User talk:Nancy/Archive 10

RE: Poohsticks
Hi there, seeing as you're a member of WP:THAMES: I've got the Poohsticks article at GAN and I was wondering if you'd be able to give the prose a look over? Otherwise, the article seems to be fine enough for a GA. Cheers. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I had a bash at the lead earlier today. I'll try and find time to look at some of the rest too but I think that the lead was the weakest part. Nancy  talk  18:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Cheers for the tweaks and any further help is much appreciated. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've responded to the tricky 14th/15th question here. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 03:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Whitchurch Bridge editing
Would you be so kind as to suggest how Wikipedia can cover the toll increase application by whitchurch bridge other than the bare fact of the application. I had attempted to write a neutral item on it within the bridge article. You just deleted that (maybe it wasn't balanced enough). I then restored just the link to the information site about the bridge. You deleted that again.

I'm quite happy with the idea that Wikipedia should be objective and from a nutral point of view. At the moment I'm not sure how best to achieve that. Should I continue my efforts? Or do you not want anything of this nature on the site? I've read the items in the advice pages. I'm happy to give writing about the issue in a neutral way a shot - if it isn't going to just get wiped.

For example - the simple link to the site about the toll increases would seem IMHO to be highly relavant to that page. But I'd really really appreciate your advice on this.cic (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I heartily disagree that what you wrote was neutral - it was blatantly anti the increase and the only reference was a primary souce link to the entirely non-neutral anti-toll website. The whole thing just looked like an attempt to publicise the cause through Wikipedia which is why the weblink was removed as linkspam from both Whitchurch Bridge and the other local article you had added it to. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a campaigning platform. An appropriate way to approach this would be to add a brief note along the lines of "...which has met with local opposition" to the end of the sentence about the application to the DoT. Kind regards,  Nancy  talk  09:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I had gathered you had disagreed. I've taken your advice and also added an authoratitive item from a local paper. Hope that is all OK now.cic (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, much more like it - thank you. Nancy  talk  10:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Editing on Eurovision Song Contest article
Hi, you recently sent me a message saying I'd made some unconstructive editing on the Eurovision Song Contest article which had been deleted. I think you sent it to the wrong person because I haven't edited that article. I've visited it several times, but not edited it. The only article I've edited recently was the Andy Todd (footballer born 1974) one and even on that, I only changed a few words to bring it more up to date. Just to let you know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.213.14 (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I'm afraid that your user contribution history tells rather a different story - you do realise that everything you do is logged don't you? Nancy  talk  16:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Chris Beath
Chris Beath is an A League Referee ??? How is he not a significant person??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.217.171 (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Request
Please make editing/cleaning goal of my valid request placed at User:Wikinger such as mainly removal of all bot messages from my protected User talk:Wikinger. Thanks. 87.96.59.135 (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are User:Wikinger you are a indef blocked user and continuing to edit is block evasion. I am going to temporarily block the IP. Nancy  talk  17:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

hello
hello, hows it going? u havent really explained why you deleted my page "Akhilesh Pradhan",any chance you could bring it back? thanks :) Akhilesh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AwesomeAkhilesh (talk • contribs) 17:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I deleted the page but I didn't delete the content - instead I moved it to your userpage which is where I think you meant to create it in the first place. It's fine as a user page but entirely inappropriate as an encyclopaedia article so please don't move it back. Nancy  talk  17:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok yeah thats fine:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AwesomeAkhilesh (talk • contribs) 18:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Sam Baker article deletion
Hi Nancy,

I see that you deleted the article I started on Sam Baker (musician) last night. I looked through Wikipedia's guidelines for deletion and the only one of the four reasons that I see as a possible reason for deletion was the one about non-notability.

In the article I created, I did briefly mention that Sam Baker has been hailed by other notable folk artists such as Gurf Morlix and Fred Eaglesmith. I also had originally put a link to Baker's web site which includes some of the press coverage he's received in North America and Europe (which is supposedly evidence of a musicians' notability according to the guidelines). I later took the link out because the Wikipedia bot found a paragraph-long quote I took from one of the articles as a copyright infringement. So I re-wrote the gist of that paragraph in my own words. My intention was to come back today and flesh out the article some more which is when I found that it had been deleted completely and instead, redirected to some band that Mr. Baker is a part of.

