User talk:Nouniquenames/Archive 2

Trouted
You have been trouted for:

That's pure hostility. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * In my defense, I targeted that string of articles because of a discussion at AN/I (see specifically Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive768 and note that all of the articles are listed at Special:Contributions/Ojsimpsondidntdoit). I maintain that the articles were in fact no more than a dictionary definition (although you aren't the first to disagree).  Each was essentially one line of text.  The articles did not significantly contribute to Wikipedia, and there was no useful revision to which I could return any of the articles.  -- No  unique  names  04:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Reforming dispute resolution
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Reforming dispute resolution. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Education Working Group/RfC
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Education Working Group/RfC. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 20:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

A page you started has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Copper(I) nitrate, Nouniquenames!

Wikipedia editor Jrcrin001 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"I made a few minor fixes to this article. Please review and expand. See Copper nitrate & Copper(II) nitrate for catagories and formating."

To reply, leave a comment on Jrcrin001's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Speedy deletion nomination of Chrome vanadium
Hello Nouniquenames,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Chrome vanadium for deletion, because it's too short to identify the subject of the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks,  Zappa  O  Mati   18:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
 Zappa  O  Mati   18:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

SPA Tag
Hi! I see that I've been tagged as a single purpose account, a designation I disagree with, and one that's certain to be used by the group of obvious SPA's that's been harassing me. The majority of my edits pertain to the HSUS and CCF because that is my primary area of expertise. When I see issues in other articles, I do what I can to improve them. What can I do to avoid this tag in the future? Thanks for the clarification on inherited notability, by the way. I appreciate the guidance. -- JohnDopp (talk) 03:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I tagged you because most of your edits revolve around articles dealing with animal cruelty. That seems at least tangentially related to the topic at hand.  (I have since modified the note there.)  As you accrue more edits in more areas, you will find others cannot accuse you of being a single-purpose account.  -- No  unique  names  04:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Understandable... Most of my edits are confined to areas where I have significant background, though I'll throw in corrections whenever I stumble across an article in need of improvement. Cooper's was simply an article I saw was in dire need of an overhaul.  But I'll make more of an effort to venture outside my comfort zone in the future.  Thanks! -- JohnDopp (talk) 04:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have a good command of the English language, you may find some benefit with the Guild of Copy Editors. They hold a drive every two months (November is the next, as one just ended) where editors do copyediting in articles that need it.  It gets you out into other articles (and almost always without drama).  That helps you look more well-rounded, and can be interesting.  -- No  unique  names  06:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Aha! Outstanding!  That sounds right up my alley, and I'll check into that this week.  Thanks!  -- JohnDopp (talk) 07:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 15:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Douglas Anthony Cooper
I hope I am doing this correctly -- I don't know what a level-2 heading is! Just wanted to say thank you for the suggestion regarding the information on Milrose Munce in the Douglas Anthony Cooper article. That was a good change, it improved the article. Also thanks for combining the duplicate references; I was in the process of figuring out how to do that, thanks for the help. Much cleaner now. I appreciate it very much. Steep learning curve, but I'm enjoying it! (If I did this message incorrectly, let me know how to fix it and I will.) CandaceWare (talk) 07:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Candace Ware
 * Glad to see that something there helped. Also, I would assume Cooper's article's AfD will soon close, and I project it will be a keep.  As to the heading, just put two equals signs on each side of a title that you give your message. (I've done so here already.)  You can also take a shortcut and just click "New Section" at the top of the page to write a message.  MOS:HEAD shows more in depth information if you're curious.  -- No  unique  names  15:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you also for offering (in the other convo)to assist me with learning more about WP and editing. That is kind of you. Unless someone volunteers who (as you said) is more experienced/less involved, I am fine with that. You are definitely more experienced than I am, and thus there is learning I can do with your help.CandaceWare (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)CandaceWare

Act-On
Thanks. I like your edits. I told them we will need to cut back on the images - it was going to be crowded anyway. Corporate 23:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad to help. A couple of good images within policy would help spruce up the page.  Overall, it looked very good, especially compared to the usual company vanispamcruftisement.  Feel free to ping me anytime you have something that easy up for review.  :)  -- No  unique  names  01:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice - that is my first time being introduced to vanispamcruftisement.
 * I don't have any others that are that easy I'm afraid. I wonder what advice you might have for SAS Institute. Their draft has been on the Talk page since December '11, as a request edit for 3 months and has been reviewed by four editors. When I started helping them about a year ago, I wasn't even as experienced as a Wikipedian as I am today. SAS doesn't seem to be in any rush or anything, but you know... Corporate 13:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Alpha_Quadrant"Very nice work on the draft. I don't see any issues with the content. I think the article relies a little too heavily on first party sources, but other than that, I don't see anything concerning. I agree, it is much more neutral than the current article. Best wishes, (Draft was adjusted based on his feedback RE primary sources)

