User talk:Minimac/Archive3

Notability
WP:GNG specifically requires multiple sources. If you can't find multiple sources, it's a good indication it isn't notable. Ironholds (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Nothing new
Re your message: Thanks for removing it. Funny how they apologize at the end of it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Alexandra Coppinger
Why A7? Polargeo (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Because it's a living person without any references to establish notability. Minima  c  ( talk ) 20:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not A7. Polargeo (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed bad cite from Edgar Bergen
I removed a cite you added in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edgar_Bergen&oldid=341537799 as it cites Wikipedia as its source. Madlobster (talk) 18:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Death of Aliza Mirza


The article Death of Aliza Mirza has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * WP:NOTNEWS

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. Regancy42 (talk) 07:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I see; it's a death of an unremarkable person with no evidence of notability of any achievements or anything like that. I am going to request speedy deletion myself. It would probably fit CSD A7 if is wasn't for any death related information. Minima  c  ( talk ) 07:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Mastacraft
Hello Minimac. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Mastacraft, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''There's considerably more sources than last time it was at AfD. It's not similar enough to delete as a recreate. Take back to AfD if necessary.''' Thank you. Ged UK  11:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I originally put this article up for proposed deletion because it didn't have any published sources, but two things happened: A message said on the prod template that this article was previously deleted per a deletion discussion, so that was why I tagged it for speedy deletion per G4, then Codf1977 removed the prod tag. Minima  c  ( talk ) 11:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

A7
I have declined your speedy nomination for Rory Carson. I know we are all under the WP regin of the BLP extremeists but seriously is there some guideline that says any unreferenced BLP (even when not in the slightest bit negative and with a good easily verifiable claim to notability) falls instantly under WP:CSD? I wouldn't be surprised in the current climate but I would have thought a PROD was more in order. Polargeo (talk) 12:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay I have worked this out. If it is an attack page/ wholy negative unsourced BLP then WP:CSD applies. WP:CSD applies only if there is no credible claim to importance or significance, this has nothing to do with providing references and is a lower standard than notability. If you have an issue with an unreferenced BLP that does not come under G10 or A7 then you should follow WP:BLPPROD or better still source the article. If you have serious doubts about notability it can still go to AfD but A7 is not for deleting articles that we feel may not meet WP:BIO or are simply unreferenced. I hope this helps. Polargeo (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Violence in cartoons
Hi, you prodded this page and tagged it for improvement. The author removed both the Prod and the tags. I have restored the tags but not the prod; the reason is because I think that it could well be merged with Adolescents and cartoon violence that has overlapping content. This is not my subject so I will leave it to you to decide whether to propose a merge or AfD it as you see appropriate. TerriersFan (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

