This is a Wikipediauser talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Graeme_Bartlett/archive_5.
If I deleted your article, it is possible for me to restore it. Please post a message for reconsideration of the deletion. and you can read Why was my page deleted?
I wrote a wiki page on a band i feel to be rather significant in the music industry last night which was unfinished, before it was finished you deleted it. I think rather unfairly. If you cant restore it, i would at least like a copy emailed to me.
Cheers, and i look forward to hearing from you.
Marv_parker
Hi Graeme. You have deleted the page for Nonsense London. I am assuming this is because the sources as they stand are not sufficient to prove notability - although, as I stated on the discussion page I am collating these and looking to provide further evidence that Nonsense London is deserving of an entry.
Please could you confirm that this is the reason for your deletion? (The only other thing I can think of that you may have judged me to have a conflict of intetest??)
If this is the case, Nonsense London has been referenced by a few high-quality marketing publications and blogs... so please can you restore the page so I have the opportunity to edit accordingly. Also, please let me know how quickly I need to do this - my page was deleted withinh hours of creation!
Hi, thanks for reviewing the Lua (disambiguation) page move, however I honestly don't understand why it was rejected. You mentioned that "the programming language is a late comer to the LUA fold of names", which I don't think is true. Everything indicates that it is, by far, the primary topic:
The Lua (programming language) article is viewed about 700 times everyday, whereas the other articles are, at most, viewed up to 50 times per day (most are viewed between 0 to 10 times a day).
Typing "Lua" on Google mostly returns results about the programming language.
WhatLinksHere returns about 500 results for "Lua (programming language)" against between 10 to 50 for the other articles.
So please could you reconsider the move, or indicate why "Lua (programming language)" shouldn't be moved to "Lua"? Thank you, Laurent (talk) 12:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lua being an IT topic has a bias on the internet to be about the programming language, which has only been around for less than 20 years. There are whole people groups, also with the name. There are many different subjects on the disabig page. The number of inbound links is boosted substantially by its appearance on a template used on free software. PS long ago I wrote a Snobol interpreter. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, as a developer I thought "Lua (programming language)" was the most obvious meaning, but then again not everybody is a software developer :) Thanks anyway, Laurent (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Somaya Reece speedy
Hi, Graeme Bartlett. You recently speedy deleted Somaya Reece by G4. But G4 includes "provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted". Since the new article was created independently of the deleted version's content and included a new reference for its minimal (stub) content, I don't think G4 applies. Does that seem reasonable? Cheers. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May be the A7 would have been better, but the AfD was still relevant. The issuees in the AfD were not addressed, the article still did not assert notability, an aspiring actress can get an article when she is famous for being in successful films. You are welcome to bring it back! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"She may best known for her MySpace presence where she has over 425,000 (as of January 11, 2007) friends and is the site's #1 viewed Latina." is that notable? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous. The fact that another editor re-created the article, which is substantively identical to the correctly deleted version and which as you note does not address the simple fact that this person is not notable, has no bearing on a speedy deletion. Are you suggesting that a re-created article can only be speedy deleted if the same editor who created it the first time creates it the second time? That makes no sense. Her number of MySpace friends was noted in the original article and it was not deemed sufficient to make her notable then and it doesn't make her notable now. The claim that this is a new assertion of notability is false. Otto4711 (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I disagree that it is substantively identical or that it does not address the reasons for the previous deletion. The earlier article did not source the MySpace celebrity claim. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what? It asserted the claim. Whether the claim was sourced or not is irrelevant to the assertion. And what exactly is so new and different about this version? The old version said she was an actress and singer with lots of MySpace friends. The new version says she's an actress and singer with lots of MySpace friends. No substantive difference and no notability. Otto4711 (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After I restored it for JHunterJ, it still looks almost exactly the same as the article at the AfD. JHunterJ, do you want to fix it up to include more claims of notability, eg celebrity, model. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Graeme, I'm unsure as to why 'VGRA' was deleted as it is in order and does not clash with anything in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ted666 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to move Léon Thérémin back to Léon Theremin
