User talk:AndrewHowse/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions with User:AndrewHowse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Editors' Assistance

No problem, thanks for your help! Sottolacqua (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hidden-text boxes

Hi Andrew. Thanks for your assistance on this subject. I experimented again with text boxes and made sure there were no unwanted spaces and the problem has gone away. I'm not really sure what was causing the problem I encountered last week. I have now created a hidden-text box and used it at Kutta-Joukowski theorem#Formal derivation. Regards. Dolphin51 (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Whoops! An hour after saving my edit in Kutta-Joukowski theorem I re-visited it, only to discover that the text in the box isn't wrapped within my screen. It is possibly an intermittent problem related to my computer. Can you see the text properly wrapped, or does it flow outside the limits of your screen? Dolphin51 (talk) 04:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it depends! If my browser window is maximised, then everything is good. But as I reduce the width of my browser window (Firefox 3 / Windows), the collapsible box doesn't change size and so it eventually spills. I suspect it's a limitation of the collapsible object class rather than your implementation, but I'll do a little research on it. --AndrewHowse (talk) 04:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Sara Vietnam

I declined to delete an article you nominated for CSD after some discussion, and instead opened an AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Vietnam. Your input is welcome.  Frank  |  talk  17:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see you already got there. Thanks for your input!  Frank  |  talk  17:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Assertion of notability

In re: FPT Group, and generally speaking, what specifically is an "assertion" of notability? And, can you provide an example? I am puzzled by this phrase, it seems that if a company is one of Vietnam's leading mobile phone service providers, etc, that the company is notable. So, what is an "assertion" of notability? I need to know. I need to add it to the article. --Mr Accountable (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

An assertion of notability would be something like "this company is one of France's leading makers of refrigerators". It's only important insofar as it would be grounds for avoiding speedy deletion. It would still need to be verifiable, and could be removed if it wasn't verified. A mere assertion wouldn't be much help at AfD; a demonstration, including verifiable sources, would be needed. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It's all there already. --Mr Accountable (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see it, I'm afraid. Care to point it out? Why is it notable? --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It ranked #1 on the VNR500 list of 2008. + In consideration of Vietnamese companies, a certain amount of Confucian reticence is involved in regard to how the company presents itself, the assertion of notability is not as apparent nor presented as volubly, perhaps, as at an American company. --Mr Accountable (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That'll do it. Speedy nom withdrawn. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. In looking through lots of corporate websites, I can say that the VNR500 list ranking was very difficult to find at FPT's site, it would have been on the front page of an American, European, Indian company, writ large. And, I had not encountered lack of assertion of notability as an issue with an article before. --Mr Accountable (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

And if I could bend your ear, when companies of Vietnam or China or other Confucian societies present long lists of various tie-ups, regional prizes, projects and notices of official government involvement in their company, they are doing so to assert that they are notable and a great company. These companies of Confucian societies will go a long way towards not allowing other companies to "lose face"; it's some kind of important cultural difference. Sara Vietnam JSC, for example, will avoid saying specifically that they are a dominant company, to avoid notice. In reading through google searches, Sara Vietnam comes up quite often as the website designer of government ministry web pages, but nary a word of how well-connected they are. --Mr Accountable (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That might well be true, but that's not how WP:CORP is written. You might like to start a discussion over there about how to address this. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Notability of TVNBZ MEDIA

I never created the article, although I did revert vandalism on that page. Perhaps you went to the wrong person? Leujohn ^(talk) 13:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguate Bass Guitar, Independent record label, etc.

Thanks Andrew both for doing all the work disambiguating some common music words, and for teaching me by example how to do it right in the future.--Ludasaphire (talk) 04:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy Bates

I'll be happy to go through and disambig the previous links, but I don't agree with the primacy argument. Tennis players, track and field people, etc, have a lot of cross linking because of how their sports' competition articles are all handled. Lets take a look at the other two tools offered on the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC page: If you look at the Wikipedia article traffic statistics from http://stats.grok.se/, the other Bates (particularly the American football coach) are (as of when I created the articles on the 20th) seeing comparable visits. Tennis player American football. Even stronger, the American football Bates is stronger on Google searches for "Jeremy Bates". "Jeremy Bates football" gets about 61,600 hits. "Jeremy Bates tennis" gets about 34,700 hits. In that category, "Jeremy Bates boxer" gets about 192,000 hits. Thus, I'd argue none of the pages truly stick out as primary. --Bobak (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Callback verification article and "HOWTO"

Two quick things. First, I think you way over deleted on the callback verification article, I have left comments on the talk page. As far as HOWTO nature, as I said on the talk page, I have concerns about it, but not as strong as you seem to have. If you feel this strongly about it, you may want to review User:Marcperkel other recent contributions, in particular the DNSBL and Nolisting articles. I have not had time to try to address my concerns with them. Wrs1864 (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the callback verification article. Not what I expected but it did get rid of the vandalism by those who oppose the technology. Marcperkel (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, It appears that the anti callback verification editor is back with his propaganda about why he doesn't like the technology. Can you look into this? Marcperkel (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Could use some more help here. We have an edit war going. I'm not really familiar with the rules on how to deal with it. I'm an expert on the subject and I have a real problem with people posting information that just plain isn't true. Marcperkel (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit wars are easy to stop - just stop reverting. Seriously. It's only an encyclopedia.

