User talk:Sgroupace/Archive 1

Speedy tags and notifying creators
When you tag an article for speedy deletion, it is a good idea to notify the article's creator that you have done so. There is a series of templated messages listed at Category:CSD warning templates that you can leave on the creator's talk page, such as, and you can automate this process by using Twinkle. --Eastmain (talk) 04:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a bot to do the job - eg. this.
 * I usually check the user's contributions. If they have only one or two contributions, I take the view that they should be using their watchlist.
 * But I might give Twinkle or AWB a go. - Sgroupace (talk) 09:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The bot is currently very unreliable. DGG (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Gary Morgenstern,, So what on earth is a "first and ten mark"
This, like "first down", is a term from American football. --Eastmain (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Instead of telling me it might have been more useful to fix the article. But I have done it for you. - Sgroupace (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Mingma Sherpa
Easy on the trigger finger there. If you'd checked the article history for Mingma Sherpa, you'd have seen that I had just removed a CSD tag (the article did assert the notability of the subject; it simply didn't cite it), and was editing it to add references. Tlesher (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Paige Bell
The reason I nominated Paige Bell for AFD instead of Speedy is the policies here (and my past experience) make it clear that AFD is the right venue. They *do claim notability* in the article. If there was NO claim of notability, then I would have speedy deleted it. If they make a claim, then it should be to afd, per policy. It isn't like there is a reason to rush or disallow comments. Any good admin would kick it out of speedy and tell you to go afd. P HARMBOY ( TALK ) 01:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I see no assertion of notability. A good admin would take a look at her contribs and User talk page and would: zap it, salt it and block the author! Let's see what happens. Providing Eastmain does not do one of their rescue jobs! - Sgroupace (talk) 01:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In the first paragraph, they claim she was in the Bratz movie, specifically Paige is known for playing one of the kids in the food fight in Bratz the movie. That is a claim of notability, per policy.  I don't make the policies, I just follow them.   Suggesting block and salting is just juvenile for something this petty.  P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 02:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

young contributors
I appreciate your comment on CIreland's talk page, and I left a comment there about how I handle these, that you too may find helpful. DGG (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Empire Academy
Hi!

I've just declined your request for Empire Academy to be speedily deleted, because articles about schools are not eligible for speedy deletion. :-)  Stwalkerster  [  talk  ]  21:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Patrol
If you mark something as patrolled, and it's crap... take the time to also mark it for deletion. Otherwise it won't get dealt with. DS (talk) 19:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you give me even one instance please? - Sgroupace (talk) 02:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You marked "Ninja Dad" as patrolled, and then a day later someone AfD'd it. You did contribute to the AfD, mind you, and it was (rightly) deleted as crap. But it would have gotten done a little quicker - and it wouldn't have gotten brought up on the administrators' noticeboard as a purported example of what's wrong with the patrol function. DS (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's the log - and you'll note that you weren't the one who started the AfD. DS (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Whaddya mean "a day later"? The AfD was raised two minutes after I had marked the article patrolled. In any case, the article had been tagged hoax which indicated that it had been checked by a human, placed into a "for attention" category and was presumably being watched by the person who had applied the hoax tag. - Sgroupace (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Bitching was done about the utility, or lack thereof, of patrolling. Your action on "Ninja Dad" was dragged up as an example of Patrolling Gone Bad. It was suggested that you be warned to be more careful. You have thus been warned to be more careful. I don't think we need to waste more time on this particular subject, do you? DS (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Also - whoops, I misread the log; you're right on the "two minutes later" thing. DS (talk) 23:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You've been mentioned at Editor assistance/Requests
Doesn't that sound scary? Here is the pointer: Ear. EdJohnston (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why scary? "100% consistent with policy" is rather smug-making. - Sgroupace (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

