User talk:UsaSatsui/Archive 2

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Re: Xen: Ancient English Edition

I'm aware of the circumstances. I don't think the article is eligible for proposed deletion at this point. Spacepotato (talk) 01:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Central Market of Salamanca

Can you have another look at this article. The article reads awkwardly because I believe it is a machine assisted translation, and although the English version, at what I presume to be, the source site predates the wikipedia version, the original Spanish version there dates the 2nd to 3rd of April 2007 some two weeks earlier than the Wikipedia version.

Looking at the Spanish wikipedia version es:Mercado Central de Salamanca the earliest version dates from 10th of April, and arrives at Spanish Wikipedia fully formed. (The French versions both date from May the 11th, all three articles on all three wikipedias were created by the same user, or three users using the same name). The introduction at the source site is rather garbled and almost unreadable but the "El valor arquitectónico del Mercado." at both the Spanish Wikipedia and the source site are identical, allowing for minor evolution of the Spanish Wikipedia article due to input from other editors.

"El Mercado de Salamanca entronca en sus líneas generales con la familia de los grandes mercados, estaciones y pabellones de exposiciones de la primera arquitectura de hierro. Para la fecha en que se proyecta, la tipología de mercado que impone principalmente los Halles de Paris (1854-1866) del arquitecto Baltard, ya se había desarrollado suficientemente en España. En Madrid como los Mercado de La Cebada y de los Mostenses, construidos entre 1870 y 1875, del arquitecto Mariano Calvo y Pereira; en Barcelona con el de Born (1874-1876) del arquitecto J. Fontseré i Mestres, o el de San Antonio del arquitecto A. Rovira y Trias, aproximadamente por la misma fecha. También en otras provincias se construyen mercados de hierro coincidiendo con el crecimiento demográfico de las ciudades y por lo tanto con mayores necesidades de abastecimiento, es el caso por ejemplo de Valladolid en donde se construyen tres mercados de estas características siendo el de Portugalete (1878-1881) una expresiva muestra." version at source site 02 de abril de 2007.

"El Mercado de Salamanca entronca en sus líneas generales con la familia de los grandes mercados, estaciones y pabellones de exposiciones de la primera arquitectura de hierro. Para la fecha en que se proyecta, la tipología de mercado que impone principalmente los Halles de Paris (1854-1866) del arquitecto Baltard, ya se había desarrollado suficientemente en España. En Madrid como los Mercado de La Cebada y de los Mostenses, construidos entre 1870 y 1875, del arquitecto Mariano Calvo y Pereira; en Barcelona con el de Born (1874-1876) del arquitecto J. Fontseré i Mestres, o el de San Antonio del arquitecto A. Rovira y Trias, aproximadamente por la misma fecha. También en otras provincias se construyen mercados de hierro coincidiendo con el crecimiento demográfico de las ciudades y por lo tanto con mayores necesidades de abastecimiento, es el caso por ejemplo de Valladolid en donde se construyen tres mercados de estas características siendo el de Portugalete (1878-1881) una expresiva muestra." Spanish Wikipedia version arrives fully formed 16:40 10 abr 2007.

"The Salamanca Market rooted in its broad outlines to the family of the major markets, stations and exhibition halls of the first iron architecture. By the time it is planned, the type of market that imposes mainly Halles de Paris (1854-1866) of the architect Baltard, had already been sufficiently developed in Spain. In Madrid as the Market The Barley and Mostenses, built between 1870 and 1875, the architect Mariano Calvo and Pereira; in Barcelona with the Born (1874-1876) by architect J. I Fontseré Mestres, or San Antonio architect A. Rovira and Trias, by approximately the same date. Also in other provinces are built iron markets coinciding with the population growth of cities and therefore most in need of supply, is the case of Valladolid where he built three markets of these features being of Portugalete (1878 - 1881) an expressive sample." Google machine translation of current text at [1].