Usually, one of the editors involved sees the futility of it, or just fades away, and then it stops. Otherwise, one or both editors gets blocked for edit warring, or the page gets locked down at an arbitrary version until everyone cools off. Blocking/protecting are admin actions and I'm not an admin, so that part won't come from me. When this does eventually get sorted out, it'll include references to reliable sources of info. Nobody else cares about your claiming to be an expert; I'm sure you are but it doesn't matter unless you show how the articel is built from sources that other people can look at and verify.

Sorry to be a bit harsh. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sportindex template

It can go if you think it isn't suitable; you seem to know more about disambiguating pages. I realize that it probably isn't specific enough, especially when compared with the examples given at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Set index articles. Another function I had in mind when creating it was that it might help categorize the sports disambiguation pages, and if this isn't what set indices are meant for, it should go. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Ignorance (folk punk band)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Ignorance (folk punk band), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Ignorance (band). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 03:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ignorance

Hi, sorry, but i tried to create the article following your words but it was erased. So what can i do?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Springspirit (talk • contribs) 03:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Racism In Cuba

Hi, I asked for assistance with my dispute on the article Racism in Cuba, and you said "Rather than just reverting each other back and forth, you and the other user should discuss this on the article's talk page."

The thing is, I have talked to him about it. He's just ignored me and kept posting it. That's why I'm seeking help, because if I revert his edits continuously I'll get banned, and if I try to talk to him, he'll ignore me. I don't see any other option. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zd12 (talk • contribs) 07:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

That's why I suggested discussing the matter on the article's talk page; it's much easier for other editors to see it there and to join the discussion. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Chris Brown (defensive back)

A tag has been placed on Chris Brown (defensive back) 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 {{hangon}} 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. Pontificalibus (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Per the ref, this guy played 21 games for the Steelers, so I think that meets WP:ATHLETE. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

User:JoshEnte/GhostRadio2

It still reads like jacket copy for a non-notable book; blatantly NPOV violating. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV - agreed; I added some stuff from Publishers Weekly for balance. NN - I'm not familiar with how the guidelines are usually applied. There's a short piece in Pub Weekly, Library Journal and Kirkus. but I don't know if those are big enough to be considered non-trivial. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Community ban?

Rose made a personal against me today, after you ask her to remove the personal attack, saying:

"You are ignorant, impertinent and absolutely useless." [1]

I was wondering if you wanted to consider asking for a community ban of Sharron Rose at ANI? In ase you have never participated in one (I only recently learned of this), a commmunity ban means that an editor is blocked from editing on wikipedia, often forever.

I will go through the Sharron Rose edits and see what other personal attacks she has inevitably made against other editors. You are welcome to post a ANI request yourself at anytime. I will post on User talk:Shannon Rose today the other inevitable personal attacks I have found. Ikip (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

She has been blocked for 55 hours, so hopefully she will reform her behavior so no further action is required. Ikip (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Yup. I think it would have been double jeopardy to pursue anything else at present. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Tom Koch_re Wood STUB

No... I'd be delighted if you would help. The Denis Wood Bio' has numerous inaccuracies as it stands. And as it stands it violates the STUB protocols. Wood is a living American Author. The Bio should focus on his standing as a living American author. I do not disagree that his incarceration may be relevant, but only in context.

Inaccuracies include:

1. Wood was not charged with "molesting a minor". He was charged under NC law with "crimes against nature" (viz. fellatio) and "taking indecent liberties with a minor". This is a far cry from seven years of "molestation". Wood is not now on any national registry of sex offenders as he might be were this STUB accurate.

2. The "molestation" did not occur over seven years. The boy in question was closely associated with the Woods for seven years. The physical relations were for less than 18 months.

3. It is unclear why the youth in question choose not to take up the wrestling scholarship the Woods helped him secure. Since it was to be outside of Raleigh, and I believe he was not named in court records, the "shame" was unlikely a reason.

4. No civil damages were awarded to the boy or his father. It is made to sound here as an accusation. The non-suit has no place here.

5. Wood's book on his prison experience is "in press" and scheduled for publication from The Center for American Places whose distributor is Univ. of Chicago Press. As the author of now 14 books I can attest that the road from accepted proposal to production is often long. That it is scheduled for publication should be sufficient. --Tomkoch (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Tom Koch__thanks

Andrew: The Wood bio' page seems enormously cleaned up. I suspect I have you to thank for the skillful correction of my bad entries and code. If so ... thanks. I think the page works much better now. Obliged.--Tomkoch (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It's kind of you to say so, but Fleetflame deserves most of the credit. There are a couple of other improvements I'll get around to making too. One questions for you; there are references to works by Tom and John Pickles; should they both be credited to one author, and if so, which one? --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

A wrestling account

Hi, yes thanx on that flash-account. I saw that the subject was closed, so I didn't react there. Time for me to learn the quick responses. Have a nice time, -DePiep (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Eldridge Street Synagogue Restoration

Thank you for your thoughtful edit. Hopefully the vandalism of this site will be put to rest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlefacts (talk • contribs) 17:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thankspam

Thanks to everyone who took the time and trouble to take part in my RfA whether support, oppose or neutral. All comments are valued and will be considered carefully in the coming weeks. Feel free to add more advice on my talk page if you think I need it. SpinningSpark 22:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC) In case you're wondering, the image is a smiley, just a little more aesthetic, but not as serious as the Mona Lisa

Edit war or bully going on at the Rehoboth Carpenter Family?

