User talk:NickelShoe/Archive3

Channel inquiry.

Thank you for notifying me of the proposed deletion of stubs I created. Where exactly should I go to respond to the charges? The link provided takes me to a page for an item which does not even exist yet.

Eagerly awaiting your reply... Folajimi 13:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• In case I am unavailable when you do respond, here is some of the information to defend the articles:

To put it mildly, de:bug is a German magazine dedicated to electronic music — perhaps the nation's most distinguished publication in that category. Is it valid to argue having Thaddi Herrmann as an editor for the publication is non-notable? As great as it would be to create an entry for the magazine in the encyclopaedia, it appears that Wikipedia's technical limitations make that impossible to implement. Perhaps you have a suggestion as to how to proceed with creating such an article?

Also Herrmann was part of Sonic Subjunkies, an outfit that released at least a pair of full-length recordings, and were one of many artists featured in the online tribute from BBC Radio 1 to John Peel. There is more I would like to say on the subject, but it should be said that google produces more than a handful of results on the outfit.

As for information the duo known as Herrmann & Kleine, does information available on Herrmann und Kleine at AllMusic count?

Cheers, Folajimi 14:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All you have to do is remove the "prod" notice on the pages, and that'll stop the deletion process. You'll of course want to incorporate this information here into the articles, so they don't get sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, a deletion process that relies on debate (for which you would not be allowed to remove the notice). NickelShoe 14:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citizenship tourism

It's only polite to note in your edit summary when you propose an article for deletion...it's kind of a major edit. It also decreases the chances of it getting reprodded if the prod is removed, as a person can look at the page history to see that it's already been prodded. Of course, you might have simply not noted it by accident.

Also, I'd like to suggest that you notify the creator of articles when you propose articles for deletion. Prod is specifically for "uncontroversial" deletions, and it seems difficult to assume that the person who went to the trouble of creating the article in the first place agrees with the deletion merely because they're a newbie who doesn't use their watchlist. NickelShoe 17:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary thing was an accident, and I apologize. However, notifying the creator of an article that is prodded seems like overkill. It's not part of the procedure on WP:PROD. For one thing, is it expected to notify every contributor?

For another, when on new pages patrol I prod, AFD, and tag as speedy dozens of articles. I think it would work against the idea to notify the creator of every article, every time. If an editor appears to have put a lot of work into an article I am more likely to drop them a line on their talk page, but for a two- or three-line substub it's rather less likely to happen. Stifle 17:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary thing was an accident, and I apologize. However, notifying the creator of an article that is prodded seems like overkill. It's not included in the process at WP:PROD. For one thing, is it expected to notify every contributor?

For another, when on new pages patrol I prod, AFD, and tag as speedy dozens of articles. I think it would work against the idea to notify the creator of every article, every time. If an editor appears to have put a lot of work into an article I am more likely to drop them a line on their talk page, but for a two- or three-line substub it's rather less likely to happen. Stifle 17:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you ought to. I think the inconvenience is worth the politeness and proper use of prod. Wikipedia editors frequently place far too much emphasis on what is efficient. That's why I'm currently spending all of my time on Wikipedia going thru the prod log and informing creators of articles. There's a template available at {{PRODWarning}}. Certainly I can't force you to do this, but I have suggested on the talk page that it ought to be required. NickelShoe 17:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, I strongly disagree that the idea of new pages patrol is to get as many articles into the deletion process as possible. Emphasis should be on improving articles and on not biting newbies. If you have less time to review new pages and some don't get tagged for deletion for a few days, I don't think it's as big a deal as intimidating newcomers with prod banners or having them come back after a week and not be able to find the article they created without knowing why. NickelShoe 17:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks for your opinion! Stifle 18:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prod

Thanks for your note about prod, I guess I didn't read about the new system carefully enough. Makemi 20:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify?

