User talk:UnitedStatesian/Archive 2

moving articles and WP:MOS
I appreciate that you are willing to spend your time doing minor edits. The information that is added and the guidelines that we have need people to go around and make sure articles follow the manual of style or are properly named. It's takes time and effort and patience.

But moving articles isn't the same as wikifying or other formatting edits, and even something small like this, you should generally at least mention it on the talk page first and wait a few days to see what people say.

Also, if you are going to move an article, you are responsible for fixing the redirects caused by it. A half dozen pages link to the old location, and you didn't bother to change any of them. A brief look at your recent log shows that you haven't fixed any of the redirects caused by any of the articles. The move page has instructions and links to more detailed ones. If you haven't read these before, do. If you have, read them again. If you're going to be moving pages regularly you should know know these instructions well. Miss Mondegreen talk  07:32, November 9 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment; I assume you are talking about List of alumni of University High School (Los Angeles, California)? There was already a discussion of renaming that page on that talk page (I checked), so I don't think it was out of the blue; there was also extensive discussion of the article renames on WikiProject:Schools, of which that page is a part. As far as redirects, the guideline only instructs the fixing of double redirects, not all redirects: that's why redirects work.  I do fix all double redirects.  If I am missing the instructions to fix all single redirects, and you can point me to them specifically, I would appreciate it. UnitedStatesian 18:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I meant the uni high alumni article. Sorry about that.  And no, it's doesn't outright say anywhere to fix redirects, and in some places you actually aren't supposed to, but especially since you knew that a different move had been presented, not doing it was a bad idea (I get into that later).  Anyway, moving on:
 * Yes, there was a prior discussion. The talk page had a prior discussion about whether the page would need to be renamed if we added notable faculty to it. Few problems though:
 * the discussion was from may--that's several months old
 * the discussion had no resolution
 * the discussion is ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT
 * Sure, there was a discussion about renaming, but it's a different renaming, so what's that got to do with the price of fish? I don't know which discussion you are referring to on wikiproject schools.  The project discussions renaming frequently and different issues with renaming, but the project has not taken a position on this particular mos, as far as I know.
 * Even if it had, you should have brought it up for discussion.
 * Had you, I would have protested. For starters, I'm not particularly sure that this is a good rule.  Articles are supposed to be named accurately, and it isn't a list of alumni, it's a list of notable alumni, and frankly, the prevalence of articles titles is towards the later not the former.  I also think that it might lead to more of the half unaware vandalism that is prevalent on these types of pages. I prefer removing the words "list of" from the title--those words actually are unnecessary and prevent from adding non-list material to the article.  At any rate, even if I thought the renaming itself was a great idea, whether or not it needs to be renamed for notable faculty, it also happens to need to be renamed because the school is University SENIOR High, not just University High.  The main page and the alumni page haven't been renamed because that means renaming the category which means extensive work.  If we were going to take the word notable out of the title--it's not an important or pressing edit and could have waited until the page was renamed properly.  This just means that there will be another redirect page, more redirects to edit and there really wasn't any good reason.  Btw, your move and your not fixing the redirects has now ensured that when the page is moved...double redirect!
 * The manual of style is a guideline--you don't avoid bringing up discussion on a MOVE to enforce a guideline. Especially the manual of style.  It's important, but you get into different article types and different locales and there are different naming conventions there, sometimes written, sometimes not, but important, and more relevant than an overarching guideline that doesn't take into account details that it can't.  That's why it's a guideline, and that's why there's discussion.  The editors of the article are the ones who know what's going on with the article, and generally, hopefully, the region, the wikiproject, etc.
 * Your enforcement of MOS:LIST.... I haven't gone through your edits fully, but I haven't see you propose any of these moves, including your most current, which at the moment is dated the 13th.  MOS:LIST is NOT a major guidelines.  To give you some idea of just how much of the community is involved in it: MOS:LIST has had around 300 edits by about 50 editors since 2003.  From a quick look of edits marked minor and where the summary denoted the edit as minor, at least 60 of those edits are minor.  It's had actually work this year--over 60 edits (including minor) from 21 editors.  BUT, you're one of only three editors who touched the article more then once this year (excluding editors who made multiple edits marked as minor).  Given that your edits (number wise) count for apx 12 percent of the total touches this year on MOS:LIST, and that your log reads row after row "list of notable" to "list of", often several in a day (23 moves on the third!), well, this starts to look a little like a crusade.
 * There's nothing wrong with really believing in a guideline or policy and wanting to promote it. But if you do it in an underhanded fashion--by avoiding discussion or trying to push it over on people or anything like that, that's not ok, and it'll eventually backfire.
 * I don't know how you're doing things for the most part, or why, and I'm assuming the best. But I hope that this explains to you why bringing a rename for discussion is so important (even if you see it as minor, others often don't), and how your edits can come across.  There's no substitute for communication, and you're doing a lot of major editing, and not as much communicating.
 * I hope this helps; that I explained a little more clearly and thoroughly. Feel free to thwap me for incoherence. Miss Mondegreen  talk  10:44, November 14 2007 (UTC)
 * Just for further background, there has been extensive discussion of "notable" in list names here and here, among other places. UnitedStatesian 14:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverting good faith edits
Please note the following from WP:REVERT: ''Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary.''