I guess my beef isn't with you specifically but with Wikipedia in general and what it's become. I'm not a huge content-generator on Wikipedia obviously but part of the reason for this is that there seems to be so much focus on deleting or redirecting legitimate articles instead of giving them a bit of time to grow into something of value. Or not erring on the side of inclusiveness in general.

Another example - last year, I made some major changes to an article on a Guinness World Book of Records holding telethon (Telemiracle) in my home province and it was redirected to a single paragraph in the entry for its national parent organization. That one was reverted but again, it was the destroyers instead of the builders having their way which is such an unfortunate way to operate on a web site that offers so much usefulness generally.

I guess my point is that these types of quick actions are frustrating for the casual user of Wikipedia. I don't care about it enough to pursue it but since you, as an administrator, obviously do, perhaps you can pass along these frustrations via whatever appropriate forums their are available to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Headtale (talk • contribs) 22:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Lock pics
Hi Nancy

Whats the point of taking special pics and aligning them to the text of the article if they are going to end up lost in a gallery? Regards Motmit (talk) 13:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Guess you are talking about Boveney. I absolutely know what you mean however they were all being thrown out by the map template thingy on the right hand side which forced three of the four images right down the bottom of the page in a weird jumble - I looked at it in both Firefox and IE at a number of screen sizes. The third one, the one which was in the body text, was again being affected by the template map as at most page sizes the text was being squeezed in to a narrow strip twixt the picture and the template map. I don't always give great creedence to the layout dictates of WP:MOS but when they say that you should not have images opposite each other I think they are right for this very reason. To be honest the root of the problem is with the template map(s), whilst I think they give really useful information they do tend to really mess up the page layouts because they are so long and wide - I think that they would be better if they were horizontal so that they could just take up a strip the full width of the article and not interfere with anything else but I'm not clever enough to work out how to do that! Nancy  talk  13:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Occurrence-in-subtuple problem
Your deletion summary said "Recreation of a page which was deleted per a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occurrence-in-subtuple problem". Your summary failed to state that the addition of the link to the arXiv was insufficient, and that omission on your part is a matter of some concern. Let us recall the reason for deletion: the article was considered "original research", citing no sources outside of Wikipedia. When an article is deleted on those grounds, it is permissible to recreate it with such sources added. So that was done, and then you deleted it on the grounds quoted above. You could have pointed out that the arXiv is only lightly refereed, or something like that, but you didn't. If it had been a fully refereed source, I'd have simply undone your deletion and challenge you to take it back to AfD, on the grounds that it is not recreation of deleted material, even if the article had been verbatim identical but for the addition of the outside source. As it is, I think you should write a polite note to the creator of the article explaining your reservations about using a paper from the arXiv. The question of using the arXiv as a source is the essential issue here. I'm going to raise it at [Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics, with your deletion of this item as an example. Michael Hardy (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I deleted it as a verbatim copy of the deleted article as discussed at WP:AFD. If you disagree that this was valid I have absolutely no issue with you reinstating it. Nancy  talk  14:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Technical Problem
Hey there, I would like to divert your attention to one article "Shahid Masood", this article is not showing some of the sections which are present in the editing tab but not shown in the normal preview of the article. Plz have a look at this article and help correct it if you can. Regards. Burhan Ahmed (talk • contribs) 08:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific about the problem - I just checked the edit view against the article view and everything looked fine to me, nothing missing. Nancy  talk  08:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Poohsticks GAN
Hi Nancy! I was wondering if you could have another look at the Poohsticks GAN again. I'd really value your opinion on its current status, as it has been a while since it has been put on hold. \ / (⁂) 05:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, yes, will hop over there today and take a look. Nancy  talk  08:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your help with the article Nancy. It's much appreciated! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 00:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

hello
hello,

First off thanks for all the work you put in here at wiki, it's awesome

Can you send me the text from the following wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Como_Te_Llamas_Soundsystem

I know it got deleted and I won't add it again, but I would like to have the information be cause I don't have a copy.