Charles Edwin Shipp"This is great! Keep up the good work. In the section of "A good place to work" a picture inside the cafeteria or child care facility would be good; pictures add a lot. How about a campus overview photo or a simple map of the campus? (I am working on potentially getting images from SAS per his request)

StatprofI think the article, while factually correct, does have a flavor of being written by SAS itself. It seems to avoid some of the controversy such as the legal skirmishes about knockoffs and does not do much to place SAS within the context of the other earlier competitors such as BMDP, SPSS, etc. It is probably also important to indicate that with only a few exceptions, it has adopted the business model of licensing the software rather than selling it. The shift from being only a mainframe system to a multiplatform system has a lot more complexity including becoming a major vendor of compilers for first PL/I and C. I also think that the early adoption of SAS to use for mainframe computer performance evaluation had a major impact in its adoption by many corporations as the systems programmers also provided good installation support. If folks agree with some or all of the above points, I am glad to do at least some of the work in providing citations for these points. (note: We pointed out some of these topics are covered/discussed in SAS language and SAS (software), but he's certainly ok to make any improvements)

DESiegel:"I don't think that quite constitutes being "vetted by multiple editors with an interest in the subject". This may well be an improvement, but I am not prepared to take responsibility for making the edit on this basis. OTOH, neither will I decline the request, rather I will leave it open. However, if you can have other editors (plural) review and vet this, I would be willign to make the edit." (note: There was some confusion here.)

You weren't kidding. It's sitting in an open tab in my browser for now, but that one will definitely take more time. -- No unique  names  05:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Lol, that'll teach you to ask if I need help :-D
 * One problem with what I'm calling my "permission-based" approach or the very similar WP:BRIGHTLINE is that it puts me in a position of nagging editors to chip in, even for very benign request edits. and editors are more willing to leave comments than take a specific action.
 * Part of my objective with improving the request edit process is to create a more streamlined and effective process, but until more editors besides me manage the queue, I'm stuck begging for attention sort of speak.
 * I think you'll notice the SAS Institute page is also a little polished, but some of the other SAS-related articles will have smudges as appropriate. For example, I think I may suggest we actively solicit a SAS expert to add criticisms we are simply unable to do ourselves when we get to the product page. It also represents my Wikipedia skills a year ago, but I think it should be ok.
 * Anyways, appreciate you taking the time. Corporate 17:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

 * ) Fayedizard (talk) 09:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 09:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Vibeke Stene
Hi there. I'm wondering why you changeed to  with the edit summary "it's most assuredly there". In the source the singer says "The only thing I can say, from the classical theory, is that I'm MezzoSoprano.". The wikipedia article says: "Her vocal range is spinto soprano." A mezzo-soprano is an entirely different voice type and range from spinto soprano and nowhere does the source say that she is a spinto soprano. It's also a misleading and inappropriate way to describe the voices of singers in non-operatic genres, but that's a relatively minor issue compared to the way the source is currently misrepresented in the article. Voceditenore (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * My apologies, I thought I fixed that. Thank you for pointing it out to me.  I fixed it now.  -- No  unique  names  15:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thank you for fixing it. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Synthetic vision system, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gulfstream (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Help talk:Contents
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Help talk:Contents. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 10:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Civility
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Civility. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Another easy one
Do you think these guys meet WP:CORP? I put it together just as a matter of helping a friend, but told her I would let AfC determine if they were worthy. It turns out secondary sources are filled with factual errors, so I had to (painfully) explain "verifiability not truth," and go through the "we're not a reliable source!?" dance, but they understood. Corporate 14:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I wasn't really sure if it would pass muster. Hopefully I'm not pestering you too much. In my attempt to follow WP:BRIGHTLINE, it sort of requires infinite help from reviewers that is very difficult to get. This is a very easy one as well, though I would rather ask for help on the SAS page, because it is so old.
 * I wish I could just use AfC for articles that exist in order to get feedback on re-writes. AfC seems to have a very helpful crowd for COIs. Corporate 16:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, AfC will always be easier than COI. AfC is just evaluating one version of an article (and usually just to see that it's not a blatant policy violation and would pass an AfD).  With a COI rewrite, it's evaluating the new version by itself and then evaluating it against the current version.  The new version can't just be unlikely to be deleted at AfD, it needs to be better than the current version of the article, too.  It is at least 2-3 times the work of an AfC.  Plus, in AfC, I can just do some creative sorting and find things that will usually not pass.  That's far easier than evaluating realistically possible articles. -- No  unique  names  16:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yah, I see your point. COI reviews are sometimes complex, especially if they are trying to adjust POV issues. OTOH most of my contributions are fairly mundane (some are also very controversial). In my opinion, this collaboration can only work with a reasonable degree of trust and honesty. We should be able to have discussions like this:


