User talk:Whpq/Archive 5

A Barnstar
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WP:WWF/D/2010/O at 06:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC).

Congrats
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WP:WWF/D/2010/O at 06:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC).

Invitation to the December 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive
 Ⓢ ock   00:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

David Amerland page
Hi. I am very new to this. I was checking to see if there is a David Amerland page and I see one has been deleted. Not sure if we might want to reconsider on his writings at least. An SEO book he's written has been a Amazon best-seller on three continents since its release. I see we have other authors like Jane Adams and Stephan Spencer. I was wondering what the policy should be here. I do not want to spend time putting anything together for nothing. I look forward to your assistance/guidance in this. PaulSalmon (talk) 19:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The reason(s) that the article on David Amerland was deleted is/are in Articles for deletion/David Amerland. It looked like advertising, and the sourcing did not meet the requirements for a biography of a living person.  If you are considering writing an article about him, you should consider if there is significant coverage in reliable sources writing about him to establish him as meeting notability, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia.  As a writer, the inclusion criteria specific to creative professionals (WP:AUTHOR) can also be applied.  At the time of the deletion discussion, there was no independent significant coverage about David Amerland in reliables sources.  As far as I know, that has not changed.  If you do have such coverage, you are welcome to create the article.  You may wish to use Article wizard to create it.


 * As for your question of whether there it worthwhile for you to work on such an article, without being presented any sources, I cannot comment. And in any event, Wikipedia works through consenus, so any opinion I offer is only one opinion and is certainly no guarantee that the article would not be deleted again. -- Whpq (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Neat-o
Thank you! --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I was busy during October working on the Wikification Drive, and so when I got back to Unreferenced BLP Rescue, it was hard to sort out what had and had not been done as I wasn't involved as the current task progressed.  I figured if I needed a guide to what's left, others might too. -- Whpq (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was using a print out and was crossing off people and writing and in the margins to keep track. You are much cooler than me. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Outline of basketball
I just thought you might like to know how the article from this AfD you participated in is doing. It has been cleaned up and is nearing completion. And it looks good.

By the way, the guy (User:A Radish for Boris) who nominated it for deletion was discovered to be a sock puppet, and has been indefinitely blocked. So I guess the AfD was invalid to begin with.

Thank you for your support. The Transhumanist 05:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Another beloved radical cover
, the b-side to the first british punk single (1976)!--Milowent • talkblp-r 21:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that was an interesting cover. -- Whpq (talk) 01:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The Chair
TPH has NAC'd the AfD you contributed to and moved the article to The Chair (Grand National) and established The Chair as a disamb. I have no problem with that but don't think the current name is quite right. If you're interested, please contribute to the discussion at Talk:The Chair (Grand National). Thanks, Bigger digger (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The December 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive is about to begin!
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wikiproject Wikify at 00:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC).

Next drive
As you are either a participant of WikiProject or the October wikification drive or have signed up to participate in the planned December drive, this probably concerns you. Discussions that have been inactive for a couple weeks regarding the December drive have been reactivated, and we would like you to participate in these discussions, and also consider joining the December drive. We have taken upon ourselves a massive workload, encompassing a backlog reaching June 2008 and comprising articles. Barnstars will be awarded to participating editors, and also, please invite your friends to join! Please do not reply to this message here. Either reply here, here or here.

For the December Drive Coordinators,.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 23:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC).

Invitation to particpate in the December 2010 Wikification Drive
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 19:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC).

Thanks from Go
Many thanks to you, for taking the trouble to let us fans of the board game of Go know that a couple of articles had been nominated for deletion. It's very good of you, & WikiProject_Go appreciates your help.

Just a thought - should deletion nominators themselves notify any related project?

