This is an archive of past discussions. 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.
Hey Preston! I'm doing fine with my recovery after my surgery; thanks for asking! I'm trying to keep everything from being too stressful, and it's all going well so far. Thanks, and keep up the good work with the RC patrol and such. Nishkid6420:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering where you went, just noticed now that you had surgery. Hopwfully you're doing better now, it'll be great to have you back.--Wizardman00:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User: Xiaodingjin
Hi, you blocked this guy for a 3RR vio recently. As I explained on the report, he is the author of the material he is trying to include. However he continues to reinsert the link in question on the Jung Chang page and has ignored all messages I have left on his talk page.
I was led to believe that it was against the spirit of wikipedia (if not official rules) for an editor to insert links to his own websites, articles, etc because it was a conflict of interest - i.e. it is near impossible for him to be neutral enough to decide whether or not the material should be included. Xiaodingjin is the author of the pdf file on the link over which he was banned for edit-warring. Maybe if you're not sure you could consult with some other admins who might know more about this? John Smith's20:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I had other objections to the link, but not in terms of Xiao's reverts. If you need to know, he is a student from St Andrews University, so may also be using this IP - 138.251.95.1. John Smith's21:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Common Cause
Perhaps you need to review the definition of "punitive". Any block, for any reason, is indeed punitive: punitive simply means "serving for, concerned with, or inflicting punishment". It is not necessarily a negative term. Next time you decline to take action on a rule violation, at least try to stick to words you understand for the explanation. XINOPH | TALK11:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I said "punitive", I meant exactly what I said. The IP sporadically edits, and the only justification for a block would be to prevent the IP from editing the Common Cause article. They have not violated any Wikipedia rules by editing, and that's why the block would go against policy and be therefore deemed "punitive". Perhaps if you had read WP:3RR, you'd know that the IP had not violated policy at all, and no block would ever be placed on the user. FYI, blocks on Wikipedia are "preventative", not "punitive". That's the whole point of blocking users. It's not to punish them, but to prevent them from continuing to violate policy. Also, please remember to be civil with other users. Getting angry at other users is not going to do you any good. Also, as I said earlier, read WP:3RR, because your report was clearly not a 3RR violation. You provided diffs of reverts made over the course of a month and a half. 3RR only applies to a 24-hour period. Nishkid6415:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it
I'm not angry at you at all, I'm merely correcting you. Correction does not equate anger or negativity. You did misuse "punitive", and still are. I would still contend that any action taken which limits a person's ability to edit is punitive, whether you want to call it that or not. Punitive is not a pejorative, there's no reason not to call it that. Also, for something to be "preventative", you would have to stop it from happening. If you block someone after they commit certain actions, that's not preventative. Furthermore, it's a mystery to me why damaging articles is OK if done over a long period of time but not OK over a shorter period of time, but that's another discussion for another place. XINOPH | TALK17:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't believe that is the right correction. See WP:BP. The second line says, "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia and should not be used as a punitive measure." That's a term that has been used on Wikipedia many times, and it is an essential part of the blocking policy. Perhaps I should have pointed out the policy page earlier to you. Nishkid6418:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I can jump in, Nishkid64 is using "punitive" correctly as the term is customarily used in this type of discussion, though that might not equate exactly to how "punishment" is understood in other contexts. Perhaps "punitive only" (that is, not serving any purpose other being punitive) would be a clearer usage. Newyorkbrad18:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much a matter of how things are understood as it is how they are defined. The fact is that Wikipedia policy is using it incorrectly and Nish is following along with that - both are incorrect. Any restriction taken in response to an action is punitive rather than preventative according to the definition of both words. If someone is being blocked as a reaction to what they've done, it's punitive, whether Wikipedia wants to call it that or not - and why they have a problem calling it that is beyond me. I've never considered the word a pejorative. The fact is that most punishments are both punitive and preventative; it's pretty difficult to have one that's solely one or the other. XINOPH | TALK19:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Thanks for understanding. The anon editor continually edited the article in a disruptive manner, with unsourced claims; I assumed I wouldn't fall under 3RR when reverting his edits. Thanks again. Parsecboy20:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Admin Coaching
Good evening; I was enquiring if I could join up with the Admin Coaching program? I've always respected your work, and seeing one of your mentorees' RfAs up and running with a current count of 100% (14/0/1 - excluding Neutrals) impressed me.