 * It looks good at a glance. Are there any areas we should pay special attention to, like POV areas or something that is removed? -Noun
 * Most of it is a mundane expansion of the article, but check out how we responded to Sall's earnings and let me know if you think that is kosher. - Corporate
 * I made a few tweaks as I put it in. I see where you're coming from, but it came off defensive and slightly over-emphasized. -Noun 


 * If we operate under an assumption of distrust and that COI contributions must be vetted in extraordinary detail, nothing can get done. OTOH, if we assume they are "trying to do the right thing" as suggested in WP:COI, we can have a healthy collaboration, accepting that it is imperfect, but valuable nonetheless.


 * Can I guarantee that such trust is deserved in every case? Well, I am trying really, really hard, but it will always depend on the client and my charter than will be to be very picky about working with the right clients. Sometimes there may be mistakes in the process and that's ok.


 * Sorry, I have a tenancy to rant. Corporate 17:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for helping. Hopefully I am not complaining, arguing, etc. I appreciate you chipping in so readily and your reviews have been exceptional. I am always really pleased when others improve my work. Corporate 17:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Those request edits for images is such a small thing, but getting those freely licensed, approved and ready to share - it's a process that started in January of this year. Such a tiny thing, but the end to a very long endeavor. ;-)

Some of Cantaloupe's more recent trims are quite good and remind me that I still have work to do to make my COI contributions better. Corporate 23:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually had an edit conflict with you (I think at COIN) responding to 'em. Probably for the best.  I was rather irritated about the removal of an image as non-free when the image was very clearly tagged as acceptable with permission on file.  That was the first thing I observed, and the next was a "one source" tag on an article with quite a few sources.  At that point I assumed the rest of the edits were probably similarly misguided.  I may still mention something of those edits, but it will be toned down a bit since you've found some of the other edits to be of value.  -- No  unique  names  03:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I was uncertain as it wouldn't let me check permission without an OTRS account. I had reasonable doubt, because its a professional stock photo and it appears quite a few photos he shared were removed for non-free use.  I think this matter has been resolved. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the images you're referring to were acceptable non-free use images, but they were for a sandbox and they get removed if they are not used in article-space within a certain time-frame.(copyrights are complicated) However I do need to keep a closer eye on sources in all my works (COI or not), something Cantaloupe is very thorough about. I have also started trying to make an effort to be more clear about my role in the process where I have a COI. Often I merely consult, help them code, etc. - if something slips by me, editors should be able to point it out without assuming it was intentional error made on my part personally.


 * On the other hand Cantaloupe, there are a lot of editors with a COI that could really use your diligence and feedback (provided with civility and AGF of course). Now that your editing behavior and conduct has modified, there are areas that really, really need an editor interested in fact-checking, WP:RS and peacock - areas you seem to be interested in and excel at and areas I have been trying (desperately at times) to recruit interested editors. I would love to show you what I mean if it's an area you're interested in contributing. Corporate 14:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * There are many, many small companies. With that said, something I always ask is that if this is a notable company.


 * Here's something I've composed from various Wiki guidelines and things you and I clash on. Self-promotion and product placement are not routes to qualifying for an encyclopaedia article.
 * A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject/affiliates have actually considered it notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it.


 * Sources used to support a claim of notability include independent, reliable publications in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for the following
 * press releases,self-published materials,any material written by the organization/members,closely related soures,ads/marketing materials by, about, or on behalf of the organization. See WP:ORGDEPTH for greater details.


 * You may want to read a few paragraphs at WP:USERG and WP:SELFSOURCE. With the advent of self-publishing services, getting published through some publishers is as easy as making a website.


