User talk:Jesper A

A tag has been placed on MEPSI, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add  on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Eliz81 15:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

About MEPSi and article writing guidelines
Jesper, welcome to Wikipedia and we're glad you're here to help out. Might I suggest you take a look at these pages for information about writing articles? WP:SPAM, Help:Starting a new page, WP:COI, WP:N, WP:Copyrights, and WP:MOS. Please note that all wording must be yours, and copyright violations (as in cut n paste jobs) and advertising are not allowed. I've posted a copy of this message to the MEPSI talk page. Feel free to leave me a message here if you have any more questions, and I can offer you additional advice on creating and editing articles. Don't get discouraged, we're glad you're here, and we welcome your contributions. Eliz81 17:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on First Issues Collectors Club, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DES (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

FICC
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on FICC, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because FICC fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason: linked page was deleted for 2nd time To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting FICC, 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. --Android Mouse Bot 2 16:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I placed the tag on a redirect page that goes to a now deleted page which was deleted twice after being contested by other editors as lacking notability. See above. ww2censor 16:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Mexican philatelists
I saw that you added about 20 Mexican philatelists names to the List of philatelists. Besides the two names that obviously link incorrectly to the wrong people, none of the people have an article. The point of this list is to add the names of people who already have articles in Wikipedia and not just to add potential names for people that someone might one day add an article about. You would be better served to write an article about one of these Mexican philatelists, put it online and then add their name to the list as I have done with Robson Lowe and David Feldman. Hopefully you will be able to add some real substance by adding some real articles, not just a few names. Cheers ww2censor 00:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi ww2censor.


 * I appreciate your concern regarding that list of philatelists. So, perhaps I can explain why I added some 20 names to it: when I came across the list, most of the names had no entry on Wikipedia (they were red, as you know). So, I basically decided that the list is a work in progress, and that other people might find it useful to see names they weren't familiar with. Basically, I'm hoping that others will fill in some info - and I sure hope I will be able to as well!


 * The trouble I'm having seems to be the proper format for articles. When I post something, it's deleted within five minutes for various reasons (you can see my log, so I don't have to explain it all again). I think the main reason for deletions is that I lack references, but they are sometimes hard to come by! For example, if I claim that something was on TV or in a newspaper, how could you possibly verify that? I personally prefer web links, since they are immediately verifiable.


 * All the people I added to the list of philatelists are well known, even outside the Mexico collecting circles. Some were dealers way back when and I think we're about to lose all track of them if we don't start putting down what we know. Then again, in many cases I simply "know" that they are important, but I don't have much to go by, other than the fact that their names constantly pop up.


 * One person was a true "big wig" in Mexican philately: Roberto Garcia-Larranaga. He was born in San Luis Potosi, but the only other real piece of information on the web is a passenger list for a cruise ship in the 50's!? This guy had EVERYTHING (almost), something that's close to being impossible. NOBODY today has anything approaching Larranaga's collection!


 * I'll try to get some good, hard, "evidence" out of the old-timers in Mexican philately. Hopefully that list will get more and more "blue".
 * Jesper A 02:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Jesper


 * First I reformatted your reply so you don't start a new section for the same topic's reply. You indent the post by using a colon before each paragraph, as you see above. I nod add 2 colons to indent more.
 * Part of the problem is that one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia is verifiability, so you must make it your business to provide some sources for the things you write and if you don't have any sources then you cannot verify what you write. Unfortunate but that's the way it is. Your reply even confirms part of what Wikipedia is not; "I simply "know" that they are important" is not enough to go on. You need to add the sources and if that is a newspaper, tv program, you will need to make some notes about it so that you can cite it properly. Have a look here to see how citations are done correctly. If you cannot find sources for your potential articles, when there are already so many red-links where there are no articles, you are an optimist to think that someone else will find something easier than you will.
 * Actually I don't see what you previously wrote that was deleted because there is no record for non-administrators to see what you added that was deleted. All I see are the edits to articles still existing, though there are some links to article that were deleted on your talk page as red-links, so from that I see you did have some articles deleted. Besides verifiability, notability is also required.
 * Have a look at the recent article on David Feldman I just finished. Some of the sources are self sources but I do have many books in my philatelic library to call on but it is verified and notable. There are many other names on that list that I was thinking of writing about but have not had time to find the necessary sources,so they are still red. Actually list are not really encouraged, but several exist. I had thought of pruning all the red-links from that list because there are so many.