If I should contact someone else please advise -paul

Eton in the 40s
Hi Nancy - that was a brilliant find of yours for info and for the way one can turn the pages. Hopefully all on-line books will go that way. I was glad to find a good reference for Firework Ait, which incidentally I didn't identify for real on my way through unless I confused it with another. As for walking in the UK, I thought Ash Island was an odd entry, but you seem to have gone for it wholesale. Regards Motmit (talk) 10:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting the page about me.
I just sent this note to info-en-q@wikimedia.org ________________________________________________________________________________

I am Michael Phillip Wright of Norman, Oklahoma, the home of OU. For years I have been a severe critic of David Boren, the OU president. In retaliation I have been receiving  much harassment and a few threats. I have received hundreds of anonymous hostile internet messages from Boren’s defenders, who are now escalating their tactics.

A lynch mob mentality is developing around the OU campus, with me as the target. A malicious post about me already appears at "JuicyCampus." My name is used in this post, and someone replied with a verbal description of me.

Recently someone submitted a Wikipedia page about me, but it was deleted. I found it at the Deletionpedia archive:

http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Michael_phillip_wright_(deleted_29_Jun_2008_at_08:36)

The submitted page said only this: “interesting fellow from the OU library. Page in progress.”

The message indicates that it will be submitted again.

I was not interviewed for this page. I was not invited to review the submission. I have no relationship to the OU library other than the fact that I am a frequent user, and Boren’s defenders have spotted me there.

I do nothing to call attention to myself on the OU campus. My criticisms of Boren have mostly been on the Internet.

Please delete this page before it can even find its way to Deletionpedia. I would appreciate your sending me a copy of the submitted text.

I have a lawful right to criticize David Boren. Under U.S. civil rights law, it is a crime for two or more people to work together to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in retaliation for the victim having exercized a lawful right. There is also a criminal libel statute in Oklahoma.

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/241fin.php

129.15.105.106 (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Michael Wright
 * Hello Michael. The text of the deleted page was exactly as you saw on Deletionpedia. I have also checked that there has not been a subsequent recreations on Wikipedia since last June and as far as I can see there have not. Kind regards, Nancy  talk  15:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Page Deleted?
Hi Nancy, On the Page Avera Solutions Limited I followed all the guidelines and did infact make use that it had a STUB as per guidelines. Why was it deleted? - and will you please send me a copy of the article. Thank you.

Iceomnia (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It was deleted because it contained nothing but the name of the company, their area of business and a bunch of contact details; in short it looked like a listing in a business directory. It therefore failed several of the criteria for speedy deletion, in particular:
 * A7 - article about a company that does not indicate why the subject is important of significant
 * G11 - advertising
 * A3 - no meaningful substantive content
 * I don't think it is worth supplying you with the deleted content as it is all available on the "Contact details" page of avera.co.uk which I presume is where you got it from in the first place. My advice to you be not to recreate the page as the company does not appear to meet the inclusion requirements laid down in WP:ORG and you will likely only end up disappointed again when it is deleted. Kind regards, Nancy  talk  16:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I also note that you have claimed that you are the CEO of Avera. Whilst it is not explicitly forbidden we do recommend that people avoid editing about subjects they have a personal connection with as we recognise that closeness to a subject may make it very difficult to be neutral. If you company is genuinely notable then likely an independent editor will be along soon enough to create an article about it. Nancy  talk  16:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for your help. Iceomnia (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Plz re-check deletion of Miss Pooja
Dear Nancy,

Thanks for your time to have a look at article Miss Pooja and deleting it.

I understand you have short time, but i request you to atleast read talk page of this article. and restore it, if you found it fit for wikipedia.

Don't just delete the article, because it was deleted as per previous discussions.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quality check (talk • contribs) 18:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There wouldn't be much point in going through the palava of a deletion debate if an article could just be recreated again regardless of the outcome. This is why we have a rule which says that if an article which was previously deleted by a deletion discussion is recreated then it qualifies for speedy deletion. The best way for you to approach this is to create a draft of a new article in your user-space, make sure it addresses all the concerns that caused it to be deleted originally i.e. you will need to provide multiple independent, reliable sources to demonstrate notability. When you have done this you should seek the opinion of an established, editor, say from Wikiproject Musicians - doesn't have to be an admin - as to whether it is suitable to move to mainspace. Kind regards, Nancy  talk  18:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Peter James Douglas Sefton Scott
Many thanks for deleting this as requested. Springnuts (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Melville jacoby
This article has been created for the 3rd time today seen as you deleyed it twice I thought I would inform you and maybe you can block its recreation thanks. BigDunc Talk 22:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The Planets - Motorstorm
Hi Nancy,

I understand why you deleted the Planets page, probably because of Notability guidelines - I believe the standard is two major works.

