User talk:WikiDan61/Archive20090805

Archive created 2008.09.10. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

ABCpdf
I have no clue where / how to post here but Websupergoo is a very very small company and they are rip off artists.

Three of the articles I cited are on MICROSOFT owned sites. How are these not considered reliable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MajorDorkus (talk • contribs)
 * The articles you cited were from the ASPNet User's Forum. Although Microsoft owns that site, it is still a user forum, and as such, it is not a reliable source.  A source such as a newspaper or online news organization is reliable because there are fact-checkers and editors assuring (to a degree at least) that the facts presented are true.  On a user forum, a user may say anything they like and it will be allowed to stand.  If I posted a note on the ASPNet User Forum that Martians had stolen my rutabagas, it would allowed to stand, but it would not make it a citable "fact" for verification of Wikipedia content.  Please review the guidelines at WP:RS for further information.  And just because a company is small, that is not a reason to discount their products.  Again, if you have had issues with their product, I'm sorry.  But from the Google search I performed, their product has gotten at least a few notices in the media, so they must be doing something right. As a final note, you will notice that I have moved this discussion from User:WikiDan61 to User Talk:WikiDan61.  It is not appropriate for you to modify other users' user pages.  That is a page for a user to inform other Wikipedians about themselves.  Discussions with other users should be directed to their user talk pages.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, if this is supposed to be neutral then how is Websupergoo allowed to have a page with a working product? The product CLEARLY doesn't work at all. This experience is really making me lose faith in Wikipedia. Utterly ridiculous! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MajorDorkus (talk • contribs)
 * You say the product doesn't work. But unless you can provide a RELIABLE citation to that effect, you can't really publish that on Wikipedia.  I will take a look at the article and see if it merits a wider discussion about the software's notability (i.e. whether it has received sufficient third-party coverage).  It might well be that the product shouldn't be listed on Wikipedia.  But that decision will be based on a community consensus, and the community will avoid denigrating commentary in the process.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I have tested and provided examples online of the product failing - they are guaranteed examples of failure - am I considered a reliable source? Am I allowed to at least include examples of blatant failures in their application online? I have no problem citing these examples. Again - I do have a bone to pick - you are right - I paid for something and their support group is not upholding their end of the contract - they deserve to be called out on this. MajorDorkus (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No, actually, you are not considered a reliable source. And neither am I.  Now, if you can get a journal (PC magazine, something along those lines) to review and publish your findings, THAT would be a reliable source.  But your own personal experiences are specifically excluded from the "reliable sources" category.  On a side note, I have nominated the article for deletion on the grounds that there are really no independent reviews or coverage on the product.  (I went back and looked at the Google hits I found, and I note that they are all self-published ads for the product.)  Given your negative, non-neutral history of editing this article, I would suggest that you might want to stay away from the Articles for deletion discussion and let disinterested third parties review the facts.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiDan61: please explain how I: a humble user, with valid concerns about a product, and empirical evidence of the problems cannot get that information published on here in the appropriate place. What if I make an ABCpdf User Bugs and Issues Article? Is that Valid? I could fill that up with examples of failures pretty quickly. I have stopped at undoing your changes but I'm about to undo your edit. Now that you're involved in this discussion please advise me what steps I can take. MajorDorkus (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I really don't know how I can stress the importance of the whole reliable sources issue. Your own personal experience is NOT a reliable source for the claims you are making, and any continuation to make unsourced negative claims against this company will be deemed vandalism, because they will open Wikipedia to charges of libel.  If you can't find a reliable source for the information you want to add, don't add it!  If you can't live with that restriction, perhaps there is another pastime other than Wikipedia editing that will suit your interests better.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That is fair and I appreciate you nominating the article for deletion. I will keep in the loop with the deletion conversation but will sit on the sidelines as you suggest. Again, I have code examples that prove there are issues that Websupergoo fail to address. No Journal etc. would care to publish this information so even if it is valid, the code can run on a computer and prove the issues, it's not considered reliable. In the real world, this would be like my neighbors urinating on my house week after week after week. I could easily video tape them urinating, but this video would be inadmissible as evidence. Utterly ridiculous - for computer articles CODE should be considered empirical evidence and Wikipedia should NOT be liable for this. But that's just my opinion - I appreciate your guidance. MajorDorkus (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Tasya Hodges
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Tasya Hodges. 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(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Tasya Hodges. 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.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure can...
...and I blocked the poor sap for repeated copyvios/spamming. I'll take care of both right now. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

