User talk:Sbwoodside

Hi Simon. It appears that we followed the same boring convention for the choice of our usernames. :) --Saforrest 10:26, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Simon. Please don't remove the speedy deletion markup. State your case on the talk page. That's how it's done. This is an encyclopaedia in any case, not a news site. There is not even an entry for Al Qa Qaa, let alone any controversy over it. Do you not see that makes your page inappropriate?Dr Zen 05:33, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dr Zen
My advise is to not engage this user further. I have placed Al Qa Qaa controversy timeline on my watchlist and will make sure that the tag is not readded constantly. If the user continues to not follow policy and revert the page (I doubt he will) then I will look further into the policy for locking the page temporarily. Be aware that if Dr Zen wishes to put this on VfD then he will be within his rights to do this, though I will be voting for keeping the article. Until then, keep up the good work and try to expand the article as best you can! This will make it VfD-proof. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:02, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. That's the plan :) Sbwoodside 06:05, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Al Qa Qaa
Be bold. If you think it's important, create Al Qa Qaa controversy. Be aware that someone might list it on VfD. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:42, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

VfD
Please don't remove the article from VfD. This is the job of administrators - if you do it then you'll get someone yelling at you. I'll request User:Lupo do it, as I'm embroiled in this VfD at the moment. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:46, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. I renamed the article BTW it's now at Al Qa'qaa high explosives timeline
 * No worries :) I got User:Lupo to do it, as he's not involved in the vote at all. Incidently, good work on those articles! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:07, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Knowledge
Knowledge has been unlocked - care to make any edits? Banno 23:24, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Sculptor
The change I made was a part of WP:DPL. You bring up an interesting point, I guess it's possible that that an article about Sculptors (as artists) may be created someday. Would you be able to bring this up at at the talk of WP:DPL - I think a disucssion would be interesting. By the way, I made about 600 such changes, but I'm happy to go back and change them all back if an article is created. Also (just so you know), the bot is not automated, I made all 600 descisions.--Commander Keane 07:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Graph
I undid your redirect of graph to chart. A great many articles link to graph, and most of them do not mean the chart, rather graph of a function and graph theory. So I think it is better to keep that one as disambiguation page. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello
Always happy to meet another "computer scientist - percussionist". I am always surprised at how many of us there are! :-)

Best Regards, Brad Halls 17:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Brad Halls

Angela Beesley
nominated for deletion. --Coroebus 16:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

John Snow (physician)
Hi. Was Snow really an Information graphic designer? If this is a reference to his cholera map, maybe there should be something in his article to tie in with the category? Otherwise its appearance at the bottom after the medical stuff looks very odd (to me, at least - I don't know much about either Snow or Information graphics!). Best. --GuillaumeTell 11:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Visualization
Category:Visualization, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Cgingold (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of DIKW
I have nominated DIKW, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/DIKW. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Mister Senseless&trade; (Speak - Contributions) 17:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ultimate (sport)
I am aiming to get Ultimate (sport) to GA status, and would like to recruit some help. If you are interested, you can respond on my talk page and further organization will be made. Just so you might like to know, I live in Maplewood, NJ and go to Columbia High School, where the game was created. Cheers Mm40 (talk) 11:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Parse (company)


The article Parse (company) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back. Thank you,

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Parse (company) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Parse (company) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Parse (company) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2015 November 30
At Articles for deletion/Vu Digital (2nd nomination), you supported retention and the AfD was closed as "delete". At Deletion review/Log/2015 November 30, I asked for the community's permission to restore the history under the redirect so I can merge material to C Spire Wireless, the parent company.

I will only merge material sourced to TechCrunch, Mississippi Business Journal, Broadcasting & Cable, and The Clarion-Ledger, which all pass Identifying reliable sources. I will not merge any material sourced only to press releases or sources that fail Identifying reliable sources. Would you support this? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * For sure. How do I support this? --Sbwoodside (talk) 04:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Also I'm a bit confused about the notion that there was "consensus" when the participants were 5 for Delete and 3 for Keep. That doesn't look like a consensus to me. --Sbwoodside (talk) 04:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You can comment about my proposal at Deletion review/Log/2015 November 30; most editors who supported restoring the history wrote "Restore history". The participants were 6 for delete and 3 for keep when you count the nominator, so that is arguably enough to be a consensus to delete. My proposal is asking for permission to restore the history under a redirect to C Spire Wireless, the parent company, so I can do a selective merge. Cunard (talk) 05:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to see that you were successful. It seems like there's a fairly hefty anti-corporate bias on Wikipedia these days. Sbwoodside (talk) 03:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)