User talk:Michellecrisp/Archives/2008/July

UWS School of Law
Hi, I've just rejected the speedy deletion request you made for UWS School of Law. The criteria for speedy deletion specifies that schools should be listed at AfD as deleting them can be controversial - I agree that this isn't really a school, but the basic principle seems to apply. The results of recent AfDs suggest that either proposing a merge into the article on the uni or being bold and merging the material yourself may be the best way to handle this article. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Diabetes mellitus type 2
Your recent patrol and insertion of fact tags has missed quite a few other equally well knonw clinical observations, also uncited.

This leaves me in some confusion as to the level of citation you indend to suggest in this semi-technical article about a very important condition. At present, a Reader may infer from the fact tags present that the article is fundamentally adrift with regard to type 2 and so disregard other information in the article. Or to conclude that only the issues you tagged with fact are in question.

As they are not, and the underlying issue is a stylistic one re WP policies and their application, wither inference would be in error. Possibly a damaging error if the Reader acts on their inference.

The article is patrolled regularly by several physicians, at least one of them a diabetes specialist. It certainly has stylistic issues and other such cruft, but the basic medical accuracy is not of them. The talk page will reflect quite a bit of this, and should go some way to reassuring you that wild claims are minimal.

I invite a review. ww (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Mario Duplantier
If you feel that an individual musician such as Mario Duplantier is notable only in the context of a single band, you may want to suggest that the article be replaced with a redirect to the band's article. It is not helpful to delete the musician's article outright. I should also mention that anyone other than the article's creator is permitted to remove a speedy deletion tag, and I am not the article's creator.

Some of the musicians whose articles you tagged for speedy deletion are members of more than one notable band. In such cases, it is better to retain the article on the individual musician.

In some cases, additional information on individual musicians can be added from the corresponding article in another language's Wikipedia. For example, there in an article on Mario Duplantier in the French Wikipedia at http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Duplantier

Finally, please remember that speedy deletion is only for use when the article clearly fails to assert notability. If it asserts notability, even weekly, then you should use a tag such as Notability instead. --Eastmain (talk) 04:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Who may remove a speedy?
DELETION says: "Anyone except a page's creator may contest the speedy deletion of a page by removing the deletion notice from the page."

SPEEDY says (in italics near the top of the page): "The creator of a page may not remove a Speedy Delete tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so." --Eastmain (talk) 04:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

external links to imagelinka
Hi Michelle, just getting back to your comments and removal of my external links to imagelinka under Hagia Sophia (which I visited this week) and Sydney (where I am from). You stated that "Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated".... I am affilliated with imagelinka, in fact I have created this free utility site as a way for people to explore a location via a series of linked images, I am especially interested in locations of historical signification. I feel that this site adds value to the wikipedia, please can you let me know your thoughts. thanks David Brown Digibrown (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Liverpool gay quarter
Hi Michelle, thanks for your contribution to my article on Liverpool's gay quarter - Liverpool gay quarter in the UK. As you have put comments like 'article uncategorized, insufficient context', etc, does this mean I have to attend to it? Or will someone else improve the article for me? I hope you area able to help as I am a new user and only getting to grips with wikiedia rules. Thankyou (Richie wright1980 (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC))

Ok, cool, so what about now? Does it look better? When I try to upload an image, it says 'unathorized'. (Richie wright1980 (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC))

Hi, I got a message saying WP:EFFORT is not a reason for avoiding deletion. This article is an almost direct copy of Liverpool gay quarter from yourself. I am sooooo confused. The content of this article was cleared by one of the admins earlier today (jimfbleak) and was was written entirely by myself, I have hardly made any changes to it? Why do you want to delete it. I really need help, as it is my first day on here, and it seems I am getting conflicting information from different admin people. (Richie wright1980 (talk) 00:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC))

I can see where you're coming from, but Stanley Street is just ONE street, The Gay Quarter is several streets. (Richie wright1980 (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)).