I sure hope that the survey for Rehoboth Carpenter Family builds a consensus and resolves this stupid edit war between Iwannafish and GeneZub. It would be nice if some of the wikipedia editors and administrators voted on the survey for Rehoboth Carpenter Family. I have lurked for years on the Carpenter root genealogy forum. If Iwannafish is that Professor from Japan then he is a known bully. You seem like a thoughtful editor can you help resolve what is going on? Enfermero (talk) 08:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Variable

Thanks regarding your help disambiguating Variable! --Cybercobra (talk) 06:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You, too. --AndrewHowse (talk) 12:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Fighting Chance (organization)

Hi AndrewHowse,

Thank you for the advice you left on my page regarding the article Fighting Chance (organization). I have made some changes to the article and added more references to fulfill the notability requirement. Is there any chance you could take another look? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Swimlej/Fighting_Chance - I appreciate your guidance.

Best, --24.189.110.45 (talk) 13:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I took a look. It seems to be on the margin, to me. If you've put in all the independent sources you have, then you might try moving it into article space and see what happens. I think you'll have to log in to move it - see WP:MOVE for more info, if need be. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ascenders/Descenders

Thank you Andrew I will see you there. I ain't a total klutz but I can see whatever way I go about doing this it will be "wrong". I don't mind much for myself, if I get a wrong search I just try something else likely, but am baffled what I am supposed to do when the problems are split between the articles themselves and their dab pages, as I can see it becoming a merry-go-round.

Still wondering how the cyclists get up, and the climbers down. Perhaps they go together in pairs.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 01:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Slowly and quickly respectively, I believe. But as I think about it, the combination page might work rather well. --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Haha, yea. I was wondering if maybe the climber carried the cyclist up, then rode pillion down...

Yeah the "antonymic dab page" idea I kinda like too, though I can see a number of objections. Among them will be:

• "you are not disamiguation the meaning of (say) 'ascent', so it should not be on that page"
• "Wikipedia is not a dictionary"
• "It will lead to loads of double redirects"

One of my motivations here is that I do translations from time to time (in fact I think this is how I stumbled across ascent/descent) and then word pairs like this often are faux amis and it is quite possible someone using English as a second language would search for its opposite, especially in cases where because of "I got there first" rule the plain page has been taken by a specialist subject, they might choose a search strategy of "ok let's try Descender, there's bound to be a link from there".

I say search strategy advisably cos Wikipedia search IS CRAP, it's as if the whole idea of a free-text search engine has eluded them and so it's great as long as you know what you're looking for and where to find it (which is, in my opinion, how a lot of conflict on AfD etc comes about, mere mortals like me are simply not aware of a lot of this stuff, and cannot be reasonably expected to be aware of it, since it's so hard to find until you know where it is).

Whoever put "Ascender" there was doing quite right, no pre-emptive dab and all that, but over time it became a small (but solvable) problem.

I see you haven't changed Ascenders yet; I thought you were going to Be Bold there. Incidentally, did you know there's an entry for stair riser but not one for treader? SimonTrew (talk) 13:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Real life intrudes. I'll get there. btw, I think merging the typographic articles makes sense but I don't think the same can be said for the dab pages. The English language just doesn't support 1:1 matches of meanings between sometime-antonyms. A more precisely-specified language might support it, but not the chaos that is English. How on Earth do adults learn to speak it? --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Now I feel obliged to disambig the links into Ascender. Curse you ... Interesting point about search; how could it be improved? --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It needs a free text search like, er, Google. It's just almost impossible to find something unless you know where it is. I'd say half the problems with dab, mos, unreferenced, etc come simply because relative newbies like me just don't know these articles exist until slapped with wet fish by a more experienced editor. Fortunately you are one of the nicer kind.

For example I created as stubs Citroën C1 ev'ie and Electric Car Company (to link into a larger topic, Electric car. Now I put evie under {{vehicle-stub}} and ECC under {{auto-manufacturer-stub}}. Well first how do you find them? You do it this way: You type template stub that fails. You try a few variations, fails. You go to Google, fails. You look up other articles that are about motors or their makers, go to "edit" and find out what the template is. That's hopeless, abominable. With "-stub" in particular half the problem is that "stub" goes at the end and you can't search for end terms only beginning terms.

It's pervasive, for example in translating, you suddenly discover after hard graft manually converting a French infobox that it exists on English WP too, so you can basically cut and paste (with checking and a bit of {{convert}}. But none of this is documented anywhere, or if it is, then the doc is equally hidden and thus useless.

To give a little background, I have been a software engineer for twenty years or more and our software wins awards for its help system. In fact a lot of chemistry articles here could be improved from it, it's a free download, but of course I can't do that myself cos of COI. ANYTHING in the UI there you hit F1 I would reckon 95% of the time you will get what you are looking for, about 4% you will get a child or parent of that topic, and 1% you will get "I give up" kinda thing. With WP you get "I give up" about 95% of the time.

Just needs a free-text search. Wikilinks are great we love them dearly cos they take you down the garden path teach you new things etc, but to look up LSD and get some philosopher, and stuff like that, well that is not great. And of course I am trying to think of readers here; editors come second.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Denis Wood photo

I'm glad to say the Denis Wood STUB bio' is now fairly stable. how do I upload a photograph of Wood to this page? If you have a moment, would you explain, or help? Thanks. --Tomkoch (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

LSD

Andrew, I am just doing it-- I've fixed a few so far.