Hi. As I see, you have deleted my {{db-move}} template from Léon Theremin. The reason I put it there is that I want to move Léon Thérémin back to Léon Theremin (now a redirect) where it belongs. However, I cannot simply "move" it back because the redirect has already been edited. That's why I wanted it deleted. So, how is the right way to accomplish what I tried to do? Thanks, -- megA (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you deleted the Figure of the Toulouse location which I created? This was tagged by mistake and you did not even let me the time to put a "hangon" notice and an answer in the discussion page.Gpeilon (talk) 02:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Chippewacorrfac 2128 7.jpg
Hi, I recently saw your edit to a page I had tagged for deletion under CSD I7. I was just wondering what you meant by that edit summary. I originally tagged it because this picture is not a logo, but was tagged with an irrelevant fair-use rationale describing it as one. Radiant chains (talk) 13:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it was tagged {{db-badfairuse}}, per WP:CSD#I7: Non-free images or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag (such as a {{Non-free logo}} tag on a photograph of a mascot) may be deleted immediately. Additionally, the fair-use rationale makes even less sense with the change you made. For example, the source now says "The logo may be obtained from Illustrating the Facility." It doesn't work because the image isn't even a logo. Radiant chains (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I was afraid I was becoming one of those abusive admins who bite newbies and drive away constructive editors by being overly critical. I think someone courtesy blanked to give a fresh start. I just am not sure she's not well intentioned, but lacking the understanding to do what she's dong. Thanks. Dlohcierekim 22:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What are you trying to do with Talk:/Karl Rawer it seems to be a reduced content dup of Karl Rawer. It would make sense to me to just delete, is the history worth preserving? It does not look so to me. I will just delete it, and let me know if you want anything different. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The page was created by another user, presumably to end up at Talk:Karl Rawer. I copied it over (Instead of moving the page) to the talk page of the article you mentioned and tagged the misspelled article for housekeeping. I am not sure what the user intended with it - i assume that he/she wanted to utilize the talk page to develop the article. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)12:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy! You removed the speedy deletion request from the Patrick Barry (fighter) article, without deleting the article. I was wondering as to the reasoning for it. The "fighter" page was created during a series of page moves. The original article, Patrick Barry (kickboxer), was eventually moved to Patrick Barry (martial artist). Nothing points to the "fighter" page and was created before the move was fully discussed. I figured it would be better to delete the blank/redirect page than have it lingering out there. Thank for your help. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There could be earlier versions of articles that point there, and the redirect itself is harmless, and it is a possible way for a viewer to search for Patrick Barry. So no need to remove the redirect. If you want to move it back there, then sure there is a reason to remove it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are no other articles pointing to it according to "What links here" and the article was listed on the page for only a couple hours before being moved (for it's third time that day). I figured deleting it would help keep Wikipedia 'clean.' Thanks for looking into it though. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - just a quick question about the decline on FlexPortal - you say that notability is asserted, but I am having trouble finding it. Are you referring to: "In 2001 the project took a turn, and the FlexPortal engine became the first web-based, redundant, multi-node information and referral system for use in the national 2-1-1 initiative, and was put into use by the Montana 2-1-1 coalition." ? Thanks. 7talk | Δ |07:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Seems officially distant to me to assert notability (e.g. does the company that supplied the wires for the project get an article?). Was also bothered by the COI... but I understand your point. I'll look around and then consider prod/afd. Thanks. 7talk | Δ |08:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
COI will raise the alert for spam, and the likely hood of a copyvio of something. Prod seems a good way to go. Unless you want to improve the article yourself! I will not bother doing any more on this one. PS thanks for the WP:AIAV listing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe your intentions are good, but you are falling prey to an elaborate hoax when saying that this page needs to be retained and improved. Unfortunately, because it is elaborate, it will not be obvious to you, nor to the majority of other Wikipedians who diligently try to maintain the quality of this reference resource. However, your policing efforts are trivial compared to a determined fraudster like the man who posted this article.
