This is an archive of past discussions with User:SmileBlueJay97. 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.
Sir,
Kindly review the rejection of 'Reintjes Gearboxes'. Reintjes GmbH is a leading marine gearbox manufacturer and is well known in the field of marine equipment.Praphull lal (talk) 11:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)<www.reintjes-gears.de><www.reintjesmiddleeast.com>
Institut de Management et de Communicatin Interculturels
Hello AudioTapeGirl. I'm not very sure what you mean but your article was deleted under criteria G12 of speedy deletion. It had an unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.isit-paris.fr/-ISIT-since-1957-.html Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others. This could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt Wikipedia. If in doubt, write the content yourself, thereby creating a new copyrighted work which can be included in Wikipedia without trouble. Please read WP:COPYRIGHT for more information. SmileBlueJay97talk17:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I see. The page was created about 2 minutes ago. Perhaps, you can add an {{unreferenced}} tag instead of redirecting it? There is always the note that says This page is only 2 minutes old. Consider waiting to tag it, unless the issue is serious. on the curation tool. I apologize for not adding the references before publishing it. I will add them on now. I also should of added the {{under construction}} tag to the page.SmileBlueJay97talk17:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I knew you were an experienced contributor and that it was probably an oversight. That's why I redirected it instead of deleting it. Deb (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello SmileBlueJay97. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Nano programming, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: It may well be a neologism, or just an emergent technology, but A7 doesn't apply to technology innovations, nor can it possibly be spam as it's not advertising anything. If youo think it should be deleted, then take it to AfD. Thank you. GedUK12:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for notifying. I was going to nominate the article for Afd but it was still deleted by User:Alexf under criteria A7 of speedy deletion. The creator was also blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia for promotional purposes.SmileBlueJay97talk14:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The page is a blatant hoax. You wrote about your gaming history written in first person POV. Under the section 'Death and Afterward' you wrote 'Currently alive.' Under section 'Philosophical and political views' you wrote 'Wikipedia is not a soapbox for individuals to espouse their views. However, views held by politicians, writers, and others may be summarized in their biography only to the extent those views are covered by reliable sources that are independent of the control of the politician, writer, etc.' You also cited references as <ref>Last, first (date). [http://URL Name of page]. Page xx. Publisher: xxxx</ref>. SmileBlueJay97talk17:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello Mike Ades. I tagged the article under criteria A7 of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. The article currently fails WP:MOVIE. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (films) for guidelines on film notability. WP:TOOSOON also applies. I strongly recommend that you use Articles for Creation instead of creating a new article directly: doing so may grant more leeway with respect to various rules/policies/guidelines/best practices. Read this page for tips on starting an article. If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me here.SmileBlueJay97talk16:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Problem usernames
Hi SmileBlueJay97. Just thought I would pass along some advice about reporting usernames to WP:UAA, as was given to me a while back. If the username is very obviously a problem and the account is editing abusively (e.g. corporate username posting advertising, someone impersonating a notable person and editing their biography, etc.), report it to UAA but don't leave any warning on the user's talk page. Leaving a {{uw-coi-username}} template automatically inserts them into the UAA holding pen (WP:UAA/HP) and the admins have no choice but to grant the user a grace period and give them the opportunity to change their username. In the interim, they have more opportunity to inflict further damage.
If there is some ambiguity with the username and their edits but you still believe it violates the username policy, then the {{uw-coi-username}} template would be an appropriate notice to leave. If they look like they have a problem username but no edit history at all, the {{uw-username}} template would do. --Drm310 (talk) 17:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome. I should add that there's another instance where the {{uw-coi-username}} template is appropriate - if the user has a problem username/edits, but their edits have been in only the Articles for Creation or Draft spaces. That's considered a lesser infraction, and therefore they deserve the chance to redeem themselves with a username change.
I know it can be confusing on the interpretation and application of the username policy and its associated mechanisms. It took me a while to learn the intricacies of it all. Keep up the good work! --Drm310 (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I didn’t think tagging a page for G3 would be considered offending or namecalling as the articles do seem like hoaxes. Thank you for notifying. I understand now and will make sure to tag the articles for G2 instead in the future.SmileBlueJay97talk11:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The Soldiers' Charity
Hello,
In response to your flagging of the Soldiers' Charity wiki page, you may have seen a note contesting it from one of my colleagues here at ABF The Soldiers' Charity.