re SuperView
✅, thanks. Cirt (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't say non-notable
If you're involved in the deletion process, please don't limit your comment to "non-notable" or "nn".

This comment has come to mean nothing more than "I want this article deleted" and/or "I think this article shouldn't be on Wikipedia", and may give the impression that you are not bothered to actually check up on it or find a proper reason for deleting the article. Tell us why you think the subject is non-notable, and what you understand by "non-notable".

This goes double if you're nominating an article. "NN" is not a reason for deletion. "Fails WP:BIO", "I think this subject is of interest to only a very limited number of people", or "unverifiable" are. At the very worst, please expand on why you think someone or something is non-notable.

The exception to this is when referring to CSDs like,  , and the like. The nn prefix here refers to the articles lacking any assertion of notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjkinfo (talk • contribs)
 * I presume you are referring to my nomination of your Creating public Communities article for deletion. If you are unhappy about this nomination, please feel free to comment on it at that page, where the full Wikipedia community can be included in the discussion in order to achieve proper consensus. And, for the record, the guideline that you have quoted is one user's opinion, not a Wikpedia guideline.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

St. Mary's School
The page for St. Marys school has been flagged for immediate deletion. This page contains the same type of content as other private schools in the area which you have posted in Wikipedia. This is a non-profit Catholic school

Webmistressofthedark (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for the other schools' Wikipedia pages, as I have not seen them. I can speak to the page you created.  By using words like "our" in your article, you immediately point out that the page has been written by someone affiliated with the school, a violation of the Wikipedia conflict of interests guidelines.  The language of the article is unwaveringly favorable toward the school, acting as an enticement for readers to consider sending their children to the school.  Without a fundamental rewrite, the article can only be perceived as an advertisement for the school.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so what you are saying as that I need to make the language neutral in nature and that will be acceptable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmistressofthedark (talk • contribs) 18:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That, and you need to resolve the copyright violation that has been identified. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Be patient here, where do I find out what the copyright violation is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmistressofthedark (talk • contribs) 18:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * On the St. Mary's School (Connecticut) page, another editor has flagged your page as a copyright violation. If you intend to address that concern, and my concern about blatant advertising, you should place the template hangon directly below the last db template (but before any other text on the page) to alert admins that you would like to contest the deletion.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to meet your criteria while attempting to learn how to use Wikipedia at the same time. The article info should be neutral as I understand it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmistressofthedark (talk • contribs) 18:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to locate where this link http://stmarysschoolsimsbury.org/prospective/aboutus/ is showing up on the page since it seems to be causing trouble, but I cannot locate it. I have edited the information to be neutral.

18:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmistressofthedark (talk • contribs)
 * This issue isn't that the link is showing up on the page, but rather that the page contents are a substantial copy of the information at that link. I am currently editing the page to create a more neutral version.  Please hold on.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thnak You! I see what you mean now as neutral. Your help was greatly appreciated.

Webmistressofthedark (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Any time. I should remember the motto "Improve, don't delete!"  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The Eagle's Prey
Hi. Having explained to the original author why his article wouldn't do, I appreciate your helpfulness putting it into proper shape. I have my doubts whether it meets WP:BK, but never mind that - I'm writing to point out that the plot summary is still a straight copyvio of the blurb on the publisher's website. Rather than tag it db-copyvio, I thought I'd point that out so you could reword it, if you like, before Coren Searchbot flags it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine. I have the impression that we're fairly relaxed about WP:BK, as long as we don't turn into too much of a publisher's-blurb notice-board, and as long as we get rid of things like this - the article author says plaintively at the AfD "My mother is working on this book series and plans to have all eight books published by fall/09." Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
- Dank (push to talk) 15:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfair Account Deletion
Hi,

Please help. My account and all my pages have been deleted without warning. This is very unfair and did not give me a chance to move or edit my content.

