en User talk:Andyjsmith Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Andyjsmith. 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

→

Greetings and sorry...

Greetings Andyjsmith. I just slapped a speedy delete over your earlier one on Thats so rude. Not quite sure how it happened, but I suppose it should be left as is rather than start reverting, etc. Again, sorry.--Technopat (talk) 23:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. The article changed anyway. andy (talk) 00:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Send me what you deleted - Stomz Stavros

ANDY,

could I please request the article I wrote on Stomz Stavros that you deleted? Please send to me.

I not even going to ask why it was deleted, because the rules and guidelines here are so convoluted and confusing, I find I don't care why.

Just to be clear however, I am publishing an online comic book, and a print version. I own a VFX and ScFI web entertainment business and therefore distribute content for public consumption. There are many other entries on this site having to do with comic books and comic book characters. I, apparently, incorrectly assumed it was appropriate to post my own IPs.

Thank you in advance for sending the article I wrote.

Rob--RobKing21 (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't delete it and I don't have access to it. The deleting admin was User:CapitalR. andy (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

YPIH

It's ok to delete this page. Promoting... no. But it is a series of related articles I'm working on. :) Cyprian Henterfield (talk) 09:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

CWG Magazine

I will re-submit this page again if it gets AFD'd. For now, it will stay in my special pages. Archer Drezelan (talk) 09:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Letters Burning

You're attacking my pages, and I don't appreciate it. Archer Drezelan (talk) 09:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No I'm not. When I speedy or prod a page I always check some of the author's other pages, just in case, and I think that some of yours don't meet the grade. If they do, then they'll survive. andy (talk) 09:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I noticed you're a polyp type of wiki user. There's a history of you reporting vandalism to people who revert your edits. Watch your step. Archer Drezelan (talk) 09:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Any further personal attacks and I certainly will report you! andy (talk) 09:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Natural Treatments for Nasal Spray Addiction

My article was deleted because you thought it was similar to Rhinitis Medicamentosa. The content is completely different. Your article deals with causes, symptoms and pharmaceutical treatments. Whereas mine is an article on natural treatments only (alternative medicine) which you have not mentioned in your article. I wouldn't mind it being incorporated in to rhinitis medicamentosa, however since it is alternative medicine it may not be permitted.

Unfortunately I was too late to stop the article being deleted. What recourse do I have?

(Daveed55 (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC))

I'm not the author of the other article. Your article was deleted by user:Nyttend and you should contact them about it. andy (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

No copyvio?

You said it's Post_Deployment/Mobilization_Respite_Absence_(PARMA)&action=historysubmit&diff=368404372&oldid=368403931 a word-for-word copy; is this not copyvio because it is military and in the public domain or something? — Timneu22 · talk 15:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It fails WP:NOTGUIDE because it's a simple copy with no analysis, expansion etc i.e. not of encyclopaedic value; but it's not actually a copyvio because it's in the public domain. Don't you just hate it when someone just chucks in a lump of uninteresting, undigested text they found on a page somewhere? andy (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

- Truly I just hate essays. :) — Timneu22 · talk 15:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Great. The author removed prod tags. I added them back. This probably will mean AFD coming soon. — Timneu22 · talk 15:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Two PROD removals, I added AFD. The article title includes ''' so things are more difficult than they should be. — Timneu22 · talk 15:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed it, as you now know. andy (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Brian Peskin

The neutral version of the article is that he's a charlatan and a shyster and a quack? If that's true, then don't you think that maybe he's somebody we just shouldn't have an article about at all? Bearcat (talk) 07:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Trouble is, he is probably notable. I found lots of references to him all over the web, divided between praise and condemnation. He makes lots of unsupported claims but the undoubted fact, supported by evidence, is that he's been the subject of legal action for falsehoods. So yes, that's the neutral version - he's a notable quack! andy (talk) 07:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Digi makeover

What speedy deletion criteria apply to games? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

In this case: spam, nonsense, vandalism; anyway it could have been prodded - SPAs with only one edit who create silly stubs usually don't bother contesting prods. andy (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't do prods, they're not worth the time. I don't think this is either spam, nonsense, or vandalism. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Waste your time at AfD then. Do I care? andy (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Anybody can remove a prod for any reason or no reason whatsoever. And even after the prod is complete and the article deleted, anybody can come in for any reason or no reason whatsoever to challenge the deletion and the article has to be undeleted and the afd process begun anyway. So why not just go straight to the afd? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

