User talk:SouthernNights/Archive 6

mlfrith
On Friday, you deleted my article on Shermco Industries. This article met the requirements of being noteworthy, as it has been the subject of several third party news articles. In the article, I listed the links to verify this.

I would appreciate it you would please clarify why you deleted this when it meets the criteria.

Thank you.
 * Per WP:CORP, Shermco Industries is not notable. There are barely 800 Google hits for "Shermco Industries" which indicates the lack of notability. In addition, several of the "news" links you provided were to sources (Occupational Hazzards magazine, Electrical Wholesaling Magazine) that merely mentioned Shermco in the author's byline, while two other links were reprints of company press releases. There was only one true news article about the company and that was a short blurb in the Dallas Business Journal. I'm afraid at this time the company is not notable.--SouthernNights 16:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Roberta Trias-Kelley
I edited this article and redid it in my own words even though I am the one who wrote the original article that is on our webpage. It is no longer the same, though there may be a sentence that remains the same. This article is new and verifiable through the cited material. It is also not copywritten as it doesn't appear the same on our webpage. I am not trying to be difficult but what more can I do to take care of this?

Thanks for your help, but even with the rewrite the article was deleted. I made it noteworthy and cited sources. I would like it undeleted. This woman is a martial arts pioneer and one of the highest ranking women in Karate in the world. What more do I need to do? I was unable to find the deletion in the deletion log. I have contacted Zoe as well, since that is the editor who deleted the article. I would like, if you could, to either help me by giving me feedback on what I need to do to get this article recreated. There are many other people who are somewhat notable in Shuri-ryu Karate that are still in Wikipedia. It seems that the head of the system should be there too. Thanks for any help that you can provide. Lesshadow

Professional Communication
Hi,

Please let me know which site has got the similar content. As I am a new writer to wikipedia. If the site where you found similar article, is the same which is owned by me. I would put the comments in my site about releaseing the content for free license.

Thanks for all your help and support

Neharis 21:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Medical Malpractice
I just want to let you know how much I appreciate your edit to medical malpractice. I disagree with the motivations and arguments of 'tort reformers'. However, your NPOV inclusion of criticism of med mal cases is the first truly NPOV discussion of this I have yet seen on WIkipedia. The number of rants I have seen on WIkipedia against lawyers and tort law has turned my stomach. It's refreshing to see a criticism that is actually balanced.jawesq 23:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome
Just a very, very belated "thank you" for your welcome. I wanted to thank you right away, but I didn't know much about Wikipedia then, so I didn't know how. -- The Great Llama   (speak to the Llama!) 18:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Deletion
Hi - let me first express my greatfulness for your work. We appreciate from our side that you see through and edit incoming articles. I will encourage you to look at http://alwaysbethere.com:16080/team/ where you under the descriptions will find what I earlier submitted under alwaysBEthere. This is public information but should of course be referenced to its origin at http://alwaysbethere.com:16080/team/

I understand that I am not expert in Wikipedia but I am an expert on alwaysBEthere - so answer me this - if I get unique information about alwaysBEthere and write up a discription, will that meet the requirements?

--Fflagstad 01:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Links
See Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive55 for relevant discussion the last time JzG brought this up. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  19:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Shakespeare article
The Shakespeare article seriously misrepresents the facts. Please read the Shakespeare Authorship article and you will see why. If you're going to moderate the article then I recommend you read The Shakespeare Puzzle because some of the article's assumptions are not correct. Having read it this book, I can vouch that it is an investigation executed with rigor and depth. QBrute
 * And you shouldn't vandalize pages (see ). If you can gain consensus for your changes on the Shakespeare talk page, then more power to you. But you must gain consensus for such controversial changes before making them.--SouthernNights 20:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, maybe I was naughty adding my message to the Shakespeare article. But I am thinking that you only believe it is controversial because you have not investigated widely enough on this issue, probably confining yourself to the oft-repeated feel-good fairytale that Mr Shakspere did it all, propagated by scholars who have no scientific/theoretical training. Wait though ... Marlowe was murdered, Oxford died in 1604, and Bacon was a dry-styled Lord Chancellor surrounded by hidden ciphers that spiritualists claim to have found. So who does that leave? Shakspere of course! ... Rewind. The books by Cockburn, N., The Bacon Shakespeare Question (1998) and Clarke, Barry R., The Shakespeare Puzzle (2006) have changed the Bacon theory to a sane and rigorous argument. Ban me if you like, but first read one or both of these if you're really interested in having an authority over Shakespeare authorship. Then I shall look forward to debating these issues with you in the Talk section! Oh, and as an olive branch, I'll give you a link to a FREE download I found of the latter book QBrute.
 * In cases such as this, Wikipedia tries to represent the general historical concensus, which is that Shakespeare was real and wrote all the stuff attributed to him. In cases where there's significant dispute, such as with Shakespeare, the appropriate course of action is to point out the dispute on the page, and, if the dispute is notable in and of itself, to create a page about the dispute itself and link to it.  Both of these things have been done in the case of Shakespeare.  Surely you understand why Wikipedia cannot advertise minority viewpoints as the truth - it would soon turn into a repository of conspiracy theories and lose all credibility.  See WP:NPOV for more info. -Elmer Clark 01:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Whoops, never mind, sorry about that - I had this page and the help desk open in different tabs, and didn't realize which one I was reading. I take it this is no longer an issue :) -Elmer Clark 01:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Robert D. Arnott
Hello. First, I am a newbie to Wikipedia so please bear with me. I am writing to enquire into the speedy deletion of the entry for Robert D. Arnott.