I know. I don't understand why; The Big Snit is similar and it gets its own article. Any clarification would be accepted. -MasTer of Puppets ^Peek! 23:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, it seems to be acceptable material; I mean, I've seen articles which have one line telling you that there is a high school in some remote place. I'll remove the prod and say why; if they contest it, further debating. -MasTer of Puppets ^Peek! 23:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify for me, as well

I don't quite understand why The Stony Brook Press Editorial Board is being proposed for deletion. I took the time to make sure it was linked as a separate page, so that only the executive editors would be featured on the main page of the newspaper. I've read the WP:WN section, and upon your notice have read it again. Perhaps you'd like to tell me which guideline I've violated, because I am simply at a loss.

Having the names of the past editors is extremely important information when one considers a newspaper with a history dating back to 1979. Why should an interested party not be able to find that information indexed here? I know if I researched a newspaper on an online encyclopedia I'd like to know who the Photo Editors were.

So, please explain this deletion to me.

Just Ignacio

Sorry i didn't quite understand what you told me on the message you sent me... What did i do wrong? I thought that as the user who deleted the "candidate for deletion" notice without any explanations i should put it back... Maberk 12:08PM 23/02/06

About Cheat Code Dangers

Yeah I know. I saw it. Is there any way I can delete it? I think it's kinda crappy too y'know :-P --Moped 21:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can put {{db-author}} at the top, but they might not do it for you, since there have been so many editors. Actually, what I'd do is put {{db-reason|I'm the creator of this article and the only contributor of content (see the page history). It's not fit for Wikipedia, and I would like it to be deleted}}, or something like that. So that the admin who checks on it doesn't dismiss the request because there were other editors, since no one else made any contributions of content. But they might decide it's not okay, and you can just wait out the five days. NickelShoe 22:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swiftcover

You're not supposed to reprod articles. As the banner says, removing the notice is the correct way of objecting to deletion (of course, the person should provide an edit summary, but they don't have to). If someone objects, the deletion is controversial. Prod is specifically for uncontroversial deletions. See Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion#What_this_process_is_NOT_for. When you still want to delete something that's been deprodded, you just move it to AfD, which is what I'm doing for you. NickelShoe 19:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right of course. But the user who created the article was brand new and he didn't leave an edit summary so I thought I'd give him another chance. I left a nice message on his talk page explaining that the article must meet WP:CORP.  :) Monkeyman^(talk) 19:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vazov Point

Dear NickelShoe, please see the talk pages to Vazov Point and Vazov Rock. Naturally, geographical features in Antarctica would have a relatively greater 'notability' than comparable features elsewhere because they account for nearly 100 per cent of all notable features on a given territory there. (As you can imagine this percentage would be pretty low e.g. in a city or a densely populated area where the man-made features dominate both in quantity and significance.) The 'notability' of an Antarctic geographical feature may be further enhanced by its relevance as a landmark in the course of field work or navigation, or if ice free. All this is taken into account when the relevant place-naming authorities decide whether some feature merits a name or not. Apcbg 08:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one who thought they should be deleted; I'm the one who bothered to let you know about it. That's great that you explained it on the talk page, but you didn't need to leave a note in the article itself, so I took it out. You can put a message like "oppose deletion see talk" in your edit summary. NickelShoe 11:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for bringing my attention to those proposals, and for removing my note from where it didn't belong. Best, Apcbg 11:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best Friends...Different Personalities

Many thanks for your message about the above AfD nomination. I had hoped that {{prod}}ding would give an editor some time to make changes to the pages. I imagine that they still have time before the nominations close. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  15:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lulu Lemon

I saw your comments on the talk page. The problem is that the PROD should not have been added a second time. So I've listed it at AfD now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lulu Lemon. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think we can just use common sense in such situations instead of becoming all legalistic, but like I said, it's not like it hurts to move it to AfD. NickelShoe 01:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

longde article delete

go ahead and delete it. I will try to write a better article on all three sections (mind series, space series, instruction series) together as they probably don't warrant individual articles (at least not to the level of detail/notability that is appropriate for WP). I *kinda* thought that by putting 'stub' it was clear that my *intent* was to expand the article -- I just saw a few links to the topic in the other Dzogchen/Nyingma articles and thought it was better to have something rather than nothing. Apparently I was horribly wrong. My humblest apologies. Thanks for the heads up. Zero sharp 05:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zulu names list deletion

