User talk:Shem1805/Archive 3

Could you please help / be more explicit?
You have marked the AZImage article for speedy deletion. This happened after the article was revised and I have tried to rewrite it in a manner that is encyclopedic. The speedy deletion worked that fast that I had no chance to react. I admit that I am new to wikipedia and I have probably to go a long way before being able to write a first article on my own. Improving some other articles helps, but I believe that the best would be if someone (can you? or can you recommend someone?) would guide my first steps. I have recreated the article under my personal page User:Rotarucalin/AZImage and tried to add some references and to improve the way it is written. Still I cannot answer the following: "What made it a possible candidate for deletion in your case?" "Which Wikipedia principles I am not following in the way I wrote the article?". Simply writing about a software product is not incompatible with Wikipedia. Having a small article is also common case. Could you please give me some hints? Thanks in advance.rac 09:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Since I have got no answer for more than a week now, I will move the article from the user space back to wiki. Could you please continue the discussion on the discussion page of the article? Thank you in advance.rac 13:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotarucalin (talk • contribs)

How is the article promotional??
It just contains information about the company? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.79.242 (talk) 09:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're talking about Mareco Broadcasting Network, Inc.? Have a look at Notability (organizations and companies), and make a case on the article talkpage if you still think it should be kept.  You may be interested in What Wikipedia is not.  Shem (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I am looking for more references but the article is not written in a promotional style! How can an a simple article giving basic facts about a company be an advertisemnt? What "fundamental rewrite" do you think is necssary to make it not sound like an advert? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.79.242 (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you read the tag? Try the bit about "Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion".  Follow the instructions, specifically the bit about the  tag, or you will find it gets deleted anyway.  Removing the tag will not save the article, and may speed up its deletion.  And please sign your posts (using ~ .  Thanks.  Shem (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

That means it doesnt qualify for deletion on your critera as it is just about the company!!!

Please stop removing the references I add as well.129.234.79.242 (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * For the last time, read the instructions in the tag. You're likely to get blocked from editing at all if you keep removing the tag.  I'm not removing your references, except in so far as I'm reverting your changes.  Shem (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

You didnt read your own tag "simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion" - what about the article is promotional??????--129.234.79.242 (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right - I was too hasty. I think I meant to use the A7 tag (notability).  Do what I suggest, read the instructions, and you're likely to find the admin who checks it agrees with you.  Good luck.  Shem (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

THANK YOU! I read the notability things and am adding references but there aren't so many english ones on the web but i will keep looking 129.234.79.242 (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