 * Editorials and/or op-eds are generally unreliable for facts, unless its about the author him/herself WP:NEWSORG--Cantaloupe2 (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Cantaloupe, you basically have it right, but these policies are often complex, require editorial judgement, involve nuance, etc. For example, I will not delete the history of Coty Inc. even though it's almost completely unsourced, because it's probably accurate and is informative for the reader. On the other hand, I recently worked on an issue regarding a controversy involving dinosaur bones that may have been illegally exported from Mongolia. In this case, we would want very reliable sources, especially because many op-eds and guest posts have published incorrect facts or assumption in order to support their POV and over-simplified the facts in the process. On the other hand, I have also seen a controversy recently where blogs/guest reporting were some of the best, most-in-depth reporting done on the subject and were the best possible sources for respective POVs.


 * If you take a look at my work on Credit Suisse, huge swaths of their early history are based on a book they published. Since most of their early history is not in English sources and this is probably the single best source of information, I use it, but not without some hesitation.


 * Think of WP:RS as a sliding bar that depends on each situation. The question is "do I trust that this is true?" And take a moment before deleting stuff, because often what you delete is something others worked very hard on. It's hard to explain without going into off-wiki/real-life stuff, but I have personal knowledge that as a result of your behavior, someone not related to any of these companies became convinced that disclosing your COI and using Talk pages makes us a target. More companies will be astroturfing Wikipedia as a result.


 * Civility is more important than anything, no matter how dumb a COI's question is or problematic their content is. The important part is that they ask. Corporate 17:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Corporate is absolutely right about civility. Let me simplify at least some cases, though. GNG covers many cases in a simple-to-evaluate form. If an article passes WP:GNG and isn't specifically something Wikipedia is NOT, that's all the farther you have to go. CORPDEPTH assists GNG in helping include more with depth of coverage and span of coverage becoming a sliding scale against each other. -- No unique  names  04:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Going back to the original string discussion, I think this might be a good approach I'll use more often in the future. By pulling out areas that need an impartial editor, the review is more practical and less demanding on the reviewer. Of course, this only works for companies that are genuinely good intentioned and isn't scalable for those that want to push the envelope, but it's a good approach in certain scenarios like this one. Corporate 15:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 17:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Obligatory short definition section
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Obligatory short definition section. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject:Articles for Creation October - November 2012 Backlog Elimination Drive
 WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive! The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 22, 2012 – November 21, 2012.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive. There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out! EdwardsBot (talk) 00:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Cantaloupe2
FYI

Since you have already looked into this in a couple areas, it would probably be helpful for you to comment. I'm dialing off now. Corporate 18:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Well... Thanks for the heads up. -- No unique  names  03:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I have responded there. Technically, you probably didn't want COIN.  You aren't really showing a COI.  You are requesting admin action.  You probably want the drama boards (WP:AN or WP:ANI, most likely preference to the first in this case).  Moving it there now will almost assuredly cause someone to accuse you of forum shopping.  If you do, you must notify Cantaloupe2 as soon as you post there.  It would be very highly advisable to link to the COIN thread (where the discussion is now), and mention that you started there.  You could mention that you were advised that WP:AN is a more appropriate venue based on your intended outcome (feel free to link to this diff of my talk page, although I alluded to that at COIN, too).  You should probably notify anyone else who participates in the COIN thread, and you could post a link there.
 * If you do go to AN, be brief. State the problem succinctly and the result you want.  Provide diffs, and make sure they support what you say they support.  -- No  unique  names  04:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Meh, that was probably a better place, since I am requesting a specific admin action, but I'll just avoid the forum shopping. An IBAN seems like a pretty obvious outcome. I presume an admin or two watches COIN that are willing to sort it out. But if it gets archived off COIN without resolution, I'll try again at AN. Corporate 17:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and made an AN request but once I heard that IBANs were made by consensus, not by admins, I felt it was unlikely for this to go anywhere. An IBAN seems rather obvious, but getting consensus for anything is never an easy task. Corporate 13:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey he's at it again deleting an image from the NetBase article here. He says the image is promotional. You've said before that images can be promotional. What do you think? Corporate 03:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Its my impression that her/his word isn't judge's order. I took that one off, because I think it adds little value and instills promotional image. By the way, why did you do this?


