User talk:Smile a While/Archive 2

re: undeletion of copyvios
In a deletion review discussion, you asked about undeletion of alleged copyright violations pending verification of release. The short answer is "sometimes". I have answered your comment more fully in the DRV discussion. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hudson mall AFD
FWIW, I declined the speedy request due to the length of time between the last AFD and the current tagging, assuming good faith (but not extensively researching the matter) led to my original decline. I have no issue with it the new AFD being speedily closed though. Thank you, — xaosflux  Talk  06:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you - that's helpful. Smile a While (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Fog Devils review
I have requested more information from you at Deletion review/Log/2007 December 16. Double Blue (Talk) 12:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied. Smile a While (talk) 02:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge
Thank you for helping out with the deletion dispute/merge for the Religious violence in India page. Baka man  01:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem; I suggest keeping the page Anti-Christian violence in India on your watchlist just in case someone tries to undo the merge. Any problems; then ping me here. Smile a While (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

2nd AFD for New Lettrist International
FYI - You previously participated in an AFD on New Lettrist International; it has been renominated a second time (AFD. --Lquilter (talk) 08:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul Image Size
Hi you changed the size from 400pxl to 175pxl on 03:29, 31 December 2007. And from 300plx to 175plx at 00:14, 1 January 2008. So I would like for you to keep the current size of 300 pxl, as the other canidates is 200plx. However when the current image is at that size it is too small (due to it's length). It looks proper and I am trying to compromise with you. So pleses do not change it again. (I hope your not doing this yo be Malicious) best, --Duchamps_comb MFA 07:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I will compromise at 200 as with other candidates - We are writing an encyclopaedia not taking part in an election. Smile a While (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

WARNING!
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits on the page Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. --Duchamps_comb MFA 22:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I was asked to have a look, and it was not that great an idea to use a 3RR warning to reply to a compromise attempt in a totally lame dispute over the image size of a slogan. DGG (talk) 03:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

First Leeds
I have placed a query on the Talkpage of the article about the inclusion of timetable and services. I wondered if you may like to add some thoughts on the subject? Richard Harvey (talk) 11:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mig Greengard
An editor has nominated Mig Greengard, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Lewis McGugan
What's wrong with the information you deleted? That page has nothing to do with you so do not edit it. If you do delete some stuff which I believe is valid, I will put it back on so do not waste mine and yours time please.

comment me back on my page Smithy33 (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Chorley Council election, 2007
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Chorley Council election, 2007, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: :. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I used the 2006 page as the template for the 2007 page. Smile a While (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Barbarians
Hi, Just so you know -- it's not very important, but I'm always talkative -- the article was SALTED deliberately before the DRV after several repostings of the same content. The admin who closed the DRV should have fixed that, but I have done so now. :) Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Star
Thank you. :0) Richard Harvey (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Mirfield
Hey Smile a While, thanks for your note. Having looked back over the history of Mirfield, it doesn't look too bad to me. I've got it on my watchlist which I check very frequently so between us we should be able to pick up this campaign of misinformation pretty quickly. Let's see how it goes for the next couple of weeks and revisit the situation then. If it's any worse then I'll sp the article for a while. Happy editing. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Malakov affair: New information has arisen
Dear Smile a While: As you will recall about two months ago you & I disagreed on the validity of a Daniel Malakov encyclopedia article on Wikipedia. Many WP:Notability and WP:BLP claims were made by yourself and other gentle administrators. Try as I could, there seemed way to convince you that the murder of Daniel Malakov was a significant event requiring a Wikipedia page. The page was deleted. No discussion on the merits was permitted, IMHO, by the "Administrator echelon." In view of the above, I wish to direct your attention to a New York Times article as follows: February 9, 2008 Man Accused of Killing Dentist Exchanged 91 Calls With Dentist’s Wife By CHRISTINE HAUSER and DARYL KHAN

You are free to go to nytimes.com and read the article, but perhaps the salient details are as follows:

Those details about the killing of Dr. Malakov on Oct. 28, 2007, emerged Friday from an indictment and at a news conference held by police officials and prosecutors.

As the families of both Dr. Malakov and his estranged wife looked on, Dr. Borukhova, 34, was arraigned and pleaded not guilty on Friday to charges including first-degree murder and second-degree conspiracy in an emotion-filled hearing in State Supreme Court in Queens. Mr. Mallayev, 50, faces similar charges.