The advertising is blatant enough if you were in any way familiar with the topic. The content is a cut-and-paste from the author's self-published book. This book is used as the syllabus for the training course he sells commercially. He created a separate front for his business, which he calls a 'professional association' as a vehicle to promote his training course. He and his family own and run two of the three enterprises that are linked to. In short, the only content on this page that is not guilty of being both self-promotion and original research is the spurious link to a random article, designed to fool the unknowing reader, such as yourself.
Furthermore, the content has no consensus support. The individual is well aware of how many working practitioners do not agree with his views, yet there is no mention of this, nor any link to their work. For example, there is no reference to the work of the much better-known and much larger organization that genuinely sets standards on revenue assurance and many other telecommunications topics - an organization that actually levies fees for membership from all the big telecoms business around the world, rather unlike the list of email addresses that he describes as 'members' of his organization. The author would be aware of its existence; his self-published work references the output of that organization and he has previously offered, without official approval, training on their standards too.
You suggest the page should be improved. If I note that all of its current content should be deleted for the reasons given above - self-promotion, lack of consensus, original research - that would leave us with a blank page. That is not much of a place to start from. I think it would be pedantic to expect people to improve a blank page when the likeliest outcome is that they will be sending their time repeatedly scraping spam links from the page instead.
In fact, this individual was guilty of repeated vandalism in the past as he attempted to overwrite the material of perceived commercial threats and competitors. He never used the talk page to resolve disputes, despite repeated requests that he do so. He did complain about not getting fair treatment, but after creating a lot of fuss, he ignored any attempt to find neutral ground and just went back to doing what he was doing anyway.
I previously failed to identify another good justification for the speedy deletion of this page. It is a recreation of previously deleted material. That deletion was subject to a prolonged discussion before it finally took place. There are no changes in content between that page and this recreated version of the page.
Obviously this highlights a potential weakness with Wikipedia. After a long debate, a page may be deleted. Some years later, the page may be recreated by the original spammer, prompting the start of an entirely new debate, taking advantage of the lack of collective memory. In the meantime, the spammer benefits. I believe it is more in the spirit of Wikipedia to recognize that the page was deleted previously and that this is hence a candidate for speedy deletion. For this reason, I am reinstating a speedy deletion tag.
Please note the time and trouble I am taking here - a fraction of the total time and trouble I have already wasted on this odious and persistent con artist. I have been monitoring this page on Wikipedia for two years, waiting to see if he would try again. Sadly, he did. If you disagree with what I have written here, I am willing to listen, but I ask for your sympathy that it is taking far more time to prevent this self-promotional spam than the spammer is taking in creating it. Wikipedia can only work if spam is reversed at least as quickly as it is created. As this determined individual shows, that is hard to do when the spam is not obvious to the unknowing passer-by.Diogenes the Cynic (talk) 10:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if I sounded didactic above. I am genuinely trying to help remove spam from Wikipedia, though I recognize it must be nearly impossible to establish the truth of that when faced with competing claims as in cases like this. I noticed that you did delete the page on the Global Revenue Assurance Professionals Association, another front of this man. I am happy to engage with you and any other Wikipedian on how best to resolve this ongoing problem. Two years ago I spent an extraordinary amount of time trying to deal with it, so hopefully you can understand my emotional response that I seem to be right back at the beginning.Diogenes the Cynic (talk) 10:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that you will find articles etc about revenue assurance. I know a little about it - I have been working in the field for the past 12 