In looking into the Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies, I see the following: "People who satisfy at least one of the items below generally merit their own Wikipedia articles . . .: <> Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." Rob Arnott serves as editor of the Financial Analysts Journal and has received five Graham and Dodd Awards for excellence in financial writing. In addition, he has received two Bernstein-Fabozzi/Jacobs-Levy Awards and a William F. Sharpe Indexing Achievement Award in 2005. Also, under the Alternative tests section, I feel he passes the professor test, having published over 70 articles. And regarding the Google Test, he generates numerous hits. Lastly, he is already mentioned within Wikipedia itself! Please see Stock_market_index.

If there is a formatting issue, please advise. I had tried to follow the entry for Charles_R._Schwab.

Thanks for your time.

Rallc 00:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)rallc

Robert D. Arnott on deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Robert D. Arnott. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review.

QBrute
Dude - you just reverted a lot of changes that weren't by QBrute and were indeed opposed to him! Thanks for your support but be careful!! The Singing Badger 15:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

med mal update
I updated part of the entry on medical malpractice re US-style critics of our system that you were participating in prior. Please check to see if you feel it's kosher. Best wishes from one Alabama boy to another. RobDroliver 16:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

thanks
thanks for protecting the MySpace article so that we could get a discussion going with anon/Myspaceaddict. -- Chris   chat   edits   essays    04:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Er... we've got a bit of a problem on the MySpace article. I've made a temp page with the revisions as I would like them, and I tried to put up a straw poll to gather consensus. So far, the only voter is the Australian-ip man, and he, of course, wants the edit to stay exactly like his and will barely compromise anything. Whant now? -- Chris   chat   edits   essays    11:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

School IP Address
The computers at school all share a common IP address, so when I found a message saying that I should refrain from vandalizing or be blocked, I found it a slight bit unfair. It's not my fault if someone else at school vandalizes, and the idea of blocking the entire school from using Wikipedia just because of one idiot whose mistakes are fixed in a matter of clicks doesn't sit well with the legitimate users here. Thank you for your time.

168.8.249.57 14:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying and that is why only limited blocks (a few hours or days at most) are used in situations like this. That way we can stop the vandal while also letting other users edit once the block expires. Best, --SouthernNights 15:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion
I'm not asking why you deleted the page- I understand that it was a stub and had just been started. However, note that the article was created because there is a link from another wikipedia page Eric Emm, and if you google Joshua Ryan, you will see a page should at least be considered possibly valid-not deleted before anyone can even add the 8 record discography and cover of Jive magazine. Way to go!Cranky19 18:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I just might agree with you. Either way, I will reseaech the article better before reposting. I just thought if I had a start, others would be able to help out filling in all of the details.Cranky19 18:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC) By the way: you spelled Joshua Ryan(e) incorrectly on my Talk page. Also, this was the first srticle I ever attempted to write, so I'm trying to learn. The results sure seem encouraging.

Deletion of Mark Lyon
You have deleted Mark Lyon which is referred to by Richard C. Davis for "unremarkable people or groups". Lyon is notable due to his involvement in a new form of legal reporting - the usage of the web to distribute actual legal documents and additional analysis as legal documents are filed in notable legal actions. Speedy deletion is only applicable in instances where there is no plausible assertion of notability.
 * Actually, Mark Lyon has "no plausible assertion of notability" (although the definition of notability at Wikipedia is slightly different. Lyon is a law student. He is not notable. Just because another article links to Lyon isn't proof of notability.--SouthernNights 15:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't asserting his notability because of the linking of a single article to him (because I am the one who put the link there) but because of his methods of presenting information about the legal aspects surrounding the 2005 Sony CD copy protection scandal and Flip This House. Servand 15:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC) I think the use of speedy deletion was inappropriate in this instance, proposing it for deletion would have allowed the opportunity for further editing and consideration. As it stands, since you've speedy deleted it, I can't recover the content that I researched and posted earlier today. Your blanket assertion that a law student cannot be notable is not consistent with logic or reason. Servand 15:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Since we disagree on the subject's notability, I've recreated the article and brought it up for an AfD.--SouthernNights 15:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Servand 15:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of UK Dirt
Splinter 20 14:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response (like in 2 minutes), very efficient!