The edit that you reverted made several changes, only one of which is possibly covered by WP:ASR. For example, it wikilinked "notable". Your reversion may have corrected an ASR problem, but it negated the rest of my edit. In the future, please follow the Wikipedia practice that when you disagree with part of an edit, you don't revert the entire edit if there are parts that appear to improve the article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for checking. I've reluctantly concluded that you're probably right, so please go ahead (if you've not already) and delink the word "notable". -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The change that you made to Gabriel Thomson's page was small (as in character rather than quantity). Grow up. ProResearcher (talk) 08:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Your edit & lost information

 * UnitedStatesian, please note that your repeated moving of List of notable Seton Hall University alumni to List of Seton Hall University alumni has lead to a loss of significant information from the article. Whether this is intentional or not, this MUST BE corrected. Otherwise, it will be perceived as vandalism.
 * As to the issue of notability, I should remind you that moslist only refers to guidelines. Notability has always been and will continue to be an important criterion of WP articles. This especially goes for lists, where people can be added of whom there are NO respective articles. In this case, there is no way to know the notability of the individual. I urge you to read Notability people and WP:NOTABLE ALUMNI. Furthermore, I have seen no significant discussion on this issue and noticed that you made changes to the moslist guidelines yourself. Regardless of this, since you have succeeded in forking most of the alumni lists, I will not revert the changes on the Seton Hall University article. However, I remind you that your move MUST BE corrected to include all lost information as soon as possible to avoid any confusion. Thank you. aNubiSIII  ( T /  C ) 06:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Poker Player Notability
The WP:POKER is discussing what we believe constitutes notability for poker players. We have a proposal on our talk page, if you'd like to chime in, please do so here.Balloonman (talk) 10:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Poker notability
Hey US, I added a rationale to why the project was looking to create its own criteria. Could you take a look at it and see if it changes your mind?Balloonman (talk) 05:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Haberman feeder
Hi, I added my reason to object to the deletion of the Haberman Feeder article on the talkpage. Would you please respond, I'd like to know why you think this article isn't notable so I can improve where needed. Thanks. Felsir 12:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Appraisal Institute
You must be kidding. The AI is the leading national professional organisation of real estate appraisers in the US. Just read real estate appraisal, or go to the AI's website. This is like saying that the accountant's association or the bar association are not notable. I suggest you remove the tag. Tkeu 17:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Welsh authors
Please do not remove entries from lists on the grounds of notability if you know nothing about the subject, as you did with List of Welsh language authors. The authors you removed will be found in most standard works of reference on Welsh language literature; all they lack as yet is an article here. Enaidmawr 21:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Notable announcers
Hey. No problem. :) I appreciate being told. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Vanessa Fox
Sorry about that. Was my bad putting her in SEO consultants.