years, since before it was even called 'revenue assurance' ;) Over the years I have been a founder of the standards-setting group for RA in one telecoms industry collaborative body, the TM Forum, the editor or author of several of their standards and guidebooks on RA, and the founder of my own website for discussing the topic and raising the quality of best practice. A good colleague of mine actually created the original Wikipedia stub on revenue assurance. Over a few years it gradually accumulated more content, but also suffered from a lot of spam links from businesses. There was an awful lot of "if he gets a link, then why don't I?" nonsense, and not much real writing. Policing that was bad enough, especially as there are many conflicts of interest where most of the people who might clean up the spam are probably also keen not to upset the customer, vendor, potential employer etc who created it. Then this spammer, Rob Mattison, came along and took vandalism to a whole new level which caused a tedious and never-ending edit war. I am keen to avoid going through all that again. Honestly, you are talking to the man who has spent more time looking at this Wikipedia page than anyone else, and the chances of a rapid improvement in the quality of material - getting it to the standard of an encyclopedia - is nil. The attempted debate with this spammer (he never engaged in debate, but he did complain as much as possible to anyone he could - so long as they were people not familiar with the topic) cast the problem into sharp relief. To be fair to him, although his contributions were obviously spam, there was not a lot of other material that could be proven to be a lot better (and I am willing to put the TM Forum's output into that category too). Part of the reason why this spammer is successful is that the high volume of low-grade news stories about this topics tends to give an exaggerated impression of how many people actually do it - and masks just how unsophisticated most of it is in real life. What most people do is they get a database and two extracts of data from two different systems, and they compare the two to see if data is inconsistent. Most of the rest is either waffle or good ideas that are far from universally adopted. Does that deserve an entry in an encyclopedia? I tried to instigate a debate, using the talk page, about what does and does not count as a reliable reference source for revenue assurance. The result? One person (in the whole world) agreed we should try to do that before writing anything new. Then Rob Mattison just created a sock-puppet and vandalized the page all over again. The root problem here is the absence of good reliable impartial sources for references. At present, there are only two people worldwide doing genuine academic study that relates to revenue assurance, and neither has finished. There is a woman in South Africa and a man in Portugal. No academic-grade work on revenue assurance has ever been published. The quality of what has been published is derisory (just ask the woman in South Africa - she has done a complete literature review - rather her than me). If you ask me, the next best thing is the work we have been doing in our collaborative group that sets standards. If you ask this spammer, he says his book etc is the next best thing. Beyond that, all you have is articles and blogs and vendor marketing that mostly quote each other in one giant circle of unsourced hyperbole. So I sympathize with your instincts, but I have to regrettably argue that all the experience suggests we are not yet ready to have a page on revenue assurance in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, well-intentioned souls like yourself cannot tell the difference between cunningly-disguised spam and a slight laziness in failing to cite references. This topic is moribund because of a systemic failure to verify any of the claims made about it (no matter how often repeated in magazine articles). You might as well write a flattering entry about alchemy based on the pseudoscience people used to believe in, and ignoring that most of what they did was a complete waste of time. It would be more useful to write a page about why we are not ready to write a page about revenue assurance, but how do you cite the universal lack of reliable references? ;) So I understand your noble motives, but can you just do us all a favour and delete the page and discourage the spammers. If you do, you have my sincere promise that when the revenue assurance industry has any content that meets Wikipedia's standard for reliable references - for example, when one of the two academics actually finishes a thesis - I will recreate the page based on that material and we can allow the edit war with this spammer to begin again.