Anyway, ta again. Cheeky PS - bet you were thinking of archiving again before long. :)

Best wishes, Trafford09 (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply - You're welcome. I did this because I am unfamiliar with Go's ranking system, but this subject appears to achieved a high enough rank that might be considered notable within the sport.  I am unable to find any information myself and thought to turn to experts to weigh in.  As for deletion nominators notifying related projects, it is recommended per WP:AFD, but it isn't required.  As for archiving...  Thanks for the reminder.  I've actually been meaning to set up automatic archiving but always managed to find something else more important to do.  A little boot to the butt to get things moving never hurts.  cheers! -- Whpq (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Nice to know people like you are around to keep tabs on things. I'm off now to add a keep comment - with suitable 'evidence' naturally. Best, Trafford09 (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Undeletion request
A couple of years ago you deleted a page for a DJ group called CantMixWontMixShdntMixDontMix for lack of notoriety and for being of a 'local' nature. Incidently since then the group have grown and play all over the world and at world famous festivals such as Creamfields, i would request that their page get undeleted so I can add the appropriate sources for you. This is a quick copy & paste from various places about them for a quick confirmation.

“They created a proper party vibe to the festival and had the crowd begging for one more at the end.”  - Creamfields 2008 (4clubbers.net)

"They've even got the name sorted: CantMixWontMixShdntMixDontMix. That name is as far from the truth as you can imagine - these guys know exactly what they're doing." - The Metro (Clubs feature Aug 2008)

“They had the whole tent heaving with bodies as they churned out the best tunes from all eras and musical genres.”  - Standon Calling 2009 (efestivals.co.uk)

“The highlight’s definitely been dancing at 4am to CantMixWontMix whilst the sun comes up over Lake Malawi. It’s been brilliant.” - Lake of Stars 2009 (Emily from Vancouver on BBC World Service)

Obviously, i'll be supplying proper links to the sources in the actual article. This year they partnered with C.A.L.M to invterview various DJs who were at Creamfields, all the interviews can be found of the CALM website. How can I go about getting the page undeleted so I can work on it?

Incidently, a google search of them would have to be of CantMixWontMixShdntMixDontMix as well as CMWMSMDM, the latter name being a shortened version of their name that they use for obvious reasons. I would search for the CMWMSMDM as that's what's being used more now and it'll pull up about pages and pages of search results on them.

Thanks in advance,

- Tom Loxville (talk) 13:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply: I am not an administrator, and as such, I am unable to undelete articles. The administrator who closed the AFD is User:Stifle.  You should approach him with your request. -- Whpq (talk) 14:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Nenad Firšt‎
Hello Whpq. Thanks a lot for having the Nenad Firšt article ‎reinstated. I'm used to Wikipedia article-trashing but I did get a bit annoyed when SchuminWeb disposed of it the day after I reworked it. I'm glad to know all the effort wasn't wasted. And thanks for enlightening me what stonehooking is! Opbeith (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad things are straightened out. As for stonehooking, that was an industry that surprised me, and after reading about it, though it needed an article.  Cheers! -- Whpq (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Please confirm your membership
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 20:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC).

Thanks
Hi Whpq Thanks for your recent edits on Punjabi folklore, and removing the tags. Intothefire (talk) 13:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

February 2011 Wikification Drive
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wikiproject Wikify at 00:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC).

CenTex ASPA
Content added to the CenTex ASPA article to increase its noteworthiness. ParaMover (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)ParaMover
 * Reply - Any notes or discussion about the deletion of CenTex ASPA should be made at Articles for deletion/CenTex ASPA so that all editors that are involved or interested will see the comments. That said, simply making assertions of notability without reliable sources is not going to get the article kept.  And in this case, even the assertion that it covers a lot of territory does not overcome the issue that it is a sub-unit of a national organisation. -- Whpq (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify's Coordinator Election
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 22:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC).

The erstwhile Khrystenn Asariah AfD
Thanks for sniffing out the problems with the Keep vote(s) and other behavior of a certain editor. I'm just here to comment on this: where you say, in your final comment
 * There isn't a specific guideline for figure skaters but the essence of the general guideline for sports figures is that they must have competed at the highest level of their sport ....

