User talk:Nancy/Archive 4

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

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Removing tags

Hi Nancy: I removed your tag because that is what the help page of wiki instructed me to do to save my page from deletion. I assumed it was the same with editorial suggestions.

If you have specific suggestions, I welcome these. Otherwise, the comment "essay-like" doesn't really help me out very much in terms of constructive criticism.

Any suggestions are most appreciated.

Thanks, Blueelectricstorm (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Blueelectricstorm. I think that you may have slightly mis-interpreted the intructions on the help page & missed out the step before removing the tag - that is, that the issue flagged in the tag should be fixed first! Clicking on the wikilinks within the tag will lead you to a standard explanation but specifically with this article the issue is the style and tone of the article which is not encyclopaedic and reads more like a term paper or essay, it also appears to reflect a very particular viewpoint and sections of it read like original research. Particularly troublesome is the second half of the second paragraph. Encyclopaedic articles cannot talk about "time immemorial" or "the great irony of globalisation" and statements such as "these economic arrangements should be seen not as..." need to be counterbalanced with the opposing view, not presented as objective fact. The problems continue right down to the External links section where you describe one of the links as an eloquent critique, again this is not appropriate language for an encyclopaedia calling it a critique is fine but the word eloquent is your own subjective opinion. These are by no means the only problems I have just picked out a few examples to try an help you see what needs changing. On the plus side you have done a great job with the references so I have every confidence that you will reference the other side of the argument equally well. There is a really good help page on improving articles which you might find worth a visit - I certainly found it jolly useful when I was starting out. Good luck! kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 08:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Dauverne

Thanks Nancy (for not removing the rest)!

As you sure understand I'm new to Wiki - need some time adjusting to rules etc. I use Wikipedia every day and love it. Thought the time had come for me to contribute as well.

Now understand that copy & paste is not how to go about (even if my articles was written by myself) ;-)

Best,

Ole (in Norway) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ojtrumpet (talk • contribs) 16:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Transformation of culture

Hi Nancy: I re-read the style manual and feel that I have addressed the particular concerns you raised. Can I remove the flag now? Take a look. My only gripe with the constant criticism of this body of work is that when you go to pages such as globalization or indigenous peoples there is a very clear indication that the articles were not written with the viewpoints of Native peoples in mind. Especially the globalization page where it refers to a global culture and other such drivel and provides no cites to literature of work in this area. Also the indigenous peoples page, especially the section discussing indigenous vs. non-indigenous viewpoints is pitiful. I'm sorry to sound negative, but I can't believe that there are actually people in the world who believe that indigenous people arrived after non-indigenous to North America. It's amazing to me that this page or section is allowed to remain.

This is why I feel that this work needs to be included in the body of knowledge. Not only are cultures (especially languages and the ideas along with them) getting lost every day, but once this diversity is gone it is essentially impossible to recover it to bring it to the vast array of human knowledge once more. It is just very sad to me. For instance, I am from Alaska and I just read a couple of months ago in the paper that the last native Eyak speaker died. The loss of language is not only a loss for the people who come from that tradition, it is a loss to humanity, as each language holds particular ideas and concepts unique to that worldview.

I will continue to add to the page for the next month or so, but please be patient. I do appreciate your constructive criticism and will do whatever I can to bring it into compliance with Wiki standards.

Thanks again,

Blueelectricstorm (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I have waited a day or so before I replied to see how your revision of the article progressed as when I initially looked you seemed only to have changed the specific examples I highlighted. I just looked back again and whilst you have added some more content there seems to be little progress on the original text so I am afraid that, in my opinion, the issues have not yet been properly addressed and I would argue that the maintenance tags should remain.