"The Market of Salamanca connects in main lines with the family of the great markets, stations and pavilions of exhibitions of the first iron architecture. For the date in which it projects, the typology of market that mainly imposes the Halls of Paris (1854-1866) of Baltard architect, already had been developed sufficiently in Spain. In Madrid like the Market of the Barley and the Mostenses, constructed between 1870 and 1875, of the architect Mariano Calvo y Pereira; in Barcelona with the one of Born (1874-1876) of architect J. Fontseré i Mestres, or the one of San Antonio of architect A. Rovira and Trias, approximately by the same date. Also, in other provinces iron markets are constructed relative to the population increase of the cities, and therefore with greater necessities of supplying. This is the case in Valladolid, where they constructed three markets of these characteristics. The Portugalete (1878-1881) is an expressive sample of this." Original en Wikipedia version May 3 2007.[[2]]

I actually now doubt that the article is an outright copyvio that I presumed (especially because of the dates of French versions). I now think that all three articles are promotional tracts written by someone associated with the market. However I have residual concerns that although not a copyvio of the english version, strictly speaking the Wikipedia versions are copyvios of the Spanish text at the market site.KTo288 (talk) 14:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree, the copyvio seems unlikely, because I think it's the same author writing the Wiki articles and the source articles. That makes it a good candidate for AFD under OR (I wouldn't try speedying it), unless you think a good article can be made from it and notability can be proven. The copyright problems of Spanish Wikipeida are Spanish Wikipeida's problem, but I suppose a copyvio tag can be added there if the source clearly predates the article, but I wouldn't bother...once again, I'm guessing the article was written by the source's author. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Christmas Jones

Why can't I restore the prod? The reason for its removal was not valid in any way by the anonymous user. Vikrant 14:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Just saw WP:PROD. the first removal of tag was vandalism. Vikrant 14:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't look like vandalism. Just because it's an anonymous editor doesn't mean their edits are less valid. They're disagreeing with you, saying they feel the subject is notable. That right there makes the deletion contested. Unless you can show that this anon has a history of removing prods to disrupt things(I checked the contribs, they don't), the prod should be removed and the article should go to AFD. In fact, I just did that. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christmas Jones. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of PRODs

I noticed you removed the PROD tags from the user pages of Slimjew (talk · contribs) and Katilutz (talk · contribs). I added these tags not because there was anything objectionable, but because the page was (I believe), as you will find if you check the page histories, were created accidentally by another user attempting to warn them. The users they are for have never edited them, and don't appear to have any intention of doing so. I even considered requesting speedy deletion of them, as making a case for that is not unarguable. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, I would give them some time. Myself, it took me over a year before I had anything more than a sentence on my page. As long as there's nothing against the rules going on, I say let the user decide what he wants or doesn't want on his page. I don't think "blank" is a good deletion reason. As for the warning, I say just remove it if it bothers you. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    • My primary concern here is that the current set-up which was left by another user may mean people that leave a message to the user may do so on the user page rather than on the user talk page, which can cause them to miss a message. Deletion would leave no prejudice to-wards re-creation by the users they are for. However as a compromise, I will blank both pages and leave it to the users to decide what to do with them. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Db-bio and Twinkle re: CSD A7

Hello, UsaSatsui ... Please contibute your 2¢ worth at this thread on the Twinkle discussion page ... Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 18:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


Kaltura

Per your suggestion in the deletion review for Kaltura, I have created a new page in draft mode and would like for you to review it in order to hopefully reopen the article "Kaltura" for creation and editing. Please review the draft I created User:Lishkee/Kaltura and let me know. Thank you.Lishkee (talk) 10:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

More on Kaltura and thanks

Thanks for all of the feedback and help on this. I will go in and make quite a few changes based on your input. I do work at the company and didn't think I was hiding it in any way, but I'm happy to be upfront about it and appreciate the comment. In any case, I'll go back into the draft article and try to make the wording even more neutral. The point of the article is really not for advertising, but to be included in Wikipedia as a reliable source of information. So - I'll make those changes, and would love if you could take another look and also let me know how we can go ahead and get this posted as a real article. Thanks again and Happy New Year. Lisa Lishkee (talk) 09:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I've updated the draft, please take a look and let me know how I should proceed. Thanks! Lishkee (talk) 10:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Looks good to me. I think it needs a little more work, mostly on minor stuff (organizing sources and the like) but it at least looks like a viable article now. I'll do something with it later on (if my wife doesn't steal the computer from me all night). What I would do at this point is get at least another opinion besides mine, preferably one of the admins involved (I noticed you contacted at least one). Then, request undeletion at DRV again, with a link to the draft, and see what consensus is. If it's OK, then it will be moved from your userspace into the main space, and the page unprotected. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Signshare