When I see an article like this I guess it's a kid playing around so I use twinkle to stick a prod on it. Takes a few seconds. The kid never comes back. A week later it's gone with no further effort on my part. The AfD noticeboard isn't cluttered up and no other editor has to waste a second's thought on it. Also - more importantly - WP:AFD says that you should "Confirm that the article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion or proposed deletion." This one is clearly proddable although a doubtful candidate for speedy, so prodding should come first. AfD is what follows after a contested prod. andy (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

So we get to see crap like this sit around for at least 12 days. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Them's the rules. Efforts should be made to salvage crap articles and prodding is one way of getting the author to do that - even though it won't work in this case. However, db-spam ought to work. andy (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

AH, well, our mileage varies. :) Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Angry Birds

Greetings. By sheer chance, I noticed that you placed a speedy delete on an article for Angry Birds (I think because I had tagged its creator for some reason using Twinkle). I completely agree that the article, as it was at the time you tagged it, was certainly deserving of deletion, but at the same time the game is a notable release, with extensive coverage in third-party media. I have gone through the article and completely re-written it, and would respectfully ask if you could review it and determine whether a speedy is still warranted. Thank you for your consideration. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 03:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I had a quick look at what you'd done and it seemed OK to me but I didn't have time to say so. The speedy tag was still there - you could have removed it. An admin came along and deleted it. So it goes. I suggest you ask for it to be reinstated. andy (talk) 08:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I tried to delete the tag but it didn't let me, even though I didn't create the article. Anyway, there's a happy ending. After I got done with it, an anon IP vandalized it, then an admin saw what was there and deleted the article. I asked for it to be reviewed again, and another admin saw it and went back through the review log and saw what I had done and reinstated my version. So it's back and fully cited. No worries! :) --McDoobAU93 (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Andy. Thanks for alerting me of the bobo I made. I Appreciate it :D Cheers James'ööders 13:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome andy (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Review Institute of HeartMath revision

Hi Andy. Thanks for alerting me about the Institute of HeartMath page. I completely overhauled the entire page to address the criteria you mentioned. Will you please take another look and consider taking away the deletion nomination. Please contact me there are any further issues. Thanks! Content586 (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to remove the AfD. andy (talk) 22:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there any specific reason for this? Content586 (talk) 00:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

See the AfD discussion. andy (talk) 08:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Christian Stephen

Good day Please help me I am hispanic and need your patience because i translate an article from wikipedidia of a spanish languaje i need to work hard with this and other articlles thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trovadorpostgrunge (talk • contribs) 16:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It has already been deleted. andy (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Mangaatha.

Hi smith, I've Cleared all Edits on Mangaatha: Ulle Veliyae Page. Any False please Inform me. பென்ஞமின் (talk) 11:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks OK. andy (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

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.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Tiptoety ^talk 06:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks andy (talk) 08:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Maurice Zimm

Hello Andyjsmith. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Maurice Zimm, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Pete Nottage

Hi Andy,

I see someone's created a wikipedia page about me. I've put more details in the discussion section of the page, but just to let you know I've helped them out a bit and popped lots more links that back up some of the statements in. If you could have a look and see if it's OK I'd appreciate it.

Thanks,

Pete PeteNottage (talk) 11:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see not a single one of the references is acceptable under wikipedia guidelines for demonstrating notability - see WP:BIO and WP:RS. andy (talk) 11:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Sry...

Challanges page I made meant to go in sandbox as a test. Will delete main page soon. Thanks for letting me know.