A language with out syntax
Thanks for the input. But ,as I being a person who has tried the language, I can tell that there can be such type of a language. In fact the mechanism is quite simple. It uses natural language processing to process the input text and converts into a specific syntax (through dictionary modes, grammatical operations etc) and later executes it. I hope you may also tried AIML for chatter bots. And regarding popularity, I know that it is quite popular in the FOSS world (at least in India) Karthika.kerala (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Christian Fuerneisen
In regard to this article, please don't use "nn-autobio" as a deletion reason, because "nn" is an abbreviation which new users might not recognize. When you find any other non-notable autobiographies, please tag them with db-bio instead, because then the reason for deletion will be spelled out in full. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Walburn Family
This is not advertisment for products it is reference material for old encryption devices not used much anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkuykend (talk • contribs) 22:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Oxford martial arts academy
Those pages have been salted per your request. Stifle (talk) 14:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Mike Michalowicz
OK, I tried to make the article on Mike stick to the facts and be written from what I understand as NPOV. Obviously, it didn't work. Can you give me any tips on how I might go about correcting this? Yeah, I know, vague question. But, I'm learning here and appreciate any advice you can offer. Ben Simon (talk) 03:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Interesting. So, if I understand what you're suggesting - this article will most likely be repaired by an editor who knows what they are doing, rather than it being removed. Is that right? As for COI - I don't work for Mike, or even really know him. I do admire his work, and have exchanged an e-mail or two with him. I wasn't sure if that counted as COI -- how does that strike you? Thanks again for the feedback. Ben Simon (talk) 05:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not vague at all. We see this question frequently. My best advice is for you to leave it to established editors to work on the article. I have the strongest suspicion that you have a COI with this subject. - Sgroupace (talk) 04:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * For someone who claims that they don't really know him, you seem remarkably keen to promote Mike and his book. Further edits to the article will not actually change the guy's notability. You have brought him to the attention of Wikipedia, now I suggest again that you back off and leave it to others to decide if he is actually notable. (Just be grateful that I did not send the article to AfD!) - Sgroupace (talk) 05:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Re my keenness: I happen to be a big fan of the concept he describes in his book (much like someone who read the The Tipping Point (book) and just got it). Also, I attempted to be especially thorough because this was the first time I've every contributed to Wikipedia. What you're saying makes a lot of sense (regarding his notability), and I'm all for leaving this the way it is. It may be worth noting: I'm seeking to understand what you're saying not so I can post this particular article (though, I obviously think it's notable or I wouldn't have written it), but because I'm trying to understand the Wikipedia process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjisimon (talk • contribs) 06:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Joe Hollywood
Those pages have been salted. I've warned the user to use DRV instead of recreating new varieties on the same page, although I suspect it may be in vain. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sonja Bernhardt Proposed deletion
Hello sgroupace- I am new to wikipedia so please be 'kind' to me.

I am Sonja Bernhardt I believe you have kicked off the delete my page discussion.

a couple of thing: if you did the link to Sonja cover page of Screen Goddess that is not factual. That is NOT me - Sonja Bernhardt.

It is another Sonja (Sonja Breeze) in the IT Industry - I was the innovator (creator,designer and manger and financial backer) of the Screen Goddess Calendar but was not a role model in it. That is inaccurate and I have had it corrected in the content entry.

I also ask WHY when within Australia Pia Waugh (a wikipedia page entry) is an acceptable entry and Sonja (me) who is within that country as notable (and arguable more notable) as Pia and the content is written in a like style considered for deletion.

The content is NOT a CV (and barely gives any work information) it is ALL about industry VOLUNTARY activity that is notable and has been making a difference to the industry.

I invite you to google my name and see the many things and other references NOT included in the factual content provided for wikipedia.

The entry tried REALLY hard NOT or promote/PR or market speak but to stick to facts and to notable industry (not work related and non paid difference making) activities. Things I created and programs I designed have been experienced by tens of thousands of women in the industry and hundred of thousands of school children. And now with the Doing IT Around the World passionit.info project just not within Australia bit also around the globe.

I also flag within Australia AWISE and WiT are equivilant to ABI and WITI in America and in reality Sonja Bernhardt equates to Anita Borg and Carolyn Leighton 'fame' in her home country.

I request you reconsider your comments and perhaps assit in building the content to map better to the expected standards. regards Sonja —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.105.232.163 (talk) 11:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

