User talk:ArcAngel/Archive0008

September 2009

Arc Angel I am John Cohen if you check Chase Austin wikipedia it states Chase Austin is signed to me with CAVI/Macys Sponsor And he runs under my umbrella with Sk Motorsport because of Nascar points system Josh wise is recently signed to me to run in the Cup Series Check You tube you will see a recent interview with me and Chase BET John Cohen search —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.192.134.56 (talk) 07:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi John. Unfortunately having drivers signed is not enough to establish notability here. The consensus is that it takes race wins and championships to establish enough notability for inclusion into WP. I did a check on both Chase and John and I see no starts for John in 2009, while Chase has two with Trail Motorsports. ArcAngel (talk) 07:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If you look Chase has starts with me at Daytona Indy and recently at Bristol in which he had a big Crash with Kyle busch check Jayski.com or Nascar.com He will be racing this weekend at Atlanta I am the only certified Minority and the highest ranking African American in NASCAR which gives me notablity Just to own a Team in NASCAR is notability John Cohen

At Wikipedia, we look for coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Source like [1] is the type of things that we are looking for - something reliable that is independent of the subject in the article. Content from one of the driver's website is not independent. If the content were to be written in a neutral tone using reliable independent sources, I will change my opinion on the article deletion to keep. nascar.com is considered a reliable source, but jayski is probably not very reliable since he uses rumors. Royalbroil 04:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

re: John Cohen Nascar

Hi, thanks for your message :). Firstly, you should not use a PROD, as it only applies to articles, lists, and disambiguation. However, in my opinion, deletion should not be the first thing pursued in this case. Instead, consider talking to the user. It looks like they have been using the page as a sandbox to create John Cohen (NASCAR owner), using userpages for this purpose is allowed. Now if John Cohen (NASCAR owner) is deleted, the user may want to keep the content on their userpage so that they can build on it. If it is kept, they may be willing to remove it themselves. So basically, my advice is to not go for deletion yet, but explain to the user. Since you have nominated the John Cohen (NASCAR owner) page for deletion, you may also consider explaining to them how AfD works. Don't forget they put work into that article, explain to them on their talk page what your concerns are, and how to deal with them. Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I put it through AFD to get a consensus from everyone else as to what they this this person's notability is. The user actually contacted me first, but it is hard to verify his claims because there doesn't seem to be many reliable third-party sources to back up his claims. I put all my research into the AFD trying to explain my reasoning, I thought perhaps you had a better idea as I have tried to explain to the user how notability works here. ArcAngel (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Cloudscape (album)

Hi! I've removed your {{db-album}} tag from Cloudscape (album), because the A9 speedy deletion criterion only applies when the artist has no article in Wikipedia. Feel free to prod instead. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 21:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for letting me know.  :) ArcAngel (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

re: Jesse Scanzano

Hi! I can certainly see why you put the speedy tag on, so no worries there. Agreed fully that "she might make the Olympic team" is crystal balling and doesn't establish notability. I declined it because the article claims that she played for a team that was, at the time, at the highest level of the sport. At the very least, that meets the letter of WP:ATHLETE enough that I felt an AfD nomination would be preferable to speedy deletion. Given the top women's leagues in Canada are still very much semi-pro, she may or may not be notable at this point, but I think wider input would be beneficial. Cheers! Resolute 22:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. ArcAngel (talk) 22:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Hi there. I understand your issue about the notability. I will try to build it up and make it worthy of the notability. Thanks for your time Maple Leaf (talk) 12:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Invitation Songs

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Invitation Songs, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Hekerui (talk) 08:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Paul Ghalioungui

Sorry for removal of the delete tag, i thought it was OK to remove it.

As regard Dr Paul Ghalioungui, he is an international figure in the field of History of Medicine in the Ancient Egyptian and Islamic era. This is evident by the citation of his many many articles and books in many many papers and books. He was also a notable endocrinologist as witnessed by many western scientists. His researches on endocrine disorders was a very important contribution at his time, to the extent that he published his work in many international peer reviewed journals and book (e.g. WHO reports).