-Squeakers555 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Squeakers555 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem andy (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Doppler guided transanal dearterialization

Hello. Fyi, I have declined your speedy deletion tag for this one because I couldn't find a previous Afd discussion for it. The tag you used is only for reposts of articles that have been deleted via a discussion, not for those who have been speedied before. Also, there are no deletion logs for the page name. The article needs some editing but it is well-sourced and the method seems to be distinct enough to have an article. De728631 (talk) 11:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I know that but adding the old article AfD as a parameter isn't working so I put it on the Talk page. andy (talk) 11:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I've declined it again. As I said above, the references establish notability (and Google yields 4000+ results). If you still think it should go, please take the article to Afd. Regards, De728631 (talk) 11:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I assume it's not a repost then? There was a verbatim quote from this article in the old AfD. andy (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Transformice

Hello Andyjsmith, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Transformice to a proposed deletion tag. The speedy deletion criteria are extremely narrow to protect the encyclopedia, and do not fit the page in question. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't get this. {{db-web}} is for "an article about a web site, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". Transformice is a java-based browser game... andy (talk) 13:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yup, and as it posits an entire history of development over a series of years, evolving from previous incarnations, I considered that it was putting forth some credible attempt at notability. Whether it really is or not is therefore either AFD or PROD. A7 fails if a credible notibility is provided. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. andy (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

AfDs, SPAs, and ANI

Hi! There's a converstaion at the Administrators' Noticeboard / Incidents involving an incident in which you've been involved.

Basically, you tagged an SPA using the {{SPA}} tag, and they're unhappy. My view is that tagging the editor's !votes/comments was entirely correct (indeed, I don't take exception to your handling of this at all). However, I think it could have been handled better by avoiding the use of templated warnings - a short, personalised note may have been more welcoming and less intimidating.

I stress that this is in no way a criticism - I believe your actions were entirely correct - it's merely advice on how to communicate slightly better in future.

Happy editing! TFOWR 13:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. I turned my back for a second and all hell seems to have broken loose! andy (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Summerhill Loon

Thanks for your message about Summerhill Loon. I feel an idiot. What I thought I was doing was activating new user's Summerhill Loon Wiki page, because I had noticed that despite multiple edits, his username still appears as a red link on Page history pages. I now realise that instead I have inadvertently created a Summerhill Loon page on Wiki itself. Please feel free to delete it! My apologies!! Solaricon (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Happens all the time. andy (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Bug report

Hi Andy,

I just thought I'd let you know I mentioned you in a bug report at Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle/Bugs#TW-B-390.

Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ta. andy (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Command, Control and Interoperability Division

Clearly, this is a mess. But it is an agency of the US government, which is usually notable. So I removed your prod. Take it to AfD, if you must, where the community can debate its pros and cons. Bearian (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll think about that. Thanks. andy (talk) 08:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

That attack page

...was a change from the usual "Tommy is gay!", and I thought twice about it but decided you were right and zapped it. It was clearly unacceptable on all sorts of grounds. I saw it was presented as the first of a series, so I have explained to the author about WP:SOAP, WP:NPOV, WP:V etc; now I await the backlash. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it had me scratching my head for a while too, until I stood back and looked at it from a distance. Cheers. andy (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

PRESS PLAY ON TAPE (band)

Hi Andy, I can see that you put a number of pages that I've edited for Speedy Deletion. If you think that something is missing under section A7 please examplify what that could be - everybody can look at any wikipedia page and think that it lacks importance. Just giving it an A7 is a wildcard. So, please be more specific. (User talk:TheoEngell).

I didn't use a general A7, I used db-band which is very specific. I can't see any evidence that the band satisfies wikipedia's criteria for notability. See WP:BAND andy (talk) 13:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was lead to the A7 through what you wrote, my bad, sorry about that. I've added a note about playing on national TV and some of the country's largest venues. This should meet at least one of the requirements on WP:BAND. (User talk:TheoEngell). —Preceding undated comment added 14:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC).

Ka Pat Number

I have declined your G3 speedy deletion nomination on this, as I don't think it is blatant enough to be speedied; but there is certainly a problem of confirmation. I have put on a {{hoax}} tag instead, and am asking questions on the talk page. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Being discussed off Wikipedia re:Press Play on Tape

I just thought you might be interested to know that we and the AfD are being discussed off Wikipedia at [1]. I am amused that my actions have branded me a troll. Aspects (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

lol andy (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The tragedy is that you just don't get it. You've just made hundreds of people very upset and disappointed, for no good reason at all. And you think that is okay. It's not. The fact that so many people care about this means, in itself, that you were wrong, and that this article should never have been deleted.