2 october - ps article modified some content removed to make it less a 'dump' plus references to other verified independent sources added eg Australian federal Government plus Queensland state government.. Please re look an dreconsider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonjabern (talk • contribs) 22:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

speedys in general
Thanks for your generally fine patrolling, but please  review WP:CSD. If one can tell what an article is about, it has context. If an article gives information about the authorship and content of a book, it is not purely promotional but partly informative. DGG (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The generous
Just a friendly note on The generous. I had to decline the speedy because the article claims to meet WP:MUSIC #10. However, feel free to take it to AfD. Cheers!-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  14:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

speedy declined
I'm perplexed by this. Why do you think no assertion of notability has been made? I've declined the speedy. --Dweller (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It would have saved time to speedy it! Sgroupace (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To be precise, it would have saved time to tag it correctly in the first place. Have you installed Twinkle? It doesn't work too well on IE, but if you use Firefox, it'll help you with accurate speedy tagging. We do value speedy taggers, but I can see I'm hardly the first person to have a slight problem with the accuracy of your tags... --Dweller (talk) 11:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Tagging Capital IQ for AfD
I have a small issue with tagging the Capital IQ article for AfD for non-notable. It would have been faster to tag it with a CSD for no sources but... The one thing you should have done is add a notice to the originators talk page notifying them that the article they created is going to be deleted. This is pretty standard and is considered bad form if you don't. An editor above has asked if you have Twinkle running, it doesn't look like it to me. This situation is another that Twinkle would handle automatically, when you AfD an article it will notify the creator automatically. You should look into it, it'll save you a lot of work. Padillah (talk) 13:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Your CSDs
Hi there. I was doing some speedy patrolling, and I came across an article that you tagged (Colfat) as G1. G1 is exclusively for articles which are patent nonsense "rgssrtsdfhcgvfgcvh" or can't be understood. That article was not nonsense, and it was understandable. I have declined in and added a WP:PROD tag. In the future, please made sure that you tag G1s correctly. Looking at you talk page history, I see this isn't a one time event, so I would really appriceate it if you would start reviewing articles more carefully. Thanks. X clamation point  04:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the number of relevant Google hits, I think nonsense was an appropriate tag. Sgroupace (talk) 04:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * However, nonsense explicitly excludes hoaxes. X clamation point  12:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Shinya Inoué
I have showed that the person is very notable very easily. I think that you should withdraw it because there is no way that it will get deleted. Please search for reliable sources before nominating an article for deletion. Schuym1 (talk) 03:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * He won major awards, wrote books, wrote scholarly articles, and has significant coverage in reliable sources. Schuym1 (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheeseisnicer
I had declined speedy deletion on this article prior to you replacing the tag, as there is a claim of notability - famous Youtube user known for his wide range of videos. Do you disagree with my interpretation here? Kevin (talk) 05:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think WP:SNOW applies. Note the plethora of independent references provided. But drag it through AfD if you must. -- Sgroupace (talk) 06:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Gavin doherty
hi you tagged Gavin doherty for deletion with the tag. i replaced it with a because it was a blatant attack on the subject. thanks. 72.93.78.209 (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Notability
Could you explain why you don't think the video game AaaaaAAaaaAAAaaAAAAaAAAAA!!! -- A Reckless Disregard for Gravity deserves its own page when virtually every other video game can have one? --Bentendo24 (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you placed the article for deletion? Just give a reason: You haven't given ANY at all so far. It's a legit game that deserves a page as much as any other video game. I gave a link to the official website, the GameSpot page and the Eurogamer page. I just don't know why you don't feel the need to keep the page (and for the record, no I'm not involved with the game in anyway, nor am I interested in it). Right after I asked for you to explain yesterday, you place the article up for deletion without giving any reasons whatsoever. If you give an understandable reason, then I will gladly agree with your decision, otherwise you haven't said anything about the subject whatsoever and I feel that you placed it up for deletion simply for the long name. --Bentendo24 (talk) 04:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you see the words: "no evidence of notability" - that is a necessary and sufficient reason. At this moment eight other people agree with me - and not one of them has mentioned the silly name. I accept your claim to have no COI but given your contributions history, I am amazed to find you asking these questions - surely you have encountered Wikipedia notability guidelines before? Sgroupace (talk) 06:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright fair enough, I'm tired of trying to defend it. Thanks for giving a reason. --Bentendo24 (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Bahjat Muhyedeen
I am wondering why you are suggesting that Professor Muhyedeen's papers are dubious? Have you read his papers? Progress is made with people who generate new thinking and make it available for all to consider. I am a newbie, I realise I have lots to learn on the way of writing for Wikipedia - that I can accept and am working to improve the approach. By the way I am also based in England. Hegaldi (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What comments have been made by other scientists on Muhyedeen's papers? That is a test we apply before writing about them here. Sgroupace (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Extremo!
A reminder: G4 speedies of previously deleted material only applies to material that was deleted through AFD or some other deletion debate. A previously speedied article does not qualify for G4 deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 21:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Functional Decomposition Methodology
It turns out the article is a copyvio - see my comment at the AfD and a post I have made at AN/I. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sweethead
I'm currently unable to verify any sources on this one, but if this is a real band formed by Troy Van Leeuwen, it shouldn't be an A7 candidate. What do you think? decltype (talk) 10:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I shall bow out and leave other editors to decide. Sgroupace (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Moving fire-float
Firstly I don't think it needs moving, so much as merging into fireboat.