After I've done them all I think we need to consider whether LSD is needed at all i.e. whether the disambiguation page should just be called LSD. I would favour that but it's kinda nice to have it explicit to say "(disambiguation)".

I've been editing about six months so kinda getting up to speed but move/delete is still new to me the protocol I mean, technically it's no problem but like to post for requests on a dab or redirect seems rather pointless. Any hints you could give me there, gratefully receieved.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, the dab changes I am making on individual pages (and there are not many) are good whether one or the other is adopted. Is it best to take this convo to e.g. the move page, or the disambiguation page you suggested? (As always, I didn't know of it's existence, a long-running grumble of mine-- not against you-- is that you can't find anything on WP unless you already know where it is). SimonTrew (talk)

BTW I usually try to make edits so that nothing "breaks" in the mean time, what I call "incremental editing", every single edit must stand for itself. My specific reason is that then it is easier for other editors to view the changes and revert or discuss, compared with a monolithic, wholescale edit where you can't see the meat for the potatoes. I imagine other editors would disagree and get annoyed with itsy-bitsy changes. Anyway I think I've mostly managed successfully to edit incrementally, nothing got broken along the way. I'll check "what links here" at LSD then I'm done. SimonTrew (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Andrew, the changes to LSD and LSD (disambiguation) were reverted by User:JHunterJ. I have undone those reversions, and asked to take to WP:Requested moves I didn't think I could make it much clearer that I'd gone through process as far as I could interpret it. If there is genuine debate about whether LSD the drug is "primary" I think that needs to be argued somewhere, I don't really care where. But simply for another editor to revert saying it's primary topic (out of 30?!) is a little odd in my opinion, I obviously changed it by not thinking so, and will argue it out happily but otherwise will just be edit war, at which I always just give up and go do something more useful.

I suppose I am trying to ensure you are in this discussion to give your good natured and well balanced views. SimonTrew (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Re dab page no worries I will try to summarise there. Thanks for your help, I would normally be able to find my feet but move request for dab, I've not done that before. SimonTrew (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Andrew, just a pointer in case you didn't see my correction at User talk:SimonTrew#LSD - I think you meant WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, not WP:PRIMARY (which is about primary SOURCES). (John User:Jwy talk) 00:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Gah. Thanks for that. --AndrewHowse (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

EAR

Can you check and make sure I did that last archive right? The diff is here and I moved it into a new archive, 47. If I messed up, please fix it and let me know. I've never done this before. Thanks! Fleetflame 00:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks OK. I added {{Archive}} top and bottom, and I might have left those 2 dated 5/5 for a little while longer, but no big deal. Thanks for pitching in. --AndrewHowse (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

re: Hugh Wilson

Hi Andrew, I saw the polite suggestion you made to User:Melchiord on his talk page regarding creating an article for Hugh Wilson (vocalist). I'm not sure it will go anywhere though as both User:Boleyn and User:Quadell already suggested this with no positive result. I'm seriously considering reporting Melchiord at WP:AN3 as he's well past 3RR. In addition, it appears he's templated me with another user's signature - strange. I really try to avoid drama in my wikiworld, so likely I will just look away and let the scenario play out as it may. Regardless, the Hugh Wilson entry on the dab page should not be there if there is no article (or alternative blue link) to link to - it defeats the entire purpose of the dab page. Cheers, ponyo (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Quite so. I did think it was funny that he copied that template complete with signature from his own talk to yours.

I left the redlink on the dabpage in blind optimism that the article might get written, at least for a little while. I've watchlisted the whole thing and I'll be back in a while to see what's happened. Thanks for your kind message, --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

MeCCG

"Not permitted"? The page you link to is quite explicit about it being a guideline: "generally to be avoided". So, let's drop that pretended absolute here and start thinking for ourselves, as the carefull wording of the guideline clearly wants us to.

May I ask if you know anything about this game that makes you want to drop them for any other reason than going around with a general guideline in hand? I do know quite much about it and its scene and I stand by my reversion. Most specifically: @1: each of these links IS IMHO quite unique in it's own right. Doesn't the small size of the link group, stable over years of time, show that? Yes, that even includes those few "stores". Why? Because this is a very rare hard to come by product, so those few hobbists who make a decent selection available ARE unique resources. IMHO that rule 5 is to avoid an endless list of places selling an easy to get DVD or such. That isn't the case here. This was a well kept link group. Someone even removed treebeard.com after he stopped, someone added a replacement (bulabula). Nothing wrong with these links at all.

GCCG, which you removed as well, isn't in any category you mentioned and well.. VERY unique. I presume that was an oversight altogether?

The only one that may have to go is IMHO the Spanish link. There is a Spanish equivalent of this page, so it would perhaps be better placed there.

In summary: people (many different ones as you can see) have given proper thought to what should be on that page: each of these links an enrichment for those looking into MeCCG. Please don't ruin that by mindlessly over-implementing some general guideline. Will you revert? --85.145.124.137 (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no. I don't believe we're here to promote sales sites. Cheers, --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

New section

Ok thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.138.27.241 (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

re AfD Prot

No worries. Cirt (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

re: ePIPE

Received your message on needing more 3rd party sources. Here are a few links.

http://www.icc-es.org/reports/pdf_files/ICC-ES/ESR-1390.pdf

http://pld.iapmo.org/file_info.asp?file_no=0004058

http://pld.iapmo.org/file_info.asp?file_no=N4058

http://nsf.com/Certified/PwsComponents/Listings.asp?Company=0K240&Standard=061

http://www.hotel-online.com/News/PR2009_2nd/Apr09_ACEFairmont.html

http://www.mrrooter.com/la/ePIPE/default.aspx

http://www.americanleakdetection.com/epoxy-pipe-lining.php

http://www.icc-es.org/News/PDF/success-ePipe.pdf

If you need more I can provide more.