It seems there is a specific one. There's this, which at least says how a skater might be presumed notable from attendance/performance at certain competitions alone, which leaves open the possibility of a skater still being arguably notable in some other way -- though exactly how, aside from meeting WP:GNG, is annoyingly unclear. Well, what's WP:IAR for, if not for the weird exceptions we can't predict? In any case, I think WP:IAR doesn't work here -- whether as Nicole Rae Duncan or Khrystenn Asariah or Khrystenn Rae Asariah or Nicole Khrystenn Asariah Nicole Khrystenn Rae Duncan Asariah, this person didn't make the BLP cut.

My own record in this discussion isn't error-free -- I opened saying Khrystenn was a "mere fourth" in a state competition, when in fact it was claimed she was third. But this is still so far short of the guideline's minimum for "presumption" of notability for a figure skater (International Senior B comp), it's moot as an error. I think the takeaway for me from this AfD (only the second one I've initiated, I think) is to really lay out my case completely and accurately, from the beginning. I think I'll also propose that deletions from AfD discussion on the grounds that a personal attack was made should be noted in the discussion itself -- JPelligrino says it's not explicitly required, though I think common sense and fairness says it's implicitly obvious. But maybe it should be spelled out, just to close off that route of pathetic excuse. Yakushima (talk) 05:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is my proposal about protocol for removing AfD votes -- which might, under some circumstances,  be justifiable, even if it wasn't in this case.  Your comments and suggestions would be appreciated. Yakushima (talk) 06:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Reply - It's a tempest in a teapot. I'm not in favour of instruction creep, so I don't think any changes to the wording are warranted. -- Whpq (talk) 14:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The Wikifier, WikiProject Wikify's First Newsletter (January 2011)
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 02:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC).

The February 2011 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive has begun!
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 01:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

Semi-pro football discussions need feedback
Hello! You have participated in WP:AFD disucssions involving semi-pro football teams in the past. The following two AFD discussions could use additional weigh-in as they appear to be stuck in "relisting" mode:


 * Articles for deletion/Seaboard Football League
 * Articles for deletion/Northeastern Football Alliance

I am placing this notice on talk pages of users who have shown interest in the past, regardless of how they !voted in the discussion. If you do participate, please mention that you were asked to participate in the discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Timneu22#Users_certifying_the_basis_for_this_dispute
Please certify that at Requests_for_comment/Timneu22 that you tried to resolve the new pages patrolling dispute you had with Timneu22. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: AFD
Regarding your position change at Articles for deletion/Frederick T. van Beuren, Jr., M.D., you might want to consider change to hold while the obituary from JSTOR is sorted out (if that was the basis for your change). If you check the link, you will see it is the obituary for Stephen Walter Ranson. (I don't have JSTOR access, but I do have AAAS access.) We have the notability for the wrong person being applied.Novangelis (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to leave a resource in the article, but the website wouldn't let me put in their — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChHP211 (talk • contribs)
 * I am going to guess you were trying to add a link to the LuLu site. That site is on a black list because people try to spam their self-publsihed books here on Wikipedia.  LuLu is not a reliable source so it is useless as reference.  If you are adding it as an external link then it's just spam. -- Whpq (talk) 02:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Richard A. Baddour, Jr.
Sorry it took me so long to get back to your question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges. We have started piecing together a notability guideline at WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability, but so far have only addressed federal judges. A state trial court judge would not be inherently notable, but may obtain notability through longevity on the bench, presiding over several important cases, or through routes for other professions (such as publications). bd2412 T 18:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. I've opted to put it through AFD as I can find no sources writing about him.  As I understand it, he presides in a court of first instance so I don't see that as making him inherently notable. -- Whpq (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The February 2011 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive Needs Your Help!
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 04:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC).

WikiProject Wikify's March Mini Drive
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 04:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC).

Robert Woodhead page
Noticed you've been maintaining the Robert Woodhead page. Apologies for any headaches caused by the EVE-Online Goonswarm vandalizing it.