Secondly I'm trying not to bite a new editor. There's already some question as to whether "floats" and "fire-floats" even exist (Or what matters more these days, whether Wikipedia defines them to exist). Andy Dingley (talk) 00:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The move you proposed was fire-floats to fire-float. That was totally uncontroversial. And how on earth could a move be taken as biting a newbie? The merge was a totally different issue. This search says that fire float is a valid term. Sgroupace (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

That is NOT the way to do it! Why did you just delete the article content (which is valid, and needs a proper merge with copyediting) and replace it with a crude redirect? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not delete as you well know! I felt under no obligation to do any merge -  had created the text - she could do the move. Being aware that some newbies think a redirect means their edits have been deleted, I left her a message. Given the far more blatant fork she created of Pyronaut, I see no need for apology. Sgroupace (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You deleted content from the current head of article space. The fact that it's still there and recoverable is no strong excuse, as it's not obvious to newbies that this is possible, and it's not obvious to Mediawiki experts (unless they were already watching the article) that such content is there and potentially available.

Obviously the fork to the 2nd Pyronaut is a bad idea, but again replacing that with a redir is hardly the best way to encourage a new editor and to get their useful work to end up in the right place. What's the hurry? What's wrong with discussing it through talk: first? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How does "deleted content from the current head of article space" differ from "replaced the article with a redirect"? There is one, pretty weak, argument for speedy redirecting: to stop Google picking up the fork. Google seems to see new pages within minutes nowadays! But I accept that it conceals the fork from other editors. Redirecting Fire-float Pyronaut and leaving fire-float marked 'merge-to' seems a good compromise. Sgroupace (talk) 03:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I would suggest leaving the tag up for a week, then doing the merge anyway if there's no reply. I'm in favour of everything you've done, but I just don't want to do it in the traditional Wikipedia way of annoying a promising looking new editor and making them disappear. How many times have we all seen that happen?! The main reason I haven't done it this week is that I don't have good referenceable sources for the historical extent of the term "fire float", and of course a lack of time. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Richard maher agency
You tagged this article as db-spam ... good call, but please use WP:Twinkle or some other tool when you tag articles for speedy deletion. It will mark the page as patrolled (currently broken but we're working on it), which makes life easier for the new page patrollers, and give proper notification to the creator, and give an edit summary that lets me know I don't have to double-check your work, and add the proper tag to the page. (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Did I mark the article patrolled (which Twinle would not have done)? Did I leave an edit summary? Is it worth bothering to notify a spammer? -- Sgroupace (talk) 07:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I just tried Twinkle - it is totally ridiculous: it gave a welcome message to the creator of Burn 1n hell. Sgroupace (talk) 07:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * >Did I mark the article patrolled?
 * If you took the article from the NPP queue, then no problem, it's marked automatically. Most articles I see tagged weren't taken from the NPP queue, and in those cases, if the article survives, we're dumping the problem on the overworked admins who do NPP. (The current bug was caused by a recent upgrade of the mediawiki software, and should be fixed soon.)
 * >Did I leave an edit summary?
 * Not one that kept me from having to check to make sure the creator was notified and having a conversation with you about what Twinkle does. Communicating with taggers when something isn't being done takes more time than deleting the articles.
 * >Is it worth bothering to notify a spammer?
 * Doing useful work is good; making work for other people is bad. Our experience has been that if we don't leave something that looks like an official canned response, creators often assume the worst and go looking for someone to blame ... usually the deleting admin. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hacking myspace
Hey, I've changed the csd tag on this article as it doesn't fall under db-nonsense as set out in WP:NONSENSE. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Nathaniel Elliott speedy declined
As speedy deletion has already been declined, doubt exists as to whether or not this meets speedy deletion criteria. Further, it asserts significance and is sourced. I would recommend taking it to AFD to discuss notability and reliability of sourcing. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  18:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Rudolph Frederick Stapelberg
An article that you have been involved in editing, Rudolph Frederick Stapelberg, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Sandor Clegane (talk) 03:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Start-rite
A tag has been placed on Start-rite, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as FAQ/Business for more information.

