User talk:OliverTwisted/Archive 2

Request for rollback
Hi. From what I have observed in your edit history, you really have good contribs, principally in page patrolling and user warning. However, your vandalism patrolling is low (undo feature is used, I believe, not more than 15 in late November and early December), but you really used the button for vandalism only, which is actually good. I recommend you use the undo feature for the time being, and please come back after a few days. I would really be willing to grant it to you. --Efe (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would love to if you'll provide me with diffs. I am a bit busy now. By the way, Special:RecentChanges is a better place to help with vandals patrolling, but I believe you are aware of that page. --Efe (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. It seems you've been granted with the rollback tool by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. --Efe (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, another editor was kind enough to grant the permission. I appreciate your advice, feedback and time. Best regards. --OliverTwisted (talk) 05:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Welcome. --Efe (talk) 09:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

CSD G4
Hi again. I don't mean to be a pain, but you seem to be willing to take constructive criticism with a good attitude. Please note that CSD G4 (for reposts) is only for articles that have previously been deleted  after debate , such as at articles for deletion, and even then it only applies if the recreated article is substantially similar to the deleted article, failing to remediate the basis under which it was deleted pursuant to the deletion discussion. The crucial part that you apparently missed: it is never applicable to an article that was only previously speedy deleted . Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Got it. I had 2 problems. 1)The Twinkle software does not seem to function properly for me, as some of my edits did not appear with the reason that I intended. 2) I needed a refresher on CSD, which has been provided by many eager editors. I think the problem has been fixed, both technologically and with regards to instruction. Thanks again for your patience. --digitalmischief (talk) 13:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Great!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem
No problem, you can always inform me if someone is vandalizing.--Megaman en m (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

WorldNomads.com
Hi. I wonder if you could provide some feedback and advice. I have added a post for WorldNomads.com, as they are doing some really interesting philanthropic things with the Footprints Network. I'm new to this and are having trouble working out how to format the references properly. I had a lokk at other examples but couldn't quite see how other people are doing it: they all seem to have a single tag and I can't see where the actual list comes from. Also, if you can look again at the WorldNomads.com post and advise how I might improve it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yukif (talk • contribs) 11:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * My best advice would be to spend some time exploring articles that might be similar to your organization, such as: Expedia, etc. If you click on the "edit" tab, when viewing the page, you will be able to view the formatting for references. You can also view the links in your welcome message to explore more about how to insert references and inline citations. You may notice, that even Travelocity and Expedia have been tagged as "advertisements." Websites are difficult to translate into encyclopedic form. You will probably receive several challenges. My best advice would be to devote your initial time to gathering references: sources online and in print, that can be used to establish notability. Also, you might want to continue to search for other Wiki articles similar to your organization, to see how the successful ones are worded. Your first attempt may not survive, but don't give up, "back it up", and try again (after becoming familiar with the welcome page guidelines). Cheers, and when you get some references ready, let me know and I can try to help you. --digitalmischief (talk) 11:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: Welcome
Thank you Digitalmischief for your welcoming message and the valuable advices. Yamanam (talk) 13:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

A gift for you
Please note the small gift in the upper right corner of your talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yay! I love presents! This seems very helpful... is this something that is required, recommended, or given because I made the "naughty" list, instead of the "nice" list? ;o) --digitalmischief (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: FilesDump Speedy Deletion
Hello!

My page was created only for informational purposes and I really tried to make it solely informational. Please, could you tell me the exact reasons or why my page is not acceptable and exact reasons why it is violating Wikipedia terms?

I would really appreciate your help!