Thank you I appreciate what you did. You are the only friend I have on this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Signshare (talk • contribs) 21:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

  • No worries. I do suggest that you read the sourcing guidelines. The album will eventually have enough info to be verifiable, and then the article can be recreated (generally, I'd go with when the album has a name. In that case, redirect the page to the name of the album), you'll need those guidelines when you do. It's also a pretty weak redirect, but I think it should work for now, there's no real harm in it. And please lay off the personal attacks on others. They're just doing what they think is best too. --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For simply doing the next step and WP:AGF. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC) (a.k.a. BQZip01)

bios and a7

ANY assertion or indication of notabiliity or importance, no matter how minor, passes speedy. If you think it is insufficient, use WP:PROD or AFD. DGG (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Is this in reference to here or here? If the former, it's just proposed new wording, debate as you will, I don't expect it to be adopted anyways. If the latter...well, I don't see any indication of notability there, and I don't consider "committed a crime" one. I do see assertion of notability for people who aren't the subject of the article, though. Unless I'm missing something? --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you a sockpuppet of Cumulus Clouds?

You seem to be following him all over Wiki of late to "second" every poor choice he has made. Did you not even notice nor care that without waiting for consensus he de-constructs articles he claims as non-notable to thus make them non-notable? He did this same thing on the Paris Hilton page when he used his personal opinion to tag a set of cohesive, inter-related facts as "trivia" and then without consensus de-constructed the section to turn it into the trivia he claimed it was. Yes... yes... yes... stuff put up by sockpuppets... but he was unaware of that at the time. Their deeds were not discovered until after his de-constructions. They were wrong to do what they did, yes... but their being wrong does not make him automatically right. Cumulus Clouds has been acting in bad faith long before the first of these puppets made any contribution to any Wiki pages. So if you are his puppet, or have been acting as his puppet, I would ask that you cease. He has already shown that puppetry is wrong... but his bullying others to make his opinion appear as fact is equally wrong. He is using Wiki to create his own reality. Your own past actions appear to be above-board and true to the spirit of Wiki... but this person is just plain wrong and detrimental to everything Wiki claims/hopes/wishes to be... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.60.251 (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Sheesh, apparently I'm a sockpuppet of everyone this week. Anyways, let me explain. I check the WP:PRODSUM list daily, or close to it. At the bottom, it shows prods whose dates don't match up, this is a good way to find prod tags that have been removed and re-added (you still need to check, sometimes the mismatch is from something else, like a page move or a blank). The articles in question had the prods removed by a sockpuppet of a blocked user while the user was blocked (I did check), and blocked users are not allowed to edit, so I considered the prod removals voided. I also happened to agree with those prods, so I added a prod2 to them. I admit, however, I did not go back into the history to find out if he had pruned the article beforehand. Anyways, in short, I don't necessarily support him or what he's doing (and I am certainly not him), I just found the stuff while doing maintenance and...there you go. --UsaSatsui (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


My most sincere and humble apologies. I appreciate your insights and courtesy. Your professional demeanor has done much to molify. I did not mean to burden your talk page, but I am new here and thought I had to respond at those places where I felt I was being abused. I ask that you visit my talk page and make comment or invite me back here to do so. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

  • No problem. If you ever have any questions, I'll do what I can. Two things I can help you with now, though. First...yes, we are acronym-heavy around here. It's a bad habit, expecially when we're yelling at new people about OR and COI and other arcane stuff. If you don't know what those things mean, just ask, or generally, you can search for WP:ACRONYM, for example, WP:NPOV. That should direct you to what police or guideline someone is referring to (the ones above are "Original Research" "Conflict of Interest", and "Neutral Point of View".)
  • Second, I'm under the impression you want your article deleted now? I don't think that's possible. It's one of the downsides of having an article created. Once you make it, you don't own it anymore. All biographical articles must follow this policy, but if it's determined that you're notable enough for an article (and discussion here shows it's likely), there's not much you can do besides keep an eye on it to make sure it's accurate. You're not the first, and won't be the last, who got a bit more than they bargained for with a wiki article.
  • However, you said in your talk page post that there was personal information there? That's not right. Things like home addresses, phone numbers, and pretty much anything that's an invasion of privacy or your family's privacy should not be posted (your website, however, is fair game). If someone has posted any of that stuff, please let me know where it is, I will see what I can do to help you remove it. Things like that are some of the few things that can be permanently removed from the site.--UsaSatsui (talk) 05:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