I hope you havent deleted my article. it was written in my own words and not taken from elsewhere. I have permission to use the pictures used in the article.

As for the re-directs (I am new and learning!) but I did that as when I searched for my article it couldn't be found, unless I typed in the EXACT title, including capitals, meaning it would never be found.

I hope my article hasn't been completley deleted as it took a while to create, and does not violate any rules/laws. I have been delighted at finding many old games such as this on your website, and think this is worthy of being on as well. It is a non-profit making group of Brisca stock car fans.

Best regards, Chris Davies

Myspace!
Well, thanks for moderating my discussion with myspaceaddict. But I suspect he's a sockpuppet of Pnatt, since he wars just like Pnatt and registerd the same username on another wiki. He's stated that the Wikisocial name was him. -- Chris   chat   edits   essays    14:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Pushsingh
I think you should change the statement on Pushsingh's user page to "Pushsingh died on February 28, 2006..." (it currently says "Kwantus died in..."). 19:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * My bad. I'll change that right now.--SouthernNights 19:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Threat of libel?
Ok, I'm going to be straight with you. I think you are over-reading my comment. The Singing Badger said "Incidentally I notice that you have written a 5-star review of your own book on Amazon, and yet you claim you're not into self-promotion!" which is a libellous comment because it is not true and he is broadcasting that my book is being falsely commended. I haven't found a warning from you to him on his Talk page. I replied "I have to respond to this libel." and my response was "Reading the review carefully, it is by Angela Newing of The Daily Telegraph, she submitted it to me, I uploaded it for her." This is not a threat of libel action but a statement that it is a libellous comment. Obviously, I wanted to avoid bad feeling so changed it. Perhaps the US is far more obsessed with litigation than we are in the UK. We tend to avoid it. Sorry, but I don't trust you, and I can cite several examples why including deleting my edits twice without explanation, adding a deletion tag to my 'vanity' article (when there is a much better case for deletion for one or two others in the Puzzle Designers section), and now suggesting that I should make amends for The Singing Badger's damaging public accusation. "I know you think I'm trying to gang up on you but I honestly am not trying to." To me, it's what people do not what they say. (Puzzle Master 20:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC))
 * Take the warning as you will. If you make legal threats on Wikipedia you risk being banned. As for the AfD on your article, you created the article yourself, which is a violation of Wikipedia vanity guidelines. --SouthernNights 17:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Rob Levin
, a/k/a died today. Although he had only 43 total edits between his two accounts, he is the founder of the Freenode IRC network and owner of PDPC and does have an article at Rob Levin. Do you think he is worth mentioning at WP:DW? 22:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Requesting comments on link in Evergreen article
As a previous contributor to the article on Evergreen International Aviation, could I request your input on the talk page on whether it should contain a link to [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Evergreen_International_Aviation%2C_Inc. the corresponding SourceWatch article?] With thanks, --Neoconned 12:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:ToniMorrison.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:ToniMorrison.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Chowbok  ☠  16:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Allahpundit revisited
It looks as though one of your fellow administrators was not convinced by your defense of Allah Is in the House (now Allahpundit), or, more likely, did not check the talk page before nominating the article for deletion (for a third time &mdash; a second was quickly reverted). Anyway, your help in convincing people that the lead blogger on Hot Air is notable would be appreciated (at Articles for deletion/Allahpundit), especially since my net access is liable to be spotty during my time away from work.... Calbaer 21:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey
Just wanted to say "hey" and thanks for your work. I discovered Anti-Tom literature last year while reading Uncle Tom's Cabin and today I followed the link from your comment on the William Gilmore Simms talk page.

Nice to meet a fellow Alabamian doing good stuff, and looking after things. -- Rob C (Alarob) 02:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Wgbv
Hi. You removed the Category: Deceased Wikipedians listing from this user's page. He did edit Wikipedia and he is deceased, so I replaced the tag. Regards, --A. B. (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You are correct. When I first looked at his user page, I thought he'd only edited that one page. But I was wrong. My bad.--SouthernNights 18:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. Everything you saw there (obituary, quote from news story about his death, etc.) was written by myself or someone else since, if you think about it, he was dead. --A. B. (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)