Jdiemert (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think those would be considered primary sources, rather than the preferred, secondary, sources. See WP:PRIMARY for more on these. Are there, for example, independently-written newspaper articles about your company? The link to hotel-online.com, by way of contrast, looks like a press release to me. --AndrewHowse (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think by combining the ACE DuraFlo wiki entry and including ePIPE, this would help validate the subject. To clarify ACE is the company and the epoxy lining industry refers to epoxy lining pipes as ePIPE. Jdiemert (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC).

Remember the first rule

... is get the job done.[2] and make it sensible to the readership.

• A definition of widely differing meaning, imho is necessary... whatever technical term describes such "phonophemic" words, because otherwise low frequency tonal derivations mask the just as frequently found fish term. IAR tells me an intro is best way to put both high up where reader can be alerted the fish are covered later. // 24.62.190.234 (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of the dab page is very specific: to aid navigation, specifically to help a reader find the article s/he seeks. The content you propose might be interesting at, say, Bass (word), or more likely at Wiktionary, but I don't think you'll find consensus for it at the dab page. The most common mislink, btw, is in the sense of bass guitar, not the fish. As for the pronunciation, I believe IPA is the standard approach, but I know very little about that.

I'll mention this at WT:DAB too and see if anyone has a suggestion of where your content should go. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Fighting Chance (Organization)

Hi Andrew,

You had given me some advice about an entry I was working on in April and I have made some changes and was hoping you could take anther look when you get a chance. I am not sure who I am supposed to contact once the changes have been made to see about removing the editors notes/moving the page. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Swimlej/Fighting_Chance). I really appreciate any advice you can give me...Thanks! --24.189.110.45 (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I still don't think it meets the notability requirement. That doesn't mean it's not a fine organisation, making a contribution to its communities and so on; it just means that it doesn't have enough 3rd-party coverage to be notable in our terms here. Sorry. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, can you let me know what kind of coverage would be needed to make it meet the requirement? I think I might be misunderstanding the policy and perhaps added the wrong type of references. I just don't understand how national coverage would not be enough? Any example of the coverage needed to meet notability would be much appreciated! (I do understand that the community has it's own terms and I would like to ensure that I meet them...and I really do appreciate all of your continued help). --24.189.110.45 (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, You left me a message and I don't think I ever replied; I'm sorry about that. I think you need some solid secondary sources; a news story about your organisation, for example. The links you have show that it exists, but I don't think they are strong enough to support the notability of it. --AndrewHowse (talk) 23:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, Thanks for the response, but I am not sure you looked at all of the sources I used several newspaper articles. These sources include: Columbia College Today, The New York Times, Hamptons Cottages and Gardens, Suffolk LIfe, Newsday, East Hampton Star and Southampton Press. How many newspaper articles do I need? There are more out there I just thought that would be sufficient. Once again, thanks for all your help. --24.189.110.45 (talk) 15:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have anything to add to my previous comment, I'm afraid. All of the sources that I can see from here serve to verify the existence, but not the notability, of the organisation - in my opinion. That said, I'm not trying to have the article deleted, so you could say this is all moot. Cheers, --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

help desk

Ill post the link here on your page because i dont want to draw possibly unnessarcy attention to the users talk page. My undertsanding previously was that we shouldnt be using legal threats or legal proceedings in anyway to justify our behaviour. Now he doesnt actually use the legal advice to threaten, he just uses it to justify his actions to proposing another user be blocked (bottom thread). I was uncertain if this is allowed because of the legal threats policy. Im mostly curious about undertanding the whole policy in general. have a read if you want thanks for the link. Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Understood. I think the one user was citing that case as support for his concept of "due care". That's not, as I understand it, a legal threat. I don't think I agree with his position, but I think the link he gave was a reasonable way of explaining his point of view. Does that make sense? --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep i had a read through the policy. what your saying makes sense. thanks Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

clarified my request at Wikipedia:Help_desk

thanks for your feedback. I clarified my request at the help page. I hope you don't mind that in doing so, I overwrote your response there.

Also, thanks for reminding me to provide citations. I will definitely do so. Agradman ^talk/_contribs 03:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I'm not going to offer anything at the help desk cos I find the layout clear as it stands. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Wedding march

Good compromise, I like it. RP459 (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Wrong place

Sorry, I was in the wrong place, was undoing it but you beat me to it. Biofase ^flame| stalk  22:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Cheers, --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Code

I received a notice that a page was going to be deleted and to put the hangon tag after the speedy deletion tag if I wanted to contest it. But, I can't find the db tag.