As far as being acronym-heavy, you folks make the governments look like rank beginners. Wiki is not exactly the easiset place to figure out. You guys ought to have a mini-wiki just to educate in simple terms the ins and outs of the big wiki. You guys must have the strangest dreams and nightamres after a long day.

As for the article about me... well, the events of this last week had made me sick to death of Wiki, angry in the extreme, and so tired of the controversy that yes, I was of the opinion that it would be the best all around if it were gone entirely. With the help of cooler heads I have calmed. In reading the page on AfD, I realized that there were actually wiki-ites out there that had heard of me... that watch TV once in a while... that actually have lives away from their keyboards. Their support made me feel pretty good and helped my reaching a state of calm. I will not lobby for the removal of the article. If it stays, fine. If it goes, fine. I wish to clarify that there was never personal information in the article itself, beyond the life/career/backgound kind of thing. The personal information to which you refer had been placed on my talk page (early version) and I had the entire page wiped through an email request to Wiki Oversite. It had to be removed as quickly as possible. I did not/do not know if there was/is another way to have gotten it removed without drawing even more attention to its existance.

I do have a question, that I do not wish to sound dumb... as what I know of the Wiki world is but a drop in the ocean... and I do not want this question to be seen as contentious or controversial or rancourous... and if I am incorrect in my thoughts, I would hope you will tell me gently...

It has to do with the article in question. It is now at Afd. When it was first tagged as non-notable, it contained a lot of stuff about me... promotional or not, none of it was untrue and as far as I have been able to research, most of it was sourced properly. Call it article "A". Okay... I can understand how an article can be thought non-notable and then go to AfD. That happened to our article "A". However, and even though it is presumed that article "A" is in AfD, the one in there is actually article "D" or "E" or "F". Let me explain. I have studied the history of article "A" after it went to AfD. Over the last few days the article "A", sitting over at the article "A" page has been chopped and edited so severly that I barely recognize it as being one of me. Every relevent external link has been removed... everything that was up about my life and career has been removed... every piece of my film career has been removed... and there is only a couple sentences left about a time I spent as a model for a painting show. If I were to see that for the first time I would not even recognize that it was about me. My impression, and please correct me if I an error, is that on the AfD page, when an editor wishes to comment they will click the link at take a look at whatever is being proposed. They will often them make a call based upon what they see there. I may be wrong, but these seems logivcal. When following the history of "A" on the AfD page, I have seen how an editor might vote "keep, the guy was on Kimmel" or "keep, the man has a 100 projects on IMDB". But when going back to the "A" page, I see that the same editor who called it non-notable has removed that information about the Kimmel show... or the list and references to the IMDB success. I have watched with raised eyebrows as someone says something supportive, and then seen that editor removes that supportive evidence from the article. At first I thought the editor might have been jumping the gun after proposing it for deletion, by his deleting it just a little as a time. But it seems that he is simply making sure that any evidence that supporters of "A" feel make "A" notable are removed.. thus ensuring that "A" be declared non-notable... or if not, then what remains is less than a hollow mockery.. it is an insult. His actions are so amazingly blatant that I have to ask a question.... and sorry about the long set up... My question: Is this removal of evidence and information, to turn an article into whatever you at first claim it to be, the proper procedure at AfD?"

Oh yeah.. as second real quick question: If the article were to remain on Wiki, would it be the original article "A", or the stripped down and insulting article "E"? As the subject of the article I am not in any position to return information and Article "E" would be an affront.