I wish you to give me advice on how to avoid deletion of this page as you can see i did a big effort on establishing it and on collecting the Biblography of the writings (Books and articles) of Paul Ghalioungui, which i am sure would be of benefit to many researchers in the history of medicine as no one is aware of the enormous publications of Paul Ghalioungui in many languages. Please provide advice soon.--ashashyou (talk) 09:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I've declined the deletion per CSD A7 because the article asserts importance and the speedy deletion criterion a7 only applies to articles that do not indicate why their subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Mert Gürkan Akın

thanks. Mertgurkan

Nine (9) Google hits isn't enough notability for inclusion on here, sorry. ArcAngel (talk) 11:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Brett DiBiase

I had a ref for his weight and on the Early life was from his myspace page and I wasn't sure if it was reliable that is why I didn't ref it.--Wrestling-fantic (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see this policy and this discussion. The latter especially indicates Myspace is unreliable. ArcAngel (talk) 12:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok thank you, I don't want to harm wiki so I guess I'll have to be more careful--Wrestling-fantic (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

NPWatcher

Hi, ArcAngel. I have granted you NPWatcher per your request here. After looking over a few of your contributions, your talk page, and your block log, I feel you can be trusted with the tool. If you have any questions, feel free to drop me a note on my talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Julian! ArcAngel (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Legend of the Burning Sands

When you nominate a page for speedy deletion, its always a good idea to check for article vandalism as happened here. The original article was actually under the vandalism so you might also wish to take a moment or two extra reading the page before seeking a speedy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was trying to "stay ahead" of the person doing it and didn't fully look over that particular article. ArcAngel (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I saw that they had created a couple of extra articles with the new content so I can see how you ended up tagging this. You are well ahead now though. I blocked them for spamming.. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Minethings

Yo ArcAngel, you tagged this for WP:A5. Got a link to the transwiki'd version? Btw, I declined a few of your other speedies, take a look for the rationales. Cheers,  Skomorokh  17:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood "transferred from another Wiki"? ArcAngel (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

To be honest I'm not sure if non-WMF wikis count. I'll check though, thanks for the link.  Skomorokh  17:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Reading WP:A5 again, it seems only to apply when our article is a dictionary definition or source text, or when there has been an AfD about it. I've declined the speedy request as a consequence.  Skomorokh  17:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that tells me I did misunderstand it. Thanks for letting me know. I also looked over your other declines and it seems like I have a bit more experience to gain before really grasping CSD work. ArcAngel (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries, it can take a while to get a firm understanding of the criteria (I am an administrator and I had to look this one up!). You might want to check out Wikipedia:Field guide to proper speedy deletion. Regards,  Skomorokh  17:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. ArcAngel (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Main Street Manager

I appreciate your replacing the {{prod}} on this article that the original author removed. However, the author made improvements in the article that addressed the issues in my prod posting, so I would have likely removed it myself anyway. I'm still not convinced this article should stay, but let's see how it evolves. Help me keep an eye on it. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Authors of pages, no matter how bad, are permitted to remove PRODs. It's not like an AFD, where noöne may remove it, or like a speedy, where the author may not remove it. Nyttend (talk) 02:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight guys. I automatically assumed that the article author was contesting the prod (and as they tend to do, they remove the tags), so I thought that was the case here also. ArcAngel (talk) 08:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Mian Wada

Hello ArcAngel, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I contested the speedy deletion of Mian Wada - a page you tagged - because: There's sense. Hence not nonsense. Yes, it makes my head hurt, but poorly written material is explicitly excluded from G1. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Tim Song (talk) 10:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Just goes to show that what one considers nonsense, makes sense to another. It could also be bad poetry, no?  ;) ArcAngel (talk) 10:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, to fit WP:NONSENSE you need to have either literal nonsense ("sfjkjdfh sydfhyivwbxc8iaskl;addvjuiffm") or a word salad that no reasonable person could be expected to make sense of it whatsoever ("good dream music smith kill play no yes right. make serve do read page any you inform?"). That page was neither. Tim Song (talk) 10:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Mehring Books

