User talk:Redvers/Archive27

Combined Insurance
Good morning, I work in the marketing department for Combined Insurance, what do I need to do to get our company approved Combined Insurance page up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Combined (talk • contribs)


 * To get an article up, you need to supply third-party reliable sources that assert notability for the company and you must ensure the article doesn't read like and advert and isn't cut-and-paste from another website. You'll also need to be aware of your obvious conflict of interest in the matter and the potential public relations problems if your customers were to think that you were using a not-for-profit free encyclopedia funded by charitable donations to advertise your company as it might look like you were ripping off a charity. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 10:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point, well made! Thanks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Combined (talk • contribs)

Speedy deletion of What the west must know about China
Please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lu na  ke  et  12:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Never mind...sorry about that. Lu  na  ke  et  12:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please be more careful when using automated editing tools in future. Persistent mistakes may lead to them being removed. Thanks. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 12:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nipissing University Student Union
User:GreenJoe has been undoing the redirect that you established pursuant to this AfD. I have protected the redirect. Please let me know, as a sanity check, if you disagree with this action. TerriersFan (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No, that makes perfect sense. Thanks! ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 08:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Nipissing University Student Union
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Nipissing University Student Union. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. GreenJoe 00:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Discussion here would have been more profitable (and is something advised before hitting WP:DRV) but you decided to edit war and then leap-frog that stage, as I've commented in the DRV. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 08:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of my page on Yaqin valve amps
Hi redvers. I've tried to improve the article and hope that it is sufficient for you to allow it. One issue with the assertion of notability is that there is so little information available on these to site references but I've done my best. Please see the page here. Can you unlock the page I originally made so that I can copy this across?

Many thanks

DanAshby (talk) 15:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Replied on Dan's talk page to keep a multi-editor discussion together. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 08:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've tried again to deal with the issues you mentioned. Please take another look. Thanks.


 * DanAshby (talk) 10:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as notability goes, I'm struggling. I believe the subject is notable as they appear to be the most commonly sold (therefore most popular) of the chinese manufactured valve amps. You only have to search for 'tube amp' on ebay to see there's more of them than any other. I'm not sure I can support this with specific references though. Can you advise? I'm trying to fit it with the rules and believe that there is a significant interest in the topic. Thanks.


 * DanAshby (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you please take another look as per my comments above? Many thanks, Dan
 * DanAshby (talk) 09:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hobeika
Thank you for your help regarding the article Elie Hobeika. Thuresson (talk) 10:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

AIV
- actually three, although you edit conflicted me :@ Neıl 龱  14:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's good to be proven right. Actually, it's quite a miracle for me to be proven right :o) ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 14:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Spring Bank Community Association
OK so it's a group but how can you say it's not notable? It's a registered charity trying to help people. What the difference between it and Greenpeace, who I notice have a Wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookey83 (talk • contribs)


 * Greenpeace have 2.8 million members, plus substantial coverage in major newspapers, television programmes and online. I see something of a difference. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 13:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * So the difference is popularity? So it's deleted because it doesn't win Wikipedia's popularity contest? OK let's look at this constructively. How does a charity have a Wiki to inform people about the charity without being deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookey83 (talk • contribs)


 * No, the difference is notability. If your organisation has had substantial coverage in major newspapers, and you say so in the article, and you prove that what you're saying is true, then it can have an article. But not until. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 13:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What you describe is popularity not notability, but fine. I'll not argue semantics with you. It's an error in factual reporting if you use information from the same source to prove the validly of your definition. Otherwise a fallacy can be self-perpetuating. What I don't understand is how other centres and organisations who quite obviously are not 'notable' get away with having a Wiki. Cookey83 (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, that's all very well, but you might like to consider that I've been editing Wikipedia since 2004 and you've been editing it since 10:26am UTC this morning. That probably means that I know what I'm talking about here and you are liable to be less well informed. If you see other articles that you think fit in with Wikipedia's criterion for speedy deletion A7 then you can add  to the top of the article and it will be assessed and deleted if you're correct. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 13:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh don't get me wrong I'm sure you are excellent at what you do. I'm not saying YOU are wrong, I'm saying I don't agree with the system. As a fellow socialist you should sympathise with that thought. But anyway, I know what I must do to have to show it is notable. Thanks for the infor on flagging things for deletion. This has been a very satusfying debate. I hope to have more with you in the future. Cookey83 (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Question
This is User:Tm93. I just read your message at 3:48pm PT, June 11, 2008. I will be more than happy to remove that message. I just have a question about it. What information on it was wrong? I would much appreciate it if I could learn where I went wrong.Tm93 (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing my error.Tm93 (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

