User talk:Redvers/Archive35

#1 comment of 2008
Just found this. You sir, have won. &mdash; neuro  (talk)  11:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I thank you :o) ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ a reasonably good buy 16:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I should do a yearly barnstar for this... if I make one I'll hit you up with it later. Keep up the good work! :) &mdash; neuro  (talk)  18:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009
Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.

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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request
Hey, Redvers. When you get a chance, would you mind reviewing this unblock request? You'd blocked the guy as a spammer, but I think he's just a confused newbie who didn't know he can't write about himself. I've explained the situation to him and am willing to unblock him if he agrees not to do it again, but I wanted to run it by you first. Thanks! Hers fold  (t/a/c) 17:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If he'll agree not to recreate the article about himself, I'm more than happy for him to be unblocked. Thanks for asking! ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ a reasonably good buy 18:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Quite welcome. I'll go put the unblock template back up. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 23:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The Deans
Fair enough. I'll try do better. Happy new year, Fergananim (talk) 10:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha
All you needed on that page was an orange bar and I would have been checking my messages too. --Kbdank71 20:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh heh heh :o) ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ a reasonably good buy 20:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of talk page of
If you haven't seen it at ANI already, we are discussing the deletion of talk page at User:Manhattan Samurai who you were briefly involved with here: - I don't know if you have any insight to add to how we should proceed with this (eg undeleting an early talk page), but if you do, please join in. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've nothing relevant to add to the conversation, but thanks for letting me know! This is not the first time I've declined to delete a usertalk page only to have the editor in question shop for someone who will delete without checking the history and find someone. Alas. Although this was the cleverest method I've seen so far (though a single click on the history tab would've stopped the deleter making a fool of himself). ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ a reasonably good buy 17:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)
The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Please undelete Journal of Startegic Security
Redvers - I am the editor of this journal, there are no copyright infringements in my description of the Journal. Can you please undelete this? Thomasbhunter007 (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC) thomasbhunter007


 * No. We have no way of knowing that you have the legal right to give away the copyright on that text. Also, you have a quite serious conflict of interest with the subject matter. I'll leave you a note about that. ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ a reasonably good buy 16:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK - thanks. I can reword the text if that helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasbhunter007 (talk • contribs)


 * Well, no it doesn't quite. You still haven't addressed the serious conflict of interest you have with the subject, as noted on your talk page. Wikipedia is not for advertising your magazine. ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ a reasonably good buy 16:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK - so, essentially, what you need is a new description from someone not affiliated with the journal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasbhunter007 (talk • contribs)


 * Essentially, yes. The message I gave you has links you can follow, the best one being FAQ/Business. ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ a reasonably good buy 16:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK - thanks Redvers - I'll see what I can do to make sure I adhere to those rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasbhunter007 (talk • contribs)


 * Well, if you don't manage it, the article will be clearly tagged as an advert that the magazine put up itself on a not-for-profit, volunteer run encyclopedia funded by donations. That will look very bad from a PR point of view. ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ a reasonably good buy 16:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Tyler Voigt
Please delete that page, thanks. -- IRP ☎ 22:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 'sgone. ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ a reasonably good buy 22:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

re
Ok if you say so :) Mario  1987  09:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

what problem
Hi.i didnt get it.what is the problem with common?Bbadree (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry? ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ a reasonably good buy 12:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Professional Management Group
Hi, I see that you have speedy deleted the above. I saw it on newpages and was having a go at removing the spammy elements, which were considerable, as I thought that there were several indications of notability within the article. Regards Paste Talk 12:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It was still a spamfest, but do you want it undeleting and userfying for further work? ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ a reasonably good buy 12:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I'd agree completely it certainly was a 'spamfest' as you call it but I'd like a go at continuing to cut it down and get it acceptable as I do think that it may have merit in the end. Can you put it on a sub page of mine so that I can edit it in peace? Thanks. Paste Talk 12:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Done! User:Paste/Professional Management Group. HTH! ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ a reasonably good buy 12:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, could you cast an eye over it now? Paste Talk 13:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Still not enough references to confirm notability, but the repaired article is no worse than many in the mainspace. I've moved it back. ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ a reasonably good buy 15:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your assistance. Paste Talk 15:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Blob (anti-pattern)
hello, please tell me why my document: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blob_(anti-pattern) was deleted. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pega88 (talk • contribs)


 * The original text here is licenced under the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives (CC-BY-NC-ND). This licence is incompatible with Wikipedia's GFDL. Additionally, the text doesn't read like an encyclopedia article. ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ a reasonably good buy 14:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009
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.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)  §hepBot  ( Disable )  20:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Beersheba International Faith Church
Hello Redvers – I tried creating this page twice. However, it seems to be deleted. Please advise on what revisions need to be made to best post the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genigregory (talk • contribs)


 * The article was an advertisement for the church, not a neutrally worded encyclopedia article with third-party reliable sources asserting independent notability. You'll need to correct that before reposting. ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ a reasonably good buy 17:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks you so much, I'll have the content reworded before recreating. Appreciate your support. How do I access the page I created, seems to be lost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genigregory (talk • contribs)


 * I've put it in your userspace. ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ a reasonably good buy 19:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Jock Sanders
Sorry, but I had justed placed a hangon tag to the article and had given my argument when you deleted the page? This seems a bit premature, does it not? John (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The article was deleted previously as the result of a community deletion discussion. You'll need to take it to WP:DRV rather than unilaterally recreating it. ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ a reasonably good buy 21:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Physics Forums
The physics forums page doesn't contain much info yet because many of the administrators don't have wiki accounts. PF is the biggest science discussion and homework help forum on the net, it is referenced as a source from numerous other wiki science articles and so really needs it's own page.

The purely commercial Experts-Exchange has a page as does slashdot.