Thanks for your input indeed. :-( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.35.176 (talk) 22:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

"Tragedy" is a word that applies to the victims of the floods in Pakistan, not a bunch of enthusiasts of a minor music genre. Lots of people care about lots of things that don't merit encyclopaedia articles. And guess what? It wasn't me who deleted it. Several experienced editors thought it should go and a neutral administrator (who was not me) agreed. Was being on wikipedia so terribly important to the C64 music community? How did you manage in the hollow days before wikipedia came along? Go on, get a life. andy (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Andy. I have to say, as a neutral observer, it's really you that needs to get a life mate, you really are a poor excuse for a Wiki admin, who seems to take the importance of his own personal agendas over the requirements of, and importance of maintaining even-handed relations with Wikipedia's user base. Have a look at what people are saying about you and the Wiki admins regarding this fiasco across the web. Everything that has happened regarding this has just done further damage to the reputation of Wikipedia as a balanced, reasoned and diplomatically created reference source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.204.237 (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, except I'm not a wikipedia admin. I also doubt it's the entire web, probably just the bit that's interested in elderly computers. But if you feel that way you really should complain about me, you know. Don't just roll over and let bastards like me mess up wikipedia for everyone. It's very easy to make a complaint - just click here. andy (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Shaahdin Manzil

Sorry Andy. I did not know the article was protected by copyright laws. However, I would like to know how did you find out it is protected by the copyright. I saw no sign of licensing on the page itself. Please tell me so I can be more careful in future. Thanks :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Watercolor121 (talk • contribs) 07:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The assumption is that all works are protected by copyright unless there's evidence to the contrary. There's a full explanation at WP:CV which has links to pages that describe how to get permission to publish. The simplest thing is simply to rewrite the material in your own words - it will generally read better, anyway. andy (talk) 07:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Richard G Smith

I know it was deleted twice, but I think it does indicate enough importance to pass speedy. I'm not sure it passes WP:N, and especially considering those deletions, I think the definitive thing to do is to send it to AfD --so I have just done so, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard G Smith DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. andy (talk) 00:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Reminderband

The significance stated that it was one of the official sponsors of the Tour de France made it ineligible for A7; however, after going further into the references cited, it does not appear to be as well referenced as originally presented. I brought up a few points on the talk page of the article. I will see if I can find anything to prove it is indeed an official sponsor and remove any other promotional speak from the article. I may well submit it myself to AfD if I can not corroborate the remaining "facts". Kindly Calmer Waters 06:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Javad Alizadeh

Hi, Javad Alizadeh is on of the prominent Iranian cartoonist, the problem is this unreferenced and bad written article. I will rewrite it soon.Farhikht (talk) 12:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The deletion notice runs for 7 days. You're welcome to remove it if the article is fixed. andy (talk) 12:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Rudin

Hi Andy, did some rewriting on the SJWS-Article. The Copyright-Issue should be resolved; i mentioned the difference to Oracles Product and some links to it. Hope this works for the Wiki-Standards... Thomasrudin (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Heptarchical governement

Hello Andyjsmith. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Heptarchical governement to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it was borderline. andy (talk) 09:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Kanker98

Hello, I think i solved the problem for db-spam but another problem is exists.See:Basic_Markup_Language and talk page here:Talk:Basic_Markup_Language —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanker98 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

All you've done is add some markup. It's still a promotional article! andy (talk) 22:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

nanowicht

I'm sorry, but I don't get the point. The definition in Wikipedia:Vandalism says: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. [...] Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles." I'm no native speaker so maybe the contribution should have been corrected, grammatically. Do you need references? But the whole article isn't referenced at all?!

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Academic publishing. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. andy (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanowicht (talk • contribs)

Your addition to the article was first of all totally irrelevant - this is an article about the publishing process not aesthetics or rhetoric. Secondly it is incoherent verging on nonsensical, for example "The symbolic meaning of "Five" is life, construction and destruction, action in world and mind".

Moreover you previously made an even less relevant and more nonsensical edit to another related article, arguing that the structure of scientific papers involves the holy spirit.