Thanks and sorry to be so windy. I'm sure that someone better versed would have simply written a halfdozen glyphs and you would have known exactly what they were asking. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

    • An answer: The criteria for inclusion on Wikipeida is reliable sources. In short, that means that the statements in articles must be backed up by a peer-reviewed or fact-checked source, like a newspaper, book, or a popular website. IMDB is usually not considered a reliable source under these guidelines, since anyone can create info on the page, but it's often used to gather info that is cross-checked elsewhere. A lot of your sources seem OK at first glance, but when checked, you need to make sure they're about you or something that supports the article, not just a passing mention.
    • Remember that anyone can edit Wikipedia pretty much any time. Other people do as well, and in AFD discussions, smart people will check older versions of the page first...yep, in case you didn't know, every version of a page is saved (usually). I reverted CumulousClouds's changes, they didn't seem appropriate. So, in short, people in an AFD are seeing page "E", but will also see "A", "B", "C", and "D" too, and use that in their decision.
    • Don't forget you can edit your own article, just make sure you follow the guidelines at WP:COI, which explains how to avoid conflicts of interest. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


???? My eyebrows went waaaaaaaay up when I read that I might (albeit within tight guidelines) be allowed to edit informations on a page about myself. I am doing a lot of reading in my small pieces of free time, in order to give myself a better understanding of this strange world here... and I can see the fascination it holds for so many... however, I continue to be very concerned about the promise of continued rancor should I ever try to edit something about me. Please read my response on the AfD talk page and either comment there or back here. You have done much to answer many concerns, and I appreciate your calm. You may even smile at my inclusion of a touch of irony I discovered in my reading. Thank you, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

    • I returned from a location shoot and discovered that the still image of me (Image:Michael_Q._Schmidt_at_wrap_party_for_Yesterday_Was_A_Lie.jpg) was deleted by User talk:Nv8200p. This is the image that had been nominated to IFD as uploaded by a sockpuppet and as a "copyright violation". I answered that nomination in great detail, proving the allegations as incorrect... no need to recount here. But it was deleted anyways. What gives? Is there a way to return it? Or is there a way I could re-upload it without invoking a shout of COI? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

And in more news.... please refer to the talk page about the article about me. More information is being deleted in Cumulus Clouds continued bad faith effort to ensure my being non-notable... following up on his promise to keep chopping the article apart. He knows that if I were to attempt any revert, it would be ammunition for him to claim COI. I am learning more each time I log in... but I an still too much of a newbie. Even the picture of me that was there was deleted though it was properly uploaded and cited. Do I have any recourse to being picked apart this way? Thanks. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Nothing CC did in the past few edits seems bad. I was going to trim out that filmography anyways, it was way too long. I would suggest picking your most notable roles (maybe 8 or 10) and listing those. As for the picture...It looks like they were deleted due to copyright concerns...did you license the image under GFDL or another compatible license? I don't think it was. If it was, I don't think it would have been deleted. Ask the deleting admin what the issue was, explain that you hold the license and want to give permission to use it, and he'll help you out with what to do from there. To be honest, though, I'm sort of a novice with images myself (only have uploaded 2, and I'm not sure I licensed one of them properly...it might get deleted itself).

I posted a question/comment on the talk page of Nv8200p explaining a bit about my quandary. He graciously returned the image. Should I go to that image's page and redefine that it was of me, created and cropped by me, that I own the copyright, and that it is up with my explicit permission? Or is its return from IfD enough? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image:SteveVaught.jpg

Hi! As Steve Vaught is a living person, non-free images used solely to depict them are generally unacceptable (see WP:NFC, "unacceptable uses"). You might have better luck trying to get the copyright holder of that image to release it under a free license - something I've had success with. There's a guide here on requesting permission, don't hesitate to ask me if you need help. east.718 at 00:35, January 20, 2008

MfD Again (You voted before)

AfD nomination of Nowell Khosla

An article that you have been involved in editing, Nowell Khosla, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nowell Khosla. Thank you. Panesarisking (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Mrbrownshoes

When a user is blocked like that (as a vandalism-only account), it's standard practise to add their user and user talk pages to the "Temporary Wikipedian userpages" category which are generally deleted about a month after they've been blocked. Looks like this one was not added to this category for some reason, and was just forgotten about, which is why I put the prod tag on it.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

BTTF DRV

It may be that your comment in this DRV was based on the first AFD rather than the second. Please review the second AFD if that's the case to see if your opinion is any different. Thanks. Otto4711 (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Beckermonds

An article that you have been involved in editing, Beckermonds, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beckermonds. Thank you. Pmedema (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you.*...um...I didn't. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

    • Oh. I removed the notability tag. There's no question of whether or not it meets the notability guidelines. So the tag shouldn't be there. That's not a deletion tag. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

My bad. Sorry --Pmedema (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Donk?