I created a new wiki account to make this page so there wouldn't be any overlap between it and any opinions on any other edits I might have made on wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgb phys (talk • contribs)


 * You need to read our page on conflicts of interest, of which you have a clear one. You might also like to note our policy on notability - articles must assert notability and back it up with third-party reliable sources. Finally, yes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but that's irrelevant. ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ a reasonably good buy 21:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes - I'm a contributor at PF (although I don't have any financial interest). It was just noted that other wiki articles referenced Physics Forums but it had no page of it's own.


 * Since PFs intention is as a source of accurate (non-crackpot!) physics knowledge and education, it seemed in line with wiki's own ethos.


 * Would it help if a more complete introductory article was created or written by a wikipedean account with more reputation?


 * I am trying to organise PF admins to contribute to the article but there was a very brief window of opportunity before it was removed. Mgb phys (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably better not to flood Wikipedia with a series of single purpose accounts that are doing your bidding. That'll make things worse. If you've got third-party reliable sources that confirm your site's notability, you can create the page in your userspace: User:Mgb phys/Physics Forums. Fully declare your conflict of interest (it doesn't need to be financial to be a conflict) by noting your relationship on the article-to-be's talk page. We can then review once the article is up to Wikipedia standards. ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ a reasonably good buy 22:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm also a user of PhysicsForums, albeit a different from the above user. PhysicsForums is recognized as a partner of the Scientific American magazine. See http://www.sciam.com/partners/. Does that qualify as a reliable third party source? 203.199.213.130 (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No. But it is a bare assertion of notability. ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ a reasonably good buy 09:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Robin Farquharson
Hello I'm very new to Wiki the page is completely embryonic, you could have said something to me first before you pulled the photo. What was wrong with it? What do I need to change/do to get it on the page?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steiner24601 (talk • contribs)


 * When you uploaded the image, the page you created contained a huge, bright red banner warning you that the image had been listed for speedy deletion because you indicated that only Wikipedia has permission to use it. I can't help it if you ignored that. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, since explicit permission to use it was given, this is in fact not the case because Wikipedia material is syndicated to dozens of other sites and publications. Please do not upload any more files with this restriction on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it. ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ a reasonably good buy 08:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

mobX Web article System
hello redvers, ive readed the G11 rule but i think i didnot understand it well... mobx is a web article system i made for webmasters and people who want to make a website for articles its totally free yet to think about it, i want people to know a about it i didnot understand why it has been deleted but i think Cpanel is not deleted yet its under a company copyright its like an advertisment for it iam sharing something for free here , iam not a company

best regards HS-M0BX (talk) 06:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The article read like an advert for the product and didn't assert notability for it. You also need to be aware of the conflict of interest you have in attempting to promote this product on Wikipedia. Even if the product is free, these points still apply. ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ a reasonably good buy 09:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you!
thanks Hannylim (talk) 12:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Doctor Who DVD Files Issue One
Newbie here and I hadn't quite finished the page before you deleted it - completely understand why. Any chance of you putting it back so I can edit it further, please?

Cheers!

LondonConcrete (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please don't create article about individual issues of magazines. They're not notable and will always be deleted or redirected. Also, you may want to read Article development for tips on how to develop articles - you're doing great adding references where they're asked for, but you're also pouring what we rudely call "fancruft" into articles with lots of comment and exclamation marks! that we don't want. Remember: we want facts, not opinion and we want encyclopedic information, not random detail. Happy editing! ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ a reasonably good buy 09:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for you help. Apologies for the screamers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LondonConcrete (talk • contribs) 11:00, 15 January 2009


 * No worries. ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ a reasonably good buy 11:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009
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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 00:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Krippled crak monkeys
Recreated I'm afraid, seems to be by a vandalism only account. Thanks. Paste Let’s have a chat. 14:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Blocked by someone else for 55 hours; article redeleted and I've salted it. ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 15:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Jacob D. Hyden 19, JAN
May I ask why you deleted my chapters summary for Redcoats and Rebels?


 * You'll need to give me a clue, as psychic powers are only handed out to every third admin. Who are you and what article are you talking about (provide links or diffs). ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 08:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Redcoats and Rebels: The American Revolution through British Eyes, Chapter Summary, 12:38, 19 January 2009 Redvers (Talk | contribs) (500 bytes) (rm "summary of chapters" - nor required) (undo).


 * No, I need an actual link or a diff and your username as a clickable link (created by signing your posts). I really really can't read your mind. ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 21:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm new to this, I think this is what you want.


 * Is it inappropriate to create a chapter summary, or was it the way in which I did it?


 * --Jacob D. Hyden (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah ha! Right, yes, a summary of chapters is original research, which we don't allow. It's also much more Amazon than encyclopedia - a sales tactic rather than useful information. And it was unreferenced, but that's because it was original research so third party, reliable references don't exist, and unreferenced material can be removed at anytime by anybody. ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 08:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Biggie Murder Suspect
My man, it's not libelous to have a discussion about what might have happened. I'm trying to harness the power of group thought to have a discussion. I'll rephrase my post so that it is no longer an accusation. PeterCrapsody2 (talk) 09:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes it is. And Wikipedia is still not the place to have the discussion anyway. ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 09:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ian Gomm
Hi. I notice that you have previously removed copyvio text from Ian Gomm posted by User:Gommsteruk. It's back, this time posted by User:Timgomm(Hmm, same person? I think so. Also, who has done exactly the same thing!), who will replace it each time it is moved. Being unsure how to proceed with this (I think it is both a conflict of interest and a copyright violation) I've asked for advice here, but no news so far. Fancy weighing in? pablo ::  ... hablo ... 21:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Blimey, that was quick! pablo ::  ... hablo ...

Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009
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.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Delivered at 04:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot  ( Disable )