How do I submit an article to wikipedia? Also... where do I go to see the quidelines for that article?

I was checking up on User:!Darkfire!6'28'14 and I noticed that there was inapropriate words still on the user page. I just thought that you would like to know. I don't know if it is necessary to take action or not, I just thought that I would bring it to your attention instaed of going to all the pain of re-nominating the page for deletion.Tm93 (talk) 08:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You can submit an article by searching for the exact title in the search box on the left. This will tell you if an article already exists on the subject, and if not you'll get a red link that you can click on to start the article. Our guidelines for writing articles are spread across a number of pages, but you'd do best to read the five pillars of Wikipedia for a basic grounding of who we are and what we do, the tutorial, information on how to edit a page and our guide to how to write a great article and, most advanced, the Manual of Style.


 * Don't worry too much (or even at all) about the content of people's user pages. Wikipedia is not censored for language or images, so our articles can be graphic and our user pages can be, well, robust. We allow people a lot of latitude in their user pages - the use of the word "bitch" on that user's page is very mild compared to many! - only drawing the line at active misuse of Wikipedia or certain types of disruptive behaviour. If you want my advice, stay away from user pages other than when communicating with another user - they meant to be there to facilitate discussion and community cohesiveness, rather than being something important or a means unto themselves. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 09:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank You
This is User:Tm93. I wish to thank you for three things. Tm93 (talk) 09:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * One: Welcoming me. I was wondering when/if I would get one.  Plus I was wondering if I had to do something special to get that welcome... so thanks
 * Two: Teaching me something new about the guidlines on wikipedia. I will no longer nominate pages for language now that I knpw that.  Yes... you are right.  "bitch" is not bad compared to all of the others.  Frankly... I don't mind those words.  I only nominated it because I thought that wikipedia was censored.  Now that I know different, I won't place another nomination because of language.  Thanks for teaching me more.
 * Three: Just for having a great attitude instead of getting mad.

What To Do
This is User:Tm93. I was looking at all the different user pages and I came across User:Wikipedia is Neopaganism!. It says on there that he/she is a sock puppet. Do I bother withi t or do I nominate it for deltion?
 * Tm93 (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I never thought that I could learn so much from having an account on wikipedia. I will take your advice from now on and ignore the users, unless they are EXTREEMELY outrageous.  You had said that I need to focus more on articles than on users.  I am currently getting some info for two different articles.  I will focus mainly on those and not on users.  If I want to ba an admin... I need to learn from some of the best!  Thank You so much.  Maybe one day I would have had enough experience to be an excellent admin.  I really do appreciate all of the help that you have been to me.  If and when I become an admin, I wil state all of the people/users that have helped me get this far.  Whether you like or not your name/user name is on that list.
 * After I finish the two articles that I am working on, if there is any editing work that I find, I will be sure to work on the that and achieve my highest goal.