Hey there, I see you've put up this article for deletion (List of Zulu first names). Could you read my explanation on the discussion page of it and see if I've explained why I'd like to keep it? Thanks very much :) Joziboy, 26 Feb 2006, 12:05 UTC

ChalkZone

In a few days if the author doesnt comment about this I'll nominate them all for AfD. Let the public at large comment about this. ---J.Smith 19:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super Panda

Thanks for the comment. Yes, you're right (though Super Panda is surely 'patent nonsense'). I'm still getting used to 'prod'. Hynca-Hooley 00:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adora

Thank you :) -- Avi 05:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PROD

Sorry I'll use that warning template, it will be a big time saver. I was doing new page patrol at like 3 am and just didn't think about edit summaries/notifiyng the author. I wonder if we could make the PROD script to auto notify the original author of the article? Hmmmmmm. Mike _{(T C)} 22:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sterile Transfer

Thanks for the tip. I found Wikibooks which looks like the right place for instructionals. I'll request a deletion and copy the article there. BTW, I often look for things by searching "wikipedia whatnot" in Google. It might make sense for Wikipedia to include cross referencing so these types of searches do the right thing. Do you know the best place to make such a request? E.g. I searched google for "wikipedia tutorial" to learn how to edit an article and was directed to the Wikipedia tutorial published on Wikipedia. The exception that Wikipedia makes for it's own instructionals may not be appropriate if the publication wishes to educate the editors by example. Jlugert 22:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I'm not quite sure what you're asking. You might try the Wikipedia:Village pump... NickelShoe 22:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a question regarding the namespace and how it is picked up by Google. I.e., if one searches Google for: wikipedia how to grow a mushroom, will they receive a link to wikibooks. Jlugert 23:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Slam

The Cyber Slam has been through a large update since your original comment. Tigger-oN 00:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prod

Howdy. Thanks for the suggestions. I marked a few new articles by anon or new editors as {prod} not having seen that template before and figured it was less challenging than {db}, then ran out of time to go back to detail them. I'll be more thorough in future. Garglebutt / (talk) 00:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that disagreement over whether {prod} should be there means it is the wrong template. I'll replace with a {db} template. Garglebutt / (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prod

Hey, I didn't mean any harm - I was acting out of good faith. I've removed the prod notice and listed it at AfD. Computerjoe 08:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reply: james

I was not aware of that fact. I offer my apologies, same thing on the "windblows" article. I didn't read WP:WINAD, and put in a 'db-author'. Thank you for your services to wikipedia, Recon0 22:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ivan_val

Re:Psychedelic drink made in SLO. Yes, you seem to be right... Btw, you said the article had been proposed for deletion. Would you kindly tell me WHO proposed it for deletion. Cheers, Ivan [ivan_val} March 2, 2006

Jeyaraj

Jeyaraj is a well known tamil artist. Every one in Tamil nadu who reads Tamil magazines knows him. Doctor Bruno 15:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try this http://www.hindu.com/2006/01/31/stories/2006013114800600.htm

Thanks. I just figured out what happened...I explained on your talk page. NickelShoe 15:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I understand Doctor Bruno 15:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RuveneCo

Thanks for doing the follow up to the prod. I'll have to keep what you said on your user page in mind. --Christopherlin 20:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the heads-up. It is an extermination policy. They are in the process of deleting Cretan/Spartan connection and Revolution within the form. They have deleted many of my stuff and harrased me. They are attempting a "scorched earth policy" regarding me and my contributions. An article which I created that they first deleted and is now at Wikinfo, they were attempting to "wash" and place here at Wikipedia. We have no problem with links to Wikipedia but there seems to be a problem with Wikinfo links here at Wikipedia. Hatred is the driving force.WHEELER 22:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prod on Stefan Burgess

Thanks for advising me. Still getting use to the prod process. Cheers. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 03:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

I'm new at this, but I think you definately deserve it, so without further ado...