A very good fellow has just done what I recommended would happen if we kept Donk, and added sources all over the place. I would ask that you change your vote before it gets deleted by error. Cheers.JJJ999 (talk) 02:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm not changing anything until I get a chance to check those sources out...and that will be tough since they're all in Sweedish (and work pressures are tough for the next couple days). I think I'm gonna ask for a relisting, though. --UsaSatsui (talk) 14:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • And just a question, how'd you know the "Usa" meant "Usagi"? You're the first person to get that. Like, ever. --UsaSatsui (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Necromanteion

I don't get this: [3]. The article was prod'ed for being a copyvio, but the copyvio was introduced only in a recent edit, and I have reverted to a previous version. Perhaps you want WP:SELDEL to be applied here? Tizio 17:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

But he is a gleefully self-admitted racist (OK, he calls it "racialist")!

The distinction between the two terms is a false one. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed article deletion process

Hi, I note you commented that the proposal tag I added to Hydroxyzine/reference table had been contested and therefore should not have been readded by another editor after an anon had removed it. However the proposal notice does state "it helps to explain why you object to the deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page." and whilst I agree that the direction is softly worded, does an anon's removal without any edit summary([4]) really count as "Prod is contested".

Whilst this is not the place to debate a page deletion, that page has problems of content (informastion level well beyond that for an encyclopedia, but quite suitable in a technical manual) and also seems constructed as a subpage which is not permitted (see WP:SUBPAGE#Disallowed uses 3rd point).

So I seek you view re whether any Proposed deletion tag removal constitutes a contestation. If so, I'll happily proceed via more formal Afd :-) David Ruben Talk 23:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I operate under the view (which is supported by the WP:PROD page) that by removing the tag, you are contesting the deletion. The tag itself says to remove it if you disagree with it. PROD operates on the idea that a deletion is completely, 100% supported by everyone, therefore there doesn't need to be a discussion on it. Allowing removed prods to be re-added compromises that, so you should always err on the side of assuming it's disputed.
The exceptions are blatant vandals (those with a string of edits that are nothing but vandalism, removals that claim they're not contesting the prod, or prod removals) and banned users, including socks (they don't have a right to edit anything). But otherwise, I believe it should go to AFD.
That said, in my eyes, this article isn't exactly a cut-and-dry delete (but it should probably be moved so it's not a subpage or megred back into the main article), so I think it should go to AFD regardless. --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Gnu distribution, without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. What is affressed? And where was this prod contested? ~~ [Jam][talk] 21:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Do I have to really explain this? The guy removed the prod. That's contesting it. Oh, and "affressed" is a typo for "addressed". And don't template me. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Surely a contested prod needs to be discussed - it can't just be deleted without actually improving the article. Thanks for the clarification on the typo, but I still don't think that the prod has been addressed (it is still a POV fork of the Linux distribution article). ~~ [Jam][talk] 17:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Is it still? If so, the author changed it from an obviously POV article to one that's not so obvious. It does appear they made a good-faith effort to improve it. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Yep, it is still pretty much a POV fork (and not even a fork - it has substantially less content than the Linux distribution page). The author is pretty well known on Talk:Linux for their rather extreme POV on Linux and GNU, hence their creation of this page. ~~ [Jam][talk] 20:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Need help

I need help in nominating those for deletion, as an insider in TN, it is blatantly racist and made of ZERO factual content. Please advise as to how to take it fwd and nominate it for a deletion discussion. Thanks Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 04:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

  • The directions are at WP:AFD, specifically here. Just follow the steps as they come, and make sure you give a rationale for the deletion. "Blatantly racist" isn't a good argument to use, but read the neutral point of view policy, an article that can never be neutral can be deleted. Being a hoax is also a reason for deletion. If you still need some help, I'll list the articles for you next time I'm online (I do not have the time right now). --UsaSatsui (talk) 05:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the clarification. Those articles fall under the type 'can never be neutral' for several reasons. Firstly, it is written by a team of people running a caste-based political party. Check the edit history, it is just a series of related IPs which have had block history doing all this. Also, as an 'insider' and a non-ideological user I know that it is sheer crap. I would appreciate if you could nominate it for AfD, if you find it suitable. Thanks. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 23:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Userbox