I have sympathy with your comments about the cultural bias in e.g. Globalisation but I think that the place to address this is within the Globalisation article itself rather than adding a counter-balancing article elsewhere. In addition your comments on WP:RFF add to rather than quell my concerns as you quite openly signpost the bias of Transformation of culture stating that that the article encompasses the work of Prof. Robert Hershey because I felt that this body of work deserved its own page. Whilst it is right that you should point out the lack of neutrality in other articles the answer is not to create a slanted article of your own - two wrongs don't make a right. Kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 18:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

TalkBack

Hello, Nancy. You have new messages at Addshore's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 17:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for GONG (online game)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of GONG (online game). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tikiwont (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hamzah Mohammed

you deleted my page, and now you will pay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capo Hamzah (talk • contribs) 13:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that (now you will pay) made me laugh a lot. You are doing a great job, Nancy, and I wish you the best.--andreasegde (talk) 23:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Camp Minsi

I was wondering why the the article Camp Minsi was deleted? What can be done to restore it? Thank you. Minsi (talk) 23:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. It was deleted as the outcome of a deletion discussion was a consensus to delete. Subsequently it was userfied to User:Evrik/Camp Minsi to allow the author to work on it and address the concerns in the article however when the article was recreated in mainspace yesterday it was substantively the same as the deleted article and was therefore deleted under the speedy deletion criteria G4 - recreation of deleted material. If you want to create an article on Camp Minsi a good place to start would be to read the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Minsi as without addressing the reasons for which the article was originally deleted it will continue to be summarily deleted under G4 each time you create it. Very best of luck, kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 06:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Za Ze Zo

Sorry Nancy, but I think it is rated well enough for current inclusion, and certainly has features better than many to warrant it. I am impartial too - no links to it. It is listed at DMOZ the main external link on the wiki metasearch page. Give them all a try. It's one of the quickest on the list. That is important. Others have other features that are important. Some are not important. I'm sorry, but Za Ze Zo needs to be listed based on speed. Please revert your change. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Optimizerone (talk • contribs) 07:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Optimizerone and welcome. I am not going to undelete the article as it failed most basic of criteria required as it did not say why Za Ze Zo is notable. I have however copied it to your userspace so that you can work on it and bring it up to standard before creating it in mainspace again. You can find the copy in your sandbox - User:Optimizerone/Sandbox. I would recommend that you take some time to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's guidelines, particularly those on notability and reliable sources both of which you will need to address within your article. Good luck and kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 08:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Optimizerone —Preceding unsigned comment added by Optimizerone (talk • contribs) 08:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

'ndrine

Is Wikipedia now allowing incorrect spelling? The plural of 'ndrina is 'ndrine, not 'ndrinas. I am afraid I have to insist that 'ndrinas has to be deleted. - Mafia Expert (talk) 09:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You are slightly missing the point of a redirect - incorrect spelling in a redirect is absolutely permissable as it exists to pick up instances where a reader is trying to find an article but is spelling it incorrectly. e.g. Shakespear redirects to the correctly spelled Shakespeare and so on. This does not mean that Wikipedia is endorsing the incorrect spelling but is merely an acknowledgment that people mistype and make mistakes. Kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 10:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:TODO

I appreciate you for deleting it. Its always nice to have you handy admins around. Cheers, Nothing444 15:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I appreciate you for saying thank you - makes a welcome change from the usual "Why did you delete my page" that I get here. Kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 15:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually I didn't create it. I just put it up for speedy deletion. Nothing444 17:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Play

hello! i was wondering why the article or dab (not sure which it was) Play was deleted. surely this wasn't intentional. please advise. --emerson7 20:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there Emerson7, Play was deleted under the "Housekeeping" criteria which is used when we need to temporarily delete articles to allow a page move to take place. In this specific case the deletion of Play (which was a redirect page) was requested so that Play (disambiguation) could be moved there, if you check again now, you will see that since you left your message the move has been performed. Kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 07:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Knowledge should be available

Hi Nancy, I respect your comments and appreciate your feedback. However, I feel that this page still deserves to exist, and I will continue to add to it in the ensuing days and weeks. Although you may feel that it is "essay-like", I have included references for all of the points made, which are not only one person's point of view. There are many authors and scholars who have contributed to this body of knowledge.