User talk:CFM-Churches

I am not getting any help from User: Backslash Forwardslash who has only been an administrator for 24 days. I am a complete novice and a real person but spent many hours creating USER pages which I thought were safe from deletion. Please help!

Thanks

Wes
 * I wish I could help, but I'm not an administrator. As I can see from the discussion on your talk page, there appears to have been some resolution.  If not, feel free to contact me again, and I'll see if there's anything I can do to help.  Please note that this does not mean I endorse the content you created, only that I believe anyone should be allowed to improve their performance the next time around.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Please
hi please do not delete my lovely page it means a lot to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimpossible666 (talk • contribs)
 * Kim, you clearly do not understand the purpose of Wikipedia. Although anyone can edit Wikipedia, it is not a place for you to post your random thoughts about your friends and your school.  It is an encyclopedia, and as such, the material must be notable and verifiable.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi wikidan61.

Thanks for the info - still finding my way around wikipedia, so useful to be pointed in the right direction on protocols and editing. I have amended these articles to point the edits summary to the discussion page

cheers! Envirogeek (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sandeep baliyan
A tag has been placed on Sandeep baliyan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. G W … 19:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Twinkle malfunctioned. I will report a bug. --G W … 19:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually it's already a known bug. --G W … 19:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

My crystal ball tells me.....
Delete......There is a Road, No Simple Highway (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Mangled Eye Studios
I edit-conflicted with you on the talk page. As it had sat for nearly 24 hours with db and hangon tags, it seemed the admins were doubtful about a speedy, so I have taken the tag off and told the author that I will do some more checking and then probably take it to AfD. Certainly, on the basis of the links from the article, it is lacking the substantial coverage required. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Update - I have done more checking, without result, and the AfD is here. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

omphalophobia
thank you for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uhaina (talk • contribs)

AFD Notification
I would like to draw your attention to Articles for deletion/DataShackle Framework as you had previously commented on the viability of this article. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 13:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Grooving Kingston 12 article
Could you upload a pic of the album for me? It won't let me do it until i've been around here longer but i want the article looking complete. Thanks.

Also, if i make articles for Fy-Ah Fy-Ah and Man To Man, could you post their respective pictures? Thanks.

Oh and thanks for tidying up the layout and things. I didn't have the first clue how to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unyunmasta (talk • contribs) 18:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have the pictures to upload. Prior to reading your article, I had never heard of the album or the songs.  I just saw an article that needed formatting and I went to.   WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Grooving Kingston 12
Well i have uploaded a pic here, if you could transfer it to the page it would be much appreciated. http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y107/onionmaster/album-grooving-kingston-12-jad-mast.jpg Thanks.


 * I haven't actually uploaded any images in the past, and I'm not sure how to do it. I try to avoid uploading images because of the copyright concerns. 96.57.79.179 (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009
Hello. When you patrol new pages, all articles that you have looked at should be marked patrolled, whether you marked them for deletion or deemed them acceptable, unless you are not sure. This saves time and work by informing fellow patrollers of your review of the page so that they do not duplicate efforts.  Guy M 13:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