I would certainly count the inclusion on the sequel to the best selling PS3 game ever as one. However, you are rather stifling our ability to achieve number 2 with this deletion. As we now have an EP out through all major digital channels (and it appears to be selling pretty well) and have gained some national press and radio, we would appreciate being up there attached to the Motorstorm page.

You can probably understand that being called The Planets is not the smartest career move, but that's the way it is, we can't change our name now (we have a pretty big fanbase) and now we have an international audience we'd like people to be able to find our stuff, it doesn't bode too well when they get a dead link from the Motorstorm page......

Also, what is fancruft?

Any input appreciated.

Thanks

Rich —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.3.99.121 (talk) 16:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

La glennview
please do not delete my articles. it's disrespectful andcomplete rude considering i edited the page for about 10 seconds and didn't get the chance to change it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aa110537 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It was not your article. It was a cut and paste of Elaine Paige and so was a) someone else's work, b) a copyright violation and c) completely pointless. If you want to contribute constructively then that is fine, otherwise please go and find somewhere else to tinker or risk finding yourself blocked from editing. Nancy  talk  18:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Deletion of "Hungry crotch" Wikiarticle
Dear Nancy,

This is the author/contributor of the "Hungry crotch" Wikiarticle written and deleted earlier today. Hopefully there is an archive of the talk page for this article, containing my defense. May I please have a copy of. my talk entry for this page? I look forward to your timely response.

Thank you,

Raymond —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reader28 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As requested, here is the "defence" you left on the talk page in response to the speedy deletion tag left by another editor:
 * ''I believe this use should not only remain on Wikipedia, it should be recognized at the more suitable definition to the term. I have provided other uses for the term in my subheading "Misconceptions," where other uses have inaccurately described the occurrence.
 * I ask you to consider the words "hunger." Hunger is defined by the feeling one has in anticipation of ingesting food or to express the desire to eat something.  The only way to alleviate such a desire would be to actually feed.  The other (incorrect) uses of the term, as mentioned in subheading "Misconceptions," to describe a gathering of pants at the crotch area--as if  the crotch were stuffed.  To simply stuff a mouth does not sate hunger; nor would stuffing one's mouth yield tearing or chewing marks.  So, a gathering of such material in the crotch area without the actual appearance'' of the crotch of the pants having been eaten cannot be considered the result of a hungry crotch.
 * I have also made sure to diminish any confusion of Hungry Crotch and Cameltoe (whose Wikipedia definition I have referenced). Neither a gathering at the crotch or Cameltoe necessarily result in a tearing and eroding of pant fabric at or by the crotch, they cannot be referred to as Hungry Crotch.  My definition provides a more accurate definition to this specific'' occurrence.
 * ''A hungry crotch is explained in depth in the Wikipedia page I proposed for publishing. Equally, "Cameltoe" is described as specific to that area of the female body and the females clothing.  "Muffin top" is also described specifically to the area of the body and one's clothing.  "Hungry Crotch," like "Cameltoe" and "Muffin top" specifically describe that area of the body--the crotch--and it's relation to the clothing covering that area--the ravages of metaphoric hunger at that area of the body.
 * ''"Cameltoe" and "Muffin top" are neologisms themselves. To their credit, they made it into the vernacular.  There is no reason to dismiss "Hungry Crotch" as a neologism, when the aforementioned terms share the similar etymology.
 * "You suggested in your prompt that I perhaps categorize my page as a nonsense page. If that is the case, any other colloquialisms in Wikipedia should be considered as such nonsense in fairness. In any case, in compromise, I will agree to that to keep this page up.  'Hungry crotch' and the specific description should be kept up to permeate a greater, more in-depth understanding of this term and to dismiss the misconceptions."
 * Kind regards, Nancy  talk  11:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD speedy close please
Please speedy close Articles for deletion/Every Young Man's Battle as keep. (I was nominator). No point wasting anyone else's time on the AfD - it's been well verified now, which is a good result. --Dweller (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem - done. :)  Nancy  talk  17:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Page Deleted: University of Limerick Computer Society
Hi,

The University of Limerick Computer Society article has been removed, again. Once more it has been removed on notability grounds. I'm trying to find out what more is needed for the Society to be recognised as notable.

Today there was a Boing Boing article written by Mitch Altman on his recent trip to Limerick and his talk here (source). Mitch is an honorary member of the society.