What cat is she? Igor Berger (talk) 04:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * How about Category:Venture capitalists? UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well it would be hard to make it notable because there is nothing we can refer to, that I am aware of. She is, by her statement on her blog, "entrepreneur in residence for Ignition Partners," but that is a primary source, we need to get something official from IP,as to her position in the company. Is she a VC? Igor Berger (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikiversity
Why would you dispute that distributed teams of learners interacting at Wikiversity forms a social networking site? Wikiversity is a social network of teams of learners actively seeking participation. cc talk page Lazyquasar (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jacques Dallaire
An article that you have been involved in editing, Jacques Dallaire, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 22:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Template
I've thrown together a rough draft here User:Crossmr/Template:RedSNW. I'm not sure we'd have to worry about it being a series yet at this point, but I'd like to get the basic language down then we could consider a series.--Crossmr (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Template looks great. Move it into production, and thanks! UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Kogswell Cycles
I note your proposal to delete the Kogswell page. I urge you to reconsider. Kogswell is a well-established company with an extremely enthusiastic customer base. They have received good press coverage from periodicals such as "The Bicycle Quarterly," which unfortunately does not publish its articles on line. The company is noteworthy for its independence in design, as well as for its direct-to-customer marketing focus (although it also caters to several bicycle shops who are highly enthusiastic about Kogswell products). Yes, I sound like a PR agent working for Kogswell, but I am not. I am simply a big fan of the product, and a journalist who recognizes that the company is worthy of note on many levels. Please let me know what additional information I can put into the article to keep it from being eliminated. Thanks very much. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Adding citations from "The Bicycle Quarterly", even if not published online, to the article, will demonstrate its notability. Click here for info. on how to cite these sources in the article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reflist!! D'oh!  Thanks for the help.  I'll get article titles and page numbers ASAP, probably tomorrow as well as other references (I hope). Fbagatelleblack (talk) 03:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool, I'll remove the PROD. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOTINHERITED
Hi UnitedStatesian. Where do WP:BK and WP:MUSIC allow for inherited notability? I looked through them and couldn't see any specific mention of this, which is why I removed that part from NOTINHERITED, though I'm sure it's possible I missed something. Cheers, Mi re  ma  re  14:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I know its a bit of a stretch (and I am also trying to make a point), but these are the sentences I am thinking of:


 * From WP:BK: "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources." - that seems to be the book inheriting notability from the author.


 * And from WP:MUSIC, both: "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such" - that is notability inherited from "band to band", and
 * "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc." - that is notability inherited from work to performer.


 * Let me know your thoughts.


 * UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I suppose you're right then. In an effort to reflect the above, I've added "in exceptional circumstances" to the relevant sentence in NOTINHERITED to make it clearer that this doesn't automatically apply to all book or music articles. Cheers, Mi re  ma  re  15:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Perfect, thanks. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

New essay
Hey Twsx - I just posted an essay at WP:WTAF that I think is relevant to the good work I have seen you do on various band list articles. I would welcome your comments and improvements. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello. Thank you for the notice! You have written a great essay; i appreciate your work. It reflects a serious problem (actually, after reading the essay I notice it is broader than I knew it was), and the essay it will be very useful when dealing with new editors. I don't have much to add to it. If something comes to mind I will propose it. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 21:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Expedia, Inc.
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Expedia, Inc., suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of Expedia, Inc.. Save-Me-Oprah (talk) 05:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Expedia, Inc.
An editor has nominated Expedia, Inc., 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) 03:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