Thank you in advance! Looking forward to your reply

Salvadorlee (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC) login: Salvadorlee


 * Hi, and thanks again for contributing to Wikipedia. It's unfortunate that your first article was rejected; however it appears as if the website does not meet the requirements for notability. If you believe this is an error, it would be in your best interest to gather third party, objective sources for the information. You will need references to cite, from reputable articles, journals or online sources. The first attempt seemed to be more like information for a web directory, rather than an encyclopedia. You might want to search on Wikipedia for articles on other websites you are familiar with, to see how they are constructed. I can't really be too much more specific, because there was not enough information on the deleted article for me to assist you with finding sources. My favorite advice for new editors is to "not give up, just back it up." Cheers. --digitalmischief (talk) 01:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

ShockHound
Unlike the websites you named, this is a new site and not yet notable. It doesn't matter who owns it; notability is not contagious, nor hereditable. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  05:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a guideline, not a rule and the key words are "doesn't guarantee", not "automatically disqualify." I appreciate you using valid information to back up your position. However it still doesn't qualify as a CSD, it would be an AFD. Please allow me to finish listing the references and make a solid case for notability. Thanks again for your time. --digitalmischief (talk) 05:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Solomon Male
I removed the speedy deletion tag from Solomon Male. He is notable per WP:BIO as the subject of multiple published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Please take another look and tell me whether you agree. I have no connection with the man, but read about him in the FT magazine, and easily found other articles online which seemed to me to have content of encyclopedic value. - Fayenatic (talk) 09:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I caught you mid-edit. I've removed the CSD and replaced it with a tag. Thanks for the quick catch. Cheers. --digitalmischief (talk) 09:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks, but underconstruction? I thought I had composed quite a good finished product, and was not proposing to add any more for the time being. - Fayenatic (talk) 09:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You are off to a good start, but a completed article will look more like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones . I'd recommend leaving the tag until the article has been formatted properly. --digitalmischief (talk) 09:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Cheers. I agree that biographical info is needed, and hinted at this with the category about date of birth missing. Perhaps expand would be better? - Fayenatic (talk) 09:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course you can use whatever you feel is most appropriate for your article. I was only trying to save it from being deleted. I hope I didn't give the impression that you needed my permission. Happy Holidays. --digitalmischief (talk) 09:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
You're right, I needed it. :) NawlinWiki (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Double thanks
Double thanks for being so kind - particularly nice to get a barnstar today (it's my birthday). (Have responded at my talk page also). -- VS talk 05:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Dent May
Hello. My knowledge of Wikipedia's workings is very limited. I take it you've recommended that the Dent May article I just created be deleted, on the grounds that the subject is not significant (something like that). I don't know the mechanics of responding to such a recommendation. I don't know, for example, what an administrator is — and I'm afraid I can't be bothered to find out.

I saw a music video by Mr. May on YouTube. It was good — and obviously professional. A Google search brought me to his MySpace page, where there seemed to be quotations from reviews his band has received. If you think this is a good reason to let the page stay in place, please let it stay. If you don't, just get rid of it. In either case, please don't explain your decision on my talk page. I won't have any idea what you're talking about.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 06:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, and thanks for taking the time to respond. I'm not sure quite how to respond to your comment. The phrase "I can't be bothered to find out" doesn't bode well for communication. You have been a member since June of last year, which seems to be plenty of time to explore the WP:STYLE and the WP:MUSIC guidelines, especially since you seem fond of contributing. If after reading these guidelines, at least on a cursory basis, you still have questions, I'd be happy to try to help then. Best wishes. --digitalmischief (talk) 06:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The name "digital mischief" doesn't bode well for communication either, does it — or is that what used to be called edgy?JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 06:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Postscript: Mr. May's MySpace page also indicates that, in March 2009, he will be playing at the Bowery Ballroom and SXSW, both of which have Wikipedia articles of their own.
 * I ask you to forgive my tone of annoyance. As someone with, as I say, limited knowledge of Wikipedia's workings, I find it frustrating to have an article nominated for deletion before I've even formatted its footnotes.  (This isn't the first time that's happened.)JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 07:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand that frustration completely, as I had it happen to the last article I introduced to Wikipedia... but the process keeps everyone honest and the articles unbiased. I would argue that using your sandbox (WP:SAND) will eliminate some of these problems, but the Music category is heavily patrolled, and an unfinished article sends all kinds of flags up through all the WP:PATROL software, everywhere on Wikipedia. If I hadn't flagged the article, it would have been flagged immediately by someone else. Please, Please, take a few minutes to scan some of the guidelines. This will save you a lot of future frustration.--digitalmischief (talk) 07:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information. I see another editor has deleted the page (although a redirect I also created — from "Dent May & His Magnificent Ukulele" — is still in place).  On that editor's talk page, I will place a note that directs him to this exchange of ours, to let him see my argument, such as it is, for retention of the article.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 07:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the winning spirit. Keep positive. --digitalmischief (talk) 07:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm glad you think the article has come along.  The editor who had deleted it directed me to news articles that enabled me to get it into shape.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 00:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you seen the response I posted to your suggestion on the Dent May talk page? I explain that the MySpace footnotes can be eliminated simply via the removal of two words from the article.  I'd like your opinion whether I should cut out those words and the footnotes.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been working on trying to find some additional sources, but everything on the net is basically from the same press release for Dent's promo launch. To be honest, I'm not sure I could fend off a challenge on this one. Keep your eyes out, if you are still sold on this article. -- Oliver Twisted  08:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Status of The Display Team article?
Hi,