One content issue: The sentence "He also runs a search engine promotion website called SelfPromotion.com." should be at the end of its paragraph. I met my wife because of AnimEigo, not Selfpromotion.com (which came later)

Best Regards, Robert Woodhead — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madoverlord (talk • contribs) 02:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply - I've reviewed the Moby Games reference and confirmed that the sentence order int he article is misleading, and have adjusted it to conform with the facts from the reference. And by the way, I played Wizardry on my Apple ][ way back when and it totally rocked! -- Whpq (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Maternity (play) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Maternity (play) 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/Maternity (play) 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 good 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. Mtking (talk) 06:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

inre Articles for deletion/Agnes Milowka
The AFD got me thinking... and though it's only a beginning (and we'll need to use webcite.org to save them as permalinks)... on the Agnes Milowka website I found links to PDFs of the various media where her work was covered... and of the articles she authored. So she did receive coverage of her work prior to her death, and beyond the obituaries.
 * press
 * interviews
 * works
 * published articles

Quite sad that it took her death to motivate someone to write an article, but as she has set unique diving records and has had coverage, I believe we're looking at a decent presumption of notability and that more coverage exists.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

An AFD you recently participated in has a merge discussion for that article
Its only fair that everyone who participated in the AFD is contacted, not just those who voted a certain way. The merge discussion is at Talk:Esat_Mobile_Phone_Licence_Scandal  D r e a m Focus  12:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Buscarini
Thanks for the improvements there. As you noticed, It got caught in the fall out from the messy closures and as the AFD had been closed and it was still uncited I boldly redirected it, but I prefer your version now, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your diligence in cleaning up OllyDbg and clearly proving its notability in the AfD. I certainly appreciate it and your thorough responses to AfDs in general, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Many thanks. – anna  11:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! I try to adhere to the "D" in AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 13:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The Wikifier: March 2011
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 02:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC).

inre Articles for deletion/Investigating Tarzan
Good eyes. Following upon your lead, I took what was first nominated, improved it to THIS, and have asked the nom to consider a withdrawal. Best,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 11:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Arian Demolli
I don't think that Arian Demolli is notable enough, so if you AfD it I'll support the nomination.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks or the opinion. It's actually been put under a PROD by another editor.  If you feel that it should be discussed through an AFD, you can contest the PROD or just let me know and I will put it through AFD instead of PROD.  Cheers! -- Whpq (talk) 00:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As the PROD'der, just wanted to agree with Whpq and say it's no skin off my nose if you think AfD is more appropriate. Cheers!  --joe deckertalk to me 04:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * PROD is good enough and AfD is mostly unnecessary AFAIC.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

June 2011 Wikification Drive
Sumsum2010 · T · C 22:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

picture upload
I am wondering how one can become authorized to upload a picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.73.253 (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Have a look at Upload. -- Whpq (talk) 01:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

trademark template
I'm confused about the trademark template. I think I mistakenly added it to HubSpot also. Can you take a look? Thanks! Woz2 (talk) 00:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The trademark template is used for certain logo files and does not apply to articles. See Manual of Style (trademarks).  I've removed it from Hubspot too. -- Whpq (talk) 01:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok Got it! Thanks! Woz2 (talk) 01:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Technocracy
Noticed you were part of the deletion discussion for some M:TA articles, including the Technocracy, so I thought maybe you'd be interested in a merge discussion about the aforementioned Technocracy. – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI
You were named as a sockpuppet of mine in an apparent bad faith/retaliation accusation by Rageholic. It's been closed. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. The case wasn't really closed.  It was simply removed as a bad faith nomination.  And just for the record, since I archive my talk page; I am not anybody's sockpuppet.  The accusation really makes no sense as I've made three comments in total (including the initial keep !vote) at Articles for deletion/Move Closer to Your World.  I'd say that hardly fits assertion of a vehement position.  Cheers! -- Whpq (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It was either a remarkable leap in logic (Apparently, 6 years and thousands of edits ago, SummerPhD knew she'd need a second !vote in an AfD someday...) or, as HelloAnnyong surmises, a bad faith move. Whatever. Cheers! - SummerPhD (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Singing Cookes
I'm not fully convinced that Singing Cookes is a copyvio. I'm investigating now.-- SPhilbrick  T  22:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Singing Cookes, I'm still learning how to analyze copyvios, so I'm looking for feedback.