Drop me a message if you've got any more queries about my activites around Wikipedia, or just to notify me if you're full or if (*crosses fingers*) you can take me on!
Sure he did a lot, but you don't have to mention it all in the intro. Sometimes keeping it short is the best thing. Just see what you can do and summarise it more. You don't need to give his history, just mention the most important things he did. John Smith's22:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's better. However if you honestly can't cut any more material, would it be possible to make a third paragraph to break it up a tad more? Sorry to be so pernickety. :) John Smith's00:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3R on Gilad Atzmon
Hi Nishkid, I've just had a 24 hour ban for 3R whilst in good faith preventing a BLP vio (which is still a BLP vio, in my view) and I'm pretty ticked off about it. How could I take this forward?FelixFelixtalk16:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, like I told Isarig, I wanted you guys to go to the BLP talk page because I wasn't absolutely sure if your edits were really reverts of BLP material. For now, I think that is the best course of action. Also, try to discuss at the talk page, and don't get into edit wars with other users at Gilad Atzmon. Nishkid6417:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Joji Obara article
Thanks for taking action on the Joji Obara article. Only problem is, there IS more or less a consensus on the talk page, against the edits made by User:DDRG, User:Vml132f and a few anonymous Japanese users. There is also proof that these users are each others meatpuppets/puppeteers, see Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Vml132f. Also, even if you won't block DDRG, could you please, at least give him a warning over his disruptive behaviour (which can also be seen at Asahi Shimbun)?
[1] Thanks, but... DDRG does not WANT the page to be unlocked. It's locked at the version he has kept reverting too. I suspect it's not a good incitement to tell him that you won't "unprotect the page until I see discussion and some progress towards consensus from all parties involved". Over at the 2ch (Japanese BBS) thread he is coming from ([2]), locks are celebrated as "victories". Mackan21:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I may, I came across a Time article that says Mr. Obara is Japanese and says nothing about a Korean ethnicity.[3] To back this up, I found a couple other articles [4][5][6] that say he is of Japanese descent and say nothing of a Korean descent as well. Perhaps until this can be confirmed one way or another, the article could read "of Eastern Asian descent". Just one editor's three cents. - SVRTVDude(Yell | Toil)21:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little concerned with my first entry. It was "immediately deleted" at first. Which really is confusing, since a computer cannot readily determine "importance".
Although the article was short in nature, it should in no way reflect the "unimportance". When, at the directions of the system, I used the "hangon" tag, it was shortly dismissed as "inappropriate".
Now I'm really confused. An article about a local Amateur Radio charitable organization should not be ever classified as "inappropriate", as I'm confident that there are other organizations such as the ARRL, Red Cross, and so forth who accomplish similar community services on a larger scale, and are promptly reported in the database.
Please help!
--
Matthew
There are notability guidelines for articles on Wikipedia. They must meet those guidelines, or they will be subject to speedy deletion. Your article seems to be a local amateur radio club that has no real notability in a larger sense, and that's why it was open for speedy deletion. If you can show me as to why it is notable, then I will undelete the article and keep it here on Wikipedia. Judging from the List of amateur radio organizations article, I don't see how some other amateur radio organizations have their own articles, since they appear to be non-notable. Anyway, just show me links demonstrating the notability of the club, and I'll possibly reconsider my decision. Nishkid6420:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I'm sorry to hear that you had surgery, and I hope that you have a fast recovery, but I really need you to blockUser:Wheezy19. He is vandalizing, (I caught, reverted, and warned him all 4 or 5 times), and he keeps on giving me barnstars for no reason. Please, can you block him. Once again, I hope you have a fast recovery. PikminloverMeep!Ⓧ23:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you perm banned this user? I think it is a bit hasty. He is a new user and is not familiar with the rules completely. He emailed me with answers to objections John Smith raised and said that he did nto want to answer John Smith directly as he regards him as unreasonable. In anycase, there is a dispute about content pertaining to the link, which he appears to be the author of (this is not established--he could simply have registered under this name), however he is not alone in the edit waring regarding this quite appropriate link containing this noteworthy book review, which has been picked up in the press. Also, there are other anon IP addresses showing up to support John Smith's version, always their first edits and always to support his version, on this article and others. What I propose as a better solution it to lock the article for anon accounts, leaving it open to only already established, registed users. This will take care of a lot of the