 * If you need me to answer other questions just ask on my talk page - I reply wherever the discussion started. BTW, I am the current "owner" of the Philately Portal and if you are going to be an active philatelic editor, you may want to join the Philately WikiProject. We need active knowledgeable philatelic editors - right now there only seen to be about 4 active editors. Cheers ww2censor 04:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, here I try "lesson #1" ;-)
 * Perhaps it would be best to delete all "red-links" - let them show up when a name is marked for inclusion instead. Which brings me to a question: how do I make a name show up as "David Feldman (Philatelist)" without actually adding the (Philatelist) explicitly? I tried viewing the source for the page, but nothing jumped out.
 * While it may not matter to Wikipedia, I believe notability is a very vague concept. What's notable to you may not be notable to me (and vice versa, of course). It's very difficult (for me, at least) to understand why something which is VERY "notable" to me would not be in the world of Wikipedia. Oh well.
 * I'm an avid collector of Mexican classics. And I'd like to contribute anywhere I can - but I also take care not to promise too much! I'm busy at work (VB6 programming, though I'm a C++ programmer at heart), so I have to be careful not to get myself into more trouble than I'm already in. I'm not going to bore you with all the details, but I have my plate full with web sites, stamp clubs, wife and dog ;-)
 * I will promise you this: if I get the hang of Wikipedia, I will definitely pay close attention to the philately portal. Who knows, I just might get my first "stripes" over there!
 * FWIW: I'm originally from Denmark (your neighbor, almost). I'm celebrating my 14th anniversary starting 20 minutes from now, which means I've been in the US for 14 years and one week now.
 * Just noticed: Philipp von Ferrary was probably named Count Philippe la Renotière von Ferrari. I'll have to verify that... Unless, of course, one is an Austrian name and the other is the French version!?
 * I think I have to stop for today - midnight is fast approaching. Thanks much for responding. Jesper A 04:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

First Issues Collectors Club
The links you have shown on my talk page do indeed provide enough for, at the least, an *assertion* of notability, which is what is needed to avoid Speedy deletion. Your page may very well still be subject to WP:AFD deletion, but those are much slower, taking 5 days or more to run their courses, and giving you plenty of time to plead your case. I do not know whether your page would surviv an AFD discussion, but for now at least, I have restored it from SPeedy deletion.

As for helping you, that gets into volume issues. Speedy deletions are for those that do not meet even minimum standards. And there are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of them each day. Even as it is, the system frequently gets massively backed up. Add in the work-load for admins of trying to help every one of those users along, and the system would bog down totally and nothing would get done. For me, when people ask for assistance, as you have now done, I do try to give it. But we admins are mostly volunteers, and helping everyone would simply not be possible. - TexasAndroid 17:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and please do add to the article the links that you placed on my talk page, to help avoid the article being again Speedy deleted. - TexasAndroid 17:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the third posting (I would nearly tag it myself as a repost except for my interest in philately) of essentially the same page by Jesper without any real notability given except to mention some of the world's rarest stamps members aspire to owning but will likely never own themselves. You need to make more of a case then this as there are many philatelic societies and most of them are not really notable except to philatelists themselves. Hopefully Jesper, you can rephrase it so that it remains but it is only 17 years old and has about 100 members; that's not very notable. Have they published any well recognised books? Do you have any sources as they are completely lacking? Has it been written up in the American Philatelist? I doubt this will make it through as it is. Jesper, I advise you against reposting when pages have been deleted as this means you really have not done a suitable job on the article, sorry to disappoint you. Cheers ww2censor 18:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Do note that this "3rd posting" is actually the admin who deleted it the first two times reversing himself. :) Jesper gave a list of links on my talk page that, to me, gave at least an assertion of notability, particularly the fact that other organizations use the group as their own fact source for fact-checking.  Is this enough for it to survive AFD?  I don't know.  But it was enough of an "assertion" that I reversed myself on the issue of Speedying it. - TexasAndroid 18:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks TexasAndroid for giving this a third chance ;-) If you or anybody else doesn't like it now, all hope is lost ;-)
 * ww2censor, I added some references, but was soooo slow in doing so (I am working...) that you caught me in the middle. I hope this will suffice, or else please let me know if I can ever make this worthy of notice. Also, ww2censor, please have a look at the Philipp von Ferrary page. I've added something to the discussion page as opposed to editing the article itself. The reason being that I think it could use some work, but I don't have enough hard evidence. I've listed a few pointers to other articles that contradict info on the page. Let me know if this is the right way to deal with it. BTW, I've had some correspondence with fconaway (Floyd) prior to getting on Wikipedia. He's a good guy to know and I'll try to lean on him for help. Thanks for all your help Jesper A 21:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)