in case you're wondering
I'm taking the time to go through all the sites on the list (at least the non-obvious ones like facebook and myspace) and check them for social networking components and of course tag the articles if they need improvement, and boy do a lot of them need improvement, at least a dozen needs references and notability established.--Crossmr (talk) 06:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Real estate and my prod of List of real estate topics.
I was unaware of WP:CLN when prodding the article. However, bearing the tag on Category:Real estate, is this list really usefull? Taemyr (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the prod mostly because I thought AfD was a more appropriate forum for the discussion of the deletion of the page, since recently there has been active, broader discussion of "lists of topics" pages at the Village Pump. There are also a number of piped links on the page, which categories do not support. Also, cats do not allow the display of more than 200 topics on a single page.  UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:POLICY
Consensus on the talk page is not required before making any edit. The entire Wikipedia premise is that changes to pages can be made by anyone. There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page about that section, and a normal part of such discussion is for editors to propose changes to the main text, edit each others' changes, and work towards a compromise version. If you have a specific issue with the changes, by all means let's discuss it. But there is no reason to revert the changes simply because they are changes. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 17:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think policy pages have a much higher standard. The box at the top says "Please do not edit this page without first ensuring that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." In the case of significant (i.e. more than a few words) changes to policies, the propose/edit/work toward compromise process you correctly outline takes place 99% of the time on talk pages rather than on the policy page itself, in my experience. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That boax at the top is somewhat inaccurate. The only way to find a consensus version of the page is to edit it. We (a large group of us) are working towards an acceptable version of the page. Do you actually have any issues with the content of the edit? I would love to discuss them. Reverting something that you don't actually object to only takes time away from more useful discussion. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 17:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Deprod on Human Factors for Highway Engineers (book)
I have removed the prod tag from Human Factors for Highway Engineers (book), which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. I have nominated the article for deletion instead; the debate may be found at Articles for deletion/Human Factors for Highway Engineers (book), which overrides the need for a prod tag. I have explained my reasons for doing this in my nomination. Thanks! --  At am a chat 18:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Note on social networking list
You may want to consider simply reverting instead of manually blanking their entry if you can. When you blanked this, you missed that the user had replaced a valid entry for faceparty with it , an anonymous editor repaired it here which lead to my confusion as to how it got removed from the list.--Crossmr (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't bother, I've already learned my lesson - I shouldn't try contributing to this page
Please don't loose your motivation. We really need clear thinking people to keep involved at the policy pages. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 09:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Prod for Edgar, Dunn & Company
I'm pretty exhausted from defending this entry, and I can't really do it in good faith anymore. My only request is that if the entry for that company is deleted, then we systematically sweep the management consulting category and delete any non-notable entries (EDC was originally singled out by a vindictive editor). Unfortunately, I have limited experience in identifying the appropriate articles (and I also don't want to appear to be vindictive). Any advice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secretagentwang (talk • contribs) 19:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Discussion for Gossipreport.com
I would like to revisit your comments on deleting the entry for Gossipreport.com. You noted that all websites have an Alexa ranking so that does not rate as significant and "Not one journalist or author has written something about this site that would establish its notability." On the first point I would note that news paper journalists covering the site in any way, shape or form take the site beyond something like an "insignificant garage band." The fact that the site was featured on one of the top daytime shows in the nation (The Dr. Phil Show) also sets the site apart as significant as does the 5 million hits the site has gotten since then. While every site has an Alexa rating, the fact that gossipreport.com is growing at such a phenomenal rate (up over 1.5 million spots in the last 3 months averaging over 100 new registered users a day) should also be significant. Gossipreport.com is a well funded, fully staffed entity that is changing how people view social history on the web. As a myspace from the 3rd party perspective it is giving people a profile of how the world sees them not just how they see themselves. That in itself is ground breaking and significant. The site is fully CAN-SPAM compliant and the fact that the site is changing the conversation about social networking sites is significant. Please revisit your stance on gossipreport.com and vote to let us keep our entry. The people that work for the site work too hard to be labeled as insignificant. Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seaslate (talk • contribs) 21:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed prod on FOLIOfn
I have removed the prod tag from FOLIOfn, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-proded, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! --  At am a chat 22:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Wealthy Historical Figures
All of the research and source I have used are on the pages below. Pages, such as Forbes and official government websites that track America’s and other countries economies, are used as sources of information and calculations to come with the list members net worth. Example: the New York Times List and the Forbes list of Wealthiest Americans  are used as sources for the original net worth, and websites such as EconStats  and Measuring Worth  calculate the net worth in today’s terms. If you have any more questions on these list's, fell free to ask, I will be happy to answer them. Jughead.z(1) (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed prod on Fox Racing
I have removed the prod tag from Fox Racing, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that this article should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! --  At am a chat 00:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Falcon Cycles
Hi there, I've declined the speedy tag as this is definitely a notable firm - I presume that they are not as well known in the USA as they are here in the UK! I will keep the article on watch and request references, but these should not be difficult to source. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  23:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a further thought. I see from this section of your userpage that you're keeping a track of the articles you prod and speedy. From the red/blue balance it looks like your success rate is round about 50% - I wonder if you've thought how you might increase this? The most obvious way would to be a tiny bit more selective about the articles you tag - that way your % would increase, and you'd be releasing a lot more admin time from declining the 50% that stay. Net result: more of the rubbish deleted, faster, with less time wasted on dead ends. What do you say? Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  23:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. I did a quick calc. - the ratio is 63% red/37% blue, and a number of the blues are articles that were made into redirects, pending prods., or article recreations.  Most of the remaining blue links are that way because of declines by run-of-the mill users (including a lot of anon. IPs), before they even got to an admin.  And the blue links are not dead ends - many are on their way to AfD (where, at least so far, I have a 100% success rate).  UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

List of dogs
Has there been any discussion about moving "List of notable dogs" to "List of dogs"? I note from the history of the page that it was moved the other way only a month ago. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's reversing an earlier move done by User:Tavix, an editor who was not aware of WP:MOSLIST, that "notable" should not be included in list titles. That editor also moved List of pigs to List of notable pigs, and that move was reversed. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅Thanks for clarifying! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