Although you may feel that it is not "neutral", I have included a new section on Western Culture and the transformations that are occuring there. Please feel free to watch this page and if there is anything that you disagree with or would like to see changed, feel free to make your thoughts known.

Also, regarding the personal reflection comment, I don't really understand how you can consider this a personal reflection as there are no comments that are personal in the writing. I did take out the word "eloquent" and will continue to review and edit to make the language more neutral. There is still a lot of work that I will contribute to this page, including how technological advances have (and continue to) transform cultures worldwide. Please be patient and understand that this is a work in progress. Also, when I mentioned that this is the work of a Prof., I in no way meant to imply that these thoughts and feelings are unique to him. What I meant was that he was the one that really developed the references for the work. The thoughts and ideas presented by him are not "new" and do not constitute "original research".

Again, thank you for your input, and if you have specific comments or concerns, feel free to leave those for me on my talk page.

Thanks, Blueelectricstorm (talk) 21:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

what

you deleted my stuff —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eppmur divad (talk • contribs) 22:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Equal Parenting Alliance

Hi there,

I created a page for the Equal Parenting Alliance in order that I could link to it from the Wolverhampton Council election 2008 page. The reason I created the page was so that there were no dead links within the Wolverhampton Council election 2008 page, and obviously because the political party in question has fielded candidates both in the past and has candidates for the forthcoming election.

I'm not a regular Wikipedian, but I can't understand why a political party that fields multiple candidates in UK elections would have it's page deleted.

I carry no torch for the political party in question and as such I am not bothered about whatever benefits, perceived or otherwise, they would get from being on Wikipedia. I am, however, concerned that a page I have legitimately built has disappeared so quickly, and seemingly unilaterally.

A cursory glance at my editing history would have shown that I have put a huge amount of effort into the Wolverhampton local elections section of Wikipedia, and the page I built today links out of one of those pages.

I would be most grateful if you could reinstate the page, with sources, that I built.

Carl Husted

Hustedcarl (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Good Morning Carl, I am not going to undelete the article at this time as I am sure that it would be speedily deleted again fairly rapidly. I will however copy the text in to your userspace so that you can work on it to address the reasons for its original deletion. You will find the deleted text at User:Hustedcarl/Sandbox. The things you really need to work on are making sure that the EPA reaches the notability requirements for organisations and that this is backed up with reliable sources. If you should like me to review the revise copy before you put it back in mainspace I'd be more than happy. Kind regards and the very best of luck, nancy ^(talk) 07:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Move

Thanks for moving A Tale of Sisters. I appreciate it.--CyberGhostface (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem :) nancy ^(talk) 14:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

About Tim Cantor page

Hi Nancy, I have been doing my best to get the page up for Tim Cantor. I have studied his career for a long time now and have no doubt that his life is worthy of being listed in wikipedia. I would like any advice on how to resolve the issues listed. Thank you very much, Harry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.136.227.30 (talk) 03:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure who to reply to - you left the message as an anon user but I am guessing that you are the person who has been editing as User:ProfessorHarrison.

Anyway... to the task in hand. Firstly I have replaced the mainenance tags on the article - it is still riddled with problems and needs to be tagged as such - this is not a comment on with you or Tim Cantor, it is just an indication that the article does not (yet) comply with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Leaving aside potential conflict of interest issues the most urgent issue to be addressed is the whole style and tone of the article which is unencyclopaedic and still extremely promotional in tone; I would recommend firstly severely cutting back on the number of pictures in the article (as a comparison there are over twice as many pictures as in Rembrandt's or Picasso's!!). By all means have examples of Tim's work but these should be carefully chosen to have relevance to the text and to illustrate a point - at the moment it just looks like a promotional gallery website. With regard to the tone and style of the text itself I would start by getting rid of the personal opinions and claims e.g "Tim Cantor became obsessed with painting and showed a unique understanding." - says who?, what does it mean?, what is a "unique understanding"? - that sort of language is fine for his personal website or an exhibition catalogue but is really not suitable for an encyclopaedia.