Can you please adjust the tag for Userbox? It states that the current version is "substantially identical to the deleted version" - which it is not. Thanks, Kingturtle (talk) 12:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Transwiki template

For future reference, to prod a transwiki'd definition, use {{subst:transwiki|Wiktionary|{{subst:PAGENAME}}}}. --Closedmouth (talk) 06:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh, yes, nice and simple. You're welcome. --Closedmouth (talk) 07:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi...can you tell me what is objectionable about adding a link for the air taxi service to these islands? I understood removing mention in the article summary, but there are other area businesses whose links are allowed, so why not PIA's?

Thanks,

Ted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tstrout (talk • contribs) 12:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Because the article is not about air taxi services to the islands. The external link isn't a source or a place to find more info about Vinalhaven, etc...it directs people to a business in hopes that they will use it. That's advertising. --UsaSatsui (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine. I confess I'm still confused as to why a link to a business like the Nebo Lodge on North Haven is allowed, but a link to the air taxi service that takes the Lodge's guests across isn't. I guess Wikipedia works in mysterious ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tstrout (talk • contribs) 19:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

  • It's not. I removed it. Feel free to remove any spam links you find, but make sure they're not related to the article (for example, the Town's website or school website is probably related).--UsaSatsui (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

prod on SNUPY Awards

Hello,

I didn't place the prod on SNUPY Awards. However, I readded it because it was deleted one day after it was placed, with no significant editing of the article, no edit summary, and no comments on the talk page whatsoever (the Talk Page doesn't even exist as of 04:14, Wednesday, January 8, 2025 (UTC)) as to why it was removed or why the prod was objected. Furthermore, it was removed by an anonymous IP along with the maintenance tags. --W2bh (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I know. And I think I see what you're getting at. But prods that have been removed from an article are considered contesting it, and therefore should not be re-added, unless the prod removal was clearly vandalism or a mistake. Read WP:PROD (and yes, I know it says an explanation should be left as to why. It should. It doesn't make the prod removal any less valid). --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Your inconvenient edit on Holger's biography page

I don't think you understand why user DGG deleted my prod. He didn't contend the user was NOTABLE, he merely took it off because, naturally, you don't have to be notable in the USA to be in WP English. That's what he said, and I got that, did you? I contend that Holger L. is not notable (anywhere) to have his own bio page here at WP, and in effect, the article page is nothing but a vanity page to promote his websites. The user who created this page had a sole purpose and he was from Denmark. That's not a good sign. So, are you claiming hereby that the subject is notable, and therefore you object to Prod it?Jrod2 (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"Bulgarian Human Rights in Macedonia"

Excuse me, what do you mean by "OK, take this to AfD now"? [5] The sole person who has been repeatedly removing the Prod tag is a banned sock; his opinion doesn't count. Do you yourself wish to challenge the Prod, or was this just a procedural issue? If the latter, the Prod is still valid and running (due today, actually). Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for Mediation?

Hello - you participated in Gavin.collins' Request for Comment, so I am alerting you that we are preparing a Request for Mediation regarding him. BOZ (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am alerting you that we are now considering a Request for Arbitration regarding him as an alternative to mediation, and would like your opinion on the matter. BOZ (talk) 13:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

redirect speedy criteria

Thanks for making this edit. I never thought to check to see if there were criteria for speedy deletion of redirects.--Rockfang (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Yep. they're pretty rare, though: redirects that point to a nonexistent page, redirects to user or talk from namespace, and implausible typos...plus any of the GX criteria. For the record, though, you used Prod on the redirect. Prod isn't used on redirects. If you want to delete a redirect, use RFD. --UsaSatsui (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again. :) Didn't know about not using prod for redirects. Learning something new everyday.--Rockfang (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of British Rail Class 37, 37427

An article that you have been involved in editing, British Rail Class 37, 37427, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Rail Class 37, 37427. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Eastmain (talk) 00:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

re: Magic

Okay, no problem, sorry, I'm still getting the hang of things here and DRV is really new to me. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 16:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Narutards