I just went to leave a message at User talk:U1234u to see if any proper references could be found to support the article and saw that it was up for Speedy Deletion. Is that still the case or is it worth persevering with the article?

I have removed the references as they did not support the claims in the article and added notability and unreferenced templates but I fear it will be a struggle establish anything much that is notable. Lame Name (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * OK - ignore all that as the article has now gone Lame Name (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Wellington International Ukulele Orchestra
You might want to revisit this nomination. An article that meets even one of the criteria is notable. Esradekan claims it meets not one but 5 criteria. - Mgm|(talk) 19:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree on this. I originally tagged this for deletion, and then swapped the CSD for a refimprove tag after about a day of searching sources. Another editor tagged the article for CSD, and I removed the tag, and traded it for an AfD to achieve group consensus. I believe the new sources provided are more than adequate. I was deliberately neutral in my nomination. Best regards. --  O liver  T wisted (Talk) (Stuff) 22:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Zizu101, User:Hasannn1234569 and User:Erabwikpda
Hi. Do these users seem like socks? Because you might want to see this. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Clear and unrepentant vandalism spanning days. Between the two of us, I believe we got all 4 pages deleted, both users reported for vandalism, page protection for Lil Rosny, L Rosny, and now a sockpuppet charge. Hurricane Oliver and Hurricane Naruto! -- Oliver Twisted  (Talk)  05:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The Five Keys of the Sphinx
LOL. You and I are on the same page, in more ways than one. Cheers. --OliverTwisted (talk) 11:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope it's not a page in The Five Keys of the Sphinx, or we'll soon be running short of reading material... --fvw *  11:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
for your kind words on my talkpage. That's pretty surprising considering I was probably overly-harsh with you. Another thing I would like to point out now that I see you like new page patrolling. An article that is one or two lines shouldn't be considered unnoteworthy. Plenty of great articles began as one line stubs. For example:. BTW, I love your new name. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 17:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

ACTORSandCREW Speedy Deletion?
Hi there; not sure why the ACTORSandCREW page got deleted? We had it nice and footnoted with some decent sources, nothing was set to 'hype' the service and the article was quite dispassionate in it's tone.

Please advise and recommend what we should do to restore it! Thanks!