D.O.P. Foundation
Hello,

I'm new using wikipedia and i will appreciate if you can help me to add correcly the information about the D.O.P Foundation and the D.O.P. Collection. I try to publish the information but I receive a Speedy delete tag. So, Can you help me with the correct way to publish the information?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidop (talk • contribs)
 * Please see my response on your talk page. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Minister for Men
Thank you WikiDan. I understand your concerns. I believe the reason why i have sourced material from the same reference is in connection to the fact that the text is in relation to the specified reference allready mentioned. I am taking steps to sort this out and the other issues which you have mentioned. Thank you again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trippleact (talk • contribs) 20:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, I don't really understand what it is you're trying to say there, but unreliable sources are unreliable sources, and they shouldn't be used in Wikipedia. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * PS -- the "Key Priorities" section you have added is entirely original research as none of the references you cite ever mention the "Minister for Men". Yes, those are all concerns that such a position might address, but as no reputable source has listed those as the priorities of this position, your creation of the list constitutes original research, and can't be allowed.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Harrassment
Hi. I was encouraged to become part of the campaign again systematic bias (see my talk page). On 18 July editor Quibik reversed links by me to 'Royal Canberra Hospital' in the 'Royal Canberra Hospital Implosion' entry on the basis of 'overediting.' (see history of edits) But the links were in separate paras and so (I felt) not contrary to the policy and I wrote this up on the article discussion page. There has been a campaign by the ACT government to downplay the public angst felt about its demolition of this much loved hospital and I accused editor Quibik of possible bias in explaining my undo. Now this editor as added notifications to both the article about me (which has now been through many editors hands and which I haven't touched since requested not to) and that of my father Marcus De Laune Faunce (where I acknowledged neutrality issues immediately). This motivation of Quibik in doing this seems related to my accusing him/her of potential bias and I suspect him/her may have some COI related to the Royal Canberra Hospital and my father's opposition to its closure. In relation to myself my reading of the Wiki policy was that opposing 'harrassment' and 'outing' was supposed to take precedence. I wish the edits of Quibik on those two articles taken down as flowing from COI or harrassment. Should I do that myself? Should I report him/her to the COI page?Fauncet (talk) 08:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As a first clarification, reverted your edits on the basis of overlinking not overediting.  The Wikipedia policy on this is somewhat vague, but in general, not every occurrence of a term needs to be Wikilinked.  The general rule is that one Wikilink on any group of text that would be visible in a typical reading screen is enough.  My own personal rule of thumb is that the first occurrence of a term should be wikilinked, and then no others within the article unless the article is of excessive length.  As a second point, the reversion cannot be considered harassment; it was a simple attempt to clean up an article.  As a third point, I agree with Quibik that your leap to the harassment assumption was quite quick, and also that your own additions to the article are highly WP:POV.  Just because a quote is published in a recorded history, that does not make the quote neutral.  Your additions of this material to the article have skewed its neutrality and I would agree with any efforts made on others' parts to revert them. I see no indication on the article itself, and little indication on its talk page, that any "notification" about you exists; Quibik has merely pointed out on the talk page that your additions constitute a conflict of interest and violate neutrality.  It is proper to make such comments on an article's talk page; this is why such pages exist. I do agree with Quibik that your creation and editing of the article about your father was inappropriate; as much so as the creation of your own article.  Your further aggravation of the issue by accusing him of a conflict of interest means that the harassment charge falls more squarely on your shoulders than his. Given the history of your edits and the comments that have been made to you on your talk page, I fear that you do not understand or are simply unwilling to conform to Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines, and that you continue to try to promote your own agenda on this site.  This behavior is not acceptable, and will end badly for you.  I would hate to see that happen as you are clearly a gifted and broad-minded individual; the project could well profit from your contributions, but only if you can conform yourself to its policies.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * But the point you're missing is why Quibik suddenly turned up at these entries and did this. He came and made these edits only after a dispute with me on another site. My point is that this is contravening the wiki policy on COI by using the fact I am known to 'harrass' me, as a retaliation. He didn't come to these entries with a neutral POV. I decided to be up front and not hide behind an anonymous name. I've had enough. Bye. Fauncet (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason he is turning up at those other pages is that he has identified you as a user who makes POV edits, and he wishes to patrol those edits. This is quite a common behavior, and can often be quite useful at keeping unruly editors in check.  If his remarks at those other pages were arbitrary, you might have an issue of harassment, but as his remarks are quite a propos, I don't really think you have a case.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Page for an Organisation
Hi,

Can you please let me know what information is required and who it needs to be sent to, in order to put copyrighted information on Wikipedia? Basically we are looking to have a page similar to that of Virgin Media and would like to make sure we are following your rules.