I see a version of what purports to be the group's official website as of 23 May 2003: SingingCookes bio 2003

The current WP article is clearly not a copy paste of that version, more on this later.

A more recent version of the official site is here SingingCookes bio 2007

I find nothing between 2003 and 2007. The 2007 version is almost word for word the same as the Wikipedia article. However, the current version of the Wikipedia article hasn't changed much since it was first created in 2006. Thus, I find a Wikipedia version with an older time stamp than one version of the official bio. This isn't conclusive proof. The Official site could have been updated in early 2006 and then copied by a WP editor. but it seems odd that the Official Bio page has copyright 2007. Again, not proof, (they didn't have copyright dates on the 2003 version), but if they updated the page in 2006, prior to the WP article, it seems odd that virtually the same words would exist with a 2007 copyright date but no 2006 copyright date.

The 2006 WP version does have some similarities to the earlier official bio site. However, it is clearly not word for word. In my judgement, it likes like an editor could have looked at the bio for factual information, and written an article based upon it, without violating copyright.

One possibility is that Sogospelman reviewed an old bio, wrote an acceptable (although unreferenced article, then someone associated with the group saw it, and thought it was better than the bio they had up, and replaced the official bio with the Wikipedia version. They are allowed to do so, although they are supposed to provide credit. I don't know how closely those things were monitored in 2006. Another possibility is that the official bio was updated in 2006, not captured by the Wayback Machine, and only in 2007 did they decide to add a copyright date to the work. In the meantime, Sogospelman could have copy-pasted it. However, while I note Sogospelman has had some issues with fair use rationales, I see 1800 or so edits and zero examples of copyright violation.

I think the next step is to contact Sogospelman, who still edits, albeit rarely, and possibly the singing group. What do you think?-- SPhilbrick  T  23:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Additional, potentially relevant piece of information:

One difference between the 2007 Official bio and the 2006 WP version is that the Official bio has these two sentences, not appearing in the WP version: The Cooke Brothers still travel with mom and dad, and they wouldn't have it any other way.

Another chapter in the Singing Cookes' legacy has now unfolded.

Possibilities:
 * 1) The Official Bio existed in 2006, without these sentences, the official bio was copied verbatim, and the official bio added the sentences in 2007
 * 2) The Official Bio existed in 2006, with these sentences, the official bio was copied verbatim, except the editor decided to remove these two sentences.
 * 3) The Official Bio existed in 2006, in a very different form, the WP article was created, and the Official bio liked that version, used it in 2007 but added a couple sentences.

My (limited) experience with copyvio editors is that they often start with someone else's material, then either use it as is, or make some minor wording changes, usually in the beginning of the material, either in what they believe is a good faith attempt to avoid copyvio, or perhaps, in an attempt to avoid detection of copyvio. It would be rare to take a full text and remove a couple sentences part way through the text. Consequently, I think option 2 is extremely unlikely. Of course, that still leaves option 1 as a copyvio, with no clear way to eliminate it as an option but I think option 3 is very plausible.


 * Reply - I suppose any of those are possible. The problem we have is that Wayback Machine archives are incomplete.  It appears at some point the bio became one big picture which didn't get archived.  I doubt this can be easily resolved.  Thanks for investigating. -- Whpq (talk) 11:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello, Whpq. I was suggested to be an extra pair of eyes here on my talk. The article was in fact, largely copied and pasted from their site. For a few years, the biography website was bio.htm instead of Biography.html, so this threw off the archives. Here is June 14, 2006, about a month before the article was created. You can see some slight changes in the text but in large it is from there website. I removed it from the article.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I sent an email to the Singing Cookes before I saw Nortynort's response. Looks like it may be moot now.-- SPhilbrick  T  12:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * NN, your link didn't seem like the right one, this is the 12 June 2006 version, and it is definitive.-- SPhilbrick  T  12:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoops, my link for was the home page. I tweaked it. Thanks for pointing that out.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - If the article is kept (which I think it should), it might be a good idea to copy this to the article's talk page so we have a record of the investigation into the copyright problem. -- Whpq (talk) 12:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅-- SPhilbrick  T  12:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Singing Cookes
Hey! Let me know if that Encyclopedia holds up. It looks good to me, and is reason to keep. Cheers, Dloh  cierekim  15:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I prefer to keep all the discussion within the AFD, so my comments will be there. -- Whpq (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The Futuristics
Good afternoon,

I see you requested to delete the page by the production team "The Futuristics". I have sourced official ASCAP publishing splits for the songs they have contributed on. Please reference these as well as the other sources I have marked on this page. This production team has had major placements with major top 40 artist and should not be deleted.