BroadswordCommunications (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. I just wanted to take a moment to explain why the article ACTORSandCREW was flagged for deletion. Please keep in mind that I did not delete the article, as I do not have admin privileges. All new articles are flagged if they don't meet the guidelines for Wikipedia inclusion, as expressed here: WP:RS, WP:SPAM, WP:NOTE. The article ACTORSandCREW was reviewed by more than one editor before being deleted, to avoid any chance of bias. Please check your user talk page for warnings which were issued regarding the article, pictures, and the username: BroadswordCommunications. If after reading carefully WP:NOTE, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOTE, you believe the article meets the guidelines for inclusion, you may contact the admin who deleted the article and request that the article be reconsidered. This information can be found on the article deletion page. Please do not recreate ACTORSandCREW without addressing the notability issues, as this will speed the deletion process. Best regards. --OliverTwisted (talk) 05:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the cohesive explanation, particularly the bits about the review process. I have a name change request in already (though it seems not to have taken effect yet), and I'm pretty sure that's what sent up a red flag.  The article itself was entirely fact, and not *badly* annotated ;)  Anyway, will do as you advised! Best regards BroadswordCommunications (talk) 07:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Rename
Just happened to be around. I think your new name is pretty clever though.  bibliomaniac 1  5  06:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice. --Efe (talk) 12:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! ;o) -- Oliver  Twisted  12:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Help needed to improve articles
Dear administrators, I need some guidance on how to post Wikipedia articles. Each time I add an article, it is automatically categorised as 'spam' or 'promotional material'. Would be great if someone can help me improve on this article (title: RoboPresenter) before it is deleted. I added referencing, but they didn't seem to appear on the page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charmainechen (talk • contribs) 08:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've left several sets of links on User_talk:Charmainechen that should explain the repeated speedy deletions of the articles you introduce to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, there is no shortcut to meeting the guidelines for notability, as listed here: WP:NPOV, WP:SPAM, WP:ORG and WP:WMD. -- Oliver Twisted  08:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Matt hermer AFD
I added a ref for the claim you talked about. One of the further reading links includes the same information as well. _ Mgm|(talk) 11:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being diligent! This may be an example of an article which just really needs a good clean-up. -- Oliver Twisted  11:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Zong mobile payments
Hello: I've been trying to post an article about Zong mobile payments. I don't want it to read like anything commercial. There's a real confusion out there as there's another article titled Zong, which happens to be a mobile operator in Pakistan. Zong is about mobile payments and it's the first mobile payments for the web that has managed to gather 67 mobile operators around a table to provide a unified payment interface to over 500 million mobile users. So it's not a small project, nor company. Could you please try to give me some guidelines to make that happen? I'm kind of new to posting on Wikipedia. Thanks!! Wikidavem (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I would suggest reviewing the links on your user talk page, as well as the guidelines for notability for companies, as listed here: WP:ORG. Once the article has been revised to reflect the necessary changes, including the most important guideline regarding WP:NPOV and WP:RS, I would be happy to look at it again if the deletion goes through. Best regards. -- Oliver Twisted  03:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for asking stupid beginner's questions, but what exactly do you mean by "reviewing the links on my user talk page"? As far as the rest is concerned, don't you think the article in its current form meets WP:NPOV and WP:RS? I really appreciate your help here! Wikidavem (talk) 03:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the links would include reading the information contained here: User talk:Flordemisecreto, especially regarding your first article. In regards to the article as it stands: Only 1.5% of U.S. consumers have ever used their mobile device to make a payment, but almost 50% are aware that they can do so, according to a Mercatus survey of more than 2,500 adults. The percentage of people who have made payments with their mobile phones is likely to grow to 15% among those 18 to 30 by 2013 and close to 50% among those under 35 by 2018, the firm found.[6]... this does not provide information about the company, so much as it is a market analysis. I would explore other examples of company articles on Wikipedia to get a feel for objective, encyclopedic information. Size is not an issue... please reference Expedia, Travelocity... which are also tagged. Maintenance tags are included to improve articles, not as a penalty. I'd be happy to partner with you on this article once it has been reworked. Best regards. -- Oliver Twisted  03:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your help! I've rewritten a few sections of the article and removed the research part. Kindly tell me what you think and if you feel something's missing or should be reworked. Thanks again!! Wikidavem (talk) 05:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That was a smart edit. The article seems much more objective now. I would caution against the large coverage section. Check out: Nextel and Alltel for some models as to how this might be structured. After that, I'd say it is all in your hands. Way to go! Let me know if I can be of more help. -- Oliver Twisted  05:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, I'm really blown away by how fast you're replying and reviewing, and more importantly helping! I'm truly grateful for your help and time!Wikidavem (talk) 05:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Tend News Agency
Thank you very much for welcome message and your advise! I would appreciate if you could check my articles again and tell me what else i need to do as i am planning to post more articles about Azerbaijan. Thank you again!(sorry i wrote to wrong place before :)) Qaqani (talk) 17:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, and thanks for responding. You'll want to explore the links on your user talk page to get a feel for writing on Wikipedia, in particluar: WP:FIRST, WP:NOTE and WP:STYLE. Once you have a feel for the basic guidelines regarding creating articles, you might want to consider being adopted by an experienced editor, here: WP:ADOPT. Best of luck with your future editing. ;o) -- Oliver Twisted  06:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot! Qaqani (talk) 07:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Piper's Picks TV
Thank you so much, Oliver! I'm trying hard on this! Within one minute, someone else marked the article for deletion. It appears that someone else put the "hangon" tag in. I'm not sure what the problem is this time. HeLp please! I'm putting in so much time to get it right!