There is more than one way to fix up the mess. This is still basically a content dispute, and if there are two different irreconcilable different views then they just have to be expressed pointing to the (unreliable) reference that supports this view. Another way is to find a good version in the history, make that the version visible, and then protect the page from editting. If sockpuppets are used then there are ways to deal with that, they should all be banned along with the operator if vandalism is happening. If the article is deleted you could expect that it will be recreated. Over the next few days I will take a look at the history and see what is happening. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You make a lot of good points. I have highlighted what has been happening on Wikipedia on the largest non-aligned discussion forum on the internet - that should also serve as a guide to whether the relevant community is able and willing to maintain a decent Wikipedia page. It would be helpful to see more engagement from a wider group of people who knowledge of the subject. I would be very willing to try your approach of having both points of view represented, but I am not sure if the other side would be keen on that. They may misrepresent their opponents to some extent, but the main problem is that they misrepresent themselves. That essentially means they would either need to stop making various untrue claims about the basis of their authority (difficult to do because even the name of their preferred front is very misleading) or else they make the claims and the counter-claims are presented alongside, neither of which would be a good outcome for them for obvious reasons. They have never been engaged with Wikipedia and seem unfamiliar with its principles or disinterested when it comes to learning more, so you will forgive me if I still emphasize that any solution must be workable in terms of burden of maintenance, and not a white flag to these determined but subtle spammers. If we were to go back to an earlier version of the entry, the obvious choice would be the version immediately before this spammer's first attempt at self-promotion, which would be early 2007. I recognize that the page can and probably will be recreated if it is deleted. It seemed like a more effective way to realize the goal than the rather infantile edit war that was taking place, not least because the spammer seems to be more discouraged by the absence of inward links from Wikipedia to his sites than by questions about his authority. In fact, deleting the page did work surprisingly well for a couple of years. Take a look at the history and see what you think, I would be interested to hear your neutral point of view, though I also reserve right to point out this man is a sophisticated fraudster not a brain-dead spam machine - it takes time and effort to research his claims and identify why they are false. Really the question keeps boiling down to who can be considered an authority on this topic. The spammer claims to be an authority, but that claim is based on a lot of very deliberately misleading hyperbole about his credentials. However, that does not mean there is a very good alternative authority which his can be measured against, and that is why I still think it is doubtful that this topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia at this point in time. I have greater hope for a parallel approach that sits outside of Wikipedia - by using peer group pressure amongst the relevant community to resolve these questions of legitimacy and identify areas of consensus before anyone attempts to write an encyclopedic summary of the topic. Diogenes the Cynic (talk) 11:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, what I have done is restore a copy from 23 September 2007 and protected it. This means that any changes have to be discussed on the talk page first, and then inserted by an adminstrator. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to let you know that i replaced the CSD template you declined on the Radhand with the comment that the template did not apply. I assume you removed the template because products are not explicitely named in the template text.
However, under the WP:PRODUCT guideline, all products should be included into the company's main article unless they received sufficient coverage to warrant a stand-alone article. In this case we are talking about a foam finger that did not receive any coverage - unless you would count the student organisation the article mentions as coverage (Which is of course no coverage - we could add every item for having been on TV that way).
If i overlooked or misunderstood your reasoning, please let me know :)
You seem to understand! A7 applies to people, organisations and web sites (includes music groups). Other possible reasons to remove this sort of thing are spam or copyvio. A prod would probably do for this, see if someone want to keep it. It soundede exciting enough for me not to speedy delete it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, the annoyance of the precise wording of that policy. While that field guide is of course correct in theory, it will in practice lead to instruction creep (WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY / WP:IAR). The problem is that if a user writes an article about a product, a piece of furniture in their homes or even a pet it would technically not fall under the guideline. This would mean a PROD or AFD has to be used instead. An AFD for each of those articles would often waste the time of wikipedia editors, while a prod is prone to removal (Which means having to keep track of them so that in case they get removed, an AFD has to be started).
For the above reasons most of the administrators delete these pages under A7 anyway (Jokingly called Rouge admins). A more policy based reason for that is the snowball clause that states you should not go trough procedure if the outcome is virtually guaranteed. So if a user makes an article about a pet, it will get an A7 as it has a snowballs chance in hell to survive an AFD or PROD.
As for the article, it seems like i will have to (Sorry to put it this way) waste fellow editors time now with an AFD which will virtually certainly end in a procedural or speedy close with end result delete. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)13:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, i love participating in AFD's myself, but i deem that there is a difference between a deletion discussion that debates an article (i love those!) and an AFD that will just be a pile of votes for either side. As WP:WIARM puts it so beautifully: Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit. Going trough a lengthy AFD just because it’s a policy is a waste of time if the outcome is virtually certain.