Essentially, the current wikipedia page for the Army Benevolent Fund is out of date, and so is the URL /Army_Benevolent_Fund
As we re-branded a few years ago to ABF The Soldiers' Charity, more commonly known just as The Soldiers' Charity, we felt we needed a new Wikipedia page, so that the URL is correct, hoping that /Army_Benevolent_Fund would one day just re-direct to the new page.
The page isn't being used for fundraising asks or anything like that, rather it is, with citations, explaining in a factual manner who we are and what we do as a charitable organisation. I can't seem to edit the /Army_Benevolent_Fund page either - I think it thinks I'm vandalising it! And even so, not being able to change the URL means we're still listed on Wikipedia under our old branding.
As the British Army's national charity it's important we maintain good online awareness, so I do hope our new Wikipedia entry will be allowed, and the previous /Army_Benevolent_Fund page re-directed to /wiki/The_Soldiers'_Charity
If you have any queries on any of our edits or requests, the best place to catch me on is at cmirzai@soldierscharity.org
Hello Chris Mirzai. I have removed the speedy deletion template from the article but there are still some issues in the page that needs to be fixed.
Wikipedia needs reliable, independent sources to support its content - of the references you've provided, only the bigcurry.org one could be considered to meet those criteria. All of the rest are from The Soldiers' Charity themselves, which makes them highly suspect (and look like promotion.
The article has an unclear citation style. Simply copying and pasting the URL of an online reference is not helpful in the event of linkrot. It is preferable to use proper citation templates when citing sources. See Wikipedia:Bare URLs for more information.
You have a conflict of interest to the subject. All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations.
Your current username may not comply with our username policy. Please note that you may not use a username that represents the name of a company, group, organization, product, or website.
Thanks for your quick response and for taking down the deletion template *and* adding the re-direct. I'll edit the citations and update them accordingly.
Re-write of "Dot Chinese Online" and "Dot Chinese Website" Articles
Hello SmileBlueJay97,
We contested the deletion of the articles "Dot Chinese Online" and "Dot Chinese Website" and mentioned that we would rewrite the articles. We went ahead and rewrote the articles. Let us know if we still need to make changes.
Please let me know what the solution is. i wanted this page to be live as it is important. Please point to the specific content on the page that violates the policies. I would be glad to do so. Would you like to help me out instead?. I would be thankful to you.
Hi Arun. Here's a quick review of the main issues.
An Wikipedia article should not be written in first person point of view.
Wikipedia needs reliable, independent sources to support its content. The article relies too heavily on affiliated sources, and needs third-party sources. You've also included links to external sites throughout the text, which goes against Wikipedia's external links policy. The page also has insufficient in-text citations.
You have a conflict of interest to the subject. All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations.
Try creating an article using Wikipedia:Article wizard the next time. Using Articles for Creation instead of creating a new article directly may grant more leeway with respect to various rules/policies/guidelines/best practices.
Hi Arun, Of course you can rewrite the article. I have added {{speedy deletion-author request}} tag to the article. The article should be taken down soon. Use Wikipedia:Article wizard to create your article. Your article will need to be reviewed before it goes 'live'. It will first be created as a draft stored in Articles for creation. When you finish, you'll be able to submit it to be reviewed by volunteers (you can add a message here and I'll review it for you). After a successful review, it will be moved to the article namespace. Read this page for tips on starting an article. SmileBlueJay97talk12:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I just new to wikipedia and not familiar with what can be included in an encyclopedia.
Thank you for your message,and I will be more careful in edit a page next time.
BTW:I am not completely agreed with wikipedia's A7 criterion,for it seems to differ from my view to an encyclopedia.
But every institute has its own rules,so I can perceive(I am not sure whether this word is fitted here or not,for my english is not very well) it.
--Easpillar (talk) 02:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello Easpillar. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia. Your article was deleted under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable. All article topics must also be verifiable with independent, third-party sources. The person have not yet received enough attention to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. You may also want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles in the future. Feel free to contact me here if you have any more questions. SmileBlueJay97talk02:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Your copying of plot summaries from external websites
Hey MER-C. I apologize for the copy-right. I know it's a very bad excuse but I started creating articles about dramas this month and followed the template/outline of the dramas created before. I think we have a big problem here. I just did a brief check and found that almost every single drama created has copy-right issues....(2000-2010)(2011-present). SmileBlueJay97talk04:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, this is a perennial problem. It looks like all the copyvios are fixed and you have learned from this incident, so I'm not going to take further action. If you see any editors who are repeatedly copying or faithfully translating plot summaries (be aware that copying may be from Wikipedia; sure signs of a plot summary copyvio are lack of spoilers and promotional tone) please let me know. MER-C10:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Review request for eSSL Security article
Hi SmileBluJay,
I have created an new article with the same title (essl Security).I have submitted it for the review. Can you please review it for me?.