Tm93 (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Hello! This morning, you blocked the editor Blackknight93, whom I reported to WP:AIV for vandalism. He wouldn't listen to my warnings, and I am glad you stepped in to halt his mischief. I appreciate your efforts to keep silly vandals off this site, and I just wanted to drop a word of thanks for your fine work. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 08:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sophie Raworth Pic
Boy that was a quick deletion. It was only up about 45 seconds! Do people really object so strongly to images?  SmokeyTheCat   •TALK•  10:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a copyright violation, and a big one. Non-free content says in "Unacceptable uses #10": Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. What we have to remember with images which are copyright and belong to other people is that, whilst they may be fine for use on the non-commercial, educational Wikipedia, many sites take our content and use it in commercial, entertainment settings. So we can't allow them to be used. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 10:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Tags for references and notability on United States Artists
Hello Redvers, I am working to improve the article United States Artists. At this point it doesn't seem to warrant the above tags any more. What is the procedure for removing them? Thank you. Leoniana (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Leoniana! If you have addressed the problems noted in any tags on an article, you should remove them forthwith. You're doing Wikipedia a service by cleaning up and expanding a "problem" article, so remove them immediately! If you're worried that others may not agree, remove them anyway, then drop a note on the article's talk page, saying something like "I've added X and taken away Y, so I'm confident that tag Z can now go, please let me know if you don't agree" or the like. Communication is all in Wikipedia. But if you are confident, just remove them. You have the angels on your side. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 18:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this useful info. I have removed them. Leoniana (talk) 01:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Moving on in light of warnings
Hi Redvers. About the image tagging and talk page notifications incident with Ryulong and Kelly, you said the following at ANI: "It really is now time to move on... but please don't abuse automated tools in future, or you will be blocked again, especially if you don't understand what the problem was in the first place." I've been talking to Kelly and Kylu on their talk pages in the aftermath of this, trying to resolve some of the loose ends in a less confrontational atmosphere than ANI, and one thing that came out at User talk:Kelly is that Kelly feels unable to move on until what you said at ANI (which was perceived as a block threat) has been resolved. Given that Future Perfect strongly objected to what you said (and I do too, for the record) and that GMaxwell now says that he thinks "the block was unneeded and inappropriate", and that many people have said this was overblown, do you think you could help everyone move on by clarifying what you meant or even retracting your statement? At the moment, Kelly feels unable to return to image work, and that is not ideal. Do you think you could help resolve this? Carcharoth (talk) 09:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I remain resolute that bombarding a regular user with a dozen or so templates in a short space of time is harassment and that doing it through automated tools is abuse of those tools. Editors must take responsibility for their edits, however they are produced. If the tool is faulty, then the tool must not be used until the fault is corrected. It cannot be dismissed as something that can be cleaned up later - as this whole drama has shown. And I think Kelly has been clever in convincing (almost) everyone that s/he is the victim here, a powerless humble editor who happened to edit somewhere sensitive. This is a gross misreading of the whole drama, and the escalation of what I said into an imminent "block threat" is part of this. I cannot and will not hand any editor carte blanche to abuse automated editing tools, which is what I'm being asked to do here. However, if the tool's error (the bombarding) is corrected, or Kelly decides to choose a different way to batch requests other doing it by editor, then our paths will never cross and neither of us will have anything to worry about. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 18:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, Kelly just pointed me to User talk:Redvers/Say no to Commons, and I have to say that the possibility that there is a connection here between your views on image work on Wikipedia and your attitude to Commons is, well, something that I think should be asked. Is there a connection? I got rather annoyed at ST47 for the "Death to Fair Use" banner he had. I don't know how much attention your essay has got, but I think it needs attention drawing to it. Either there is an issue, and an open discussion is needed, or there isn't and the essay needs to go. Sorry to switch focus like this. I won't have much time for a few days now, so I'm just leving this note as a placeholder. Carcharoth (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Quite easy to make a huge leap between the two, and quite wrong. And I note with wry amusement that Kelly is once again the victim of a wicked, biased admin.