Anyway, I added the hangon tag and reason, updated the page to make it more clear (I hope) but otherwise, am unsure how to proced and want to make sure that I haven't missed anything.--Littlefishgirl (talk) 22:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Somebody had already removed the speedy tag, saying that writing a movie script was an implicit claim to notability. I'm not yet convinced he's notable, but I'm not going to pursue speedy deletion. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for both the information and the quick response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlefishgirl (talk • contribs) 23:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Help

I know youve done some work on List of Honorific titles, Can you give your opinion on it on this. page .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_honorific_titles_in_popular_music_(2nd_nomination) ITalkTheTruth (talk) 09:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Re Assistance with BBC Play School UK TV page

Andrew, thank you for your help. This is a learning curve for me, you were right to take the link down, as on further reading the links section, I would have come to the conclusion it was needless to add one. I was thinking for verification puposes. But the article already included a link which I added, to the media city mediacity:uk is in the article, and so no need to clutter with more links. Thanks to you and others for your help, this matter is now sorted

Angliaman (talk) 09:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi, I've just applied the rollback right to your account. Please read that link before using. Hope you find it useful. Thanks for your work here! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Shawn Mitchell bio

Hi AndrewHowse I'm trying to update the bio of Shawn Mitchell however other NEW users keep removing my entry. Would you take a look at my entry and tell me if there is anything wrong with the way it is presented. I'm new here and don't know how Wikipedia works but I'm trying to be a valuable contributor and working hard to learn the rules. I look forward to being a member of Wikipedia. Thanks for your help.

Eyeonyou (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Union College

Thanks for taking the time to clean that up! upstateNYer 14:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Garage

Please stop removing this link on Go-ongers. Because the exact type of garage is ambiguous, there is nothing against linking to the dab page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. How does the wikilink you prefer help the reader to understand? --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Because the item in question is a "Garage". It does not matter what kind of Garage it is, but the reader should be informed of the different specific meanings.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

So it's the word itself, not any particular meaning of it? Either unlink it or link to wiktionary please. Dab pages are for navigation, not information. --AndrewHowse (talk) 00:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ping

Thanks for your level-headed assessment here. I have waited for the dust to settle to say anything in an attempt to keep the drama level down. I appreciate you looking at the situation objectively (and notifying me of it). Regards -  Frank  |  talk  15:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It certainly seemed a bit dramatic, but I think the resounding silence in response to the last post on that thread is a sort of consensus to ignore the whole thing. I appreciate your taking the time to stop by. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of 'hangon' note

Hi AndrewHowse,

I see you just removed the 'Hangon tag' on the page Robin French Please can you advise me why and how I can improve the page to get it authorised. I have been followed the guidelines for other users and thought it was fine.

Thanks Felicity Waters

(Apologies I just wrote this in the wrong section) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Felicity Waters (talk • contribs) 18:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Answered at WP:EAR. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Felicity Waters (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Taxpayer March on Washington and YouTube Time-Lapse Video of March

hi, Andrew. have you given this issue any more thought? we were talking about it over on the Editing assistance/Requests page. thanks. Kenatipo (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, You know I was concerned about what it could be proven to depict. I'm still concerned about that. I don't think there's a strong case to include it. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

nba player of the month

this is a different account because wp doesn't feel like accepting my password. of course i'm going to create the article. --Darkhause (talk) 01:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Good news. It's not always a foregone conclusion in this kind of situation! --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Please, update your AWB

Hi, your edit to Rated R (Rihanna album) with AWB caused an error in that article. This bug in AWB was already fixed. Could you, please, update your AWB, so that this doesn't happen again? Thanks. Svick (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Roger Wilco. Thanks for spotting & fixing. --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

NewFoundSpecFic

Hi Andrew! The college newspaper was aimed to back up the fact that while the magazine (NewFoundSpecFic) originally was open only to Newfoundlanders, have since opened up to writers across Canada. On the plus side, there are already two reliable news sources there to back up the article - One being the article from the Source, a St. John's newspaper, and another from the Telegram, covering the book's launch. The request for the article's deletion confused me as it appears to already be fully-sourced and the additions of the other user seemed to be a little biased and unsourced in content. Overall, I think the article qualifies as notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newfiechick88 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

IndexOutOfRangeException in AsyncApiEdit.CallEvent

Hi. Did you get this bug in 4.9.0.3 as well? Can you recall what did you do to catch this bug? -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I haven't experienced any problems in 4.9.0.3, but I don't know what circumstances tripped it either. I'm afraid I didn't bail out of the edit and upgrade and then try again. As for catching it, AWB just threw up an error window and I copied and pasted. Not much help, I'm afraid. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

i really hate people that do that.. its a disambiguation.. its another use for the thing.. so why cant it be there, sure it doesn't have any links to it yet.. but at least its there for people to expand on. The reason i put it there without anything linked is cause i know it exists, but i cant find a decent explaination, and when it wasnt on wiki i figured i'd put in a reference to it on there.. hell maybe you should do something useful and find it out yourself rather than spending your time trying to piss people off instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.237.154 (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by. What are you talking about? --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Retrieval of deleted page

Thank you Andrew for your response to my question on retrieving a deleted page. I am only just beginning to make contributions to Wikipedia so I hope you will forgive me if I ask some fairly basic questions.

I saw the talk discussion leading to this decision to delete the page relating to Hemlock SemiConductor. My question is whether it is possible to rescind that decision if circumstances have changed or if it is possible to make amendments that would address some of the comments made by other editors?

I do want to be totally transparent here. I work for a company which is the majority shareholder in the Hemlock SemiConductor Group. I believe that circumstances have changed since the page was deleted which warrant the inclusion of information relating to this company. Am happy to explain further if needed.