Thank you,

Derek Cournoyer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.155.161 (talk) 06:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

research or editorial control is in effect + no significant independent
Regarding.


 * "no significant independent coverage in reliable sources" how many are required is there a specific finite requirement?
 * "does not indicate what sort of research or editorial control is in effect", please explain. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 03:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no indication how this company makes its decisions, and what sort of editorial board reviews material for publication. -- Whpq (talk) 10:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Turkey Point Provincial Park
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Turkey Point Provincial Park, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.ontarioparks.com/english/turk.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * not a copyright infringement. Only similarity is a text fragment in one sentence. -- Whpq (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify Discussion Invitation
 Sumsum2010 · T · C  23:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

RFC/N discussion of the username "I Jethrobot"
A request for comment has been filed concerning the username of. You are invited to comment on the discussion here. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 02:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Awesome
Thanks for the note. Not making a point, those programming languages should be removed from wikipedia as well as mine, since they have notable references. In all fairness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flylanguage (talk • contribs) 16:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Kingfisher East Bengal Football Club listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Kingfisher East Bengal Football Club. Since you had some involvement with the Kingfisher East Bengal Football Club redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 05:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Jolyon Dixon : deletion of my article..
Hi there, just thought i'd write to you to let you know that i've added more sources and references to my article, with the hope of avoiding deletion.. i wasn't aware of how to add sources until i saw that i was being considered for deletion, and, i believe that (now) the article meets at least one criteria from the WP:BAND section.. ( the endorsement of products point, in particular, now that i have added several links to official manufacturers websites, one of which is a full interview at Roland U.K). Also, what you refer to as "name dropping" in the article, is really just a factual, and, i might add, abridged list of notable people that i have toured and recorded with.. which i thought was the point of a wiki entry (list achievements). Anyhow.. i really do hope i can be spared deletion, i am very proud to have a wikipedia entry, as i am of my achievements in my career thus far.. all the best.. Jolyondixon (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Your eyes, if you have the time...
WP:Schmidt's Primer (shortcut WP:MQSP) Whatcha think before I go live?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Appreciations for the close at Leslie Urdang.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Offer of help
Whpq, Thanks for your offer of help and for your helpful comments. I hope a decision on 'Paul Poovathingal' article will be made soon. --Jponnoly (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Lowell Bekker article
I'd like to discuss with you why you believe the article should be deleted. The radio station external links can be constituted as reliable and true. :] --Beastphones (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The discussion is happening at Articles for deletion/Lowell Bekker,l and I have stated there why the article fails to meet wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. Any further discussion continue there as opposed to user talk pages so that the discussion is centralised and easily accessible to other editors. -- Whpq (talk) 01:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing Purple and Brown
Can't believe I didn't check the pagespace. I guess I wasn't as careful as I might be, especially using the automated tools. Should have visually inspected at the AfD discussion, both logs, the pagespace AND the talkspace. Now I know more. Reopening and relisting (after my NAC) is a new thing to me, as I've stated on my talk. (I'm still a relative newbie at AfD.) Glad it didn't unduly affect the discussion. Appreciate your help. Would appreciate any feedback on AfD procedures you see needs offering as I move forward. I like this and want to do it better. BusterD (talk) 01:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Live and learn. I've made my own share of mistakes with non-admin closures at AFD.  I usually only NAC withdrawn nominations or ones that have been speedily deleted and were left unclosed which are quite clear.  Anything involving interpretation of the discussion I will leave it to an admin, but that's just my personal way of operating.  In this case, there is one editor advocating delete who is quite strongly opposed to the keep positions, so I guess its not surprising a non-admin closure was questioned.  Cheers! -- Whpq (talk) 02:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've clearly been pushing the envelope. To live and learn. Hope nobody takes my NAC actions as improper. IMHO, I'm pretty much staying inside the guides. I'll concede that as a non-admin, I probably should provide a considered closing rationale, to head off any easily misunderstood action. BusterD (talk) 02:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I think you interpreted the dicussion correctly, but as you can see from my !vote, I'm a bit biased. -- Whpq (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Joey Bishop Show
Glad you like it! Have been going through various photos for a bit, adding them when I find those that qualify for free-use. We hope (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