The easiest way to approach this is probably to pare the whole thing down to the essential facts and then start building it up again using reliable sources - you will also need these to establish his notability as this is far from clear at the moment. I would be more than happy to help - 'saving' articles from deletion is something I have a good track record in, however this will require you to let go and approach the process dispassionately.

Finally I am concerned about the copyright status of the many images of Tim Cantor's work that you have uploaded. You claim to be the copyright holder so I can only presume that you are in fact Tim Cantor himself? Do you realise that by releasing them to the public domain you have given anyone anywhere the right to use those images as they wish - e.g. they could issue a print series, put them on coffee mugs, whatever and you would have no control over it and would have no rights to any revenue and no rights to any attribution. Is this really something you are comfortable with? nancy ^(talk) 08:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Tim Cantor info

Hi Nancy, Thank you so much for all of your help. I am going to continue to follow your advice, beginning with the copyright information you gave me. That is scary. The only thing I think I cannot fix is the conflict of interest. I volunteer at Ashby Galleries, which is more like a museum gallery, and is owned by Tim Cantor. I now somewhat know him personally, but was a great admirer of his work long before I met him. Besides that, I will do my best to continue to fix all the other issues. It's actually a lot of fun and thank you again for all of your helpful advice. Hopefully I will get this all figured out. -Harry Teague. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfessorHarrison (talk • contribs) 07:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, its me again, just a quick question. I get all the Tim Cantor images off of the Ashby & Alfred data base with permission. The copyrights belong to Tim Cantor. Can you recommend which copyright to pick out of the long list that is most suitable?? -Harry —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfessorHarrison (talk • contribs) 07:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Harry. Just quickly on the copyright. I think that you need to use this license template {{Non-free 2D art}} which is a fair-use license for copyrighted artworks. I am pretty sure that you can't put fair-use images on Commons so any that are there will need to be deleted and uploaded back to Wikipedia. Note the wording of the licence - which can be seen here - Template:Non-free 2D art - as the permissions for use even on Wikipedia are very tight & you would not be able to justify the blanket inclusion of dozens of images on the TC page under fair-use. nancy ^(talk) 07:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nancy, I have replace all the images that show on the Tim Cantor page with new copyrighted images using the code you gave me. Thanks for that. However, the old images I think are still somewhere out there in the commons and I am unsure how to delete them. Also, I spell checked and rewrote and added more for notability. I think I still need to work on the paragraph about his works of art. Anyway, I hope I am getting closer. Crossing my fingers. Harry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfessorHarrison (talk • contribs) 12:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Trade federation

I notice you removed the speedy off the Trade federation article using the reason "released under the GDFL" - my understanding that you cannot cut and paste material from another GDFL site because if you do so, you have breached the terms of the licence by removing the attribution. You have to do an import instead, which carries over the history of the text. So as far as I'm aware, the text on that page hasn't been released under the GDFL because it's a cut and paste rather than a move. --87.112.239.199 (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Before I declined the speedy I read the license on the host site and this is what it says about verbatim copying "You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License." As far as I can see those conditions have been met - it doesn't say anything about attribution. nancy ^(talk) 19:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

but.. if you keep reading the license agreement: List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement. that is where the attribution comes in - there is no mention of the primary authors when you do a cut and paste. (reply here) --87.114.166.138 (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to do a bit more digging today as the link to the original page in the references section might cover it all off. I am going to start with finding out how Wikipedia mirrors comply as they don't hold any attribution other than that the text has come from Wikipedia. See e.g. http://www.answers.com/topic/john-turner-architect which is an article I wrote. nancy ^(talk) 05:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

CSD

WP:CSD#R3 did not apply for your deletion of WP:BOO. Please reverse the deletion. Your rationale of 'already has a redirect' does not work, due to other pages having multiple redirects. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the redirect as a recently created implausible typo. The redirect was to the proposed policy page Wikipedia:OptOut which at the time of deletion, as now, contained no mention of the shortcut WP:BOO. The second part of the delete reason which you refer to above is the text left on the page by the nominator which was automatically picked up and saved in the deletion log. Kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 07:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

why delete my article 'Hello mandarin'?