My apologies
Another editor states I may have given you a warning that is incorrect. The article is deleted and I can't review it. I am willing to take responsibility for my mistake and apologize to you. Please accept my sincere apology. --Morenooso (talk) 05:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I already knew where the warning was about to go to, so I didn't get offended in the end. Anyway, thanks for letting me know. Minima  c  ( talk ) 08:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle's gone a bit funny?
Looks like Twinkle forgot to add the AfD tag and transclude the nomination in today's log. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 10:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Why revert Grundle's edits?
Care to explain these diffs: ?--Chaser (talk) 02:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Because I assumed he was a banned user, I reverted all (or I did some, actually) of his edits as per WP:Edit warring. Minima  c  ( talk ) 04:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I thought so. The idea there is to be able to quickly revert edits made by banned users evading their ban. Banning_policy makes this point more clear. It's not necessary to revert edits that a banned user made before his ban was imposed. In particular, I thought the addition of images to Takara Tomy (the second edit) improved the article. What do you think?--Chaser (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think both edits he made were constructive. I hesitated to rollback any of his edits, just because some of his contributions were OK, like the edits you've given me, but now I have rolled back | my own edit. Minima  c  ( talk ) 05:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hatlinks
So, blindly removing hatlinks isn't vandalism? I beg to differ. The user has made no other edits to the page but to delete the hatlinks. Hatlinks are to direct other users to relevant and related articles and removing them classifies as vandalism. I am not the one who needs to be careful and I resent being treated like I am a newbie when this user is a newbie and only made a handful of edits. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 05:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * An admin felt differently as the user in question has been blocked for 31 hours for "Disruptive editing". -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 05:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As I was saying, the removal of hatnotes is not listed on the WP:Vandalism so that was why I sent a message to you explaining which edits were not treated as vandalism. Minima  c  ( talk ) 05:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It may not be listed, but alot of things aren't. I felt it was vandalism and an admin did as well. So, this will have to be a case of "agree to disagree". -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 05:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting idea, but we wouldn't want to stick here to argue. I may like to create a new section on the vandalism talk page later. Minima  c  ( talk ) 05:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Change reverted on Queen (band)
To quote from the third paragraph of the intro on the article concerning The Beatles, "Four decades after their breakup, The Beatles' music continues to be popular." This sentence is not sources directly, yet that is a featured article. As such, why was my change, which is virtually identical, been reverted?  The Stig  13:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't realise the edits were identical, anyway I explained in the edit summary that this sentence you added looked like original research, as per WP:SYN, and it wasn't referenced either. Also by the fact that this looked like a biased statement makes me wonder why it should be added in. Minima  c  ( talk ) 15:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hence virtually identical. Clearly it isn't bias, as the following sources do back it up, I do appreciate the 'synthesis' policy, however the exact same thing has been done the Beatles article, and that is a featured article. If it was violating policy, it would not have been promoted. So my logic of thinking was that surely there was nothing wrong with what I was doing, in fact if anything, it was a step in the right direction mimicking an FA.  The Stig  15:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of David Murray (Liberal Democrat candidate)
A tag has been placed on David Murray (Liberal Democrat candidate) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. NtheP (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply on article talk page, basically I don't think he meets WP:Politician as he's not a former MP. NtheP (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Byron George Donaldson
Since when is calling someone autistic not an attack? Woogee (talk) 05:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's probably libel, and that is probably the only thing that should be removed immediately. The rest fits CSD A7. Minima  c  ( talk ) 05:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

BLP tags
Hi Minimac, just a note about tagging BLPs as unsourced. This one, for example, did have sources; not good ones, but they do exist. It's better in a case like that to tag with "blpsources" instead. If it goes into the unsourced category, it adds to the pile we need to get through for prodding. Cheers, SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 08:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Ken calhoun
Hello Minimac, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Ken calhoun has been removed. It was removed by Kencalhount with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Kencalhount before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 12:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 12:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Ceranthor 3
Thanks for proofreading for me. I obviously shouldn't be typing before I have coffee. Drmies (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I fell into the trap too thinking this was an AfD (During my support vote I put a bullet point instead of a # )! Although it was done without permission, I had to put this in to help stack the votes properly. Minima  c  ( talk ) 13:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I must have been thinking AfDish--force of habit, possibly. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * @Drmies, you may wish to warn other users of this problem (ubx follows). – xeno talk 13:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Xeno, I appreciate your suggestion and will, dutifully, release this information to the general public in the interest of full disclosure. Drmies (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Response
I have responded to your comment at Jamesofur's RfA. Best wishes. Immunize (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your support at my RfA
Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome for it. Just a fact that this was the second time I changed my vote from neutral to support. The other time was with Leonard^Bloom's RfA. Minima  c  ( talk ) 19:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed RfA
Hello Minimac; thanks for your notification of your creation of Requests for adminship/Hassocks5489, and for the nomination. I hope to have time to make a full response tomorrow; regrettably I am not in a position to accept the nomination at this time, partly because of real-life "time pressure" and mostly because the reasons described here (when I was previously considered for nomination) mostly still apply. I shall add more detail here tomorrow. Regards, Hassocks  5489 (tickets please!)  22:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Dawn Reed
A tag has been placed on Dawn Reed, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, image description page, image talk page, mediawiki page, mediawiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your reasoning on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, forgot to tag it, oh well, at least the tag is there. Minima  c  ( talk ) 20:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Question re RfA
I'm trying to understand your reasoning at Requests for adminship/Mikael Häggström. When I saw the answer to question 2, my first reaction was - "you didn't link to all your contributions, did you?" Because one answer that leaves me cold is the "all my contributions are equally valuable". But he didn't, he linked to a concise list of four articles. Isn't that exactly what the right answer should be? -- SPhilbrick  T  15:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it was missing the second part, "and why," is what Minimac was referring to? Knowing why is helpful in understanding what the editor values.--~TPW 16:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was right. I may give half a mark for Q2, but I'm still opposing unfortunately. Minima  c  ( talk ) 16:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. I have concerns myself, but thought the content contributions were fine. He certainly could help himself with a little more explication.-- SPhilbrick  T  16:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Your RfA comment
Hi. You are quite welcome to withdraw your comment but it is generally better to strike it instead of just removing it, especially if other people have replied to it. I've now done this for you. Best wishes &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Moviezen - is it a reliable source?
RE: Coco Martin's birthdate. is moviezen considered a reliable source? I know that IMDB is not considered such for personal information and I have never heard of moviezen but, it[ appears to be similar in its gathering content from users. [[User:Active Banana|Active Banana]] (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Well well well...
You are a big fat baboon! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaguar the howling snake (talk • contribs) 06:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Breut Carmen
I spent 30 mins checking everything I could in that article. Every single aspect of it checks out - except for the actual subject of the article! If it's a hoax, it's a minutely well-researched one.