Thanks for your recommendations for Mehring Books and for your note about talk pages--AndreDamon (talk) 10:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

State Fair Classic

The State Fair Classic is an annual football game. I fail to see why it needs the "future sport" template NThomas (talk) 11:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Because the game doesn't happen until October, therefore at this point in time it is in the future. ArcAngel (talk) 11:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me back up for a second. That template would apply if the article had 2009 in front of it, which it doesn't, so off comes the template. ArcAngel (talk) 12:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! NThomas (talk) 07:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Media jockey

I have changed your speedy tag from G4 (repost) to G11 (advert). G4 only applies when the article has previously been deleted at AfD, not by PROD or speedy. The conditions for speedies are quite tightly drawn, and it's woth reading WP:CSD carefully; there's also good advice from a veteran admin at WP:10CSD and WP:A7M. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I will continue to bone up on this section. ArcAngel (talk) 12:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment on my talk page

You put a comment on my talk page, saying a page I have created is being speedily deleted. I did not mean to create a page, but was trying to get an IP address blocked. Have you made a mistake or did I accidently create the page? WikiWebbie (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Jacobsen Corporate Services

Hi, you added the G11 speedy to Jacobsen Corporate Services. I changed the tag to A7, which is more applicable, but the speedy has been declined. I have nominated it for deletion because I do not believe that this company passes the notability guidelines. If you would like to participate in the debate, please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacobsen Corporate Services. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Why not an account?

Oh, a lot of reasons. I'm not terribly serious, and tend to edit sporadically and minorly at best. Mostly reverting obvious vandals or whatnot, but rarely adding anything. I read a lot, but don't hardly ever touch 'edit'. And policies I hardly ever read. Some of them I'm not so good at following anyway. But more than anything...in all the years I've been lurking... I've seen some things about Wikipedia that I just can't stand. Too many flaws in the system and the execution of it that seem to be intractable. I hate signing up for things anyway, having so many deep-rooted issues with some very basic things though... makes it much harder. It seems like it's improving in some ways, but getting worse in others. I'm somewhat antisocial anyway, but seeing so many things in the community that I just can't stand makes it really hard to bring myself to sign up. -Graptor 208.102.243.30 (talk) 01:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, ok. Thanks for explaining your reasons. ArcAngel (talk) 01:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong though. I think the idea is fantastic and the potential is tremendous... It's the execution of it that bugs me. If I really completely hated the entire thing, well, I wouldn't be bothering to still be doing even minor edits 4+ years on. Heh. -Graptor 208.102.243.30 (talk) 03:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Pep/7

Hello ArcAngel, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I contested the speedy deletion of Pep/7 - a page you tagged - because: It's clearly about a software. That's quite enough context. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Tim Song (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

United Bilt Homes

Thanks for watching this so carefully. I have protected the page against recreating the article, but I'd appreciate it if you watched for attempts under a different title. You did very well to try a non-templated notice, after he ignored the templated one. I've also given a plain-language explanation of just what is wanted. BTW, it is not necessary to speedy the talk p. separately--we routinely take care of it when we delete the main page unless there's something on it that is important to preserve. DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I'm trying my best to make the article creator aware of the various policies that apply, but they seem to be ignoring it. The article has been created yet again, so perhaps maybe you didn't protect it from recreation? ArcAngel (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Protected now. I accidently clicked the box for unprotect the first time. I doubt we will get him to understand, but it might be possible. If he does remake it under another title, I shall block him. DGG ( talk ) 21:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