 * Before you leap to assumptions (well, after, but anyway) - I spent over a year clearing CSD I3 and CSD I4 images. I rigorously policed them, providing a clickable edit summary, a personalised talk page message, an FAQ with 24/7 advice, plus personal help. I got a year of user page vandalism, death/violence threats, talk page abuse, ANI threads and other shit. So, believe me, I know all there is to know about the hell that is image-upload policing. You may also remember that I have been and remain an outspoken defender of the work done by Betacommand and his bots - far beyond the rope the community would give him. So, knowing that, how do your assumptions now fit with the facts? And, yes, feel free to MfD my essay about the issues that Commons has. That'll solve the issues! Pretending they don't exist will really help. You're just the latest person to turn up here and make veiled threats (come on, out with it! If you actually want to threaten me, do so!) over my views on Commons. And that's fine. You're entitled to your views. As I am to mine, I would suggest. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 18:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, Redvers. Look, I'd like to say "sorry" for any problems in the past. I have promised to modify my approach to image reviewing, and I hope this satisfies any concerns with my past conduct that you may have had. I don't consider myself to be your "victim", and I'd be happy to remove or strike out any such suggestion if asked. In return, I would respectfully ask that you consider the idea that violations of copyright law and WP:NFCC should be considered at least as seriously as violations of WP:DTTR, and that violators shold be warned or sanctioned accordingly. I now see your history of image review work, and I'm sure that you understand my concern.


 * That said, could you perhaps provide some details or diffs on the problems you have had at Commons? I do a lot of work there, and would be happy to help investigate and resolve this. Kelly  hi! 19:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to respond to Redvers's comments, I'm well aware of the work you have done and still do, but the concern is the damage you might do to Commons if your essay is based on misunderstandings or is misleading. If you really think Commons has gone off the rails, then you should be raising hell about it, not writing essays. As I said "Either there is an issue, and an open discussion is needed, or there isn't and the essay needs to go." I thought that was perfectly clear - no veiled threats there - if what you say is wrong, it needs to go, if not, you need to get more eyes on the issues. I suggest you work with Kelly - you might both find that a productive experience. First impressions and all that. Carcharoth (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to be working with Lar on this. I'm not inclined to work with Kelly, who is still doing image work by editor, resulting in crapfloods on talk pages - mine, for instance - in a way that is either idiocy or WP:POINT. It would be best if Kelly considered that s/he and I have an unresolved dispute and thus stay away from me. I will do likewise. That way, no drama needs happen. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 08:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI
– iride  scent  23:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh. Gotta love the sociopaths and their lovely assumption that exactly what they can see on a once-deleted, blanked, unused talkpage on a different project is all that I am complaining about. Yeah, that's likely. Heh. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 08:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this...
User_talk:Redvers/Say_no_to_Commons ... As you may know I am involved with Commons. I'd like to look into this matter if you'd be so kind as to provide some examples. I'd suggest answering there but here is ok too, as you like. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 18:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll answer there when things calm down in RL - Sunday, Monday-ish. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 08:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Base
Redvers, I don't expect every admin to be on top of every policy (and I hope they return the favor) but MOS:TM is pretty unambiguous on the capitalization of trademarks. Lots of companies like to write their names in block caps (or in lowercase or weird mixed case) so they stand out in text, including Base (BASE). But this is not indulged on Wikipedia, and legally speaking, capitalization does not affect trademark rights at all, so that can't be used as a reason to do it:


 * Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official":
 * avoid: REALTOR®, TIME, KISS
 * instead, use: Realtor, Time, Kiss

And thus "Base" it must be, regardless of what KPN's own copywriters prefer. I admit the recent rename re "mobile telephony provider" is a bit wordy, but I couldn't think of anything better that might not also imply "base station". Regards, Pro hib it O ni o ns  (T) 19:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:VRT één television logo.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:VRT één television logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Question
When is your wikipedian birthday/did you create your account?Tm93 (talk) 06:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

HELP!!!
Dear Redvers,
 * This is User:Tm93. I need your help resolving this conflict.  I'm not well versed on how to deal/dispute articles with other users.  I need some help to learn how to resolve this matter.

Article — Article Talk Page

P.S. You may receive this notice a little bit too late. As two other tags were placed on the article as well. But if it's not too late, could you please intervene.

Thanks, Tm93 (talk) 09:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Replied on your talk page, Tm93. - Face 10:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)