and no previous commenter chose to reconsider or comment further. That no one has chosen to comment further on that late comment in the ensuing 11 days in what had been a very active discussion previously speaks volumes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't at all appreciate your implication here. Whatever your thoughts are on non-admins closing AfD discussions, I don't see the slightest bit of evidence that there was any form of 'stumping' going on here. Mediran is a good user doing a valuable service that needs doing, and I for one appreciate that. Personally, I think reverting an edit a person disagrees with without prior discussion is a clearer indication of problematic behavior. Now, as to the AfD, seeing as how MBisanz was only waiting on the late user to continue disucussion, I'll defer to him and close the AfD. InShaneee (talk) 12:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * InShaneee, thank you for reconsidering your position after your review. There was no implication of "stumping" by Mediran, subtle or otherwise.  My objection to Mediran's relisting is much more direct than that; there is no need to defend his motives, which I do not doubt are pure.  Mediran may very well be the great user you suggest; I have never encountered him before.  My comment that non-admin XfD closures and related administrative actions create more problems than benefits stands, however.  If no one had objected, this AfD would have been mechanistically relisted, to no good end.  The performance of such mechanically performed admin tasks, without careful consideration, do not advance a prospective candidate's RfA prospects and may, in fact, become a bone of contention.  On the other hand, given the relatively low stakes, I suppose it does have the potential to be a beneficial learning experience if the non-admin maintains a certain sense of humility and the ability and willingness to quickly recognize mistakes.


 * As for discussion, my action was taken in the spirit of BRD, and I believe that my explanations, discussion comments, and edit summaries were sufficient to explain my objection and initiate this discussion, leading to the appropriate outcome.


 * This is the first and only time I have ever reverted an XfD action by another editor, admin or otherwise, and I do not take such actions lightly. I sincerely suggest that we, as a project, need to give further consideration to the permitted role of non-admins in XfDs.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)