distrupting influences of these anon IP's (possible meat puppets or socks), which we don't want to block anyway as some are using dynamic school IPs. Thanks.Giovanni3322:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Xiaodingjin was warned by John Smith's to look at External Links policy, and he was also told to discuss his edits instead of just re-inserting his link. He had a good amount of time to read policy and to heed the warnings, but he failed to do so. If you feel the link is appropriate, then you may add it back, but I wouldn't be surprised if it would result in a content dispute later on. Nishkid6423:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that is the problem. Since John Smith told him, he probably did not take him seriously. I think he deserves a second chance, or there should be more of a community consensus about perm banning him. I also think that protecting the article against anon IP's will take care of a lot of the distruptions.Giovanni3323:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for semi-protecting. I know perm banns are handed out often, however, this is with clear cut cases, such as vandalims. In this case, the user is banned for a conflict dispute, and he has reviewed the external links section. It has not been established that he is the author of the review in question. That was only assumed by John Smith. Also, another editor pointed out that since other editors are supporting the inclusion of this link, the objection that he has a conflict of interest for possibly being the author, becomes irrelevant. In the editors email to me, he cites this as the basis for his understanding of this policy. I'd say a warning and clarification from an admin would have solved this issue. Also, becaue he is a newbie, I think we should give extra slack and be extra forgiving. If you want, I can forward you his email.Giovanni3323:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. I'll forward the email to you. I'm sure something can be worked out to save him as a potencially vaulable contributor to the project.Giovanni3300:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Giovanni, I think your excuses are rather poor. I regard you frequently as being "unreasonable", yet I do not ignore you. As a newcomer he should be given understanding, but if he is going to ignore people frequently that doesn't bode well for the future. At the very least he should get in contact with me so we can talk things over.
Also, why would he not take me seriously? This was the first time we'd ever "met". Or was it maybe because of your comments here? I think you are partly responsible for this because you did your best to make false allegations about me to a new user. I think you should apologise for your sneaky behaviour. John Smith's14:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really can't believe this. I leave a comment on Giovanni's user page about him apologising for trying to turn new users against me and he deletes it. That rather says something about him. John Smith's18:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think he can believe it, and expect it. He does the same for any message I leave him. His message to me are provocative and accusatory, and actually forms of personal attacks. Instead of arguing with him about it, I just remove it now. That he can't leave it alone and now wants to complain to you about it show, in my view, his obsession with drama and turning WP in a battleground about editors personality issues. Boring.Giovanni3319:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any message you leave me? That's a piece of nonsense. Besides when was the last time I tried to assassinate your character on a new user's talkpage?! What is boring is that you try to cover up your spiteful behaviour and pretend there's nothing wrong with it. John Smith's20:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to respond to your baited, loaded messages above, only because its what you want and your MO, and I'm trying to avoid it, per the first step of conflict resolution. I also feel its below my dignity to go down into the mud with you. However, if Nishkid64 is intersted in your accusations and this line of inquiry, then I'd be happy to communicate with him about it. I stand my my staments as accurate, and regard yours as contra-factual.Giovanni3320:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must have misread something on the wikipedia dispute resolution page. Where does it say under the first step that you should try to turn new users against the person you're having a dispute with? The facts stand for themselves, Gio. You left that nasty message on Xiaodingjin's talkpage - you can't get away from that. John Smith's20:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Straw man fallacy. That is not what I said. Go back and re-read what the policy on dispute resolution says. That is what I said. As for making a "nasty message,' I beg to differ. I did no such thing. I suggest you stop mudslinging and curtail your comments to edit conflict issues of a more elevated nature only.Giovanni3320:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is not a consensus to include the link on the Jung Chang page at all. As to Xiao, if he is willing to talk things over in the future I would much prefer that to a perma-ban. John Smith's20:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i just saw that you had deleted my wikipedia entry for lowe counsel. i had written that objectively as a piece of information and dont quite understand what would have been perceived as advertising.