The defendants could each be sentenced to life in prison without parole. They were ordered held without bail until their next court date, Friday.

At the time you folks decided to ditch the article, this information was not available. Now that it is, and more information ostensibly is to come out as the NYPD and AG begin to make their case in court, I want to know whether you will reverse your position and support an article on Daniel Malakov, or alternatively "Murder of Daniel Malakov."

If not, what would you need to see to support such an article? If you demand a conviction, then I plan to hold you to your promise.

Eileivgyrt (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The way forward is as discussed at User Talk:DGG. Smile a While (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Mistake
Sorry about that one, sometimes (actually all the time, somewhere), mistakes happen :). Cheers, Kakofonous (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Avanti Construction
Hi Smile a While, Thank you very much for your comments in the Deletion Review on Avanti Construction. After five days in the deletion review and having read the above comments, what is then the final decision on this entry? Can I restore the content as it is written above? If any changes are needed, could any of the administrators kindly suggest them? Sincere thanks.

--Machiavelli2008 (talk) 11:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The page has been restored but it also has been proposed for deletion at Articles for deletion/Avanti Construction. The problem is that, though I agree the subject is notable, that doesn't come through in the article. Hence the near certainty that it will be deleted. Basically, the article needs a through rewrite. The page should say in crisp terms:
 * When and why it started
 * What it achieved
 * Why it was wrapped up.


 * You also need to include a commentary, based around the sources I quoted in the AfD, that reviews and critically comments on the project. We need a number of secondary sources. Doing this will take a few days, too long to save it in this AfD. Consequently, I have moved the content to User:Machiavelli2008/Avanti Construction. I suggest that you play it long. Let the AfD take its course and develop the page along the lines I suggested (I should be happy to help along the way. When the article is in a fit state then we can go back to Deletion review with a request to recreate the page with some confidence that it will be granted. Smile a While (talk) 04:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help
Thank you very much indeed for your comments and suggestions about the Avanti Construction entry. I have now addressed all the concerns raised and I shall look forward to the outcome of the review.

I very much appreciate your advice.

Kind regards

--Machiavelli2008 (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Avanti
Thanks for your message. I left you a response on my talk page here: User_talk:Dgf32. Dgf32 (talk) 04:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Your help has been really appreciated

 * I'd like to say in the lead when it started. When was it and can you source it, pl? Smile a While (talk) 02:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I have now added the date of the start and have improved the entry. I am really enjoying this Wikipedian activity and I am learning so much.

Thank you very much indeed for your advice and help.

Kind regards

--Machiavelli2008 (talk) 11:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Avanti, between Machiavelli's material and your editing, a really excellent job was done. congratulations to you both. DGG (talk) 18:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Human-baiting
For your information:

Articles_for_deletion/Human-baiting_(2nd_nomination) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.8.246 (talk) 22:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for notifying me. Smile a While (talk) 23:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see my response to your vote at the AfD.  Balkan Fever  02:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Image fair use - Avanti

 * Hi, you need to add a fair-use rationale to the Avanti logo image or it will be deleted. Please feel free to adapt one from Image:Arms-kirklees.jpg. Smile a While (talk) 00:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Smile a While, thank you very much for your advice. I have added the fair use rationale to the Avanti logo at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Avanti.jpg. Hope this is Ok, but by all means let me know whether anything else needs to be included. Take care, --Machiavelli2008 (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Persistent logo.gif
Thank you for uploading Image:Persistent logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Corrected. Smile a While (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

SQEP
As a matter of interest, do you work in an industry that uses the concept of being 'SQEP', or do I have to explain it to you :-) Bob aka Linuxlad (talk) 23:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC) (NB NOT SQEP in any area that I know of!)
 * I do understand the term :-) The fact of it being a valid term doesn't mean that it is a suitable topic for an article. At present, I don't see it being more than a dicdef. If you can demonstrate that there is enough material available to write an encyclopedic article then that's just fine! Smile a While (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I see it as being no less of a dicdef that (industry-specific, practicising and registered) chartered engineer, to which it is is rather related Linuxlad (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC).
 * Chartered engineer is, of course, a disambig page. I have just looked through many pages of Google hits which confirm, what we know, that it is a widely used term, but I am still not seeing the material available for this to be sufficiently expandable. Smile a While (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I've added a bit more to this - I could add a little more from a published review, which gives a flavour of how this process is viewed by an outside regulator. Bob aka Linuxlad (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Your work on the article "Disappearance of Shannon Matthews"
Just to let you know that your contribution to this article (and thus to the awareness regarding the unfortunate case) is much appreciated. I was saddened to see the article be unfairly deleted via AfD the first time, but with your work and the various references you provide, you firmly establish the notability of the case.

