User talk:Inks.LWC/Archive 1

Making changes to archived discussions
I have reverted the change you made to an archived discussion. Please read the header, where it says "The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  14:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Varieties of the English language
Please cease to make changes in the article Blue to match your (and my) local variety of English. One of the principles of Wikipedia in English is that if an article on an international topic is begun in a particular variety of English, the article stays in that variety. Blue, like Orange (colour), happens to have been begun by a user of British spellings, and will stay that way. This policy, covered in WP:ENGVAR, is of long standing, and is unlikely to change. A mutual respect for the diversity of English use across this planet's six billion people is an underlying strength of this project; don't disrespect it. -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  14:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

February 2008
Hi, the recent edit you made to No Limits has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I accidentally messed up the first part, but what about the misspelling? Inks.LWC (talk) 12:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! DougsTech (talk) 08:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Your university is hardblocked because of some vandal. IP block exemption should be in order for a month. I'll contact the checkuser first. Spellcast (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked
I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. Spellcast (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I see someone got there before me. But I got your email anyway! FT2 (Talk 00:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Calvin and Hobbes
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Anomie⚔ 13:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the official website, the lemonade comic was published on 1992-02-16. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? Where? When I look at the official reprints site, I find this comic for 1992-02-16, with the lemonade comic at 1993-04-04. Further, when I look at page 449 of The Complete Calvin and Hobbes Book 2, I see the snowball comic with a date of February 16, 1992; and when I look at page 164 of Book 3, I see the lemonade comic with a date of April 4, 1993. Anomie⚔ 23:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was looking at the official site that was on the wikipedia page for Calvin & Hobbes - it must be an error on their website. Sorry that I passed on the incorrect information. Inks.LWC (talk) 09:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Anomie⚔ 12:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

CSD and patent nonsens
Yo, Inks.LWC, thanks for helping out at WP:NEWPAGES. I think you may be using db-g1 too liberally, as in this edit to Mass communication culture; the article is not nonsense, it is perfectly understandable English for the most part, though it is copypasted from another website and is not an appropriate Wikipedia article. If you're not completely sure that an article meets the criteria for speedy deletion, it might be best to use WP:PROD or take it to WP:AFD instead. See WP:G1, here or here for more info. Thanks for your work! Regards, Skomorokh  13:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Stretch
Movie very recent, that's why, Charlotte Gainsbourg got the prize for best actress at last Festival de cannes and Patrice Chereau was a former president of the festival. The page is very legitimate. Sincerly. User:District Nein10:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Paul Nystrom
Hi !

Because the article clearly indicated why the subject might be important or significant, I have declined your speedy deletion nomination. Remember that criterion A7 is only for articles that make no credible claim to importance or significance. Regards, decltype (talk) 06:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

David Casavis
I see that you removed the CSD tag from David Casavis. You should indicate the reason in the Edit Summary when doing so. Additionally, I would suggest you consider advising the editor that posted the tag the reason for the removal. So, why did you remove it?  ttonyb (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The article clearly states how Mr. Casavis is a significant person, running for a well known office in New York, and showing his past political career steps (including running for State Assembly). Inks.LWC (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * He may be significant, but he is hardly notable per Wikipedia guidelines. "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability..."  ttonyb  (talk) 20:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Areapal
Hi friend, Areapal is a social networking website like orkut,facebook and has its own strong base in India.If other social networking sites can have article,why can't areapal ( which connects college students and provides as platform for exchange of knowledge) deserve a article?? Vatsan34 (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Vatsan34

Speedy deletion declined: Giannis Papadimitriou
Hello Inks.LWC, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Giannis Papadimitriou - a page you tagged - because: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Tikiwont (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

CountMeOut.ie
Please see talk page for Justification.... --Dueyfinster (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks, there are still some nice people on Wikipedia ;) --Dueyfinster (talk) 21:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for that. I shall do as you explained in future. Btw, could you just have a look at Scroogeball Mcanus‎? Someone is removing the speedy tag again and again without explanation -- Raziman T V (talk) 07:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I did not write that article. Just wondering, why should It be deleted? I'm new on wikipedia so I'm not sure about the rules. --TBGraphicGuru (talk) 07:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Reasonable time frames
There's no hard and fast rule, but I generally give it about two weeks. Some other people would give it only one, others would give it three or four. As long as it's at least four or five days, it can be whatever length you feel comfortable with beyond that. Bearcat (talk) 04:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD
Articles for deletion explains the whole process. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Akindele Akinyemi


The article Akindele Akinyemi has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Not notable: fails (in order, from least specialized to most specialized) WP:GNG/WP:BIO/WP:POLITICIAN as candidate who never won anything and whose views have not received coverage in reliable sources. GNews hits rundown: 13 (2 are about someone else; the rest are either not significant coverage, not reliable sources, or neither.)

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no objections to the deletion. His activity in politics and educational reform has pretty much stopped, and I don't disagree that he is not a notable figure. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, cool. Unfortunately we can't hurry along the process with a G7 speedy delete as a lot of other editors have contributed, so I guess we'll wait out the PROD and see if anyone else objects. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears that a vote was already taken and the consensus was deletion. Is another vote being taken on it? Inks.LWC (talk) 06:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, you're right. Thanks for bringing that to my attention! I'll AfD it. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

/* FXstreet */
Hello LXC

I need your help on editing FXstreet article. I have removed the blocked link from the references list. Please resume article.