We ran an IT conference last year (SkyCon) which attracted interest from O'Reilly Media (source), Red Hat Magazine (source) and LugRadio (source). The following also blogged about it: Jono Bacon (source), Martin Krafft (source) and Stuart Langridge (source). Speakers included those from Microsoft, Sun Microsystems, Oracle, Digital Rights Ireland, HEAnet, Debian and Ubuntu.

One of our members (Mel Gorman) was written up on Slashdot twice (Slashdot 1) (Slashdot 2) after he published a book on Linux Virtual Memory Management (available for free on our servers here) (mirrored on kernel.org) (available to buy from Amazon), the book has been cited by at least 73 other publications.

Alan Cox is another honorary member of the society and has lectured us several times. Alans article here on Wikipedia uses a talk we recorded and distribute as an external link. The Free Software Foundation Europe transcribed part of that talk here.

Another member (Martin Gallwey) received a write up in The Register (source) after our servers were shut down as a result of a threat from an Irish Bank.

Current members of the society are also current employees of Google, HEAnet, Activision, MTV, IBM, Intel, Ericsson, Analog Devices, Symbian, Algorithmics Inc. &c. I can dig up references if you like.

So, if this doesn't deem the society as noteworthy, what will?

tyrion (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The reason that the article keeps being removed is that a deletion discussion decided that the club did not meet our notability guidelines & as the recreated articles have been substantially the same as the original they can be deleted on sight. For the article to remain it needs to address the issues for which it was deleted - best place to start would be to look at the notability guidelines for organisations. I've read through what you have said and the main problem that I can see is that Wikipedia's key measure of notability is that the club should have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Much of what you mention above is either not from a reliable source and/or is about members of the club not the club itself. To be honest it is exceedingly rare that a student club would meet the notability guidelines - it would need to be something of the order of The Oxford Union - so you should not feel too disheartened. Kind regards, Nancy  talk  16:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

notability: Unassociated Writers Conference and Dance Party
Hi Nancy,

Thanks for reviewing this page. I've just started authoring content for Wikipedia and I'm learning the ropes.

I have includes sources for the entry including an article in The Oregonian, The Stranger, Powell's World of Books Blog, Jeff VanderMeer's Blog, and Seed Cake.

Please let me know else I can do clarify the noteability of the event.

-- E.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddorn (talk • contribs) 02:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ed, Wikipedia notability is defined as being the subject of significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent secondary sources. Blogs and other self-published material are not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia. Nancy  talk  20:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Nancy. I was aware of this. The Oregonian and The Stranger are both major media sources that employ fact checkers, have paid editorial staff, and paid contributors. The notability guidelines mention that blogs and even self-published material can server as a source in the article when supported by coverage in recognized sources. -- ED —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddorn (talk • contribs) 06:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Mike McGlone
Nancy,

I was looking up information related to the film, the Brothers McMullen, and was very curious about who played the youngest brother. The wiki entry on the film gives the name Mike McGlone. When I went to his entry, I noticed you deleted it. I then went to McGlone's IMDB entry, http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0569458/bio, and noticed that he has a number of achievements worth listing.

I have no dog in this fight. I'm not a particular fan of his, just somebody curious enough about this actor who wanted to know a little more about him. Is there any way to merely reinstate what was there previously?

71.255.161.117 (talk) 14:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC) Seth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.161.117 (talk) 14:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi there Seth, the article as deleted on 10th May 2008 was a single sentence as follows:
 * "Mike McGlone (born 10 August, 1972) in White Plains, New York USA is an American actor."
 * You are absolutely free to create a new Mike McGlone article but it will need to have slightly more content than the last one if it is to survive! Also be aware that IMDB is not considered a reliable source so you will need to dig out some other references to make sure he passes WP:BIO. Best of luck, Nancy  talk  16:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me
You deleted the slightly damned page because it was marked for speedy deletion, i contested that deletion by using the hangon note, you deleted the page BEFORE i post my reasoning..you actually deleted it 2 minutes before i posted my reasoning.