please can you help me understand the problem with it
samina
hi there nishkid
i just posted an short summary of lowe counsel and found that you had deleted it. i don't quite understand what happened as this was an objective piece of writing that just highlighted some of their main areas.
i am a journalist by profession, writing for time out, wallpaper, british airways high life. i would like to understand what was considered advertising so that i can amend the piece.
looking forward to hearing from you
samina
The article does look like an advertisement for the company. Also, see WP:COMPANY, which provides the other reason for deleting the article. Notability guidelines must be met for an article to be on Wikipedia, and Lowe counsel failed to meet this, so it was subject to deletion. Nishkid64 (talk)14:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletions
I am disappointed you decided to unilaterally delete my contribution to Wikipedia. I had mixed feelings about the quality of Wikipedia, being an academic, and now I am certain.
You wrote: "Just because it is on a list on Wikipedia does not mean it is something that can meet notability guidelines and be written about on Wikipedia"
While another editor who saw it writes: "Wikipedia is for everything you don't care about and have never heard of. If it's verifiable, neutral, and not original research, why not?"
To boot, no one even bothered to directly answer my questions contesting its deletion. I mean, at least have the courtesy and class to respond to someone's inquiry or make suggestions to improve it. I can tell you are all about collaboration and constructive efforts. (This is a facetious comment, in case you are not bright enough to notice).
Have fun with your egocentric power trip. I hope you and your editors work out your inconsistencies. If you are going to uphold "standards" at least make them meaningful.
I would appreciate it if you closed my account. I choose no longer to be affiliated with this so called "free" encyclopedia.
Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia. However, there are rules that govern what can and cannot be placed here. From my research, I found that the articles you created did not meet notability guidelines that are Wikipedia policy and must be met by all articles here. Since your articles failed WP:CORP, I deleted the article. Nishkid64 (talk)16:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007
The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you BetacommandBot19:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Omgili Deletion
Nishkid64 hello,
I'm new to Wikipedia so forgive me if my questions seem strange.
Earlier today I posted an article about a forum search engine named "Omgili". You deleted my article with th reason that its a - "website that does not assert the importance of the subject." Can you explain this to me? what can I change in my article for it to be accepted?
I found many vertical search engines which appear as articles on Wikipedia so I gather its not totally forbidden to post articles about specific sites.
There are many search engines which search the blogsphere and some of them, like technorati, have there own page. I think forum search is just as interesting if not more but there are no articles for search engines in this category like boardtracker, boardreader or Omgili.
Thanks for your consideration (and I hope you are well following your surgery) --Yoav Pridor16:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the article. I did some additional research, and I feel Omgili does warrant an article on Wikipedia. Also, can you please fix up the article to conform to WP:MOS and make the whole formatting similar to other articles? I can help out with this a bit, too. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk)21:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have made contact with Xiao. He left a message on the Jung Chang talk page because he said he wasn't sure where to put it on my talk page. I then moved the comments to my talk page and said he can just reply there.
However Giovanni is reverting the comments back, despite the fact I asked him to let Xiao decide whether he wants to comments to stand on the JC talk page. Can you please ask Giovanni to stop, because I want a "private" discussion with Xiao so we can resolve any differences we have. If Xiao restores his comments then that's fine, but Giovanni should not be making that decision for him. John Smith's18:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also left a message on Giovanni's talk page asking him to stop and respect my right to a discussion with Xiao, but he just deleted my comments without saying anything. I think this shows bad faith - he reverted the JC talk page afterwards so he is ignoring my reasonable requests. John Smith's18:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Xiao sent me that reply to objections Smith rasied on the articles talk page to the content of the link. He wanted to respond and didn't know how. He said I could post this to the talk page. I advised him that after his block is removed he can respond to John Smith's objections there. He did so. Xiao posted the refutation to John Smith's objections on the talk page of the article. This is where it belongs. John Smith is insisting to remove it from the talk page to his personal page, removing this important rebutal to John Smith's objections on that very talk page from the eyes of all other editors. Of import is that Xiao himself posted it to this articles talk page, correctly. If he wants to remove it and keep it only on Smith's own page, he can do so himself. John Smith says let Xiao decide, but wants to decide for him and remvove Xiao's comments. I am only restoring Xiao's edits, and Smith is removing it. So, let Xiao decide, Smith!--as you keep telling me. Stop suppressing your opponents response to your objections. If you want to move it to your talk page and have a private talk with him about it, that is fine. But do not remove his valid comments to your objections to the content of this articls dispute from that articles talk page.Giovanni3318:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I moved them to the place where he wanted them to go. I am actually quoting from his message - "I am sorry I do not know how to leave messages on your talk page. I look at your page, but cannot find any on going discussion." He was also responding to my message that said we should talk about anything he had on his mind and that he should leave a message on my talk page.