Don’t get me wrong – this is not meant as an insult or an assumption of incompetence towards you or anything like that. My main point is that we need the rules as a guidance, not as an absolute truth. If a vandal is mass creating vandalism pages the account gets blocked, even if someone did not add the (Trough rules) required vandalism warnings first.
Apologies for being so fanatical about this, but I saw first hand what following the rules for the sake of following the rules can do. A rather amusing story about a company where I would have to fill in several forms to install a flash player update I actually needed for my work. I will save you the details, but trust me: After spending two days waiting for that approval procedure I am rather… well… It will affect your opinion about the way policies and guidelines should be employed Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)13:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re:File:N. M. Price - Sir Walter Scott - Guy Mannering - At the Kaim of Derncleugh original scan.png
Hi Graeme Bartlett, thanks for letting me know. I had assumed that the image was corrupt/empty when no thumbnail appeared. Apparently, that wasn't the case - My bad -FASTILY(TALK)17:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Miguel Angel Sombra
I added the CSD because of that claim, and precisely that it lacked an article. If the claims are correct, then I admit my mistake. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ)05:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know why File:Wahkiakum SD Bus 6 2007.JPG was speedily deleted without first giving me a chance to add the correct tags nor without giving me ample time to make the needed corrections. In case you're unaware, not only was the "COPYRIGHT 2007 GILLIGCOACHES.NET" tag on the image my own work, so was the image, and so is the website that image is posted on. I am the webmaster/owner and executive producer of http://www.gilligcoaches.net (see any Whois record, my full name is Steven Rosenow) and that fact is referenced quite blatantly in my own user page. I request the image be restored. Srosenow 98 (talk) 08:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment I also find it to be a damning assessment that both that image, and the image it was linked to (both images, including File:Wahkiakum_sd_bus_6_03112007_12.jpg were cross linked to illustrate the appearance pre- and post-restoration), were both deleted from Wikipedia just over that watermark. If any Wikipedia editor or administrator had any shred of integrity, they would've investigated the matter properly, visited GilligCoaches.NET and my User Page, and put two-and-two together. That apparently doesn't happen here (which it should, doing what happened here lacks integrity to the nth degree. I've managed businesses before and you simply do not, I repeat do not act on an issue without investigating the matter first). I also find it appalling and outrageous that the notice to my talk page (sent out by User:Bidgee) was posted at 04:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC), and the image in question was deleted just over an hour later at 05:59, 16 May 2009. I was at work both when the notice went out, and when the image was deleted, which left me no time to react properly. Furthermore, I believe that as I, yes, hold copyright to the images that got deleted, I should retain every right as a Wikipedia editor to supply and use those same images that appear on my website GilligCoaches.NET, to be used in articles that thhey fit into. Again, I request both images be restored, as well as their part in the articles they were part of. Srosenow 98 (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How do I go about "proving I am who I say I am"? With all due respect (and please don't perceive this as a harsh or terse statement, it's not meant to be), but if I have to go through a set of hurdles like that to post content from my own website to improve content on Wikipedia, then there's something seriously wrong with Wikipedia's policies and how they're enforced. I ran a business for five years and in that time, anytime an issue arose which needed attention, the first thing to do was properly investigate the matter first (including all facts, in this case the aforementioned facts I presented above). That didn't happen here, and I find it not only disrespectful, but appalling and lacking of integrity and common sense. I respect Wikipedia's desire to be a "free encyclopedia" but at the same time, it's an impossible task to achieve (some nonfree content must be used from time to time), and furthermore, common sense should apply, which I am afraid to say didn't exist here (nor the last time this happened, which oddly enough involved my participation in the Kenworth article; the issue in question was a block of text I'd copied-and-pasted into the Kenworth article. Furthermore, a GFDL license is available on the Kenworth history page of GilligCoaches.NET [1] if that's sufficient enough as proof).