Regards,
Arun
Hey Arun. It seems like your submission has been declined by Revent. I would have made the same decision. You still haven’t addressed the issues that we’ve discussed above. Please see the comment that I’ve added to the draft. Also please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) in the future. Thank you. SmileBlueJay97talk10:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
(nods) To show notability, you need to show that the company has received 'significant' media coverage that is over a period of time, and not all related to one specific event. This means things like newspaper, magazine, or industry journal articles that are primarily about the company, or give it several paragraphs of discussion. Things like blogs or press releases don't count, neither do entries in 'comprehensive databases' like Bloomberg, or the 'two paragraph' type of pro-forma coverage of business events such as contract signings. The article also must be primarily based upon what has been said about the company in those sources.
Also, the 'products' section you have now reads like the kind of 'this is important because of (whatever) and we offer the perfect solution' foo that is written by advertising people. Reventtalk10:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Please recover WxMEdit
This page WxMEdit should not be speedily deleted:
It was NOT promotion:
It was similar to [[Notepad++] and MadEdit, they are not promotion, nor does wxMEdit.
It was referenced in MadEdit. There need a artcle wxMEdit.
The relationship of MadEdit and wxMEdit is similar to Open Office and LibreOffice that both of them exsit.
If you can not explain I will recreate the article since there are a lot works done by me to collect and typeset. And I found you tried to delete MadEdit either, dou you have any enmity about MadEdit and it's successor?
An encyclopedic article should be about the software - it's history, significance and purpose. What you've got is largely just a list of features and updates, which make the article seem highly promotional. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. For more information please see what wikipedia is not.
Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. The tone of the article is overly flattering and does not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia needs independent, third-party sources to support its content, all the sources you've provided are from WxEdit themselves, which makes them highly suspect (and also looks like further promotion).
Please do NOT add promotional content as you did to MadEdit here. Personal opinions about how you think wxMEdit is superior to MadEdit-PV will be removed.
If you want the article restored, you should go ask Alexf or RHaworth and provide a valid reason in support of your position. Please also see WP:REFUND.
I assure you that I don't tag articles for deletion due to personal enmities. I tag them for deletion because they do not meet Wikipedia guidelines. Regarding MadEdit, this is an example of why "If article X then article Y." is fallacious. The article also has issues that needs to be fixed. Please feel free to contact me here if you have any other questions. SmileBlueJay97talk18:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
(I moved your response below)
Well, The first edition of the article I've written DID contain it's history, significance and purpose., but the bot said it was copyed from google code. OK. Then I wrote the second editon in my words, I must confess that the edition lacked significance and purpose. But the rest of the article is not the features and updates, but the description what's the difference between wxMEdit and MadEdit.
While there was a long list of features and suppored programming languages in Notepad++, I didn't mean "if article X then article Y", but is was a model, an example that a description of software had a feature list is NOT a reason to be treat as promotion.
The article I wrote did not contain any words of praise. All content were described as is. While it was common sense that a continually maintained fork had less bug and more features than the discontinued one.
The content in MadEdit was not added by me and I agreed that it should be removed. While there was no similar words in my article at all.