AfD nom/merger
Should I go ahead with this ? Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You can withdraw the nomination. Usually, a non-involved editor/admin would close the discussion, but in this circumstance, I think ignore all rules could be applied and you could also close it yourself (or I can do it) and then you can go ahead and merge the articles. -- Whpq (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're sure it's okay to close it, then I have no problem if you close it. Then I'll do the merger.  Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * One question though, you did look at the Phoenix article right? Neither of these articles are sourced and neither of them are really notable.  Maybe they should both be deleted?  It might be better to ask an admin.  Malke 2010 (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you really think the Phoenix article is not notable, and have followed the steps in WP:BEFORE, then feel free to nominate it for deletion and mention the 7seas article. Then modify your nomination rationale in 7seas to reflect your changed nomination. -- Whpq (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I just Googled the Phoenix Group and they don't really have reliable sources we can use. It's been 10 years since they started up and no local newspaper articles, etc., seems to fit lack of notability.  I'll modify the 7Seas and nom the Phoenix Group.  Oh well. . .Malke 2010 (talk) 20:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. Appreciate it.  Malke 2010 (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest that you strike out the original nomination, and move the amended nomination statement to just below the original nomination? It will be easier to read and understand. -- Whpq (talk) 13:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I tried it but on the preview it looks more confusing. You try it.  Maybe you'll have better luck.  Malke 2010 (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have made the modification. -- Whpq (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Appreciate it.  Malke 2010 (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We should probably stop commenting back and forth on the AfD. It will get too long and peeps won't want to read it. We can argue it here and then if one of us changes his/her mind we can then post that.  K? Malke 2010 (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No. AFD is the appropriate venue for the discussion so that all editors can participate. -- Whpq (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In any event, I think the points are there without turning it into a tit for tat.  Malke 2010 (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

OxiClean
So how about adding those sources you found? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Patience. If you are hot to trot on getting the references in right away, feel free to improve the article now. -- Whpq (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Humanitarian education
Hi, you posted a personal reflection/essay fixit note on 7 Dec 2007. I've tried to improve it. I'm a newbie. And I'm now worrying that I offended some protocol by removing your fixit note. Please accept apologies if this is frowned on. I just thought it didn't apply any more - given the structure & style of my edit. best regards Alt62 (talk) 09:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to worry, you did a good job in fixing it! Cheers! -- Whpq (talk) 09:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Appreciate that, thanks. Alt62 (talk) 10:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Jim Hunter (skier)
Materialscientist (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Jenny Evans for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jenny Evans 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/Jenny Evans 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 good 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. TerriersFan (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Palermo
That's perfectly fine. Just to clarify, I only redirect an unincorporated community to its parent municipality when it's an unreferenced stub that gives no useful information about the community besides the mere fact that it exists — but any community or neighbourhood, no matter how small or large, is always entitled to have its own article if even just a few real references can be presented. So thanks :-) Bearcat (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

No cached
Hi Whpq. You're not imagining cached page versions, you're just dealing with someone making changes then trying to troll you/us. Keep up the great editing! :) -- WikHead (talk) 01:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Mozart: Violin Sonatas K. 301, 304, 376 & 526
Hi Whpq-

I see this article has now been deleted per nom, and I have un-redlinked it from Hilary Hahn. If you have any of the references you mentioned, you might want to post something at that page. Milkunderwood (talk) 10:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added the Billboard chart information with a citation. -- Whpq (talk) 13:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)