As for the images, the copyright still remains with GilligCoaches.NET since they're used not only on my website, but those same images were also used in a nationally-published school bus industry trade magazine. I'm willing to add the appropriate tags (including uploading new versions without the watermarks), but I'm not going to release full copyright on them.Srosenow 98 (talk) 09:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recreation of Kamran Jawaid's Page
Hi. I was searching for the article of Kamran Jawaid and found out that his page was deleted. I can provide sources for it. Kamran Jawaid is a well-known film critic from Pakistan as well as a media celebrity. He also co-hosts a popular morning show titled 'Bakhabar Savera'. He is also the only film critic in Pakistan who exclusively predicts the Oscar, as well as exclusively covering the event for The Dawn Newspaper, which can be considered as major as the New York Times if not less.
The info is taken from Kamran Jawaid's official blog and Youtube and all the articles there link to Dawn newspaper. I don't think there are more accurate or authentic links in the web. Online, if I google Kamran Jawaid and Animadversion I get a stack of reviews written by him. He writes a new column every week and every column is uploaded to his blog and is verified with a link to the printed newspaper and its online counterpart at Dawn.com.
There was a site about prominent writers in Pakistan but the site is no longer online. A feature was published in a local magazine, but the magazine is in Urdu by a small publisher and is not online.
Can we set this page as a stub and condense the available information?
P.S. - working on this problem is turning out into a great learning experience. :)
One quick off-topic question - if I reply on my talk page does it show up on yours?
Hi Graeme, I'm a bit surprised at your decision to turn this article from a speedy to a prod. Do you not consider it to be spam? Regards, WWGB (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not clearly a promotion, it is just a form, and text about the form. clearly non notable but does not fit speedy delete criteria in that way. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ref 1 / People in Glass Houses: An Insider's Story of a Life in and Out of HillsongBy Tanya Levinpublished by Black Inc., 2007
ref 2 is the churchs assembely it is affliated with
ref 3 is the churchs website
ref 4 is a christian newsletter
ref 5 is a copy of a letter
ref 6 is a television channel
ref 7 is a newspaper article
ref 8 is a government mp's website
ref 9 is a television channel
my article has more information and credible references than most articles, can you please explain in detail if this doesnt prove my arguement.. i encourage you to read the article and references.
it is heavyly revised from my first draft posted (copy can be provided on request)
i believe this article shows a equal and fair view without being bias towards the church.
it is also notable.
Shirelive old article
SHIRELIVE Church (formerly Shire christian centre ) is a Pentecostal Christian church affiliated with Australian Christian Churches, the Australian branch of the Assemblies of God denomination. It is located in Sutherland,(shire) a Southern suburb of Sydney, Australia and holds four dynamic Sunday services over three locations. The Shirelive Auditorium can seat approximately 1,200 people. The senior pastors are Michael and Valery Murphy. Michael is also a member of the National Executive of ACC, which oversights more than 1,100 churches.
SENIOR PASTORS
With over 20 years in leadership and ministry, Michael and Valery have a genuine desire to see people rise up, to be all that God has called them to be and to fulfill their potential and dreams by striving for excellence on Christ centred values.
From a global perspective Michael is the founding Chairman of Global Community Initiatives (GCI) a field based missions agency involved in community transformation and sustainability across the continent of Asia and beyond.
In addition to Michael's church responsibilities, he is also a National Executive Member of Australian Christian Churches in New South Wales and lead the team responsible for planting new churches across New South Wales as the director of New Churches Australia NSW.
Shirelive Auditorium
In 2008 the church undertook a building project which consisted of stage one, major demolition of existing auditorium, youth centre with the construction of a new 1200 seat auditorium. Stage two will commence in late 2009 which will involve lecture rooms, preschool area, primary area, and offices including associated services
that was my first copy... it was completly different and that was the one they had the deletion discussion on. i know it was promotional and this one isnt...
can you please explain this example Inspire Church how can this article be ok but mine not. please explain i dont get it. ps not trying to sound rude , just after help.