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 page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 19:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Leigh Kessler
Hello Sgroupace, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Leigh Kessler - a page you tagged - because: Article claims importance/significance of the subject. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know.  So Why  07:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Centre for Population, Poverty and Public Policy Studies
I have removed the prod tag from Centre for Population, Poverty and Public Policy Studies, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that this article should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! Pgallert (talk) 08:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Dino Run
Hello Sgroupace, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Dino Run has been removed. It was removed by ThaddeusB with the following edit summary ' (contest prod - this is a popular game & appears to pass WP:N (see http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Dino+Run%22+pixeljam&btnG=Search&um=1&ned=us&hl=en&scoring=a) - at minimum it should be merged into the main pixeljam article) '. Please consider discussing your concerns with ThaddeusB before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

speedy deletion declined: HNDM
I declined speedy deletion per WP:G11 because the article does not meet that criterion, as it is not exclusively promotional. I also moved the article to User:ShehanD/SLIATE for the reasons given on User talk:ShehanD/SLIATE. &mdash; Sebastian 08:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

35 rhums
Just a friendly note on 35 rhums. I'm contesting the prod because this film was shown at two major international film festivals. While this technically doesn't meet Notability (films) by itself, a quick gnews search shows that enough reviews are likely to be out there to meet notability (I just don't have time today to hunt them down.) However, if you think it's not notable, feel free to take it to AfD. Cheers!-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  16:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Tagging of Causata
I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Causata. I do not think that Causata fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because a simple Google News search shows that the company has been covered in multiple reliable sources. I request that you consider not re-tagging Causata for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. You are, of course, free to tag the article with prod or nominate it at WP:AFD.  Jamie  S93  18:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Tagging of Quiz Fest
Hi. Just wanted to let you know that you tagged this page incorrectly. It is not web content, but print content. Please be careful of what you tag, and please be sure the tag you are placing is correct for the subject matter. I have found WP:CSD to be quite helpful in CSD taggings. ArcAngel (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So which of the CSDs did your revised tag fit? Fortunately an admin with a IAR attitude saw it. -- Sgroupace (talk) 22:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Dave Clifton
Hello Sgroupace, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Dave Clifton has been removed. It was removed by Howard J Foster with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Howard J Foster before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 19:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The Bangellame
Hi, 123flamenco here. I'm uncertain of the present standing regarding your proposed deletion of The Bangellame. Please could you read the discussion and inform me of the present situation. --123flamenco (talk) 05:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied at Talk:The Bangellame. Sgroupace (talk) 08:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Not There When Needed Most
Hello Sgroupace, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Not There When Needed Most - a page you tagged - because: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. NW ( Talk ) 03:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You promptly deleted it without giving any reason! What CSD criterion should I have used? Sgroupace (talk) 08:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Tony Di Carlo
An article that you have been involved in editing, Tony Di Carlo, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Favonian (talk) 13:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Got him.
Thanks for pointing out that "Gooddaycura" sockpuppet. Drop me a howdy if any more pop up. I'll then semi-protect the article for a bit. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Climate Justice
You PRODded this page last month, and it was deleted. The author has asked for it to be restored, so per WP:DEL, I have undeleted it; I am notifying you in case you wish to nominate it for AFD. The author also asked for advice on how to improve it, so I suggested he discuss it with you. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Pity, we were both slow at spotting that it was a blatant fork - see Talk:Climate Justice. -- Sgroupace (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I am the author of the Climate Justice article that was PRODed last month. I see the article has been undeleted, but the article does not appear to be publicly availabe - I am still directed to the 'Climate Ethics' article when I enter 'Climate Justice' into the Wikipedia English language search engine. Perhaps you could advise why this is or how you think the article I submitted could be improved. Thanks. JLeland123 (talk) 10:20, 18 January 2010
 * I suggest you raise the matter at Talk:Climate ethics explaining clearly why you think a separate article is justified. Feel free to work on your text in User:JLeland123/sandbox. – Sgroupace (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Spooked (Pretty Maids Album)
Hello Sgroupace. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Spooked (Pretty Maids Album), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A9: Pretty Maids have an article, so album doesn't qualify under A9. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Instead of telling me, it would have been more useful if you had actually added an intro. with link to the article. I would have seen it. Sgroupace (talk) 07:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Informal writing and Formal writing
You failed to notify the noob who created these before you Prodded them. So I removed your ProDs. Yet I think they should be merged into the larger article. Bearian (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Camp Jaycee
Hello Sgroupace. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Camp Jaycee, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Subject might be important/significant (see also Google News hits for this subject) / use WP:PROD or WP:AFD instead to allow other editors to participate in this decision. Thank you.  So Why  08:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Notifying authors
Hi. Thanks for tagging Tria mera just now, but after you tag a page for speedy deletion you should copy to the author's talk page the warning which is generated for you on the speedy template, towards the bottom. Otherwise the newbie author doesn't know what's happened, thinks he pressed the wrong button, and often just puts the article in again. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