		The Working (Wo)Man's Barnstar
		I award Nickelshoe this Working (Wo)Man's barnstar for her tireless work on deletions 'n stuff, and her endless patience in guiding me and others on the right path. Dragoonmac - ^If there was a problem yo I'll solve it 07:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Tsatsouline

Hi. Pavel Tsatsouline has a massive 3 incoming links from mainspace, 1 of them a link from a very deleteable article about his company. 2 of the 3 incoming links were created by the same user, Tyciol. I'll add an importance tag, but I think AFD may very well be exactly where I send it! :) --kingboyk 10:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikible

I reverted Wikible because the notice was removed by a non-registered IP (who did not create the article) and did not have a summary or entry in the talk page stating the reason for its removal. ... discospinster 17:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A little summary goes a long way. ... discospinster 17:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but newbies don't usually understand that, and they're usually the ones whose articles are getting prodded. (I know they don't own the article, but they usually don't understand that.) NickelShoe 17:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endangered species

hello and thanks for your interest in the endangered species article. i am having a strange interaction with someone who is trying to debate the California clapper rail article. i think the endangered species definition works either way... and i dont really care whether it says organism or species. however, and help me out here, the voluble contributor to California clapper rail talk page just wont relent on his concern about the endangered species article...and he apparently wont edit it himself :) best regards Anlace 20:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your prompt attention to this article...it looks fine to me. we'll see whether the worlds harshest critic likes it when he sees it....he was quibbling that an endangered species is not a species....i think some people have too much time on their hands :) thanks again cheers Anlace 21:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank your for your well put remarks on the california clapper rail talk page. no you havent missed anything. our friend SP-KP just doesnt like the conventional use of endangered species the way it is used in hundreds of articles :) !! and it was he who insisted on placing the discussion on the California clapper rail talk page. i appreciate your sensible and informed viewpoint, best regards Anlace 22:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox

Hi, NickelShoe. I was wondering if you could do me a favor and check my new userbox template for any violations of WP policy. It's at Template:user end. It would also be nice if you could get back to me at my own talk page: User talk:Recon0. Recon0 21:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prod: Up-down cues

Thanks for the Prod on up-down cues. I have begun to expand it from a micro-stub, and will continue to do so. -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 02:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I didn't prod it, I just wanted to make sure you knew about it. NickelShoe 02:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thx

Thanks for the heads-up on Echo Helstrom (band), that was nice of you. Herostratus 23:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ragnaville

I understand your reasons for changing the prod tag to a AfD on the Ragnaville. However, I don't see this covered in Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#What this process is NOT for. I'm guessing you refer to the first point, but I'm unsure. My personal interpretation is that this only applies as long as the original author is not the one who removes the prod tag or the prod removal is motivated. -- Koffieyahoo 14:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation is wrong, sorry. The guidelines do not state that, and I will promptly change them to clarify the meaning as discussed on the talk page. Uncontroversial means nobody disagrees. It doesn't mean nobody except the author disagrees, and it doesn't mean that nobody disagrees with good reason. Anything with controversy should go to AfD. NickelShoe 14:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, how does this relate to the speedy delete text saying that the original author may not remove the tag? -- Koffieyahoo 14:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy delete tag says for the creator not to remove the tag. The prod tag says for anyone who objects to the deletion to remove the tag. Simple as that. NickelShoe 14:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Haseltine

Thanks for listing David Haseltine as AfD. I'll remember to not retag speedies in future. Nigosh 01:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wm2

Thanks for letting me know. I had it on my watchlist but, you know, I might have missed it :-) - Liberatore(T) 11:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, which template do you use for warning authors of prod tags (if you use any). I want to use it when I propose an article for deletion. - Liberatore(T) 11:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - Liberatore(T) 13:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Couch Rugby

Hi, you originally informed me about the deletion tag on Couch Rugby. Do you think you can improve the article? Gregorydavid 11:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blitzball, Blernsball, etc.

srry, I put those pages up for deletion because I was making a stand about another article.