Look forward to hearing from you. bunzyfunzy (talk) 11.01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
The article to prove notability should be on the topic as a whole, not just mentioned in an insignificant way. SO one newspaper story in a prominent newspaper will be good. An academic writing about it is good. An independent book is good, so if the one you mentioned was about this church it would have been relevant, but is it about it? PS please add ~~~~ on the end of your talk, then I can tell who's talking! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I taged the article Gonzalo Klusener for WP:SPEEDY beliving it was a hoax, seeing that the player isnt on Chacarita Juniors homepage squadlist [2] and a search on the net found no other Gonzalo Andrés Klusener page then Wikipedia, however found several Gonzalo Klusener but with diffrent birthdate and in another club. Due to unfamiliar with Wikipedia:Deletion policy i did not make this clear when i taged it. --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 16:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I saw that you declined the speedy deletion of the Jacy Varisha article. I nominated it because the username that created it is a direct name match to the article: User:Jacyv. I believe it is a NPOV violation as the person herself is claiming importance. If you still feel that it is still an appropriate article, then I will have no objections, but if it is a NPOV violation, then it should be removed. Thanks for your time. AeonicOmega (talk) 02:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi thanks for checking the new articles. NPOV violations do not need to be speedy deleted, unless it is an advertisement. An A7 deletion is if the article claims no importance for a person. The articles may not even need to be deleted at all if written in the right kind of tone. If you find this situation again please tag with {{Autobiography}}, and possibley {{NPOV}}. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, not for that reason, but if you think the notability claims are bogus, or cannot be proven, then do it at AfD. A prod can be pretty easy too, but easy to decline too. Otherwise the effort to improve the article may be less the the AfD effort. Another option is to move the page to the users user page. Sometimes I do that if the article claims no notability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Yeah, sorry about that, always forget the colon to make it a link instead of full-size display. In any case, it's a very easy mistake to make with these two: I did it too, that's why it was temporarily tagged =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Highway 807 Ontario.gif
Hello, Graeme Bartlett. You have new messages at Peachey88's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi Graeme I didn't do that since one editor explicitly removed the image from the article with the comment "the cover is not sourced, and DOES NOT appear on interscope's website. the reference is a lie". Since I couldn't confirm the image myself, I tagged it as an F5 (lacking clear evidence that it is a hoax). I still don't find this single cover anywhere, Amazon for example lists a different one Amalthea05:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
License tagging for File:Moon Base One front cover.png
Thanks for uploading File:Moon Base One front cover.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
Per the e-mail reply I received from photosubmission@wikimedia.org (I hope I got that right) I've re-uploaded replacement images (including the other one) that have been cropped to remove the watermark. It was the only necessary action, per the reply. Hope this resolves the issue. I've also replaced the licensing templates on both. Srosenow 98 (talk) 08:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you deleted this redirect. The implausibility of the redirect is because part of the article was split off. The redirect should have been pointed to the location of the split-off information which does mention him here. Could you please restore this? I remember creating that redirect, it would have been a good idea to contact me first and asked me what the purposes of it were. Tyciol (talk) 08:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it seems that proposals for speedy delete of redirects don't tell any one! I have added a comment that will be seen if any one tries to add a tag. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking at the how to cite your reference page and I need some help.
I am using mostly website/website articles/downloaded pdfs as my references.
I've included them in the body of my article though.
I can include them as general references at the bottom of the page but then I won't have any footnotes.
also, how does the contents box come up at the top of the article. Is that automatic if you have several headlines?
The info is taken from Kamran Jawaid's official blog and Youtube and all the articles there link to Dawn newspaper. I don't think there are more accurate or authentic links in the web. Online, if I google Kamran Jawaid and Animadversion I get a stack of reviews written by him. He writes a new column every week and every column is uploaded to his blog and is verified with a link to the printed newspaper and its online counterpart at Dawn.com.
There was a site about prominent writers in Pakistan but the site is no longer online. A feature was published in a local magazine, but the magazine is in Urdu by a small publisher and is not online.
Can we set this page as a stub and condense the available information?
P.S. - working on this problem is turning out into a great learning experience. :)