Thank you, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelpillos (talk • contribs) 09:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011
Hi Inks.LWC. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for Ahmed Hegazy, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers and review the criteria for speedy deletion. Particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion, proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion.  Catfish Jim  &#38; the soapdish  10:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Inks.LWC. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for Beneficial Microbes, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers and review the criteria for speedy deletion. Particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion, proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion.  Catfish Jim  &#38; the soapdish  10:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello Inks.LWC. Thanks for the speedy deletion work you are doing; it's a very important activity! I did want to let you know, though, regarding Asharkhandhi, that current consensus holds that it is bad practice to tag articles for speedy deletion as lacking context (CSD A1) or content (CSD A3) moments after creation, as users may be actively working on the article content. Ten to fifteen minutes is considered a good time to wait before tagging such articles under either of these criteria. Please note that before an appropriate waiting period is over, the articles should not be marked as patrolled, so that the wait does not result in the article escaping review at a later time. Nothing here is meant to apply to any other criterion; attack pages and copyright violations especially should be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks. Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

pls remove Speedy deletion at H.T. Pugh
Would you please rm the speedy deletion notice you put at H.T. Pugh article now. It adequately asserts notability. Discuss at its Talk page if u like or open an AFD, which will end in Keep i assure you. -- do ncr  am  01:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I had already removed it. :) Inks.LWC (talk) 01:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Simpson E. Stilwell
I do not appreciate your over-zealous marking of a 60-second old stub for deletion without the least bit of due diligence or good faith. Please see Talk:Simpson_E._Stilwell. — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 04:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies, but it was certainly not up for "60 seconds". The article for George Alexander Forsyth said nothing about the attack by Chief Roman Nose, and the page for Roman Nose only indicated that he was killed during the attack.  Therefore, it appeared as if there was no credidble claim of importance, and I then based the marking on WP:NOTINHERITED, as close to half of the article was related to his brother. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, so it was 8 minutes. FYI, per patrolling new pages, you are encouraged to review from the the bottom of the log to specifically avoid what you did to me and appear to have inflicted on others. Quote:

This [patrolling from the bottom of the log] should give the creating editor enough time to improve a new page before a patroller attends to it, particularly if the patroller tags the page for speedy deletion. Tagging anything other than attack pages, copyvios, vandalism or complete nonsense only a few minutes after creation is not likely to be constructive and may only serve to annoy the page author.


 * So please spare others your quick delete and follow the above guidelines. — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 16:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As I've told you before. You have been rude and discourteous to me.  I do not appreciate you calling me an "ass", and until you can act civilly, please do not comment on my talk page again.  Thank you. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Manorathan
Hello Inks, without wanting to go into too much detail, I think you should not follow Manorathan too closely. You nominated four of the articles they contributed, and while all of them clearly needed editing and more references, a helping of WP:BEFORE would have indicated where these AfD's are headed: keep. (I could be wrong, but most admins will see that there's plenty of references for R. Raj Rao, Do Paise Ki Dhoop, Char Aane Ki Barish, and Freaky Chakra (Movie). I understand and appreciate your following up on what seemed like suspicious edits and have left a note at the SPI as well. However, the articles are on notable topics, in my opinion. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, it started out with me stumbling on his pages just by going through the newly created pages, and noticing that (at creation) they were mostly copy and pastes from various websites (some, especially movie creations were just copy and pastes of user reviews on IMDB, and he would cite them as references from IMDB, even though there were self-published). It was after I found the second one that the name looked familiar, so I noticed that on his user page, he listed what he'd created, so I decided to see what his articles were.  Most of the articles suffered from the same problems and that was the reason I initially marked them for speedy deletion. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well sure--but a bit of due diligence would have led you to Google some of those terms/titles/names and you would have found at least some of the sources. That the creator may seem shaky to you is an acceptable reason to check it out, but that doesn't mean that the topics themselves are not notable. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said in the nominations, I did Google (and News Google for the page about the upcoming movie) the movies and people, and was unable to find sources that were not self-published sources. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Please consider withdrawing your nomination
With respects, your nomination of Do Paise Ki Dhoop,Char Aane Ki Barish suffers from a few problems. While understanding why you nominated the film, and with the greatest of respects, you perhaps misunderstood WP:NFF's "...films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines". The film in question has passed beyond "begun shooting" and as a completed film has been publicly released/screened at the 62nd Cannes Film Festival. Screening at a notable festival IS a public release, so WP:NFF was not the applicable sub-portion of WP:NF to use. In looking toward at your consideration of the governing WP:NF, you quoted "reviewed by two or more nationally known critics" as if it were a mandate. First, the phrase "nationally known critic" is a subjective term, and Wikipedia does not demand that critics be "nationally known" to only the United States. Even if known only to India, that would still be fine with en.Wikipedia. Secondly, and more inportant, is that as an "attribute to consider" it is not a mandate. It is a critria to consider, set in place to encourage the search for sources., for if there were such reviews then we would have a reasonable presumption that that the required sources are "likely to exist". As mutiple reliable sources exist dealing with this completed and screened film, I would ask you to give consideration to withdrawing your nomination of the article. Best regards,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Mondo (film)
Please withdraw this nomination. As you can see from the references provided in the AfD (no idea how you failed to find them&mdash;they came up on my first search (Google news archive search for mondo and gatlif), the film is unquestionably notable, and any defects in the article can be addressed through normal editing. Bongo  matic  01:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Should you wish to reply, please do so here. I will watch this page for a few days, so no talkback or other comment on my talk page is required.

You know which ones....
Thank you for the various withdrawals. Be well.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 09:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Fjalor i Gjeologjise
Hello Inks.LWC, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Fjalor i Gjeologjise - a page you tagged - because: '''It needs work, and sourcing, but it claims notability. "First of its kind" - suggest Prod. .''' Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 15:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was my bad. When I marked it for deletion, the way I read it, I thought it was talking just about the guy who published the book, and didn't realize it was actually the book itself (since books aren't elligible for speedy deletion anyway). Inks.LWC (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)