User talk:Wiki BioInfo

File source problem with File:ROB TOP 40 WEB.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:ROB TOP 40 WEB.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

August 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:NEW MONSOON LOGO G.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:NEW MONSOON LOGO G.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 05:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The article Monsoon Group of Las Vegas was deleted by NawlinWiki under the 'advertisement' criteria for speedy deletion. You can contact the deleting admin or put a note on WP:Requests for undeletion, but be forewarned that the article was very spammy and that your use of the word "our" (our article) gives the indication that you are editing on behalf of the corportaion, which is highly frowned upon.  Skier Dude  ( talk ) 06:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

'

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

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Robert Casillas 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. Bongo  matic  05:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

AfD discussion
Hi Wiki BioInfo

I note that you are relatively new to Wikipedia so your basis for evaluating the merits of various viewpoints at Articles for Deletion may not be fully informed. I would like to call your attention to a few pages that might clarify things:


 * WP:N and in particular WP:SPIP
 * WP:BIO
 * WP:AFDFORMAT
 * WP:ATA
 * WP:RS

You could also review previous discussiosn Also, please sign your comments with " ~ ".

Regards, Bongo  matic  07:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You may also wish to review WP:BLUD. The editors who participate in AfD generally have a firm grasp of policies and guidelines and are able to come to informed conclusions based on the content and references cited in the article under discussion. (Also see WP:SHOUT). Bongo  matic  09:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

There was much of our discussion edited out of the conversation, however Bongomatic, the EXACT points you mention just above are the very reason that this article/bio are relevant. The the fact that your requested this article to be deleted is not in the spirit of the Wiki community as you have not reviewed this article nor given any suggestions or critiqued this article, you merely suggested deletion. IT IS CLEAR AND EVIDENT THAT THIS ARTICLE IS SUPPORTED BY NUMEROUS AND HIGHLY CREDIBLE THIRD PARTY SOURCES. IT IS ABSURD THAT YOU OR ANYONE ELSE WOULD CONSIDER THIS ARTICLE FOR DELETION. Although the article/bio in question may not be significant to you or your industry or interests does NOT JUSTIFY GROUNDS FOR DELETION. I hope you can see this and reconsider. Wiki BioInfo (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Duplicate entries at WP:REFUND probably do not help your case. Based on the attempted article, and the level of effort you're putting into trying to save it, I'd swear you worked for them.  No matter what, this is not a business directory, it's an encylopedia, and there's nothing about the company worth having in an encyclopedia. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 20:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

BWilkins apologies for the duplicates, I think it's apparent that I am newer to Wiki and still have difficulties with the community and navigating my way. As for your comment of "working" for the company, thank you that is flattering, however I have read some great article by Wiki authors on deceased figures or on ancient history or people who are knowledgeable and emphatic about insects etc...point being I have worked on these article and will be writing more on nightlife figure and groups. Your point makes sense, but I HOPE YOU AND OTHER CAN OR WILL RESPECT OTHER PERSONS REASON OR MOTIVATIONS FOR THEIR WIKI CONTRIBUTIONS. I THINK THE YOUR ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOT THE CASE THE DISCUSSION REMAINS IF THE CONTENT IS RELEVANT OR IN THE WIKI GUIDELINES WHICH IS ABUNDANTLY EVIDENT. Wiki BioInfo (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the company (and the article you wrote) does not meet Wikipedia guidelines under WP:CORP, WP:PROMO, and others. Oh, and typing in capitals (also known as "yelling") doesn't meet any internet guidelines for online interaction. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 21:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

BWilkins sorry for the "yelling" wasn't aware of yelling on the computer, shows my age, but I used caps as emphasis. Apologies.Wiki BioInfo (talk) 21:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

More importantly: WP:BURO... "While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus.

WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND ..."Assume good faith that every editor and group is here to improve WikipediaItalic text—especially if they hold a point of view with which you disagree. Work with whomever you like, but do not organize a faction with the main goal of disrupting Wikipedia’s fundamental decision-making process, which is based on building a consensus. Editors in large disputes should work in good faith to find broad principles of agreement between different viewpoints." Wiki BioInfo (talk) 04:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

A procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request.
 * I didn't reject undeletion due to procedural grounds - I rejected it because the article as written was spam spam spam spam baked beans and spam - its content met no guidelines to keep nor restore. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 10:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)