Kheenand (talk) 12:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

A well-sourced article about the company might be appropriate, if it meets the notability requirements at WP:CORP. You have a conflict of interest, and should read WP:COI first. The redirect isn't worth retrieving; it pointed to crystalline silicon. Any article at that title ought to be about the company. Does that help? --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

yes thanks Andrew - that does help Kheenand (talk) 16:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

re:Unusual edit

No need to worry yourself, Chocobogamer is just being new and the removal was from my dummy account. Still, thanks for the concern. « ₣M₣ » 15:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Subliminal Stimuli and "Programming The Nation?"

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for your response below:

Are you here to discuss the removal of the material above? If so, then please be aware that existence is not sufficient for a topic to be included in Wikipedia; the topic needs to be notable, according to our general notability guideline and in the case of a film, according to WP:FILMNOT too. IF there are sources to verify the notability of this film, then please cite them. Please also feel free to come back with questions. Cheers, --AndrewHowse (talk) 04:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe there are several verifiable sources that may be worthy of further examination below:

1. Taylor, Dr. Eldon, (Mind Programming: From Persuasion and Brainwashing to Self-Help and Practical Metaphysics) Published by Hay House - 2009

Page 22: "Are others intentionally manipulating us for gain? In the documentary Programming the Nation, producer Jeff Warrick leaves it all up to you. 18 I'll do the same.

18. Warrick, J. Dir. 2008. Programming the Nation. Ignite Productions

2. IMDB for the film at: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1023345/

3. Link to screening at 2008 Santa Cruz Film Festival: http://santacruz.bside.com/2008/films/programmingthenation_santacruz2008;jsessionid=82C79D7011757DC5067BF18500693825

4. Link to interview with filmmaker on Randall Libero's - Spirit of Film Conversations: http://visionary-entertainment.blogspot.com/2009/07/programming-nation-with-producer-jeff.html

5. http://thefrankfactorspace.ning.com/profiles/blogs/programming-the-nation-1

6. www.digitalmediafactory.com

7. Link to Santa Cruz Sentinel story about Digital Media Factory which also mentions the production of "Programming The Nation?" here: http://www.digitalmediafactory.net/company/press/article.php?artid=70

8. http://www.goodtimessantacruz.com/santa-cruz-community-calendar/icalrepeat.detail/2009/11/14/52471/-/MzViM2IwYTI0NjViZDI2ODkxYjc2ODVmMjA2ODBkMGQ=/advance-film-screening-of-programming-the-nation.html

9. Television Interview with Matrix News Network and Filmmaker Jeff Warrick: http://www.matrixnewsnetwork.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2167:major-ed-dames-and-jeffrey-warrick&catid=109:past-guests-2009&Itemid=289

and here: http://www.programmingthenation.com/news_reviews.shtml

Thanks for looking into this further.

06:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)IgniteTheMind (talk)

Which of those sources do you think meets the notability criteria? The convention here is that the burden of proof falls on the editor making the change, so in this case you need to identify a source that demonstrates notability, instead of just dumping a pile of passing mentions. #1 looks like a passing mention, although it's difficult to be sure wthout the book to hand. #2 isn't a reliable source. #3 might establish exoistence, but won't establish notability. #4 is a blog and is not reliable. And so on. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Andrew,

A brief expansion on the notability criteria of the sources cited above:

1. is a passing mention. However, Dr. Taylor was interviewed for our film and is a respected authority on the subject. His previous book, "CHOICES AND ILLUSIONS" is a New York Times Bestseller on the topic.

2. is an IMDB link to the film site, (and while not notable), does require verification and updates as to release dates to avoid being deleted.

3. I believe, IS notable. Santa Cruz Film Festival is a 501c non-profit organization going on its 9th annual appearance, showcasing over 50 films from around the world. The fact that "PROGRAMMING THE NATION?" was also chosen as the Closing Night screening as "A Work in Progress" is also notable.

4. I believe, IS ALSO notable. While it only contains a brief written introduction to the film, it contains a one hour interview with the show host, Randall Libero, and the filmmaker, Jeff Warrick, discussing the documentary.

5. is a passing mention

6. IS notable as it illustrates the collaboration created between production companies to produce the film. This also demonstrates verifiability - as it obviously took enormous resources and capital contribution to bring to fruition.

7. is a passing mention of the documentary, however it focuses directly on #6 and spotlights the company that helped co-produce the project - a two page story in the Sunday addition of a credible newspaper - which is definitely notable. Which also leads me to wonder why there is not a Wikipedia article on "Digital Media Factory"?

8. is a passing mention - however, the following link (not listed above), IS notable: http://www.metrosantacruz.com/metro-santa-cruz/05.07.08/cover-0819.html and states,

"The festival closes on Saturday, May 17, with a work in progress by Santa Cruz filmmaker Jeff Warrick. Programming the Nation? picks up where the 1970s bestseller Subliminal Seduction left off, only with a more contemporary and sophisticated analysis. Beyond the skulls in the whiskey ads lurks a more subtle form of manipulation; Warrick examines how it plays out in advertising, political campaigns and other forms of media. The 7:30pm screening is followed by a Q&A with Warrick, attorney August Bullock (www.thesecretsalespitch.com) and Media Watch's Ann Simonton on the prevalence of below-the-radar imagery and stereotypes in film, music and television."

9. is a passing mention as it only contains a brief written introduction to the film, however it is also extremely NOTABLE as it was also a 30 min. televised broadcast interview with the filmmaker that went out to over 30 million households throughout the US, UK and Europe.