Betfairtest (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * First let me point out that they're not my rules. I don't represent Wikipedia, nor am I a Wikipedia administrator.  I'm just a user, like you. If you would like to donate copyrighted material to Wikipedia, please see the guidelines at WP:Donating copyrighted material.  However, you should also read the guidelines at WP:ORG to ascertain if the organization is notable enough to merit a Wikipedia page.  You should also read the guidelines at WP:COI to understand why you should not create an article about your own organization.   WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Samuel Thomas Allen
Hello WikiDan61, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Samuel Thomas Allen has been removed. It was removed by NCFCEdward1994 with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with NCFCEdward1994 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Intraverse
Hi Dan, think I replied correctly!

I have been editing the Intraverse information as they had links to them in the 'external links' section.

I tried to move the existing Intraverse information (virtual world) to a new page as this has a different meaning etc.

I apologize if this has been carried out in the wrong way and should be implemented in another, but I do feel that the information I have entered for the band is worthy of Wikipedia inclusion. If the new links added i.e facebook and last.fm are not viable then that is okay.

Please contact before removal if this is the case, but would like to think that the information can stay, or be moved about to suit.

Regards, Nick Mulley - nim23 Nick 13:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nim23 (talk • contribs)
 * As I responded on Talk:Intraverse, the issue isn't inappropriate links, but notability. There is no indication on the page (nor in any search that I performed) that the band are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dan

There were already links to the band in the external links. Does this not deem them enough to be noted on Wikipedia?

They are recognized on last.fm on BBC radio1, by mangement, throughout festivals and by many radio DJs.

Also, I will be adding appropriate history (not on there now) this evening, as they have quite a bit.

Many thanks, Nick —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nim23 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Nick 13:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nim23 (talk • contribs)
 * Just because a band has external links, that does not make them notable. Last.fm is hardly a sign of notability, as they list practically every piece of music ever published, whether by a major label or by a garage band uploading MP3s to the site.  Nor is the fact that they have a management agent a sign of notability.  Please review the guidelines at WP:MUSIC; the band needs to have had a charted single or album, have received significant coverage in the media, or have won a major award. P.S., please sign your posts using the Wikipedia signature ( '~' ).  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dan

As mentioned earlier I have not fully completed the information on there as of yet.

The Notability menitons: Is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles, or an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians.

Andy Vickery, guitarist of the band is members of Matt Berry's band (Comedian) and of the Ray Russell band (Jazz Musician)

Surely this is of enough notability?

Regards, Nick Nick 14:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nim23 (talk • contribs)


 * While Matt Berry and Ray Russell appear notable enough in their own rights, their bands do not appear to be. Berry's band (Jonas 3) is mentioned only on his own Wikipedia page, while Russell's page notes him as a solo musician (with whom Vickery may have collaborated, but this does not make him a member of the band, which doesn't seem to exist).  And even if this would verify Vickery's notability, the criteria call for a band consisting of two or more notable musicians.  I understand that you may be a big fan of this group, but not all groups merit pages.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dan,

Yes Jonas 3 is Andy's old band who still play together with both Ray Russell and Matt Berry, Ray Russell being the father of 2 of the Jonas 3 members.

I manage all web content for the band. Is there any information we are able to keep online, or are you going to delete it all. It is obviously your call but would appreciate keeping at a minimum the web reference that was on the original Intraverse page.

Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated and understand everything you have said.

Regards, Nick Nick 15:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nim23 (talk • contribs)
 * Actually, it's not my call. I'm not a administrator, I'm just another user, like you.  However, since you are the band's website manager, you have a conflict of interest and should not be involved in editing the band's page in the first place.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, well I manage it, but its not an official job, its helping out. Thanks for the heads up! You've certainly enlightened!