Either you're blind or you're deliberately trying to involve yourself in my affairs with other people because you don't want me to get on with them. You already tried to turn him against me by assassinating my character on his talk page and you removed a request to respect my right to talk things over with him by myself from your talk page. You should just back off. Let him decide whether he wants this statement to be on that talk page as well, or just on my talk page. John Smith's18:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. Assume good faith. I know he wanted to know how to leave message on ones personal talk page. You can show him how to do that. However, this does not mean that 1. he didn't want or intent to also leave that rebutle to your objections on that articles talk page, and 2. that it doesn't correctly belong there. If he wants to move them there, he can do so (not you)--but I will argue that since he is responding to the objections you raised to the link on the page page, that is where it belongs, and I will restore that valid response, restoring what and where Xiao correctly placed it.Giovanni3318:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assume good faith? You've said you do not assume good faith with me because you think I don't deserve it. So you cannot demand anything from me. Your childish and petty behaviour demonstrates why I cannot assume good faith on your part. Why not assume good faith on my part? Oh right, I forgot - you think yourself better than me so you don't have to. John Smith's18:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not putting words in your mouth - you said it yourself here. Also I have not bad-mouthed you on any new users' talk pages. Your actions speak for themselves. John Smith's18:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. I said no such thing. I encourage others look at that link. Your actions also speak for themselves. I know you want to bait me into another inane argument, but I'm not biting. Full fill your need for drama somwhere else, please.Giovanni3319:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You said exactly what was on that link - it is clear as day. You don't think me a "serious editor" (whilst of course you are) and thus good faith is optional. I'm not trying to bait you into anything - in fact I wish you'd push off and leave me alone to resolve things with Xiao, rather than stick your nose in where it isn't wanted. But you can't resist commenting because you enjoy trying to make life difficult for me. You can disappear whenever you want - there's nothing keeping you here other than your own desire to make trouble. John Smith's19:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be talking about yourself again, I see. As far as assuming good faith, I do assume good faith, and I ask that you do the same.Giovanni3320:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BUZZ! Wrong answer, Giovanni. You said yourself that I would only be deserving of good faith when you decided I was deserving. In the previous comment on the link I showed you said "When you do decide to be serious........THEN, you will be deserving of the asumption of good faith." So you are blatantly lying - you assume good faith when you want to, not in all cases. John Smith's20:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not wrong, as its plain but you can believe whatever you want. Please follow the advice of the other admin you contacted who said to worry about your own violations of good faith. Again, I assume good faith and ask you to do the same. This is not optional. Please stick to content issues instead of the mudslinging and accusations. If you want start acting like a serious editor, then I welcome that. I will not engage in your petty attacks and diversions. Be civil and assume good faith.Giovanni3320:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to ask as to why the Inklog page created by me was deleted a second time instead of assigining any reason or replying to the talk page of the article where I had specified rationale for the same. Even by deletion rules I suppose I should have been asked before, no message was left on my talk page either. Is this really wikipedia or a private limited company? I could understand when vandalism has to be dealt with seriously but mercillessly killing a legitimate page is attrocious, and that too without citing a proper rationale.
Why do you think the page belongs to a band of people? I came to know of Inkblogging when recently and blogged about the phenomenon here, at that time I thought about putting a wikipedia page that didn't exist. Is that a crime? Should only popular/widely known topics be listed? How did you decide the topic was not worthy? Are you a subject expert? I have been blogging since 2003 and I think I know the subject better than the so called knowall editors here.