List_of_social_networking_websites
Talk:List_of_social_networking_websites FYI--Hu12 (talk) 08:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you said it better than anyone else could have. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed prod on DVD Talk, please check article history before proposing deletion
I have removed the prod tag from DVD Talk, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-proded, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! --  At am a chat 18:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Prod
Good lookin' out. I thought it was the standard add new or edit to the bottom of the page. Thanks for the correction. --Invisibl e Di plo mat 666 16:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Stock exchange articles
Just wanted to leave a note for you that I undid your move from a couple of days ago, moving Companies listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange (P) to List of companies listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange (P). I think I can see your perspective for making the move, but there are a couple of important reasons why I undid it: Absent any standard or consistency, I think it makes sense to leave things are they are, and create redirects if you're concerned that people will be looking for one approach rather than the other. As always, more than happy to discuss, though. Mlaffs (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That article is only one out a series of alphabetical articles on the Toronto Stock Exchange. They really all need to follow the same naming convention.
 * Your rename makes sense within the context of List of companies listed on the London Stock Exchange, ...Mongolian..., ...Oslo..., ...Barbados..., ...TSX Venture..., ...Iceland..., and ...Irish.... However, the original name makes sense within the context of Companies listed on the Singapore Exchange, ...Istanbul..., ...Hong Kong..., and, most importantly, the ...New York series on which the overhaul I did not long ago was based.

Dixy Chicken prod
I've added two sources to this article and removed the prod template you placed there. Please also note that the article was AfD'd in 2006 and was kept at that time. On that note alone I would have disputed the prod, but you're still welcome to AfD it again if you feel it necessary. Thanks. --Dachannien TalkContrib 12:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

List of opera composers
Hi there!

I removed the speedy tag that you placed on List of opera composers, as your reason was that List of major opera composers should be moved there. I see no discussion on the talk page of the said article to move the page, and I don't feel comfortable moving a featured article to a new name without consensus. I suggest you start up a poll at Talk:List of major opera composers to move the article. Happy editing to you! Keegan talk 20:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Companies that have emerged from bankruptcy
Category:Companies that have emerged from bankruptcy, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Hawaiian717 (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Museums
Why did you dleted several museums from Italy on the List of museums. I spot checked the museums & they appear legit. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It was based on the paragraph from the talk page, at Talk:List_of_museums. So many red links are not helpful on the page, and it makes sense to encourage editors to WP:WTAF. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I am readding the museums as it is counterproductive to remove them. Others in the museum community editors agree with leaving red-linked museums beacuse of the magnitude of the project.  Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine, but please don't re-add International Museum of the fly fishing Stanislao Kuckiewicz, which should be removed from the list becasue the article was deleted. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned, no problem eliminating bogus museums. I fully support that.  In fact, I recommend writing a quick note as to why a specific museum was deleted so it's not readded. FieldMarine (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Spinout
Did you intend wp:spinout to point to the same place as WP:SPINOUT? SayCheeeeeese (talk) 07:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks, fixed. Actually, I did not realize until your comment that shortcuts could be anything other than all caps. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

bookcrossing
I am a newcomer to editing pages on wikipedia so I would like to know if you could tell me why you deleted the 2 external links that I added to the bookcrossing page. These links are complementary web sites that aid bookcrossing users that I intended on expand up in the main article. Thanks! Captain-tucker (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Social Media External Link Post
Hi there, I'm wondering if you could let me know why the link I posted on the Social Media page to an external white paper published by my company was removed? Did I post it incorrectly? I'm new to this, the intention of this posting was to share some of the original research my company conducted in the realm of social media. Any response you can provide is appreciated. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torquecustomerstrategy (talk • contribs) 19:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the question. The removal was based on the guideline Conflict of interest.  It appears from your username that you are connected to the website in the link.  Specifically, that guideline says "Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, its author's family members, employer, associates, or their business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest."  Let me know if I can help you with anything else. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, I appreciate your help in educating me on proper use of Wikipedia. I guess I'm confused at how to contribute some of the original research that appears in the company's white paper (e.g. the fact that recruiters in 64% of Fortune 500 forums have posted jobs on LinkedIn, demonstrating the widespread use of Social Networking Sites, which is one category of Social Media). Would it be acceptable for someone else to use our white paper as a source to contribute content? I noticed this page itself has no citations, and perhaps some of the knowledge we have collected could help to expand the content, so that others can engage in a larger discussion about one of today's hottest topics in marketing. I'm quite surprised there isn't already more discussion here. Any guidance you can provide would be much appreciated - thanks! Torquecustomerstrategy (talk) 12:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Move over redirects
Just a heads-up: as long as the target is a single redirect without edit history, any user can perform the move, so e.g. simple page moves can be undone. --Tikiwont (talk) 11:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've done the requested moves. Would you mind checking for double redirects? Thanks--Tikiwont (talk) 12:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I undid one (Alphabetical list of programming languages) as not obviously uncontroversial (and speedies are mostly for no-brainers) and also because one of the related lists is at AfD so might be better to wait that out. In case of need the move can performed as aboe. I also posted a note at Talk:List_of_open_source_games.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I learn something new every day! No more CSD G6 when the redirect has no history. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Enigma Titanium
Just wanted to let you know that I support your prod of the above. The article patently does not assert the notability of the subject. BTW, please take a look at the article's talk page for the current discussion on alleged notability. – ukexpat (talk) 19:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I think, given the contentiousness, that AfD is the best next stop for the article. I'll look for it there. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