It is clear that you are looking for an opportunity to promote your views in wikipedia and you don't care how irrelevant they are. That is disruptive. andy (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience. As I understand it, a scientific paper must be rhetoric, because as a textual structure it is a cultural product. With the Rhetoric of Science there is a huge acedemic research field on that aspects. This structure does not involve the holy spirit. The sentences only showed an analogy to a similar phenomenon in cultural memory. But the difficulties of my paragraphs are much clearer now, so the next edits will be more concrete. nanowicht (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.43.10.106 (talk)

I sincerely hope that you do not make any further edits of this kind. Your ideas are confused and irrelevant and your English is poor. andy (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but Nanowicht does make a good point - warnings on user talk pages making accusations of vandalism where no vandalism has occurred are at the very least confusing. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I'm not with you here. First of all "Nanowicht does make a good point..."'. Where? This is a point that you are making - since my last warning Nanowicht has been silent. And secondly you noted on Nanowicht's talk page that WP:NOTVAND applies. Which particular section? There are many. Nanowicht's edits are WP:POVPUSH, probably even WP:FRINGE - I mean, comparing the structure of a scientific paper to the Trinity, c'mon! Continuing after being warned is highly disruptive. andy (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

"Where?" - Nanowicht expressed confusion ovaer why you called the edit vandalism; that is what I'm referring to. "Which particular section?" - the part about disruptive editing seems to sum up your complaint? Look - these edits are pretty obviously in good faith. I agree they're not appropriate and would also revert them, but they just aren't vandalism and this editor should not be treated like a vandal. "Continuing after being warned is highly disruptive." - Not if the warnings are baseless; it's not like this editor has ignored you or anything. ErikHaugen (talk) 05:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Kobi Golam Mostafa

I think we ought to give the editor a chance to finish editing before deciding if this article is elligible for deletion. I've marked it with {{hasty}} for now. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but given his edit history I have no real hopes! andy (talk) 13:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Werner Lind

Writing multiple books are a claim of notability, be more careful when tagging articles for A7 Secret ^account 19:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's not! See WP:AUTHOR - where does it say that throughput equates to notability? On that basis pretty much every author on the planet is notable (including me - I have written or co-authored 3 books, which is definitely "multiple books") andy (talk) 22:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- An article does not need to establish notability per the wp:gng or wp:author to avoid a7 tagging. wp:a7 says: "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines."(emph added) also, wp:npp says: "Tagging anything other than attack pages, copyvio, vandalism or complete nonsense only a few minutes after creation is not likely to be constructive and may only serve to annoy the page author," please wait awhile before tagging with things like a7. thank you, ErikHaugen (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, except there was no claim of importance, credible or otherwise. The article at that time merely stated that Lind "is a... teacher... and the author of various... books". Not "is a respected teacher" or "the author of well known books". Merely being a teacher (like my parents) or the author of books (like me) is not a claim of significance or importance. As for being too quick off the mark, which does not of course invalidate an A7 tag, I think that 6 minutes without an edit is a reasonable tie to wait in this case. If you check the author's edit pattern, as I always do, you'll see that he makes one or two edits within a couple of minutes and then goes away. In this case he wrote a properly formatted article, references and all, then made a related edit on his user page, then did nothing else. andy (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hope Leman

This is who I am: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/hope-leman/8/731/a38/. I am making a good faith effort to provide resources of value concerning publishing opportunities to the health sciences community. Would you know please tell us who you are and what your rationale is for your decision-making on various academia-related pages of Wikipedia? I realize that you put many hours of work in on such things, but it does seem only fair that the rest of the world know who you are and what your credentials are and how we might appeal to a greater community rather than just one anonymous person.

Thank you for your trouble. Hope Leman 24.20.19.117 (talk) 11:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. As far as I can see you have never made any contributions to any page other than this one, nor can I understand why you should think I exercise some sort of control within wikipedia. But don't feel you need to reply - I'm not particularly interested. andy (talk) 12:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Apparently, the user meant to ask you why you had reverted his addition of a link at Call for papers. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

She signally failed to actually ask the question! andy (talk) 22:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

AfD

I can never understand the procedure... Peridon (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You should try using twinkle - it does it all for you. But basically, add {{subst:afd}} at the top of the article and follow the instructions therein. Hint: make a note of the instructions because they disappear once you've completed step 2! Cheers andy (talk) 22:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Modern canadian poets: an anthology

Hello Andyjsmith. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Modern canadian poets: an anthology to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question - it is not overtly promotional, though there is no indication that the book is notable enough for an article. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 13:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right. Thanks. andy (talk) 13:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Andyjsmith/Archive 4