I thought wikipedia was supposed to be an encyclopedia? I wrote two articles - one called Stanley Street, Liverpool, the other called Liverpool gay quarter. The Gay Quarter is several streets in Liverpool City Centre, which is clearly explained. In encyclopedias you can cross-reference, hence the reason I wrote the Stanley Street article - it is just one street. It is like writing an article about Soho and a separate article for Old Compton Street. Can you not see this? It is called cross-referencing. If you read both of my articles, they are slightly different. (Richie wright1980 (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC))

Considered adminship?
Hi Michelle, I have watched you for some time and am impressed by your apparent solid knowledge and application of policy, your general demeanour and the hard work you put in. All of these are good criteria for adminship. If you are interested I'd be happy to write up a nomination, but be aware that it may be a curse and any spare time you have in your life will be sucked up by new responsibilities and worries (just kidding). Anyway, let me know what you think, either by talk or email. Either way, it'd be good if you could enable your email in your preferences. Regards. Moondyne 08:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats quite OK and a good idea. Drop me a line when you've decided. Moondyne 08:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA
Hello.

What do you think? Delete?

Ronit Matalon

Chergles (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Rose Jackson
Sorry! I did look, but obviously not thoroughly enough. Slac speak up! 00:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

spammer
saw your comment at moondyne - id slap a welcome with spamm/link without even thinking about it myself - which is what im gonna do SatuSuro 01:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC) My rationale - two days of constant editing and no welcome - and also to the less circumspect it looks like spamming - if it isnt at least the ed will now know :) SatuSuro 01:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Apologies if I jumped the gun there - my friendly welcome thingo has a template for ext link and spam so i figued a welcome with thta is better than a red link talk page - SatuSuro 01:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

artabase links
Hi Michelle. Thanks for your comments. I'm not trying to use Wikipedia for advertising, I have been trying to only provide links to Artabase where the Gallery profile in question provides information which is not available on the own Gallery's website (if they have one). IE, I'm trying to only add value to wikipedia. Some of the regional galleries for example are very useful references for tourists etc. Let me know if you think I should be more restrictive than this. - Rebecca Artabase (talk) 04:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to butt in here. Rebecca, you may believe that you are adding value, however, Wikipedia needs to maintain strict policies in respect of links to external websites, else we would be swamped with them and will lose our focus of providing and expanding a free encyclopaedia (we are not a directory).  Generally, if links are used, we prefer them to be from non-commercial websites and sites which show information which cannot be readily placed in the article — eg. a website which has lots of detail which may be unencyclopaedic.   External links may also be used to support claims made in articles as long as they are from reliable sources. If you wish to improve Wikipedia, we invite you to contribute to the prose.  You could for example use your website to cite some article details.  Moondyne 08:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Moondyne, You're not butting in I'm glad to be getting this feedback from both of you. I appreciate the value of editorial content and will try and include this on relevant gallery's pages as we become aware of their milestones.

I'd appreciate more information on the regulations regarding links to commercial entities. I did check before I added any links to see if band sites linked to their Myspace profiles (which many appeared to do), so I'd appreciate more information on what the guidelines are here. And to clarify, Artabase isn't trying to be a directory, we are trying to provide an online archive for art, if that makes any difference. Thanks Artabase (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It is unfortunate that many band articles do include MySpace links. These are specifically included in a list of links to avoid. Moondyne 01:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Moondyne, I'll try and follow those guidelines. My aim with Artabase is to be somewhere in between a social networking site and an information repository like IMDB of Art. Artabase (talk) 05:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Bardon
Hello, I notice recently that you removed some edits from the Bardon, Queensland article regarding community opposition to Main Roads' proposed widening of Macgregor Terrace, ostensibly on the grounds of Wikipedia's soapbox policies.

I can assure you that these edits were made in good faith. I believe that the edits in question conformed with Wikipedia's NPOV policies by including both (1) the need from Main Roads' view for the road widening, and (2) the protests from local residents.

I don't have a particularly strong opinion on Macgregor Terrace one way or other - perhaps you may wish to propose a wording that conforms both with Soapbox and NPOV policies while taking into account the opposition to Main Roads? --TripleThree (talk) 13:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)