CSD
Please don't forget to notify the creator of an article when you nominate for CSD, e.g. JetEx Flight Support-- SPhilbrick  T  16:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Adrian Zagoritis
Hello Sgroupace. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Adrian Zagoritis, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''"several top 40 hits worldwide and is a gold and platinum-selling writer" is a sufficient assertion of importance to pass A7. Consider PROD or AfD if those claims are not backed by relaible sources. .''' Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy of Mian Muhammad Wirali Sahib
I have removed your CSD A7, please take some time to check the guidelines. If there is any claim of notability, even when unsourced, then it should not be used. Fæ (talk) 10:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The Good, The Bad and The Sholay
Hi I have reverted your edit proposing speedy deletion because the play was directed by Huzir Sulaiman, a famous South East Asian dramatist. And hence is in line with Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. Mohit Kanwal (talk) 13:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Ghjk
Hello Sgroupace. I am just letting you know that I deleted Ghjk, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Xavier operating system
Thanks for nominating this article for WP:PROD, but in reviewing it I think it is clearly non-notable spam and so I have upgraded your PROD to WP:CSD. - Ahunt (talk) 12:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Max Embarrassing - last scream
will you please tell me why a Danish cinema is not notable? if this is because the lack of link to the imdb plot and I'll add it on Monday.And is it not a bit exaggerated with a quick deletion nomination? we can not have a vote whether we should keep the article here? I want to thank you in advance -- Bouncingnewsgreen (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC) So if I have added a section with the action that would increase the notables? -- Bouncingnewsgreen (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Danish cinema is notable. It is this particular product of Danish cinema that is dubious. An IMDb link can be added but it does absolutely nothing to establish notability since IMDb is indiscriminate and lists all movies. "Quick deletion" - no I used a prod tag not a speedy tag. By all means we can have an AfD discussion. You compared this movie to 1918 (film) - surely the difference is obvious 1918 is still remembered 50 years after its release Max Embarrassing has scarcely even been reviewed yet. They do not have equal right to be in Wikipedia. (In fact the 1918 (film) article is so short on independent references that it also well deserves a prod.) &mdash; Sgroupace (talk) 11:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course not! For notability we require links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, preferably in English. &mdash; Sgroupace (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Speedy delete nominations
Hi when you nominate something like Harold Norbert Cheever Doris McGrady V. for speedy deletion, please let the author know so that they can do something about it! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

CSD nomination on Charles R. Glass
Hi, just dropping by to let you know I have challenged your CSD nomination on Charles R. Glass. In my assessment the article has assertions of importance sufficient to survive criteria A7. I have replaced the A7 with a BLPPROD and a regular PROD on notability grounds. Monty 845  16:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes. cooldenny (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