COI
I barely wrote a paragraph. Whats wrong? Please guide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JK-RULZ (talk • contribs) 09:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see the article talkpage - and please remember to sign your talk page entries. Shem (talk) 10:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Please do not worry. It would surely be taken under consideration while editing this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JK-RULZ (talk • contribs) 10:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate what you did for the article Shesh Paul Vaid but I just want to correct you on one simple thing that, User:Vaiddauji is not Shesh Paul Vaid. If don't believe me just search the later name on web. You'll get to know. Thank You 117.198.131.11 (talk) 13:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And yes, I almost forgot, that is not a Gov. of India (GOI) IP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.131.11 (talk) 13:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to assume that Vaid is the name of both S P Vaid and of User:Vaiddauji, without them necessarily being the same person. COI requires that you state there is no conflict of interest, which you have not done.  If you're related to Vaid, then you need to say so, in accordance with WP:COI.  Meanwhile the COI tag warns readers that there may be an undeclared COI.  When it is established that there is no COI, or that the COI is declared and there is NPOV, then the tag can go.  The Indian IP that started editing right after JK-RULZ retired isn't an Indian Government IP?  My mistake - but it hardly alters the facts.  Are you saying you are not JK-RULZ? Remember that an Admin can check a user's IP...  Shem (talk) 13:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Drowningman
Hmmm I'm not quite sure what I'm doing wrong... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohnonono123 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * One would think I would be a bit better at it... being a journalist. But, yes... I removed all copyrighted material... what I had initially posted was a revision of that material with factual corrections. If you can get me started I will make edits after comparing it to other wiki pages. I appreciate your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohnonono123 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem at all. I'm making some changes now - and I can assure you there will be errors of fact - this is way off my area of understanding - but you should be able to correct the text easily.  Yours, Shem (talk) 10:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(Moved by Shem to correct section) Yes, I was in the band. I have updated my userpage to reflect that. What would be the next step in that process (tagging as semi-biographical)? Ohnonono123 (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it looks much better now. I was in the band (Simon Brody) so how do I resolve that conflict of interest? All of the material is factually supported by the citing references. I just clarified information currently in circulation elsewhere on the internet. I will work to fix the stylistic suggestions and I corrected the issues you pointed out. Ohnonono123 (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohnonono123 (talk • contribs)
 * Simon (can I call you Simon, or would you prefer "Ohno"?) I've had a quick look through and fixed some broken links, style, formatting, etc. This needs more work to fix the COI, but I'll be back later.  I'm afraid some of the pure Simon Brody stuff will need to go (quotes, link to the blog), but it will end up a really good article, and accurate to boot.  Well done.  Chat later. Shem (talk) 09:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And one more thing - do you have a photo that YOU own the copyright to (ie you took)? If so, we can upload it, which will improve the article no end.  Let me know.  Shem (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Simon it is. Yes, I will make more changes as time allows. Law school finals season is upon me. I thought this would be a nice little distraction/project. Rules everywhere I look... Oh and yes, I have plenty of photos to which I own the copyright. Not that I took myself because that would be quite difficult but promo pictures for which the photographer was paid and we were given rights to use the photos in all press material. How should a photo be linked to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohnonono123 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Simon, thanks for getting back to me. I know what you mean about rules, but they're there to protect the encyclopaedia (but you're a lawyer in training, so I hardly need to explain.) I'm afraid owning the rights to use the photo isn't the same as owning the copyright.  Unless you've purchased the copyright, you can't put it on Wikipedia (there are some exceptions, but not worth pursuing at the moment). This isn't promo, remember - think of it as an analogy to putting a Drowningman photo in a printed encyclopaedia. Have a think and see if you can come up with a photo taken by you, which will be simple.  If not, perhaps you know someone who took a photo and would be willing to set up an account on Wikipedia and upload it.  Either way, I'll guide you step-by-step.  It's not that hard, I promise.
 * On another subject, you yourself are probably notable, and therefore deserving of a Wikipedia article. You can't write it yourself, but if you point me in the direction of some useful sources, then I can.  The articles you can write are the albums - see Calculating Infinity for an example. Just remember to declare your COI on the talk page.
 * I think the end result of your nice little project/distraction will be a good article on Drowningman, which WP didn't have before you started. If you feel like doing me a favour, you'll hang around WP for a while and apply your expert knowledge to improving other articles.  I'll always be glad to help, but sometimes my job takes me away for long periods.  Don't be offended if I don't answer, and if you ask any other editor, 90% of them will be delighted to help. Yours, Shem (talk) 09:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Ala
Sorry. I didn't make my intentions clear. I intended the exact opposite of what you redirect. I split the old Ala (Roman military) article up into 2 dedicated articles, to reflect its quite distinct components (1) the Republican ala, a largely infantry formation (with some cavalry) of 5,400 men, now Ala (Roman allied military unit) and (2) the imperial ala, a purely cavalry unit of 500 men, now Ala (Roman cavalry unit). So please can you cancel your redirect. Regards EraNavigator (talk) 14:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. You could easily have reverted the change yourself, but I was pleased to do so on your behalf.  I've also amended the disambiguation page Ala to reflect, and put the  template on both Ala (Roman allied military unit) and Ala (Roman cavalry unit).  Please check and make sure they are correct. Shem (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: List of People who have held more than one World Heavyweight Title in Professional Wrestling
Hello Shem1805, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of List of People who have held more than one World Heavyweight Title in Professional Wrestling - a page you tagged - because: '''A7 doesn't apply, this isn't an article about a person or group. PROD or take to AfD if required.''' Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Ged UK  18:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Er ... good point. Shem (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Saw your interest
Thought you might be interested in WikiProject Military history/Napoleonic era task force/Napoleonic fiction and WikiProject Novels/Military fiction task force. Any questions contact me on one of those pages or my talk, SADADS (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:US Officer ranks collapsed
The template you created "Template:US Officer ranks collapsed" will soon be nominated for deletion. It is no longer necessary. Please see the discussion at the "Template:US officer ranks" talk page for details. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely right - thanks for the message. Shem (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:US Officer ranks collapsed
A tag has been placed on Template:US Officer ranks collapsed requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (&lt;noinclude>&#123;{transclusionless}}&lt;/noinclude>).

Thanks. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)