I removed your speedy deletion tag because the criteria for G3 specify that the hoax must be "blatant and obvious". I think we must admit that in this case it is not "blatant and obvious" even if it is probably a hoax.

I have added a tag to the article, and will follow up with the author. I think there is also a question of notability on this article even if it's true.

Please don't take my removal of your tag as in any way a criticism of your judgement or your good faith.

Cheers,

Thparkth (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Having written this, and having done some further research, I was about to revert myself and re-add your speedy tag - but the page has already been deleted ;)


 * I noticed that the first reference given (the only one with a URL) doesn't mention the subject. The other two references were to a book, where page 149 was cited. The book is available in Google Books and page 149 is the only page not visible there. The other reference was to a newspaper called "The New Tribune" in Tacoma which has never existed. It is a plausible typo for "The News Tribune" but that name wasn't adopted until a year after the claimed date of the article.


 * So in summary, I was wrong, you were right, and none of it matters any more anyway!


 * Thparkth (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism
Please see info box of Cyclone Gonu Peter Horn User talk 14:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, everything is OK...for now... Peter Horn User talk 14:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!
Minimac - Thank for your participation and support in my RfA.

I can honestly say that your comments and your trust in me are greatly appreciated.

Please let me know if you ever have any suggestions for me as an editor, or comments based on my admin actions.

Thank you! 7 23:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

RfA Nomination
I wanted to thank you for offering to nominate me for an RfA. I'm extremely flattered and your confidence in me means a tremendous amount. It's reassuring that my work's appreciated, particularly given some negative interactions I've had on Wikipedia lately. Unfortunately, I'm afraid I must decline at this time. Thank you again for the confidence and I intend to keep contributing. Shadowjams (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Proxy Networks, Inc.
On March 24th you tagged Proxy Networks, Inc. with cleanup, intro missing and primary sources. I have made an attempt at these edits and was hoping you could take a look to see if it is alright to remove the tags now. Thanks. MrWaltham (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't see any reason why these tags should be kept. All that's left to remember is to put the dates up on some of the published sources. I'll do that in a moment. I've done it for you. Minima  c  ( talk ) 04:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your help! I really appreciate it.  Is there anything that still needs to be done such that the references tag can be removed? MrWaltham (talk) 14:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops! That was a mistake. I left it up by accident. OK, I removed it now. Minima  c  ( talk ) 14:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! MrWaltham (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Choc


Reconsider the static has given you a Hershey Bar! Hershey bars promote WikiLove through chololately goodness and hopefully this one has made your day better. Hershey bars are wonderfully delicious! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Hershey bar, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of Hershey bars by adding {{subst:Hershey Bar}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