I hope this further clarifies these citations, the verifiability of them, and their notability with regards to Wikipedia's policies on editing articles. I also hope that admin will at least consider an edit of my original edit to the article rather than a speedy deletion.

Kind Regards....

16 December 2009 (UTC)~~  —Preceding unsigned comment added by IgniteTheMind (talk • contribs)  

Thanks, but I'm not sure that you've understood the sense in which Wikipedia uses the term Notability. We use it here to mean "worthy of note" or worthy of inclusion in the encyclopaedia. In order to be worthy of inclusion, a topic must have received non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, which we can take to be widely-recognised sources with substantial editorial control and fact-checking. The New York Times is often used as an example. Sources, then, do not have to be notable, but they do have to be reliable, and they need to provide non-trivial coverage of the subject, not just of something associated with but different from the subject. I don't think the film is notable and so I don't think it should be included. Regards, --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Marcou article reply

"::" Thank you for your response. I did make the changes as Ukexpat suggested and looked at the guides he suggested. I am willing to make the changes myself, but I am asking for some guidance on content and neutrality. All I do are mostly emails and some simple word documents for the most part on my home computer. I want an outsider to look at it for a different viewpoint. If the article is in good shape without any major errors, I would like it moved to the main page of Wikipedia. --Kayak paddler (talk) 04:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Sincerely, --Kayak paddler (talk) 22:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello AndrewHowse! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 8 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. The Rebels (rockabilly band) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

John Mc Dermott

Hello Andrew,

We corresponded a long time ago about a wiki entry and I would like to submit one for visual Artist John Mc Dermott.

His details and biography can be found at the following websites:

http://johnmcdermottartist.com

http://www.aftermathptsd.co.uk

I have tried to create a page on wiki, but must admit it is beyond my ability to do and I get confused by it all. Would you happen to know anyone who would be willing to do this entry please?

In addition I would also like to submit an entry for another visual artist Raya Herzig whose details can be found at:

http://www.aftermathptsd.co.uk

http://www.rayaherzig.co.uk

Yours sincerely,

Anna Mazek —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annamazek (talk • contribs) 22:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, I can suggest 2 possibilities. One is for you to draft an article in your own working space, which we call userspace; you would do that at User:Annamazek/John_McDermott. Just click on that redlink to get started. But you say you're not comfortable with creating a page, so you could also list your request at Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Culture_and_fine_arts/Visual_arts#Visual_arts where editors who are interested in visual arts might look for likely topics. I hope that helps; feel free to come back with further questions. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of In the Raw (TV show)

The article In the Raw (TV show) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

TV show on community access station -- does not meet WP:N.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ... discospinster _talk 20:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Issue

Hey AndrewHowse,

No problem, I understand; that's a good point! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Comodor (talk • contribs) 03:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Volleyball players

I have seen that you edited some volleyball articles. Some players articles, most of them looks outdated. I would like to improve players by country. Could you please choose a country to contribute with? Please take a look on Yekaterina Gamova, Hélia Souza, Serena Ortolani and Kenia Carcaces for a model to follow. Please can you please improve some volleyball players with infobox and some addons? References are very important. Let me know. Oscar987 23:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Stevie (singer)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Stevie (singer), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Stevie. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Perfectly true, but only momentarily so. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Bangor, Gwynedd - External links

So where would they go? Also to point out I am a male check my profile Onshore (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Goldsprint

You flagged the page for deletion. How can I "fix" this page to your satisfaction? Please be specific. I do represent OpenSprints, which is NOT commercial, like wikipedia we are all opensource, in fact all our documentation uses wiki. Regardless, I have contacted every goldsprint manufacturer and cataloged the evolution, kept my contribs neutral and factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangwyn (talk • contribs) 15:06, 21 July 2010

Hi there, My main concern is the notability of the topic. In other words, why is the topic worthy of a page here? We usually require that there's a demonstration of significant non-trivial coverage in reliable sources; I don't think that's been shown yet. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It has notability in the real world, just not in wikipedia yet. I will start adding references in. Do you know what happened to the pictures? I owned most of them, and had permission for the rest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangwyn (talk • contribs) 16:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, notability has a particular meaning on Wikipedia but that meaning requires substantiation in the real world. Showing that the topic has been covered in depth by a real-world newspaper is a common demonstration of notability.

Your account shows some file uploads that have been deleted - see your upload log - are those the pictures you mention? I'm no expert on images here but you could try WP:IMAGEHELP to reach someone better versed. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Does this work? Goldsprint#Notability —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangwyn (talk • contribs) 16:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's marginal at best. Do you know of any coverage in more mainstream outlets? Doesn't have to be accessible online. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Bicycle Retailer is the official publication for the NBDA, getting on the cover of that is like getting a Grammy for an actor. There are plenty more articles out there, but if Bicycle Retailer is considered nominal to the cycling world -- I really don't know what you are looking for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangwyn (talk • contribs) 17:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, so cite it from there; no need to have it go via urbanvelo.org. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

So again, does this work? --> Goldsprint#Notability I have added reference by NBC and the New York Times. Tangwyn (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I still think it's marginal. The NYT ref doesn't mention Goldsprints, just roller racing. I don't think it's speedyable, but I'm not sure it would survive an AfD. I'm not going to start one, though, so don't worry about me! --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)