Regards, Nick Nick 15:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nim23 (talk • contribs)

Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. Speedy Deletion
Could you please explain your assertion that the Grant & Eisenhofer page only promotes the firm? The page gives a detailed history of the firm and information about what services the firm provides. I understand that it may not be completely neutral since much of the information was taken from the firm's website. However, I believe the page as is can be revised to reflect a more neutral point of view. I do not see why a complete re-write would be necessary. Furthermore, upon comparing the Grant & Eisenhofer page to those of other law firms, its language and information seem similar enough to discredit any speedy deletion nomination. Specifically, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom's page claims they are a "prominent" firm in the first sentence. While I have no problem with this diction, I do believe it is less neutral and more self-promoting than Grant & Eisenhofer's page. G&E's page has 20 references which validate the claims made. Steph0513 (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Minister for men
I cannot help but notice the similarity in names and thoughts of tripleact, triple132 and the 86.xx.xx.xx IP. Just saying. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I had noticed that too. Plus the fact Reece Wilkins (the 16 yr old boy who stirred up some noise on the issue) admits here to having created the article (and therefore must be user Tripple132, and likely Trippleact).  I'm thinking sock myself.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess it is clear. Let's see where the afd goes but I'll keep an eye on the editor. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 13:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Erm, So let me get this straight; First you downgrade the article, strip it of its integrity and well over 85% worth of its initial value and then you Immediately nominate if for deletion! Im confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.80.156 (talk) 10:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks WikiDan61
I appreciate the welcome. --JoshuaCruzPhilippines (talk) 10:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dan! - Got your message - Can you please help me?
I need some help to rectify some error messages that are popping up on the Joe Bowman (marksman) page. This has been listed as an autobiography, but my father has passed away. I have provided, corrected, objective, verifiable data and photos to the Wikipedia page that hopefully will provide more illustrative content and proof of the amazing stories and facts about the life of my father, but still remain objective. This page was at least 80% done, without my knowledge of who did it.... I just found it and starting correcting, re-formatting and adding photos - then my content is classified as an "Autobiography". I would have no problem with the warning label, but no one has identified any unobjective content that would warrant such a dismissive tag. If we can't revert it back to a "non-flagged" status, can you revert the whole thing back to where it was when I first edited it and it was definitely not flagged with the Autobiography tag. I simply wanted to provide MORE proof of the contents of the article, not embellish or get creative.

The superlative statements and words that have been used to describe my father since his death are words that have been created by The New York Times and The Washington Post, not just a family member attempting to aggrandize his father’s memory with inflated facts. I need a chance to provide whatever proof necessary for Wikipedia needs to verify anything on this page, so we can remove the “Autobiography” warning label. The numerous edits I have made to this page are much more formatting and correction of facts and detail around facts than anything else with a 3rd party perspective similar to the New York Times article and I am personally satisfied with the page now, where there were a few errors (mostly typos or formatting mistakes) that resulted in me making quite a few edits and the fact I was honest enough to use a user name that reflects my true identity, which has in turn empowered an editor to throw the “Autobiography/Interested Party Makes Too Many Edits” flag on this extremely factual page….. I have tried to get one of the editors to help through the conventional talk channels on Wikipedia, but I am not making much progress in getting the page stabilized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Bowman_(marksman)

I am Joe Bowman's son, Mark Bowman, and I have ownership of the images I have posted on this page. I originally entered these photos without the proper ownership info, have re-entered the photos with the proper license designation and made the proper typo corrections and finally have the page corrected, have eliminated any factual errors and put the format together properly.

I am new to Wikipedia and will be glad to provide whatever proof of ownership of these family photos or other factual content verification on any edit that has been added to edited to this page.