Chick magnet. I think you misunderstand. Articles not finished! See the construction tag? It is hoped to be more than a mere dictionary definition article so your argument can be negated. If you can find a valid reason other than that, I clearly suggested not deleting for the reason you have nominated it, I'll gladly look into those. But your nomination, in my view, was a big mistake.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 02:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I clearly don't misunderstand "slang term", which is something not allowed here. Consensus will ultimately decide, but I believe I was right to nominate the article for deletion based on that policy. ArcAngel (talk) 02:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait a second. You're not merely nominating it for the dictionary definition part, but for the "slang and usage guide" part? Well, if that's what you mean then yes, your argument have some validness. But let me assure you that "chick magnet" is a unique case as it has a strong influence of popular culture (beyond what a number of other slang words have). When I last checked the AfD, it looks like there is concensus for the article to be kept, but because I actually do trust you to be a good editor, despite your very surprising decision to nominate this article, if it is kept, I'll try not to disappoint and make sure that we can turn this article into something encyclopedic. Maybe, in a way, both of us misunderstand each other on this topic but if you still truly believe that this article should not be here, we might be able to come to some sort of compromise... Cheers--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 05:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It was actually a combo of the two. The article, as originally started, fit my definition of dictdef, but I assumed bad faith on my part when I submitted the article for deletion. I will give the article a chance to be expanded and sourced into something befitting the encyclopedia, and I will recommend a speedy keep on the AFD, and I apologize for any inconvenience. ArcAngel (talk) 06:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Umm, I suggest that you reword your closure a little bit. It looks like you are saying that your own nomination was in bad faith. Tim Song (talk) 11:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yet that's exactly what it was. I'm not going to sugar coat it, I made a mistake. I now know that I shouldn't AFD articles with underconstruction tags, lesson learned.  :) ArcAngel (talk) 11:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I compliment you sir! I wish that more wikipedians were willing to be so objective, and to consider what is best. You've truly earned my respect here. Cheers and best . ;) — Ched :  ?  12:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words mate.  :) I'm still learning here, but the one thing I try not to do anymore is be uncivil no matter how volatile the situation, and to do the right thing when warranted. ArcAngel (talk) 12:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

An honest mistake is not bad faith. Quite the contrary, it's good faith. I'll be bold and reword it. Tim Song (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep up the good work and good faith ArcAngel. You and Ched may well be the last of the just. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFA/A new name 2008

I see that you put forth a very strong argument in opposition to this RFA, then crossed it out. Can you please provide more information? I'll look for your reply here. (If this is a dumb question then please respond by e-mail instead.) Thank you. Bwrs (talk) 05:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Target Counselling Services

Hi ArcAngel,

I have already raised issue with coren. (as he was suggested on my talk page to contact, but u raised speedy deletion comment as well so i dont know who to contact.) Target Counselling Services is not a business of an individual for revenue. It helps student with talents and have no financial support etc. There are many more achievements they have made in recent years.

I am acting on behalf of Amaresh Shanker to write an article on wiki to help financially uncapable talents to know and benefit from it. (As i was one of them students, with the help of Target Counselling Services Aid i gota degree and working for one Corporation in UK.)

And the page on linkedin is the page of founder of Target Counselling Services : - Mr amaresh shanker. (I am following all the copyyright laws in this article.) http://www.linkedin.com/pub/shanker-amaresh/9/719/6b7

I was still editing the article when it was deleted. I am writing it again with proper detailed information and projects. (will its be fine to use hangon?)

I am new to wiki article writing techniques. (please advice), which is the most appropriate way to go about it.

Regards Jagjot Singh (Jagjot talk • contribs 10:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC))

Please read the policy on reliable sources as well as the neutral point of view policy. In a nutshell, all articles should have verifiable, third-party sources as well as be written as neutral in wording as possible. Since the article you wrote failed both of these criteria, the page was deleted. Moreover, Wikipedia articles cannot be direct copies of other web pages or content. You can also follow the new article wizard for assistance in the proper writing techniques so that your article doesn't look like advertising or promotion. ArcAngel (talk) 10:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your fast response. So, you mean the article page - i have create again will be deleted again even after adding hangon tag on top of my page. if yes. is there any way you wait untill i finish writing my article. What if i use the content from my own webpage to post on wiki article?(as i mentioned before the page from linkedin is my page and its not breaching any copyright information). i am going through the links you send me. hope it will do the job. Regards jag. (Jagjot talk • contribs 11:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC))

If you copy the linkdin page word for word, yes it will be deleted for copyright infringement. The hangon tag should not be used, instead use underconstruction if you need some time to get the article up to standards. ArcAngel (talk) 10:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. But its already been deleted and i dont want to get blocked. will it be alright. if i create a article with the name and add only underconstruction tag. and then work on article as per you suggested, using wizard. (Jagjot talk • contribs 11:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC))

Your best bet is to create the article in your userspace as shown at the bottom of the last page of the article wizard. ArcAngel (talk) 11:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sierra Kusterbeck

Would you considering userfying the article which you put up for deletion? The will delete it from main space completely and move it to a subpage of the creators.