 * Concerning SMS audio, In current product offering, I included the company's own website that includes clothing. You removed it. here
 * I restored it and you did it again claiming it doesn't offer clothes. If the company's own current offering isn't good enough offering of current products, what is? Why did you do this? you did it again
 * Also, concerning Honeywell Turbo Technologies, another author commented that he also agrees its excessively promotional. So I am not the only one who feels that things you write lean toward WP:PROMO Cantaloupe2 (talk) 04:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Cantaloupe, I apologise in advance for the language I'm about to use. I try to be helpful and build the encyclopedia no matter who wants to push a point of view. As a part of this, I have cut away POV issues from requested edits and helped Corporate out, among others. As an editor with no likely ties to the groups for whom he has edited, Corporate (or any other editor, for that matter) is welcome to come here and ask my opinion on anything. I maintain the right to disagree, as well as to decline answering any question or request. I try to keep it a peaceful place here (and occasionally succeed). I try to help anyone with things I find worthwhile and useful. Things that interest me get my attention faster (which is how corporate and I first met here, I helped code a template he suggested). People can also count on me here to say if an idea is full of crap. I try to start out nicely when I do that. It has almost always worked, no matter what editor I've had to politely redirect, and no matter the venue. Thankfully, it's rare that I have to try. Some people (including Corpoarte) may seek my input for a variety of reasons, including:
 * I generally don't give a fuck
 * I'm well aware (and you will hopefully learn) that it's not the end of the world
 * Not everything has to be perfect now
 * I try to only be a dick on specific days (it's a fun guessing game, at least for me)

My word isn't a judge's order. I'm just another editor. Corporate knows I'll give him an unbiased opinion. Also, he knows that I've a decent grasp of the goings-on at the drama boards and the alphabet soup of policies, procedures, guidelines, and essays. I can usually at least point him in the right direction.

As to you, Cantaloupe: I've yet to run across any editor quite like you. I suggested to another editor that he did something in a less-than-ideal way, and you incorrectly characterized it in an attack at COIN. I suggested an IBAN to limit your destructive tendencies and you siad you'd be ok with staying off his talk page. That wasn't the issue at all. You compiled a list of diffs, but they didn't show what you claimed. I refuted you point-by-point at COIN and you didn't even attempt to reestablish your claims. You just moved on and tried a different tactic, as if you knew the diffs didn't support you but you hoped no one would notice. I have not observed a single editor genuinely support your positions in the battle you wage. You could become a well respected editor with many valuable contributions, including fixing spam, advertisements, fancruft, vanity pages, POV issues, and COI problems. You could also continue on the course you've started and end up getting dragged through all the drama boards. That's an unpleasant road for everyone. Often as not, it ends in blocks. It's not that every edit you've done is terrible, its that some have been terrible and you need to work on yor civility. Between the two, your good edits become marginalized. It's your doing, and completely controllable by you. I'd suggest, as an editor, you ponder that. -- No unique  names  05:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Noun. I know you felt some of the placeholder images for another article were promotional, so I didn't want to keep reverting if I was wrong. Corporate 12:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

NetBase image
I never claimed it has anything to do with licensing, therefore I don't understand why you and Corporate Minion are bringing up "properly licensed". I took it off, because I don't find that it adds value to information about the company. It only show cases the product and adds a promotional touch to the article, in my view. What's your rationale for adding "do not remove"? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 05:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:2012 main page redesign proposal/Straw Poll October 2012
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:2012 main page redesign proposal/Straw Poll October 2012. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for pestering
but just a heads up the John Sall request edit was modified as per your request, if you get a chance to look again. I've been bugging you for too much and will try to dial down ;-) Corporate 13:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not an issue. I mostly implemented the new version.  My explanation is there.  Easy ones like that are never an issue as long as I have a few minutes.  -- No  unique  names  17:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Corporate 19:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey random question. Do you think it's appropriate for a COI to use the RFC system to get feedback on their work, instead of or in addition to using Request Edit? Corporate 14:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I would use it sparingly. I've observed it in requests for protected pages where there was an indication that one editor wanted something included, but another editor did not.  If there is question of consensus, it would make sense.  Possibly if something is put in through a RE and then gets reverted back out.  Just my $.02  -- No  unique  names  15:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Got it - it sounds like it's more for settling disputes than just asking for feedback, which would be more of my approach. Corporate 14:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey Noun. What do you think about the following. I'm working on the PRSA article (a messy work in progress right now) and apparently they did a study in 2011 that showed "only 40 percent" of MBA hires were "extremely strong" at responding to a crisis. I'm scratching my head - 40 percent is actually quite good. I mean, how many people are good at responding to a crisis? And if another 40 percent were "strong" (as oppose to "very strong") that's 80% that perform well! Technically it may be true that "only" 40 percent performed "extremely well" but I feel this is misleading. Am I conducting original research or is it reasonable for me to identify cherry-picking and edit accordingly? Corporate 21:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It would depend both on whether or not the source supported that an additional 40% were "strong" and how you worded it in the end. Dropping the "only" would probably be fine.  -- No  unique  names