You thought my article was an advertising? I only introduced it. Why Chinesepod is not an advertising? I used both sites to learn Chinese for long time. They are the same. Tuition of Chinesepod is even more expensive than Hello Mandarin. [Price of Chinesepod] I just wrote an article absolutely referred to Chinesepod

Could you explain more? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yesjaneis (talk • contribs) 03:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion the Chinesepod article is not without its own problems but that has no bearing at all on the deletion of Hello Mandarin which looked like it could have been a Hello Mandarin website homepage and appeared to serve no other purpose than to promote the service both overtly and covertly (e.g. the eight references which on first glance seemed to be independent but which were in fact ALL pages from hellomandarin.com). I deleted the article as advertising but it could equally well have been deleted as a non-notable website as there was nothing in there to asset notability either - in stark contrast to the Chinesepod article I might add. Hope this helps to explain, kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 07:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, there is no difference between 2 websites Chinesepod and hello mandarin. I used the 2 sites to learn Chinese from 2007. I pay about $100 to subscribe Chinesepod and $29 for hello mandarin every month. They all offer tutoring and courseware. If you think hello mandarin article should be deleted, you should delete Chinesepod according to the same reason. About your consideration of "which were in fact ALL pages from hellomandarin.com". all pages of Chinesepod are from chinesepod site. You can not use double standards in dealing with different articles. I decided to write hello mandarin article only because I saw chinesepod. I used absolutely the same article structure to write. Please treat different people articles fairly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yesjaneis (talk • contribs) 08:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I deleted Hello Mandarin because someone else had nominated it for speedy deletion, I reviewed their nomination and agreed with it. If you feel strongly about other articles then you are able, as is any other user of this wiki, to nominate them for deletion but please do make sure you have read up on the policy and the process before you embark on this course. kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 10:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Estonia 1990-1991

Nancy,

The redirect was created by User:Jean Paul [1], then 15 minutes later the content was restored by an anonymous IP [2] from deleted article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Estonia (1990-1991). These users are likely sock puppets of banned user User:Petri Krohn, who originally created the deleted article. Could you speedy this redirect as not only is it highly improbable search term and an uncommon misnomer, it will also prevent endless revert warring with anonymous IPs attempting to restore deleted content. Thanks. Martintg (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I see that the issue has been resolved whilst I have been sleeping!. Kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 06:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

decleration stating the truth

you are a mean, mean person who enjoys deleting brilliant articles. Your a baaad man. Yes, thats right, man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spangelferkel (talk • contribs) 21:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Problems in the eyeOS article

I'm trying to improve the eyeOS article, that was deleted yesterday, and restored today.

I want to improve it and I started working this monday on this, but there are some IP's (unregistered users) that add things withouts reference, etc and has started to troll about the article.

Please, can you semi-protect the article to allow only registered users to edit it?

thanks. Teddybearnow (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there Teddybearnow, I have had a look at the edit history of the article and I don't think that a semi-protection would be warranted or appropriate at this time. Whilst there was a flurry of edits last night there has been no activity at all for the past 10 hours. Also, for the future whilst I will of course do my level best to help any one who needs it, I am not online 24/7 so the best place for this type of request is at requests for page protection where it will be dealt with in a much more timely fashion - I didn't even read this message until over 12 hours after you had left it! See you around, kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 18:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: eyeOS protection

I see Teddybearnow requested eyeOS article protection. You may want to know that's because he is a contributer to the eyeOS project. 84.13.214.118 (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

posting question

Hi nancy, I posted the following on Chris19910's page, but hadn't read through it first to see that he appears to be a serial-deleter... Nonetheless, I was hoping you could give me a bit of advice on the question at the end below. Thanks!