Also to bring to your attention the following website ( http://www.helpfindshannon.org.uk/index.asp ) being officially launched today, according to the local paper. Please consider whether it should be linked to from the article and, if so, how to do it.

Let's hope that, despite the odds, we will soon be able to add some good news as information to the article.... Take care mate. 82.155.148.102 (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Shannon Matthews.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Shannon Matthews.jpg. 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) 12:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Greenock Academy

 * Thanks for your assistance on this article, I was very surprised to see it tagged for a speedy delete and felt compelled to expand the article. You have taken it on and greatly improved it. I have found User:Otolemur crassicaudatus on many ocassions to be very quick with tags. Paste (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've now started Gourock High School, please do feel free to add to the article. Thanks again. Paste (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Many thanks for the barnstar. It's nice to know that my contributions are appreciated! :) Small-town hero (talk) 01:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Ajay_Madhok
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ajay_Madhok. 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. PuneetaArora (talk) 07:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Don Jonz
You nominated this as Prod, saying the event might be notable. I agree with you that the event probably is,and the man probably isnt. Can you think of a title for the article though? It would be easy enough to rearrange it for the appropriate emphasis. DGG (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Disappearance of Cessna 310C perhaps? Smile a While (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Huddersfield
Hi Smile a While! I am wondering why you removed the HTFC crest from the article, which was placed there for informational purposes, and is still used on the main HTFC article. I would have thought it was covered by rationale No4? Richard Harvey (talk) 08:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Under the current fair use policy, there needs to be a separate fair use rationale with the image for each page in which the image appears. If you wish the logo to be included in the Huddersfield page then an additional rationale, which could be a copy of the existing rationale, needs to be added to the image page. My concern is that the section on Town is a summary rather than dealing with the club in any depth and therefore it could be argued that the image is not informational. It is, however, a marginal case. If you decide that the presence of the image in the Huddersfield article does comply with fair use policy then add a new rationale to the image page and add it back to Huddersfield; I would be happy to accept your judgement and won't remove it again. Smile a While (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah
Yeah, thanks for that. I created it and then went to bed. You saved it being there all night. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 22:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Station Jim
I observe your amendment to this. Please note that this matter is under discussion at DRV. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

John Joe Joyce
check your facts! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 18:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Updated HTFC crest
Hey Smile a While! I'm wondering if it's possible for you to actually update the Town crest, because strictly speaking, it's out of date by about 2 years. I of course mean, could you put the darker blue crest with the clearer writing on it if at all possible. Much appreciated in advance! JRRobinson (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Great shout, thanks. Now sorted. Smile a While (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well done man, thanks a bunch! JRRobinson (talk) 09:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads up...
Don't forget to put notices on a user's talk page, not their main user page.

Moot point on this one, as the user was pretty obviously a vandalism-only account (and has been blocked as such), but still, thought I'd drop by. :) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 00:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, no problem, just a slip adding the notice to the wrong page, but thanks for the note anyway. Smile a While (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help
Thanks for your help on the Louis Bozon article. I really appreciate it. Chris (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also with the Dario Poggi article. Chris (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Camp Avoda
The reason I reinserted the link is that it is now fixed and works properly. The address was just slightly off. Similarly the Color War record is not only encyclopedic, it is the most important section of the article. It provides people who are familiar with the event a full record of Color War history. And both history and records are encyclopedic. —Preceding QuentinV comment added by QuentinV (talk • contribs) 01:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The Alumni link is a private link that fails WP:EL and at least three editors have indicated that the Color War record should come out.Smile a While (talk) 01:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Vicki Iseman
Sorry for the long delay in responding to you: it's been a few busy days! Rather than a full userfy, which moves the history of the article, I have done a "content-only" paste into your userspace at User:Smile a While/Vicki. Since the content only paste doesn't include attribution, I'll necessarily have to either make it a full userfy or delete it at the end of the DRV. Best wishes. - Philippe 15:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this. Smile a While (talk) 23:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:RHS.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:RHS.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) 12:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Another editor uploaded an updated image so this one should be deleted. Smile a While (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)