The way it seemed to me was that slightly damned was notable and user ThuranX keept deleting information from the page, i kept restoring it and altering it and adding more info since i was not done with the page; he then deleted a lot of relavant information to the article as well as deleting stats that were posted on the page to help prove its relavance then marked it for speedy deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Auronx1000 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

AND now since the artice was deleted the reasoning that was posted on the talk page has disappeared as well... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Auronx1000 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * tag place on article at 08:02 UTC. Article deleted at 08:26 UTC. Nancy  talk  08:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The hangon was placed then i began to write my reason to hang on, page deleted at 08:26, i saved my reasoning at 08:28 You deleted before i was able to formulate my reasoning as to why you should delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auronx1000 (talk • contribs)


 * Not sure what your point is. The page was not deleted until 24 minutes after the hangon was placed. That is about 23 minutes more than many people would have given and as the template itself says, Note that this request is not binding. Nancy  talk  09:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * MY POINT IS that i wrote for 26 minutes straight a reasoning of why not to have the page deleted, only to have it been deleted while i was writing it, plus doesnt it say something about only if it unquestionably does not fulfill the criteria. It didn't fulfill the criteria because ThuranX had been deleteing information relavnt to its notability before it was marked for speedy deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auronx1000 (talk • contribs)
 * No need to SHOUT. My point is that I did not have my crystal ball with me this morning, not that it would have made any difference to the decision. Nancy  talk  09:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but i dont think that you understand anything of what im trying to say, could you refer me to another administrator to whom i could plead my case and receive helpful comments from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Auronx1000 (talk • contribs) 09:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand perfectly. May I suggest that rather than carry on this tortuous and exhausting dialogue with someone else that you direct your energies in to creating a replacement article. If you do this in your userspace - for example at User:Auronx1000/Sandbox - then it will be safe from deletion until your have finished it; you can then move it in to mainspace as a finished article. I would be happy to review it for you first if you should like. You will need to ensure that it is properly referenced to third party sources which are unconencted with the strip (or its hosting). You may also like to cast your eye over Articles for deletion/Slightly Damned and check that the reasons for which the community removed it last time have been addressed otherwise it may be removed on sight as a recreation of deleted material.  Nancy  talk  09:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, i will continue to work on the article in my sandbox until it is truly finished and with the proper refrences, then show it to you. Also, how would i get to my sandbox other then the link you posted or by typing in the web-address —Preceding unsigned comment added by Auronx1000 (talk • contribs) 10:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied Nancy  talk  10:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

hello
what do you mean about the page i made about izzy? she is my favorite singer... If you want a review I saved that as my page at user:rajalberini. RSVP ASAP...

Never mind I realized i forgot about the rules... tsk2x... never mind...

rajalberini (talk) 08:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Nancy's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk  • 01:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Ageless Fantasy
Nancy.

You deleted my Ageless Fantasy article today. I take issue with that for several reasons.

1. The article does not promote Ageless Fantasy. It's purely informative in nature. In fact, I based my article on an existing Old Spice article and an existing Chanel No. 5 article. Neither of those have been deleted as blatant advertisements.

2. All the wording is neutral in nature and none of it is in any way biased towards Ageless Fantasy. It is all unbiased and "encyclopedic."

3. I posted reasons for my contention that this article should not receive speedy deletion and received no contact in rebuttal of my posting. My expectation is that if my argument for non-deletion cannot be refuted, there are no grounds for deleting it.

I would like to know what differences you see between the Ageless Fantasy article and the Chanel No. 5 article and Old Spice articles I mentioned in the talk regarding the Ageless Fantasy article and it's speedy deletion status.

The concept of a perfume using aromas in this way is fascinating, and I think it has every right to be a part of the wikipedia.

Thanks.

Jraugustine (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * To address your points in order.
 * I have re-read the Agless Fantasy article and I'm afraid I have to take issue with your assertion. The language, pharasing and content read more like a press release than an encyclopaedic article.
 * Ditto
 * Posting a "hang-on" does not automatically stop a deletion. Nor is there any obligation to enter enter in to a dialogue. As the template itself says: Note that this request is not binding, and the page may still be deleted if the page unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if the given explanation is unacceptable.
 * I have not read the other articles you mention, the problems which they may or may not exhibit have no bearing on this discussion. I also note that you appear to be rather closely connected with the product - indeed you actually wrote the white paper that much of the article is based on. Whilst it is not expressly forbidden we very strongly discourage people writing articles on subjects which they are closely associated with as we recognise that this can make it very difficult to be neutral and objective (which may explain why you are having difficulty seeing the promotional tone which is apparent to others). A general rule of thumb is that if a subject is notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry then likely someone uninvolved will be along soon enough to create one. Kind regards, Nancy  talk  17:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have to ask - are you being paid to put the AF article on Wikipedia either directly or as part of a SEO program? Nancy  talk  17:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Nancy.