Every one of the photos provided were taken with my father's camera, as he was an avid photographer and movie maker. So the credit for those photos would go to Joe Bowman, who has since passed away, and I am the executor of his estate, if that helps provide the lineage and ownership. My sister, Jan Bowman, squeezed the shots off of my Dad’s camera on the Joe Bowman Full Body Program Shot and the Joe Bowman Straight Shooter photo.

The only exception would the be Robert Duvall photo with Joe Bowman on set for Lonesome Dove. I, Mark Bowman, took that picture along with many others in that set and can provide more from my personal photo collection. Can I provide any further proof or any verification of the photo ownership or any facts contained on the page so that we can remove the "warning tag" at the top of the page?

Could you please help me get all photos tagged properly that are currently on this site. I think there are default warnings that pop up to administrators of this page when things are edited extensively or photos are not properly credited. Now I see a "warning" label on this page, suggesting that the content might not be objective enough, because I, as Joe Bowman's only son, entered it. I can verify every single line of information in the complete bio, with numerous ways to verify both through our family archives, and respected newspapers such as The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, Houston Chronicle, etc.

I strive for complete and factual content and I think this page was plagued by my attempts to "get it right" and get the proper photos, verifiable, illustrative content to the original page that persons unknown to me designed. The page is as correct, both from a detail and formatting standpoint, and now there are properly annotated photos, which I own, in place now. I just don't know how to notify Wikipedia that the page is correct as I can make it.... Before, there were a few factual errors in the original page.

I am here to help and get this data verified for you, "Wikipedia approved" and entered in a way that provides a complete and factual page on the life of my father, and it appears I really need some help in the ways of Wikipedia.... The one good thing about getting the editing and content correct is at least now the article reflects the facts as accurately as possible.

Once again, thanks for your help-

Markbow (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you WikiDan61!
Thank you WikiDan61 for your time and consideration....!

There will be no need for me to edit further, unless somebody denies any of the posted photos that were taken on my Dad's camera, then I will take the photo link code out of the page. But thanks to your help - there will be no need for me to add or change anything from this point for the page outside of the photo links, if needed..

Once again, many thanks for your time, effort and expertise......!

Markbow (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Alex Kramer (Guitarist)
Hello WikiDan61, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I contested the speedy deletion of Alex Kramer (Guitarist) - a page you tagged - because: The article makes a credible assertion of notability, sufficient to pass A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. NW ( Talk ) 23:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Greg Quill
My apologies ... I have, in fact, been correcting many factual errors, as well as syntactical, spelling and grammatical mistakes, and adding factual details, some reference links and a discography. A badly written bio containing misinformation is not a good thing to have on public record. The original biography was posted by someone else without my knowledge. The "swaths of personal reflections" are mot mine, but his/hers. I will read the policy manual, but in the meantime, please suggest/make changes to conform with Wiki style.--Gqdogsbody (talk) 03:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)gqdogsbody —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gqdogsbody (talk • contribs)

Removal of PROD from Memorial ground
Hello WikiDan61, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Memorial ground has been removed. It was removed by PCFootballClub with the following edit summary ' (It is Penistone's main sports ground for most of the sports events.) '. Please consider discussing your concerns with PCFootballClub before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 22:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Coolman2007Gold
ya basicly wat i am doing is getting the info from the site forunt page i dont know if it is against any rules sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolman2007Gold (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, it is against the rules to copy information from another Website to Wikipedia. Also, the page you added looked like a blatant advertisement which also violates the Wikipedia rules.  Finally, the page you added was about a group that might not meet the Wikipedia notability guidelines.  If you would like to try again, please consider familiarizing yourself with those guidelines.  Then, consider creating the page in your own user space (for example, here), and only copy it to the main article space when it is ready.  For the record, you should probably closely scrutinize the spelling and grammar on the page you create, as it really does make things easier to read!   WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok,i will write the exibition he had(like for the 50th year of throne of Prince Ranier 3rd in Montecarlo,the exibition at San Remo festival,Cannes and Venezia cinema Festival where he made special awards,is that enought? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurasam (talk • contribs) 16:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)