---

Hey Chris19910, you added an 'A1 deletion' flag to an article i posted, so I was hoping you could offer a bit of advice.

I am new to contributing on wp, and have tried to sort though the help/standards/etc, but am still unsure. Specifically, I recently added several articles (about mechancial fasters, here here and here). They are all items that a) are common in the mechanical / automotive world and b) are not well-documented (by which I mean wp has zero mention of them, and a google search does not turn up anything worthwhile in the first 20+ matches). Thus, I added what I could.

I believe after a round of edits, including making them stubs, I have made them acceptable... but I would appreciate any feedback you might have. In light my specific posts I'm especially interested in how to go about posting such a thing that your very sure belongs in wp but aren't an expert in and can't find definitive references....

thanks!

Mboard182 (talk) 05:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, sorry for the delay in responding - I've been away for a couple of days. I have looked at your contributions and I think you are doing a great job. It is just unfortunate that you were bitten by Chris199910 who, as you can see from the warnings on his talk page has made some very ill-judged (I'm being polite here) speedy deletion nominations and part of the fall out from that is that he discourages new editors as he incorrectly makes them feel that it is they who have done something wrong. Kind regards & please do stick with it. nancy ^(talk) 19:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Luke ambiguation)

Thanks for deleting my typo ... presumably you watch for this sort of stuff somewhere? Abtract (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem..... and yes, there are lots of places where one can keep an eye on whats going on - Special:NewPages and Special:RecentChanges are places that quite a few people hang out but there are loads of other pages which allow you to look at all sorts of weird and wonderful things concerned with the actual running of Wikipedia - check out the full list. Happy editing, kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 05:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Okay then. It looks better now. It was just somewhat nonsense because it grammatically made no sense to me, things were all over the place, and it was messy. – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 08:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Nancy

thankyou for the feedback Nancy, however i feel that your grounds for that threat were invalid, and therefore i am going to ignore it.

thankyou —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattsem (talk • contribs) 14:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If you do not think that edits like this are problematic then I would respectfully suggest that you are moving very fast in the direction of a block. Kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 14:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to make it clear that i do not give way to virtual bullies, which is what you are. I think that it is in fact you, that is moving in the direction of a block. If you continue to edit articles to you pleasure, and cropping out parts that you don't feel are suitable, then i will have to report you. You can't just gloss over the truth and have wikipedia the way you want it.

watch out Nancy, watch out.

thankyou —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattsem (talk • contribs) 14:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Pat Fischer the Artist

First I need to apologize This is my first article and I’ am trying to follow the guide lines and rules so with that in mind, my aunt Pat (Pat Fischer the artist) is an artist in country art I was trying to show a need for this forum, I resubmitted an new article under country art and I think I did that right (hmmm will see) and I think it was fine if you could help me in any way I would greatly appreciate. Thank you --123reb (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)123reb

Feedback

thanks for the feedback i have taken on board what you have said and have taken actions against it. Chris19910 (talk) 10:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Tim Cantor