CSD
Please read WP:CSD. An article does not have to shown notability    to pass speedy--it merely has to indicate some possible importance or significance, and saying someone is a mayor or comparable official is certainly enough for that. The criterion is deliberately narrow, and applied very restrictively. Many other of your speedy nominations are similarly inappropriate. Please stop nominating articles until your read and understand the rules there, and at WP:Deletion policy. To discuss why the rules are interpreted narrowly, use WT:CSD -- but read the prior discussions there first, as it is discussed there frequently DGG ( talk ) 22:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Prod
Your PROD nomination of Stefani Carter seems unclear to me. First, the prod reason, "Election Mandate" for a person who won a US HR election seems really odd: are you nominating on the basis that you think she should not have won? Your BLP prod seems also a little peculiar, when at least a hundred references are right there in G News. (and considering that the article cited refs, tho not specifically enough. There is no particular format for a reference required to survive BLP. Had you tried to clarify them and not found them, that would indeed have been a possible reason for deletion.) I remind you that WP:Before is part of WP:Deletion policy. Considering the comments above about some of your other nominations, I suggest a further acquaintance with that policy before continuing to nominate for deletion.  DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your PROD nomination of Noman Group seemed to have an.. interesting rationale. I have endorsed your PROD, as I do believe it should be deleted. But surely it is because the page is a non-notable company, and also written as an advert and without sources? Your reason of "spammy without proof" isn't really very useful I'm afraid. So, I have not endorsed your reason.
 * I notice that this has been mentioned to you before, and I suggest that, whilst you have a good eye for a PROD, perhaps a little more care could be taken over your reason for deletion comments. Phil ip.t.day   talk  13:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell Retribution
Hello Sgroupace. I am just letting you know that I deleted Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell Retribution, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, please do remember the page creator that you nominated their article for deletion: from WP:CSD, There is strong consensus that the creators and major contributors of pages and media files should be warned of a speedy deletion nomination. All speedy deletion templates thus contain in their body a pre-formatted, suggested warning template to notify the relevant parties of the nomination for speedy deletion under the criterion used. You can copy and paste such warnings to the talk pages of the creators and major contributors, choose from others listed at Category:CSD warning templates, or place the unified warning template,, which allows you to tailor your warning under any particular criterion by replacing 'csd' with the associated criterion abbreviation (e.g. g4, a7). Salvio  Let's talk about it! 12:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Ronal the Barbarian
hey you wrote that the film could only get an article on the English wiki (in addition to film portal scope.dk) and I saw that movie Ronal the Barbarian (danish:Ronal Barbaren) was mentioned on ekstrabladet.dk. I must as well be allowed to write the article in English wiki when you demanded that it should be mentioned on a website. Mvh --Bouncingnewsgreen (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Udghosh
Hello Sgroupace. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Udghosh, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to festivals. Thank you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Touchtennis
Hello Sgroupace. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Touchtennis to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage engagement strategy released
Hey guys!

I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox -.

It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Nara Document
You proposed The Nara Document on Authenticity for deletion based on the rationale "no evidence". No evidence of what? Of its existence? Or of its notability. Evidence of its existence has been provided. Shall I remove the PROD template? WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion?
Hi. Could you please clarify your reasons for your proposed deletion of my article? Thanks. (The article was "Limo (game)) KazLabz 00:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC) Sgroupace, I wanted to inform you that this game is a very unpopular one that has no sources. Therefore, I can conclude this article is purely for entertainment purposes. By experience and extensive social assurance, I believe this article should be kept on the English Wikipedia. Thank you. KazLabz 00:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Total absence of references is a necessary and sufficient reason. Sgroupace (talk) 00:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Spiritual Geography PACME
I declined your speedy for 'nonsense'. That's a rather limited category. It applies to things like 'uyytuytc ljhhgfgf' (after making sure that it's not actually written in some form of Foreign), or things like 'catapult synchronous devilry bat pyramid crusty' which wouldn't even be accepted by a Surrealist poet. You have to be careful that it's not a machine translation from Japanese of Chinese, though. They can get pretty weird. I've retagged it as spam, as it seems to be promoting the book. If that's declined, I'll prod it (if you don't get there first...). Peridon (talk) 09:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Die Amigos
Maybe you don't know that music band, because you live in England. In Germany this band became popular. There songs are in german language. They got different German music awards and there songs are for several times in Germany on Top One im music charts. Greetings from Germany Timmo45 (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Pe Werner
German singer Echo. You know not enough over german music. Best greetings from Germany. Timmo45 (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Steve Helms
I rejected your db-band tagging of this article. At first pass, it would seem to qualify for that tag. A search on allmusic.com found him at and there is reason to believe he is notable. Further, a Google search for "Steve Helms band" turned up >60k hits. I think there's something to work with here. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Your PROD at Newall green primary school
Please remember to specify which notability guideline(s) you think the subject of a PROD fails to meet. I agree that your PROD was applied correctly, but "no evidence" is hardly a good argument, and not one we use to delete articles. Cheers. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)