There are notability guidelines on Wikipedia. From my research, I found no evidence that Inklog should have its own article on Wikipedia. That's the reason for my deletion. If you feel the subject is notable, then provide evidence showing reliable sources that demonstrate the notability of this new phenomenon. Know that any article on Wikipedia must meet notability guidelines, and articles are not deleted because someone arbitrarily feels it is not worthy for an article. Nishkid64 (talk)14:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know what "research" you did to reach the conclusion that the topic doesn't deserve it's own articles. What are reliable sources? Is the Main Stream Media the only reliable source? Who decides what's reliable? --Debashishc11:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retiono Virginains RfA
Hi, you know how you closed my unsuccessful RfA in January (cheers!) well could you please close User:Retiono Virginian's RfA shown here as he has been asked by multiple users to withdraw it per WP:SNOW as its clearly going to fail and I dont want him to have to go throught the sometimes nasty process of leaving a RfA until the end when it is clearly going to fail. Cheers! Tellyaddict16:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know this isn't my discussion, but I would encourage you not to close the RfA. 'Crats have been pretty insistent that they'd like to do that themselves, and I think it's only fair to let it run its course if the candidate wants it to. alphachimp16:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adminship
Hey - regarding your message at my talk page; I'm not sure if I'm going for Adminship, and at the moment I'd like to work around Wikipedia on the assumption I'm not, so I am still interested in the coaching ... if the offer still stands?
I have no real problem if you decide to semi-protect the article. I unprotected since it was a heavily watchlisted page, and I figured any vandalism in the future could easily be reverted in seconds/minutes. Nishkid64 (talk)16:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hunted Cow Studios
You just deleted Hunted Cow Studios -
It was NOT copyright as I had full permission to use what was written. Please restore the page
On your talk page above, someone has already provided ways as to how you can handle this situation. Please follow one of these methods to make the copyright acceptable for Wikipedia. Also, I contest that Hunted Cow Studios does not meet WP:CORP notability guidelines, which means an article on the subject should not be created. Nishkid64 (talk)16:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Entry deleted - HowToOpenThings
Noticed you just deleted the entry for my new company, HowToOpenThings. I checked the guidelines and thought there was nothing wrong with the entry. Could you elaborate why it was deleted and what I can do to get it back?
Thanks.
17:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)~
I deleted the article because it fails to meet WP:WEB notability policy. I did some further research, like an Alexa Web Traffic ranking test, and I found it was ranked at around 2,700,000. In contrast, many articles on websites are usually allowed when the web traffic ranking is lower than 20,000. Nishkid64 (talk)20:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~
I see. And since the website just launched last Tuesday, we'll be nowhere near a top 20K site. I'll revisit after we have more traffic. BTW, you should check out compete.com as an alternative to Alexa.
Thank you, Nishkid64, for your constructive comments in my recent RFA, which passed with 86 support, 8 oppose, and 5 neutral !votes. I will keep in mind all your suggestions and/or concerns, and will try to live up to your standards. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page, and I will respond as soon as I possibly can, without frying my brain, of course.
Thank you once more,
· AndonicOTalk
I don't want to spam Wikipedia. I want to make a Slender You page, that is all. I didnt put any keywrds in my links, i only used the company name. I put some sources, also found a news article. All i put was the company history...
Let me know if I can change some things and get a simple information page up on here.
Thanks,
BHuge
Although it doesn't read that much like an advertisement, the company clearly does not meet WP:CORP notability guidelines. Since it does not meet this, an article on the company cannot be created. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk)20:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
wtf
why did you delete my page...?
YOU DELETED ANNA MAE HILL. THIS GIRL IS A STAR ON THE RISE
i really don't appreciate it, like why you had no reason
Unremarkable people, groups, companies and websites. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web :content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject.
Okay, I understand why you deleted my page. However, I do not understand how the local sororities Alpha Xi Omicron, Gamma Kappa Pi, and Tau Phi qualify to have a Wikipedia page. If Lambda Psi Sigma does not meet the requirements, how do these organizations, and what do we need to change in order to obtain a page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lambluv36 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Disruptive as in it wastes time with people (such as myself) that see no difference between the sigs color and the color of regular text. I've seen plenty of users sign there names by just typing because they didn't know about using tildes. John Reaves(talk)21:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware that Mallanox was omniscient, but what do I know, I can't distinguish black from black. And just so you know, I hadn't planned on pursuing the issue until you made your way into the conversation. John Reaves(talk)22:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