. Seen you around on RC patrol. - Reconsider !  11:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Ocean Victory
Thanks for sorting the ref issue out. Couldn't work out what I was doing wrong. Mjroots (talk) 08:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

support for moderation
Hi Minimac, I request your help, can you moderate Bugzilla & Template:Timeline Mozilla Bugzilla? Thanks. (Rbuj (talk) 08:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)).
 * I'm sorry, but I don't know what to do here. Please may you tell me what the problem is in further detail? Is it just because the article is disputed (as I saw in the history box, seems like a war over two editors, with yours included in the war and I may request full protection soon if this carries on) or is it something else?
 * Thanks, changes on article are under voting. I will respect the result, but one editor imposes their criteria ignoring the voting process. (Rbuj (talk) 12:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)).
 * I made a vote on the WP:Templates for discussion stating why the dispute about the template is carrying on. I hope my vote helps you understand what's going on. Minima  c  ( talk ) 12:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I don't understand when you says "If the source is covered" on WP:Templates for discussion. I have added a reference to data source.--Rbuj (talk) 13:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I didn't word it properly. I was meant to say that if there is a significantly covered source related to the template used in the article then I would change my TFD vote. But anyway, good job adding the source. I hope that will prevent anything from being challenged by any other editor. Minima  c  ( talk ) 15:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I understand you. The few users that make graphical timelines put them in templates to encourage people to do more, encouraging to other wikis (languages) to use the current graphics (very few), by this way we can improve them together. "Category:Computing graphical timeline templates". Make a timeline graph is not an easy task. Also we can maintain the few graphical timelines, for all languages (wikis). (Rbuj (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)).

Bugzilla
I have added a comment to specifically that the data is not the question, it's whether the data should be in a template or not. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

RfA
Thank you very much for your contribution to my Rfa. I have made a comment about it at User talk:JamesBWatson which you are, of course, very welcome to read if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Isner/Mahut
Nice edit there. I was working on that article, and about to remove the nonsense about the Queen's visit. Then suddenly, it was gone!Mk5384 (talk) 07:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoa Nellie Deli
Thank you for recognizing that this article complies with Wikipedia standards and declining the request for speedy deletion. I responded in greater detail on my talk page and that of the user who made the proposal. Cullen328 (talk) 15:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Very many thanks for the barnstar Dormskirk (talk) 10:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

 * About a week late, I'm afraid. :) It closed on the 28th, but due to some very capable clerking at CCI, I didn't notice! Thank you for pitching in to help out with our sad backlog...and recruiting assistance no less! :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Veronicas Editations
Hi, Thanks for your edits! I am an employee of the Veronicas, and the information regarding the "early years" is irrelevant to the band being formed which is why we have opted to have it removed. We have included this information on both Lisa Origliasso and Jessica Origliasso 's personal pages so it is still readily available. We will be making sure "the Veronicas" page if formed into and remains a  band page and that the personal pages include all information regarding the younger years and other personal information that is not directly to do with the band. Vdetails (talk) 08:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for Adminship
 Hello , thank you for participating in my recent RFA. I have taken all your comments into consideration and will make sure that I do it right if I plan on doing another RFA. Also, please do have a look at the comments made by other editors and myself, regarding this RFA. Thank you again, and have a nice day! Rehman(+) 02:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Alanngorsuaq
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 06:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Nasty IP edits
Hi Minimac I should have said something at the time. The contributions of 62.48.253.3 were extremely sick but your warning on User talk:62.48.253.3 was a level 1 NPOV warning. It is good that you gave a warning but I just wanted to give you a belated bit of advice that in this case a minimum of a much stronger (level 3) warning was appropriate. Due to the fairly sick nature of the edits I blocked the IP for 3 hours at the time. If this account had been named and not an IP I would have indef blocked as a vandalism only account. If you see this sort of thing again please report to WP:AIV. Polargeo (talk) 10:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Restaurant Notability
*Note: I am sending this to all participants of the Kebab House deletion discussion

Hello,

I recently opened up a policy change proposal regarding the notability requirements for restaurants here and I would like your input, be it in support or opposition. Thank you - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)