The editor is a new editor, and this will give the new user a chance to rework this article and maybe wikipedia will get a longterm dedicated editor

Please let me know as soon as possible, because as soon as someone else comments on the AfD, they must agree also before I can userfy the article. Thanks for your time.Ikip (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be acceptable. ArcAngel (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

big thanks! I will do it ASAP, and get back with you. Ikip (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright. The editor should be left a note about reliable sources as they put a message on the article talk page indicating most of the info they got were from Youtube videos and fansites. ArcAngel (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I wrote the new editor a note. Thanks again. Ikip (talk) 06:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice job on: The Old Rectory , Chidham AFD I noticed how you mentioned the sources. I think you also really deserve this, which I wanted to give to you yesterday, but forgot (RAOK Barnstar). Ikip (talk) 06:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, very much appreciated! ArcAngel (talk) 06:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Your recommendation

Unfortunately I was not given the chance to contest the nomination because it was immediately deleted. Thebayof (talk) 04:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Then may I recommend that you create the article in your userspace instead, and work on it there? One thing you have to remember is that Wikipedia relies on reliable sources for notability, and the fact you provided none initially indicated that Richard Chai was not a person notable enough for inclusion into Wikipedia. ArcAngel (talk) 04:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Butter Beats

Thank you. RandomStringOfCharacters (talk) 04:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Starbuck2203

In regard to this user page, please note WP:BITE. The user had only registered her Wikipedia account seven minutes before you requested speedy deletion of her user page. I would recommend with a new user to attempt to discuss the issues on her user talk page first and see if she edits her user page accordingly. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Noted, but to me it looks like what I stated in my speedy nom. Obviously I look at things differently than some. ArcAngel (talk) 03:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this user is indeed trying to use Wikipedia as a dating site as you suggested. In fact, her user page does look like a dating site profile. But since she is new to Wikipedia, requesting speedy deletion with no notice given (either before or after the speedy deletion request) on her talk page is not the best way to stop her from doing that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I've left a note of concern on her talk page along with the relevant policy links. ArcAngel (talk) 03:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

First United Methodist Church (Woodsfield, Ohio)

Hi. I felt I had to inform you that I had to remove the address from the article per item #3 of this policy. ArcAngel (talk) 05:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I could not help but feel a bit shocked that several articles have a location address listed in the articles and why the address is removed from my article. The article you cited here stated that phone numbers, fax numbers and email are not encyclopedic, but it does not state that addresses are not encyclopedic. I would like to enquire as to why this was isolated out of the many articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwsmith84 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The policy was giving examples, but addresses also fit under this criteria. I take addresses out of articles when I notice them - I don't have a list of every article with an address, so if you see articles with addresses, can you let me know about them so the addresses can be removed? ArcAngel (talk) 06:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous users in AFDs

Hi there. I noted your discussion with an anonymous IP at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie Le, where you stated that anonymous users are ignored when closing AFDs; I don't believe that's the case, and have commented there to say so. It's only at RFA where IP contributions are ignored, because RFA is the only part of Wikipedia that's an actual vote. Robofish (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I thought it was across all levels of discussion. ArcAngel (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

RFA

If you want to run again for a successful RFA anytime soon, I would advise that you pull your RFA for now. I think that all you might get are the same old "per X" votes from now on. I am willing to close this for you if you'd like. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was planning to let it run its course and run again in about 6 months or so. However, I thought I would get more support than I have, and I see the major issue is mainly with my CSD work - so, I will put a withdrawl statement in and you can then close it from there. ArcAngel (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. I originally planned the same thing when I last ran, but I was advised against it. Consider administrator coaching once all is said and done. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that I thought that this was very well said and a wise choice on your part. With an attitude like yours and a desire to improve your work, I think that pursuing adminship in the future, should you still be inclined, would likely be more successful. Cheers to you! Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 18:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I feel good with the decision to run as now I know what I need to work on for a future run. ArcAngel (talk) 18:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Ping!