Thank you!--Just-2-Kool (talk) 05:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Piper Reese
I changed the Speedy to a Prod. I can see the differences; however, I am not convinced of the notability. This will give everyone a chance to sleep on it. Thanks... ttonyb1 (talk) 05:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * U R awesome! -- Oliver Twisted  (Talk)  05:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you!!!! The problem I'm running into is that any other info is not actually in the articles.  Piper has had discussions with both a daytime and a major night talk show to appear.  She's the only kid reporter and video podcaster her age.  She's interviewed an actress from the most popular show in the 6-11 age bracket (according to Hollywood Reporter) as well.  The only thing here that I think I could ad would be mentioning the actress (Jennette McCurdy) and the episode number.  I thought that might be inappropriate.  There is another article that is no longer on the publication's website as well (I have a pdf of the article). I'm actually not sure if I should also post this on my talk page...or on Ttonys1's.  I think I'll add it to mine at least.  Thank you for supporting me, Oliver!  I'd really appreciate any suggestions!--ASF (talk) 05:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * All these things should be added to the article talk page, rather than editors' talk pages, for easy reference during the discussion. The talk page can be cleaned up after discussion is complete, so don't worry too much about formatting. I believe the strongest evidence for notability is the Baltimore Sun article, followed by the Parenting article, and finally the Town Crier article. The biggest contention regarding the article is the claim that Piper is the youngest podcaster on the planet or on the net. Without a direct assertion by a secondary or 3rd party source, this statement will continue to get challenged. You might want to consider seriously rewording that to something like Piper is the youngest podcaster to be featured in The Baltimore Sun, which is more easily referenced. Or you can be more creative: Piper is arguably the youngest regular podcaster currently enjoying popularity. Keep at it. -- Oliver Twisted  (Talk)  05:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I didn't expect the process to be this intricate, but it's great for the community.--ASF (talk) 06:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Piper Reese
We're bumping heads. I think my ref cleanup and sourcing was pretty fair. What new ideas do you have?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you're helping. This article really needed rescuing, and I was trying to do it by "coaching" rather than "doing," but it's had a contentious history and was on a lot of watchlists. The opening paragraph is a dramatic improvement. I'm content to watch from afar for the time being, so I'll stay out of your way while you edit. Best regards. -- Oliver Twisted  (Talk)  07:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure they'll be more of Piper in the upcoming months. I felt compelled to step in and do a touch of style cleanup, as a good looking article atracts less attention than a bad looking one... then I got caught up in adding a few sources. I just didn't want it to get shuffled to AfD simply because it "looked" wrong. Best holiday wishes,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Chaos Online, Chaos online
I understand that you think my article is crap i just need a little time for it if you could give me that please. i and kind of new i had an account before this one that i you edit articles. (unsigned)
 * The tags placed on the articles Chaos Online and Chaos online were not a judgment on the quality of your article. They were placed because the article does not conform to Wikipedia guidelines, as expressed here: WP:NOT and WP:NOTE. If you want to test an article, please visit: WP:SAND. Also, continuing to create these articles and removing all maintenance tags placed on the articles could result in rather severe actions regarding your account. Please read the notices placed on your user talkpage before attempting any additional edits on Wikipedia. Also, comments always go at the bottom of a talk page, and be sure to sign all comments. Best regards. -- Oliver Twisted  (Talk)  09:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I see that i need help on my article. if you could tell me what was wrong please share with me. --Ilypwnage (talk) 09:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Ilypwnage
 * There are no shortcuts to becoming familiar with Wikipedia guidelines. It is not a question of simple help. You need to understand what can be included on Wikipedia, and a synopsis about a game you haven't yet created, copyrighted or released is simply not possible at this time. Please read the above comments again, as well as the comments on your userpage posted by several editors on Wikipedia before continuing to experiment. Please refrain from posting comments on the top of talk pages. Comments are always posted on the bottom of all talk pages. Best wishes on your game development. -- Oliver Twisted  (Talk)  09:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Chu-hsien
Hi, I'm very new to Wikipedia as in days old. I submitted an article that's now up for deletion, I admit my article was lacking I didn't sign it or reference it correctly, which was my mistake, I didn't realize.I am also unaware of how to submit my commentary on the deletion debate page, I was scanning it for a good fifteen minutes looking for a way to respond to your comment but I was unsuccessful.