Kewlness
I liek ur funny username n stuffs. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 21:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

PROD contested
The PROD you placed on The Meaning of Liff has been contested without any reason given. You may like to take the article to AfD. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Reviewer
Hello, following a review of your contributions, I have enabled reviewer rights on your account. This gives you the ability to: Please remember that this user right:
 * Accept changes on pages undergoing pending changes,
 * Have your changes automatically accepted on pending changes level 2 protected pages, and
 * Administrate article feedback.
 * Can be removed at any time for misuse, and
 * Does not grant you any special status above other editors.
 * You should probably also read WP:PROTECT, since this user privilege deals largely with page protection. As the requirements for this privilege are still in a state of flux, I would encourage you to keep up to date on the WP:REVIEWER page. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions! Happy editing! Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Ian Spencer Bell submission
Dear Nouniquenames,

Thank you for reviewing the page. I added a list of references, as you requested. Do I need to do anything else? I didn't receive a confirmation and I'm concerned that I did not submit the new page properly.

Yours sincerely,

Longshot Longshot Kali (talk) 01:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It is very rare that you should have external links in the article itself. I would recommend removing them.  Consider using wikilinks for any which have on-wiki articles (like North Carolina School of the Arts).  The personal life section is unreferenced (and osmewhat unencyclopedic) and should probably be removed.  The selected works section seems somewhat long given that none of the works are linked to articles here.  (I did not check to see if we have articles on any of them.  If we do, it would be good to wikilink them).  Hopefully that helps you!  -- No  unique  names  05:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Your request for rollback
Hi Nouniquenames. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Yunshui 雲 ‍ 水  10:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.

Liff
Hallo Nouniquenames, sorry for snarky comment about Liff, and thanks for your prompt and polite decision. I did the AGF challenge, BTW. . Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. There was a lot I seem to have missed in nominating it.  -- No  unique  names  17:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 21:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:2012 main page redesign proposal
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:2012 main page redesign proposal. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Request
Do you mind chiming in here? Smart doesn't know the history, so he may naturally assume the COI editor is in the wrong (I would) and it would be helpful to get context from someone else. Corporate 00:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I have requested an interaction ban with User: Cantaloupe2 (again). I believe you may have some context on our interaction and would appreciate your vote or comment here. Corporate 01:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey, am I off here? I have never done any kind of dispute resolution before, but we have already done NPOV, COIN, AN, and AN/EW. I read that RFC-U does not do any kind of bans and Cant has already turned down invitations for DR or a voluntary IBAN. I suspect this will get archived off the board soon without any definitive action.


 * I expect the problem to continue and don't see any reason to wait until I myself degrade to swearing at him. A request for arbitration seems like the only place to escalate it to that can secure an involuntary IBAN. It seems very extreme for what should be a routine process to shake stalkers. Is there any other way for me to get an IBAN? From what I'm reading there are no other venues. Corporate 23:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think another round at either AN or ANI would be best. Let the WP:ANEW issue resolve or die off first, lest it appear you are trying to retaliate for that.  Link to the previous discussions, but not everyone will read them, so briefly cover the history in summary.  Recent (albeit failed) example to learn from archived here.  It looks better to exhaust all avenues, and ArbCom is currently a bit busy, it seems.  -- No  unique  names  01:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. By letting it settle, you mean just wait for it to archive? or until next time there's an issue? BTW - at this point I don't think I could respond to his latest comment on CrashPlan with civility. I have a hard time believing he doesn't know better. Corporate 01:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Let it archive. -- No  unique  names  02:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, you may want to go for an RFC/U if this continues. It's not likely to do anything, but it may.  It also shows that you are trying everything you can, which looks good if it comes down to AN or ANI again (or ArbCom, if everything falls apart).  Just don't approach it looking like it's just another checklist item before he is sanctioned.  Also, read carefully what is involved to make sure you do it correctly.  -- No  unique  names  16:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

From the failed IBAN request: "I've rarely seen interaction bans have productive results – I'd suggest everyone involved just grow up a little." I suppose I can expect the same. So I'll wait until it archives, then repost on ANI and be prepared to escalate to an arbitration request. It looks like he's had similar behavior with other editors as well and I don't expect his behavior to ever change. Corporate 02:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've proposed a closure of the edit warring complaint at WP:AN3. Your comment would be welcome. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. I commented there.  -- No  unique  names  16:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I am sort of arguing for an immediate IBAN, rather than just a warning. I think we will otherwise end up in the same place again. Anyways, I am off to editing elsewhere - need to get my mind off of it. Corporate 17:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Langford Peel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gunman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Ames True Temper, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!  DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 22:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 23:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Mansfield, Indiana
Hello, just letting you know I removed the prod from the above article as locations such as villages are generally considered notable.