Explaining so much, I just intend to not be deleted thoughtlessly when reocver/repost it. If any section was not suitable enough, just delete/ rewrite the section, just like what did by User:Discospinster for MadEdit. I didn't intend to promote it, but please don't treat it was promotion every time just because other one have ever promoted it. Thanks. Nicholas martin 2013 (talk) 07:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
The bot sent you the message probably because you used copy-righted material. (See WP:COPYVIO). By this is an example of why "If article X then article Y." is fallacious. I meant that notability of one package does not automatically mean that others are notable as well. Wikipedia is not a directory of all software that can be confirmed to exist. Software that is just another entry in a crowded field will need more persuasively significant sources, of a kind that indicate that it stands out from the crowd. The main problem really isn’t that you didn’t include the significance and purpose, the tone, or that it was promotional. The main problem is that the article fails notability. There is no significant coverage found in independentreliable sources. Please see Wikipedia: Notability (software) for guidelines on software notability. If uptakes continue and coverage starts to accrue, the article can be recreated. SmileBlueJay97talk08:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Help please
Hi! If you're so inclined, I'd appreciate your wikignomeness on my user page. I want to expand the text section starting "Need a map..." and before I do that I'd like the 10 user boxes grouped into two columns of five (which will move the whole block left a bit). The text should start as far up the page as possible like yours does. The Babel stuff should ideally stay where it is over on the far right. I could probably figure out how to do this, but you seem to be much better versed in such things than I am. Feel free to decline, ask questions, tell me it's impossible, shout expletives etc. Cheers, Philg88 ♦talk16:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Blimey that was quick! Many thanks, exactly what I wanted. FWIW, re the CSD request in the preceding section, IMHO it does significantly differ from the deleted page and is not overly promotional in tone. I will leave it to a more experienced admin will know more than me to decide whether to delete or decline. That said, at first glance it's an unreferenced article and if after checking whether it has the requisite sources to meet WP:GNG and/or WP:NSOFTWARE, it's certainly a candidate for AfD. Best, Philg88 ♦talk18:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi! You're very welcome. Feel free to contact me again if you need my help on anything. I also agree that I should have checked more thoroughly before I tagged the page for deletion. My mistake. I tagged the page for G4 after I saw that it has been deleted per AfD but didn't notice that the software were different. I also tagged it for G11 after seeing the promotional sounding content that was later removed and didn't see that the development of the software has already stopped. I will be more careful in checking in the future. SmileBlueJay97talk19:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Removing the CSD tag was a good call. If you want to go for the AfD, do the WP:BEFORE and if you draw a blank, go right ahead. Check your email in five minutes, I'm about to send you a message. Cheers, Philg88 ♦talk19:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello there. I was hoping to get more information about the deletion of the EnrichLA page. It was tagged for deletion because it "seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons." What are these reasons? So we can address them. Thank you
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Vescovi until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Hey Contributorzero. Sorry for the late reply, I have been fairly preoccupied with work these few days. I tagged the article for deletion but I wasn't the one that deleted it. If you want the article restored, you should go ask Fuhghettaboutit and provide a valid reason in support of your position. CorenSearchBot performed a web search with the contents of Mohamed al-Zahawi and found that the article appears to include material copied directly from www.globaljihad.net/view_page.asp?id=2257. If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. SmileBlueJay97talk14:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
@Contributorzero: Hello Contributorzero. I have looked at the deleted content again, and again compared it to the source it was marked as a copyright violation of. It is almost entirely copied and pasted from that source and so it was properly deleted, will not be undeleted, and should not have been posted by you. You may not have been aware you could not do this but now that you do, please be very careful to respect other's copyright. Thanks.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Page marked for deletion
Hi,
You marked a page for deletion and I responded to request to change it - however, you have not responded. Can i not change this page so it can be approved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmberPT2014 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Smiley!
Thanks for letting me know my premier page was marked for deletion however I wasn't able to make the changes you suggested in time. I have done my best to make them now here and really would appreciate your input/feedback.
It is my aim to make more pages of new additions to Amsterdam's tourism scene like this to add the Amsterdam main Wiki page to make it even better for users. BECAUSE the Visitor’s Survey (2012) http://www.iamsterdam.com/amsterdam%20visitor%20survey%202012 reveals that 75% of visitors consult the internet before deciding to visit Amsterdam. :)
Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amsterfiend (talk • contribs) 10:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Garcia does not appear notable enough for her own article, but if an article gets written about TransAmerica, then a redirect to that article might be in order. Unfortunately, as of yet, no such article has been created. Also social media such as twitter, instagram, facebook and blogs are not reliable sources. SmileBlueJay97talk16:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Royal Order of the Holy Mackerel
Okay man, listen! I'm 14 years old and live in Denmark, I speak perfectly good english, but the phrase: "speedy deletion-advertising" and "speedy deletion-significance" makes no sense to me. I don't know what they mean, but I can assure you 'The Royal Order of the Holy Mackerel' is both a real and loved YouTube channel. This was going to my surprise for Douglas (the creator) and hopefully I would then become 'Member of the Month'! I have a LOT to work on that I have not yet writen (Like the Secret Oath and Membership Roster) and I would appreciate if you could explain to me what the problem is, and what I have to do to fix it! I used to write this page on another page (for YouTubers only) but their Source Mode was way to hard for me, so I changed to you and your flowless system. Please get back to me, and reconsider your choise! I am sure we can figure this out, and come to agreements. Thank you for reconsidering, -Rasmus Hartwich— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasmus Hartwich (talk • contribs) 16:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:SmileBlueJay97. 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.