Digressing, I wanted to confirm that Chu-hsien was legitimate. The book I'm referencing is a horticulture book, not a fictional piece. It was written in 1964 by Roderick Cumming a very talented Chrysanthemum breeder. He referenced to Tao-yuan-Ming who was born in the city you mentioned previously when you flagged my article for deletion, but that was the city which was dubbed the Chrysanthemum city and Roderick received his information as according to my source from a Lieu Chiech-yuan who in the book I have is referred to as a, "modern authority famous for knowledge of Chrysanthemum history," (Cumming 2). Of course Cumming was referring to Modern as his modern of 1964, but still the city is not fictional. I do apologize for my inadequate article posting, would you be so kind as to explain to me how to post the information I've just told you on the deletion debate page? I feel like an idiot but I really can't figure it out. Mandasheep (talk) 09:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned, it's probably a spelling issue, which is why we need some Chinese experts. But, your information is very helpful, and I will copy it for you to the article talk page, and create a link on the debate page. For Deletion discussions in the future, look for the edit link on the right hand side of the page, adjacent to the title of the entry, as opposed to the edit buttons underneath the name of the entry. Best regards. -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 09:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * After some checking online, it does seem to be a spelling discrepancy, accounting for the confusion. Please view the article talk page for more information. Before attempting to add this information to the Chrysanthemum article, please wait for the deletion/merge discussion to run it's course. Best regards. -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 09:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 July 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:


 * Views/Day : Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
 * Quality : Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:


 * Content : Is more content needed?
 * Headings : Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
 * Images : Is the number of illustrative images about right?
 * Links : Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
 * Sources : For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 July 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 July 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:


 * Views/Day : Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
 * Quality : Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:


 * Content : Is more content needed?
 * Headings : Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
 * Images : Is the number of illustrative images about right?
 * Links : Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
 * Sources : For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 July 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 02:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:


 * Views/Day : Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
 * Quality : Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:


 * Content : Is more content needed?
 * Headings : Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
 * Images : Is the number of illustrative images about right?
 * Links : Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
 * Sources : For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)