Thank you. Rotten regard      Softnow  20:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up -- No  unique  names  05:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving



 * And the same to you! -- No  unique  names  05:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microformats
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microformats. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 00:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox model
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox model. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

9ff
Hello, I noticed you proposed the above article for deletion but you haven't given a reason why. Could you please amend your prod and give a reason why you believe it should be deleted. Thank you. Rotten regard (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Version
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Version. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Articles for creation needs YOUR help!
Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation at 22:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC). If you do not wish to receive anymore messages from this WikiProject, please remove your username from this page.

Prod of 0verflow
Hi. I contested your PROD on 0verflow because I was able to find sources that appear to evidence the brand's notability, and I expanded the article with the sources I found. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Good. I may pare back some of the unsourced content, but it looks much better now.  Thanks!  -- No  unique  names  14:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Deleted wikiproject nortel
Ottawahitech (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Responded at your talk. -- No  unique  names  16:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Caesarean section
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Caesarean section. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 01:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Micah Baldwin is back
The article you nominated for deletion a couple months ago is back. (It was created originally by User:Fountainflower and another blocked user who I can't remember.) The recent version was created in a single edit by User:Rudeerthanyou (51 edits) and marked as "Reviewed" less than a minute later by User:Noiratsi (197 edits). Rudeerthanyou has also been active on Graphic.ly where they (along with blocked User:Denimd) basically rewrote the entire article. Something very hinky is going on, and I'm not sure what to do... I'm considering raising this at ANI or SPI. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I started a thread at AN/I. I think the article might be slightly better than the last version, but it still sounds promotional to me. My main issue here is the abuse of the system. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Micah Baldwin
Hello Nouniquenames. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Micah Baldwin, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know! -- No  unique  names  22:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Message from Laura Saviano
Hello Nonuniquenames, I have submitted a page for consideration. To give you some background on the page 'Carol Ross Barney', I've been denied two times AFTER the University of Illinois, of which Carol Ross Barney is an alum, posted her Bio on their web site. Her firm, me, provided the University with the Bio and of course, we used the bio when first trying to create the page. One of the editors deleted it when they saw our Wiki entry.

I'm at a loss as to what is not acceptable in my article? I have presented the facts, as suggested. Can you give me any suggestions? THANKS SO MUCH! Laura Saviano (talk) Laura —Preceding undated comment added 21:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm going based entirely on what you have told me on this since I don't have access to deleted content. Most likely the text of both the biography at the university page  and the article were very similar since you claim authorship of both.  The university page shows a standard copyright notice ("Copyright 1995-2006 The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois").  To use the same text here requires permission (specifically a CC-BY-SA or compatible license granted).  WP:DCP covers how to grant nonexclusive rights to Wikipedia.  "Please be aware that the content you donate is subject to continuous editing by the Wikipedia community."


 * Also, based on what you have said so far, I would suggest that you carefully look over WP:COI concerning conflict of interest (if you haven't already). Going through AfC is a very good step.  You should also be aware that any article should fit the general notability guidelines with good coverage in good sources to avoid being deleted.  Articles on living people also have more strict requirements than most.  -- No  unique  names  00:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikiscanner replacement
Remember a while back we were just sort of chatting about using analytics to detect hidden COIs?

Since I'm waiting for a few GA reviews, I spent some time looking into it. Here's my thinking:


 * 1) Type "WikiProject Companies Articles" on the Export page to get an export list of thousands of company articles (it will list their talk page rather than article-space).
 * 2) Use FoxReplace to replace "Talk:" with a blank and get all the actual articles
 * 3) This will give us an XML file of the edit histories of thousands of company articles, which can be imported into SQL
 * 4) Create a new SQL table for users
 * 5) Use SQL commands to search for indicators of COI in the edits and place the username on the new table each time
 * 6) Use a count feature to count the number of times each user hit one of the COI indicators to tabulate their scores on the likelihood they have a COI

