User talk:Trlovejoy/Archives/2009

D.C. Meetup, Saturday, June 6, 2009
The 7th DC Meetup dinner will be held this Saturday, June 6th, starting at 5 p.m. The event will be at Bertucci's, near George Washington University and the Foggy Bottom metro station. It will follow the Apps for Democracy open source event at GWU. For details or to RSVP if you haven't already, see Meetup/DC 7. (You have received this announcement because your user page indicates that you live in Maryland, Virginia, or DC.) Delivered by The  Helpful  Bot   at 20:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC) to report errors, please leave a note here.

British Virgin Islands
Please advise what your problem is with calling a spade a spade? The British Virgin Islands is a well known tax haven as are many of the other islands of the Caribbean. I do not see this referred to anywhere within the article and as this is the main reason that these territories have survived should it not be stated explicitly? --Ulster and proud (talk) 17:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Sarah Carbonel
Hello Trlovejoy, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Sarah Carbonel - a page you tagged - because: Please do not re-tag an article where speedy deletion was previously declined. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know.  So Why  13:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

A7 Speedy Deletion
Can we slow down and discuss this? You don't think the articles Hovhannesk is making are notable. Hovhannesk does. Regardless I think A7 is inappropriate: "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance." I think claiming to be a professional athlete is a claim of importance.

If you feel strongly about getting rid of the articles, I think you have to go through the Articles for Deletion process. However, WP:ATH says that any person who has "competed at the fully professional level of a sport" is notable, so it might be tough. -- Austin512  ( talk  &bull;  contribs ) 19:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with your assessment, but understand that the pages must have more information. Hovhannesk has been cautioned, asked, warned, and notified to stop creating pages so fast that the proper attention to each page can be made. It is admirable to make so many contributions so quickly in an effort to create the page. However the changes should start on a central page or be created one at a time with full biography information. Pages should not be created, simply to be created with stubs and improper citations. Additionally Hovhannesk has been advised to stop removing CSD tags from authored/created pages. This seems to be standard practice for this user at this point. Unsure the value to continuing to operate this way. The user seems to disregard all advisements. --TRL (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion
How can you delete my contribution when I have references to my information. They are well proven and stated. By Hovhannesk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hovhannesk (talk • contribs)
 * I was marking the pages for speedy deletion based on the information in the previous talk post above. This is not a personal situation. I like you, am trying to provide the best information. At the rate that you create pages, with the little information on the page, it appears that your contributions are promotional or spam. Please slow down and expand on the amount of information you add when creating a page. Review First Article Guidlines for more information along the lines of content expected in a new article.--TRL (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

About Fuck Them Bitches
The creation of this redirect to Kelis Was Here was by no means an act of vandalism. That band actually did release a track with such a title. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 01:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Spam
You tagged an article for deletion, as seen here, but this is nowhere near to what spam actually is. Please read the CSD criteria. The article was not blatant spam, but you can list it at AFD for further discussion.  Zoo Fari  13:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I marked it as WP:SPAM and removal under CSD G7 criteria fort the fact that it must be completely re-written to not be blatant advertising and neutral. It appears as something that will be happening in the future and possibly paid editing, or a fansite. All are not appropriate. If someone wants to create a page, it should be properly sited or tested in a WP:Sandbox.
 * No, blatant advertisement uses pure propaganda and probably even external links. Sure, an article may contain spammy content, but that is something that can removed by being bold. A true speedy article for spam is something attempting to promote something. FYI, G7 is for user-requested deletions.  Zoo Fari  13:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, I meant CSD G11. As the page is promoting an entity and requires fundamental rewrite. I understand the difference between true spammy content and adverts. I am not intending to remove an article that does not have merit, just trying to prevent additional advertisement and possible paid editing.--TRL (talk) 13:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think it reads as advertisement, add to the article. The topic of the article is appropriate and notable, thus it must be improved, not removed.  Zoo  Fari  14:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Klingsor
As you can see, I rewrote the Klingsor article. I think you over-tagged it, & I removed some of the tags. The article was written in a very slightly promotional style, but gave appropriate information. A promotional article not giving appropriate information would be one listing its products in detail, giving their specific merits. DGG (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The Mount Players
To whoever it may concern

I see no good reason for the deletion of this article. I conformed to wikipedean guidelines, and I am very confused as to why The Mount Players being a "non-notable" theatre company is relevant, because everything on that page is true and verifiable, who are you to judge whether they are important enough to have a wikipedia article? Please leave it as it is, it took me a very long time to create, and, as a member of the Mount Players myself, I am very proud of the company and I personally think that the plays we perform are of greater or equal quality to professional shows. You cannot see it as I can, because doubtlessly you are not a member of the Mount Players. And, hell, if you think this page doesn't conform to the wikipedia style, you should see the page on Sunrise Avenue!

The Mount Players are a great part of my life, and the lives of many other Victorians. So maybe the theatre isn't notable to you, wherever you are, but it's very notable to a few hundred of us. True, we are a small company, but we are frequenlty nominated for awards for our plays. Leave this article alone, it's doing no harm where it is.

Yours sincerely If This Fails—Preceding unsigned comment added by If This Fails (talk • contribs)

P.S: What's not reliable about their official website? You seem determined to delete my article, and it seems rather offensive —Preceding unsigned comment added by If This Fails (talk • contribs) 04:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not determined to do anything. You need to discuss this on the mount players talk page. You should not remove the WP:PROD from your own article. The best thing to do is follow the directions in the delete tag and improve the article. You must add reliable independent sources, that are not self-published.--TRL (talk) 04:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The Mount Players and removing PROD tags
Hi Trlovejoy. Just in case you were not aware, it is Ok for creators to remove PROD tags from articles for any reason whatsoever, see Proposed deletion: '

"'If anyone, including the article's creator, removes a prod tag from an article for any reason, do not put it back, except when the removal is clearly not an objection to deletion (such as blanking the entire article). If the edit is not obviously vandalism, do not restore the tag, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. If you still believe that the article needs to be deleted, list it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.''"

Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 04:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realized that, but thanks for the clarification. The issue with The Mount Players is that no significant improvements were made prior to the removal. Now I am trying to get the creator and major author to understand it is nothing personal and that the article just needs third-party external citations. I did initially mark WP:PROD, but agree with the assessment, until there are improvements and citations made.--TRL (talk) 04:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your involvement with this article.--TRL (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

hello, original author of article here. Yes, I know you wanted me to talk about this on the Mount Players' disscusion page, so I'm laying out my argument there now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by If This Fails (talk • contribs) 04:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Tagging
I appreciate your New Page patrolling, and I am sympathetic to your tagging of the cigarette related articles created by a totally new user with a suggestive name, User:Editeverypage, but my guess is anywhere in the world, Marlboro cigarettes are well known. These individual varieties are not especially numerous, and I am of the opinion the all deserve an individual article. I've had nothing to do with these articles, but I suggest you bring this to a merge template, if anything at all. Shadowjams (talk) 07:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahh, but the rapid page creation as seen in that case, is very similar behavior to several other recent sock puppets that create decent looking pages out of unreliable citations and ultimately the pages have a purpose for promotion. That is why I tagged them as such. I notice the creator has been blocked, and several other users agree with assessments for deletion, maybe not CSD but PROD.--TRL (talk) 12:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy tagging of Bandage scissors
I've removed your A7 speedy tagging of this article as the A7 criteria only applies to "An article about a real person, an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content" (see WP:CSD) and scissors clearly don't fall into any of these categories. Dpmuk (talk) 09:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've also removed your G11 tagging. This is no where close enough to the level and style of spam needed for speedy deletion.  Indeed I don't really think it's spam at all and instead to me it looks like a reasonable attempt at an article, possibly not with the best references / external links but definitely not something worth speedy deleting.  Having looked at your edit history I notice that you've only been marking articles for speedy for a few days and judging on the number of articles that are still here you've been getting quite a few wrong.  Speedy deletion is meant to be only for very clear cases and tagging articles inappropiately creates work for other people.  Can I suggest you carefully read the speedy deletion criteria and possibly also watch the speedy delete nominations so that you can get a better idea of what it's appropiate to tag for speedy deletion.  Thank you. Dpmuk (talk) 13:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I think the concept of speedy deletion is to prevent wikipedia from becoming a wasteland of half written articles. If we all sit around and create every possible article about every level of minutia, then we end up with a bunch of articles with no content. If the page has been marked for speedy deletion, it is because the page does not meet the criteria set forth by wikipedia. The reason I have "gotten a few wrong" does not indicate any failure on my part, but rather the community collaboration hard at work. If I mark a page, it is because I feel it is in violation of a policy - I am not an authority, not of us are. That is why we can't just delete articles, but rather mark them for review. Speedy just indicates it needs to be done sooner rather than later as it is not an appropriate or violation article. Thank you for your opinion, but maybe you should consider that this is a community and no one is wrong, just opinionated. Thanks for following behind me and providing your input. If you consider it work, then feel free to allow someone else to provide their opinion.--TRL (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please know the difference between AFD, PROD, and CSD. It appears that your reasonings are valid but your actions are completely wrong.  Zoo  Fari  21:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was not aware that you had replied here until I came across the edit history for the article below when I was reviewing an A7 article and noticed that you'd had inappropiately tagged it. If you reply to a message on your talk page it would be helpful to let the person you're replying to know on their talk page as other wise they may not realise.  The Talkback template is designed for this purpose.  As to your actual reply I was using work in the sense of "activity involving mental or physical effort done in order to achieve a result" (definiton from the OED) and inappropiates tagging does result in another person having to undertake such activity.  Pages can be in violation of policy but still not be suitable for speedy deletion as there are very strict criteria for speedy deletion which have been agreed by the community so as to ensure that as few as pages as possible are deleted in error.  If an page does not meet the criteria it should not be speedy deleted no matter how terrible the page is, how many other policies it is violation of and no matter how strongly you, or any one else, feels it shouldn't be on wikipedia.  In this cases one of the other deletion procceses should be followed instead.  Wikipedia works on consensus and using this process has agreed many rules, one of these is the criteria that has to be met for speedy deletion.  By editing wikipedia you are agreeing to abide by the principles of wikipedia, which includes building policy by consensus and then abiding by it, and to do otherwise, whether delibrately or not, is wrong.  Although not a policy it is my opinion that consensus is that regular inappropiate speedy tagging is disruptive and that such editors  should be dissuaded from speedy tagging unless they understand the criteria.  I'm going to assume good faith and assume that you believe your actions are in the best interests of wikipedia but I would ask that you consider your actions in the light of policy and the advice of more experienced editors. Dpmuk (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

TMone
Unless the article was deleted (perhaps under a different title?) via an AfD discussion db-repost is an invalid speedy delete reason, and it should be reverted to db-corp. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

D.C. Meetup, Saturday, September 26
The 8th DC Meetup dinner will be held this Saturday, September 26, starting at 6 p.m. The event will be at Burma Restaurant (740 6th St, NW near the Gallery Place-Chinatown Metro station). For details or to RSVP if you haven't already, see Meetup/DC 8. (You have received this announcement because your user page indicates that you live in Maryland, Virginia, or DC.) --EdwardsBot (talk) 07:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)