PROD on Copient Technologies
I have removed the prod tag from Copient Technologies, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-proded, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! Redfarmer (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Renaming Succession of Bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States
Those of us who have been working on this page for a long time believe this is more than a list and need not be renamed. But if you're going to rename it, you have to take responsibility for redirecting all the pages that link to it. They can be found on this page. Thanks.  ~ InkQuill  03:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you misread WP practice concerning fixing redirects after a move - see Tools/Navigation popups/About fixing redirects. WP practice is only to  fix DOUBLE redirects, and I did fix all of those. UnitedStatesian (talk) 11:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Anahat (competition)
Hi. Your prod was the third one on the article. It might have to go to afd. I'm lazy and busy these days. Would you like to volunteer?-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 17:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, missed the previous prod, so I removed mine. I guess we'll see who's lazier and busier :) UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I blinked first. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 18:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

List of microfluidics research groups
Hi, you nominated the List of microfluidics research groups for deletion. Normally these nominations should be nominate it for Articles for deletion if you think it should be deleted. Now I can't find this nomination. Can you tell me where it is? -- Mdd (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the question. I used the faster (5-day) process, called Proposed deletion, or PROD.  There is no discussion.  However, if you object, simply edit the article and remove the PROD text that is at the beginning (or let me know you object here, on my talk page, and I'll remvoe the PROD). If the prod is removed (called "contested"), any further deletion discussions will have to take place via the Articles for deletion process. Let me know if you need anything else. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok Thanks. I am not that familiar with those procedures. The list isn't mine. I kind of got drag into this situation because the List of systems biology research groups (a list I do work on with the WikiProject Systems) got mentioned in earlier discussion. I have had some discussion with the creator of the list User:Cubic Hour, who has very little experience. But I don't think he understands the whole situation. Now I feel a little responsible because he had a previous version of the List of systems biology research groups as his example. Now that list is updated and this won't happen again. Now User:Cubic Hour can also update his list, but I have spoken to him about that. I did make a copy of his work on his user space. Maybe he proceeds. Maybe he doesn't. We will see. -- Mdd (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S. One last question. Even with a Proposed deletion procedure, shouldn't you at least notify the original creator?


 * Talk page notification is a courtesy, not required. I usually check to see the editors other contributions, level of activity, etc., and decide accordingly.  UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am wondering if you are going to take this to another level or if you leave it like it is now? -- Mdd (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The article should definitely go to AfD; I will do it if no one else does, but no promises as to the timing (pretty busy right now). UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * On the WikiProject Lists talk page here there has recently been a discussion about these kinds of lists. This is why I am involved here in the first place. I think you will find more support over there. Good luck. -- Mdd (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

rm non-links per WP:LIST
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_bicycle_manufacturing_companies&diff=207170108&oldid=206968813

I can't find the guidelines that cover this - where exactly are they?

Also, how did you differentiate between the ones you deleted and the ones you didn't?

Thanks for your help. 58.8.6.22 (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The WP:MOSLIST guideline states: "Ideally each entry on a list should have its own Wikipedia article but this is not required if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." It is not reasonable to expect that non-linked list entries will have an article in the future (and non-linked entries also raise an issue with the Verifiability policy).
 * The non-links that were not deleted happened strictly becasue of my oversight: thanks for pointing it out, I have fixed it now. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
For catching my mistake on Crush or Flush's listing. I must have typo'd when I searched to see if it had an article. -- B figura (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)