User talk:SpyFX

Problems with upload of File:Mcyc.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Mcyc.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Musket Cove Resort


A tag has been placed on Musket Cove Resort, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be unambiguous advertising that 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 general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising,. Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the |the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. AdAstra reloaded (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Musket Cove (Malolo-Lili island)


A tag has been placed on Musket Cove (Malolo-Lili island) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Eeekster (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011
Thank you for your recent contributions, such as Musket Cove (Malolo-Lili island). Getting started creating new articles on Wikipedia can be tricky, and you might like to try creating a draft version first, which you can then ask for feedback on if necessary, without the risk of speedy deletion. Do make sure you also read help available to you, including Your First Article and the Tutorial. You might also like to try the Article Wizard, which has an option to create a draft version. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Lagoon View.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Lagoon View.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. Eeekster (talk) 01:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of PeerFX


A tag has been placed on PeerFX, 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 encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Shirt58 (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. SmartSE (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2012
Hello, SpyFX. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may need to consider our guidance on conflicts of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Multiple accounts?
Are you the same person who used to edit under the name Belro629? If "yes", why do you have more than one account, and do you have any more accounts? If "no", then what is your relationship with the owner of that account? JamesBWatson (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi JamesBWatson - Yes - Belro629 is a combination of characters I recognise. It is likely I would have started a new account if I had forgotten that I had had an account - or i didn't know the password; potential other reasons is that I changed personal comupters, and my autolog-ins were lost or forgotten.

You have left comments that the KlickEx service is not notable. Please contact the Pacific Island Financial Inclustion Program prior to deleting the pages.

Thanks..... PS: You are sweeping through the various pages much too fast for me to keep up with - and deleting them before I can address issues. Thanks for giving the most recent page a week for us to respond (I have to ask people if how we want to update the site - so it takes more than a few hours - and we may not check wikipedia for many months). Very much appreciated.

Deletion Policy
I have deleted this article again. Please do not recreate it. As WP:42 and WP:CORP explain, the company is way off meeting our notability guidelines and it was also promotional. All of the links were blogs on the same site and one was even a job advert! SmartSE (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Points taken. I think WP may need to create an additional category - "page pending community contribution" or some such thing. Tags like "this is a stub" or "this article require independent or critical review and independent verification to meet Wikipedia Article Standards" may be a beginning; but deleting pages isn't helpful.

There is a small, but fiercely notable disjoint between some admins, and evidently, many contributors (given how much energy deletion-centric admins dedicate to pre-apologising for deletions). I liked your deletion page.

But in order to be a store of the world's information - i can see virtue in enabling articles to exist for long enough to be seen by people familiar with the topic, and verified or edited. By deleting them, because too much information is provided, before other users can filter that content, or add to it, is justifiable (if you were a Encyclopedia Britannica editor from the 1960s) - but perhaps slightly mis-placed in the modern era?

It used to be great when people familiar with the topic would get time to review articles and edit them over several days or months, or re-word initial postings by initial contributors - making them better. Sometimes, it would take months for peers to decide how to contribute. But that's the point of collaborative effort (even if it might seem inefficient to a reference purist) - and this collaboration is why people like me come to wiki. Fair enough, if I am not wanted. But exclusion is not the magic that made such a vast community contribution to wiki possible; it’s hope that what you know is interesting to people – and that there might be more people out there that can enhance your observations or subject matter knowledge.

Also – it was really helpful in the past, when editors would cite certain paragraphs. Now it appears that there is too much content, for editors (particularly admins) to provide feedback that is subject matter relevant; understandable given the vast variety of articles edited by some people – I’d like to understand the organisation of Admins – as it’s almost “volume of edits” is better than quality.

We went through this with the auto-bot editors about 2 years ago… but at least they were helpful with editing and formatting – which is great for people like myself.

Grades, such as "recently filed"; "community feedback pending"; "pre-encyclopaedic"; "expert reviewed" and "Full Article" would be a good start - with perhaps, enhanced editing requirements as an article became more "established"; Users of Wiki may not be able to search such articles, unless they specify to “search all wiki” – and may be restricted to “full articles only” – but that’s where users such as yourself can be utilised to moderate between “credible” as you see them, and “not yet noteworthy” for example – and the higher weight of credibility endorsing admins have, due to the time and energy dedicated to Wikipedia over the course of many articles or years, the faster an article can progress ‘up the chain’ – that way, admins can be responsible for contributing to the credibility (if not content) of each article as it progresses and therefore the quality of fully published Wikipedia articles; without deleting content.

I don't know if there's a forum for this - but hopefully you know your way around Wikipedia better than I? Is this a suggestion that I can place somewhere?

Orphaned non-free media (File:PeerFX Logo 2012.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:PeerFX Logo 2012.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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Musket Cove Logo.jpg


The file File:Musket Cove Logo.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unused logo with no article used."

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Willy1018 (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)