Thanks for answering my question, Nancy, about the Tim Cantor article. Upon looking through the article's history, I found that you have put in a good deal of work improving it. Do you think there is a reasonable chance of coming up with some legitimate references that document notability? I was unable to locate anything, myself (via a few Google searches), that provided much of use. If you aren't aware of anything more, it would seem appropriate to me to put it up for deletion. I assume you disagree, and would appreciate hearing your views. Tim Ross (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually I completely agree with you! I got involved in the first place trying to help a newbie out as the article was chock full of TCs pictures which had been uploaded under GFDL and I was pretty sure that the uploader a) didn't have the rights to do that and b) didn't understand the implications - I was right on both counts. I did spend an bit of time de-spamming and copyediting but left it tagged as being primary sourced and was hoping that the original author would step back in and reference it properly as in truth I am not interested enough in the subject to make a great deal of effort. As it stands at the moment I would in all probability !vote delete at AFD on the grounds of notability and lack of reliable sources. Kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 13:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess the ball is in my court, Nancy. I've never initiated an AFD before, although I've commented on quite a few. I would like to be able to offer some sort of link or citation showing that "The Art of Tim Cantor" is published by the article's subject and that the primary author of the article is an employee. Can you suggest a good way to do that? Tim Ross (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Tim, this diff shows that the author works at Tim Cantor's gallery and this link shows that the book is published by Ashby and Alfred which according to both the website and the Tim Cantor article is owned by TC. Big tip for creating AFDs is to remember to transclude the discussion on to the list for 'today' (I've forgotten to do that bit before now!). If you need help with the process then the instructions are here - or of course give me a shout & I would be happy to help. Good luck! Kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 14:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what I needed. Thank you very much! This procedure looks more complex, to do right, than I had expected. I'll play around with it in my sandbox for a while - maybe a couple of days, even - and when I have what I think might be acceptable, I'll ask you to take a look. Tim Ross (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, I'd be grateful if you would take a look at this draft for an AFD. It went faster than I expected. Many thanks. Tim Ross (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Very embarrassing! I just attempted to set up the AFD page and clearly did something wrong. When I completed the third step of the process, adding the AFD to the log page it seemed to work fine. However, when I look at the resultant Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 April 26, it only exists as a red-lined entry, between "Ettore Musolino" and "Rick Bartow". I'll keep working on it to see if I can find where I went wrong, but please jump in if you have a chance. Tim Ross (talk) 10:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Cancel the help reguest, Nancy. I'm still not sure what I did wrong, but I managed to move the code around enough to get it working (to my eye, at least). Please take a look, though, when it's convenient, to see if there are still any problems with the nomination. Many thanks. Tim Ross (talk) 11:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Woops! Now I see a problem (that I can live with for a while). I've somehow lost the category for the AFD, which should be "Biographical", and can't figure out how to get it back. Much obliged for any help. Tim Ross (talk) 11:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Very sorry to take up so much space here! I think I have the category fixed, now, too. Just need to send out a notice or two. Many, many thanks. Tim Ross (talk) 11:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much

Thank you for responding so quickly and the information you have provided me --123reb (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

hdd computers limited

you deleted the page for hdd computers limited because I have cut and copied a section from my own web site. this content I created and own. I own HDD Computers Limited and have created everything on my website, so I can I be infring on copywright when it is mine to start with? Regards Stephen Woods Managing Director HDD Computers Limited —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodymanchester (talk • contribs) 16:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there Stephen. The crucial point here is that nothing on Wikipedia may have copyright attached. It must be released to GFDL so that the material you added is copyrighted at all is the problem - the owner of the copyright is not an issue. A browse through Wikipedia's copyright policy would probably be useful and the section "Information for copyright owners" show you how to release your website under GFDL if you wish to (this would allow it to be copied on to Wikipedia but would also allow it to be used and altered by anyone else as well). You may also like to consider the guidelines on notability of companies as I fear that HDD Computers Ltd falls somewhat short of the bar and even if the article were not a copyvio it may be deleted for other reasons. Finally as the Managing Director of the company it is probably better that you leave the creation of the article to someone who is not connected and is possibly better able to be neutral - if your company really is notable then someone will be along to create and article about it soon enough. Kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 16:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Nikhi Hindujah

Hi, I had put a speedy deletion tag on the article Nikhi Hindujah, which you subsequently reverted. I have elaborated the justification for deletion in the talk page of the article. Would like you to have a look. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 04:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Update

Thanks for the note, just thought i would be useful rather than reverting and speedy deleting the wrong things. Chris19910 (talk) 09:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)