Thank you! I am still learning on here and your advise is invaluable.

XPW European Championship

XPW European Championship has been proposed for deletion. Please see the article for details. NickelShoe 04:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do i oppose this proposed deletion? --- Paulley 10:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit the article to remove the prod notice. You'll want to provide a short reason in your edit summary, and possibly a long one on the talk page. The person who proposed its deletion felt the event to be "non-notable", so you might want to review WP:NOT and WP:N if you haven't already and try to improve the article.

When you remove the prod notice, someone may feel that the article still should be deleted and send it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for discussion. That'll put a new banner on the article giving you a link to the discussion where you can make your case. (You wouldn't want to remove the new banner, but don't worry, the deletion notices all say right on them whether or not it's okay to take them off.) NickelShoe 12:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, cool i havent seen this "prod" template thing before --- Paulley 13:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woodstock

Thx for notifyng me. In the Bangkok expat nightlifescene Woodstock is one of the most notable places. Definately fit for an article. Waerth 11:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine .NET Users Group and Philippine Windows Users Group

I'm not sure why Philippine .NET Users Group and Philippine Windows Users Group are marked for deletion.

They are valid and official groups in the Philippines and they cater to a broad range of people both local and international.

==Firemaking (RuneScape)==

Thanks for telling me - • The Giant Puffin • 19:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

American Corner

It is listed along with all the other villages of Caroline County, Maryland. I have seen plenty of other entries for other counties and so on. I did add a little bit.....what made you decide to focus on deleting American Corner? How did you find it? WillC 23:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't list it. I just found it in the proposed deletion log and thought you'd want to know. If you don't think it should be deleted, all you have to do is remove the prod notice. You'll want to mention your reasoning in the edit summary, and possibly on the talk page, to reduce the chances of the article being sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for discussion. And it always helps to keep working on the article. NickelShoe 00:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you giving me the message for the Bobby Trendy purpose deletion? :-P

Wasn't the original creator of the text. Like I know anything about the subject. I was only the guy who redirected it from someone's Bobby trendy (notice the lower case "t") article. You should have contacted User:VarunRajendran. --J. Nguyen 05:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I had to cut/paste because the Bobby Trendy (redirect) was created before Bobby trendy article. Look at the histories carefully, man. I wasn't the originator of the text. Bobby trendy and Bobby Trendy. I can't move someone's Bobby trendy article because I don't have admin rights to overwrite an older establish article (redirect). :-P --J. Nguyen 05:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That I didn't know you could request moves/overwrites. Yes, it is my fault for not telling where I got the text from on the edit summary. Oh well, I'm making a big deal off of such a minor thing. :-P --J. Nguyen 05:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gatecrash Ragga terror-i-s-t-s

Thanks for sending me my first message. I am an absolute beginner and feel absolutely lost amid a sea of strange code. I have made some adjustments to the article (I think), in hopes of getting off the dreaded deletion list. Atomize 11:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schools in Angola

Hi there, thanks for the note. Ref proposed for deletion, whether or not we should list schools by all countries has already been discussed at length on a previous votes for deletion and agreement has already been reached that they should be listed. I notice someone else has taken the proposal down in any case. It is a stub and needs work but the list needs to be done for Wikipedia. --BozMo[[user_talk:BozMo|talk]] 17:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jaymod

I so obviously object. And there are other mods out there with Wiki pages, so complain to them also then. Just becuase I'm not finished making the page, which I obviously don't know the full extent of page creation in Wiki either, doesn't mean that it should be deleted.