Right now I'm at step 3 with a trial of three company articles with known COI activity - trying to figure out how to get XML imported into SQL. Thoughts? Do you think it would be useful or just witch-hunting? Corporate 13:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Honestly, it looks like a lot of work given the size of the project. It also looks doable, at least on a small scale.  To prevent the witch-hunt mentality, I'd say manual review would always fall in as step 7, and only the most blatant and obvious are called out (templated and later, if needed, taken to COIN).  For the rest, start with attempts to quietly fix issues and see if they get the drift.  -- No  unique  names  16:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The pure volume of data is immense. I wish we could customize the export more so it can be condensed. Corporate 17:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I ran into that issue with CatScan. It seems it simply died at the massive quantity of information I was trying to get it to parse.  -- No  unique  names  17:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * hey, I don't mean to keep asking for favors, but this four-sentence article has been in AfC for almost two weeks (I think they must be really backed up right now) if you care to give your assessment. I think it passes WP:CORP, but I have noted it is a borderline case. Corporate 01:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Muchas Gracias. Nice tweaks. Corporate 03:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It got deleted. I guess I don't blame em. Corporate 13:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem quite correct as a CSD-A7. I'm checking with the deleting admin.  We'll see what happens.  -- No  unique  names  13:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it should probably be AfD. Corporate 14:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey how do I initiate an AfD discussion if it hasn't been restored to article-space? Do I just put an AfD tag on the user-space version? Corporate 16:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OrangeMike got it for me. Corporate 17:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Some day I'll figure out why you wanted an AfD. I just put in for a REFUND.  -- No  unique  names  18:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yah, now it's all confusing. I just thought instead of being speedy deleted, it should have had an AfD discussion. But now people think I wanted it deleted. Ugh. Corporate 15:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Then !vote keep. -- No  unique  names  16:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't normally think it's appropriate for COIs to vote on their own stuff, but I guess that's the best way to clear things up. Corporate 21:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, now it's been AfD from article space: Articles_for_deletion/Rokform. Corporate 16:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Back to the topic
Hmmm.... I'm definitely not going to get far without a ton of technical help. Would you be up for being my partner in crime? It would be quite a project, so no problem if you don't want to make that kind of time commitment. Corporate 13:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll do what I can. (I'm fighting a battle for time against the nasty trio of changed work schedule, intermittent computer problems, and Christmas being imminent.)  Let me know how I can help.  -- No  unique  names  23:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The first thing I'm trying to figure out is if there is a practical way to export the data without getting the huge file sizes from the Export page. Instead of just grabbing 100 copies of the entire article, I'm trying to figure out if there is a way to do a more custom export that's more practical, probably something more user-focused. Corporate 22:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

NAC
Hi there, from my reading of the NAC guidelines, "Clear keep outcomes after a full listing period (stated in the instructions to each XfD, this is usually seven days)", a full listing period is a full listing period. A closure may occur prior to under Speedy Keep or Speedy Delete which specifically excluded WP:SNOW. NAC closure are discouraged for this very reason. Mrfrobinson (talk) 10:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

PROD declined
Hello

I just wanted to let you know that I declined your PROD of Microsoft Lync Server. I see that has third-party coverage and thus I think deleting it requires community consensus. Please feel free to try AFD.

Best regards,Codename Lisa (talk) 08:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Trademark
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Trademark. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 11:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

MFDs
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/AFRICAN ACTION MOVEMENT: most of these could have been tagged as speedy deletions; test pages, nonsense, contact attempts etc. Fie on process. Guy (Help!) 18:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I did CSD some that were worse, perhaps I should have done so with more instead of this bundle.  -- No  unique  names  01:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The flags belong there.
The UFC is a competition between countries. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 09:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it seems to be between individuals. -- No  unique  names  10:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Individuals that represent countries. I am sorry you misunderstood. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 11:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

MMA Event Notability
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:MMA. Kevlar (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 11:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:PROD
Are you aware that WP:PROD is only intended for uncontroversial deletions? That is, articles for which you genuinely believe they will be deleted with a unanimous vote to do so at AfD. PROD is expressly not indented to "sneak past" AfD or save the nominator work on controversial deletions (which with tools like Twinkle is no longer the case anyway, nowadays.) Given the large number of blue links in your PROD log, you should probably reconsider sending most of your nominations straight to AfD. Cheers, —Ruud 12:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Several of those articles were significantly improved after I Prodded them, removing the reason. A few are currently at AfD, and some may require further attention.  Thanks for bringing it up, though.  It's food for thought.  -- No  unique  names  23:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation newsletter
Delivered 01:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC) by EdwardsBot. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter, please remove your name from the spamlist.