First, I want to answer the most critical issue in your response. No, I'm not being paid to write this article. In fact, I wasn't even paid by Harvey Prince to compile the white paper. I was actually commissioned by the researchers to compile their data into a white paper. That's how I found out about the concept of the psychology of scent.

I simply wrote this article because I thought it was a fascinating idea. I also noticed Avery Gilbert's entry in wikipedia is a stub and I'd like to develop that as well.

I think it would be most clear to say I'm interested in the concept and not the product itself.

So, I guess I'll re-work the copy so it sounds less like a press release. Can you help me understand what phrases, paragraphs, structure, etc. is more press release style than encyclopedic style? I've been on wikipedia so I've found stuff about how to write in a neutral tone, but nothing about the difference between press release and encyclopedia.

At any rate, any help would be appreciated.

I'll compare some press releases to wikipedia articles and have a go at reworking the copy.

Thanks for your help and have a great holiday.

Jraugustine (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

VicoMaster
Hi, Good effort on such a quick block - I am sure you are right about this being a vandalism only account. Springnuts (talk) 09:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

smoketown six
Hi,

I see that you've deleted the "Smoketown Six" page. I would very much like to read it. Could you send me a copy if you've kept one, or tell me how else I may access it?

Many thanks

Francesca Gee email: frg11@columbia.edu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.253.174.198 (talk) 16:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Best thing would be to check out the following web page which covers the incident in more detail than the deleted article - http://www.aclu.org//freespeech/protest/11525prs20041014.html Cheers, Nancy  talk  16:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Nancy...
I checked User talk:VicoMaster daily since I left a message there. Now, the user has replied and requested to be unblocked. As you are the blocking admin, I'd like to notify you about this. Thanks. --Mark Chung (talk) 08:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mark. I'll go see what s/he has to say. Nancy  talk  09:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * User talk:VicoMaster's back again. User talk:VicoMaster requested for unblock again, and cleverly answered my question. That "kid"... --Mark Chung (talk) 09:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you please change the block settings for that user and set it for "cannot edit own talk page" and unprotect the user's talkpage? -- IRP ☎ 20:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've unprotected the page but the block has expired (24hrs set on the 15th December) so have left that unchanged although the user has not edited since then so I expect we've seen the last of him/her. Nancy  talk  21:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * After reviewing the contributions of that user, I noticed that the account was used only for vandalism. After that, the user inappropriately used the unblock template. I am requesting that you block the user and set the block for "indefinite" and "cannot edit own talk page". -- IRP ☎ 00:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding the unsigned there. I admit I must have forgotten to check the block duration when setting that protection, I think I assumed from the contribs that it was indef.--Jac16888 (talk) 00:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, please indefinitely block the user. There is a block setting that you can use to prevent users from editing their own user talkpages without protecting them. I've added the userpage to ahead of time. -- IRP ☎ 00:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am aware of that block option, and ✅--Jac16888 (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Jac16888, you don't have to tag articles for speedy deletion, as you did to the page: Norma Bessouet. You can just delete it because you're an administrator. -- IRP ☎ 01:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I know, but I generally prefer not to. Its generally a rule of mine not to delete pages as I find although I don't stick to it hard and fast, it would be stupid to do so. Its generally because I see the speedy delete process as a two-party system, one to tag, and another to confirm and delete--Jac16888 (talk) 01:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Morning guys - I see you got all this sorted whilst I was peacefully sleeping! I'd be surprised if Fouldsy09 tried to make a comeback, looks like a throwaway account to me, but the indef block won't do any harm. Cheers, Nancy  talk  07:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I did consider that, but figured might as well block it on the off-chance--Jac16888 (talk) 13:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would suggest to keep it blocked. We have to follow the policies and guidelines, so regardless if the user comes back, we still have to keep the account blocked indefinitely in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy. -- IRP ☎ 18:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nancy,

Why u delete article about concern Agrowill Group this is real concern and people find it with wikipedia. References was in this article, all data is from official site. And now in: ŽIA_valda not working links to Agrowill Group