You have mail. Bad luck with the RfA, too, although I did in essence oppose it (via neutral), I feel you are on the right track and have little doubt you'll reach your goal in the future. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  18:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to respond. Much appreciated! ArcAngel (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

RFA

• As another of the RFA opposers, I just wanted to say I hope you don't take the result too personally. (I respect you for withdrawing, by the way.) I don't think you're experienced enough for adminship at the present time, but if you stay around, keep making productive edits and learn our policies a bit better, I would be happy to support you in future. Good luck. :) Robofish (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't take it personally at all. I got the information I was looking for out of it, so it can only be seen as a plus. ArcAngel (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

RfA

I just wanted to say that I really do hope that you will return to RfA later this year. You seem like a great candidate, just put a little bit of work into the areas mentioned, and I have no doubt you will pass.

Sidebar: The Patriots will run all over the Steelers during the playoffs ;) MacMed^talk_stalk 20:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

They're just not the same without Troy though.  :) ArcAngel (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notice your Rfa; I would have supported if that helps with you deciding to run again later. You did a good job of dealing with new contributors with a conflict of interest. Royalbroil 13:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll run again, for sure, but probably not until next spring. Thanks for the vote of confidence though. ArcAngel (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

ArcAngel

how did you come up with that one. Arcangel Viveros 15:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a variation from the character on the TV series Airwolf. ArcAngel (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Converted to PROD: Jino kang

Ugh, that automatic notice is useless. Simply put: it asserts significance, so it's not A7. Whether there are RSes is irrelevant to the A7 question. Tim Song (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Ack, here I thought I was getting the hang of things. So basically, if something passes A7, then CSD doesn't apply, but PROD would? That's how I understand your thought above. ArcAngel (talk) 01:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep. PROD or AfD - so people get to see it and decide if there's any potential. A7 is reserved for cases where there's no credible indication of significance whatsoever. ("John Doe is a store manager in Utopia. He sells great stuff.") Tim Song (talk) 01:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. ArcAngel (talk) 01:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

TrackMania eXchange Plausible Copyright Infringement

I tried posting this on the page's talk page, but I don't think anyone saw it, so I feel obliged to post it here:

"The TrackMania Wiki, as far as I know, was not made under any copyright and has the same policy to share information that this site has. A link pointing to the verification of TM-Wiki under the Creative Commons License: http://en.tm-wiki.org/wiki/Copyright I even made a citation at the bottom towards TM-Wiki referencing to the whole page. If I am wrong on any of this, please feel free to take this page off. Thank you for your time."

I just wanted a page dedicated to the TMX Community as they've done a lot of work to make themselves who they are today.

Plausible? Did you mean possible instead? In either case, the deciding admin who deleted the page would be who you should be directing your response to. If you think TrackMania deserves an article here, bear in mind that it cannot be a copy of any web content, otherwise CorenBot will step in and tag the page as a copyvio. ArcAngel (talk) 02:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User:CorenSearchBot can be wrong sometimes, you know...:) Tim Song (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yea, but in this particular case I think CB was spot on.  ;) ArcAngel (talk) 03:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

CSD Tagging

Care to explain this edit? I'm afraid I don't really follow your logic here. NW (Talk) 03:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it looks sort of suspicious to me, but that could be just me. Based on that logic, I could take any old image from somewhere and release it as PD. I did search for it, but was unable to find the image posted anywhere else. ArcAngel (talk) 04:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

In that case, you should list it at WP:PUI; F3 applies only to free licenses that are not considered free enough for Wikipedia. NW (Talk) 14:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for welcoming me into the admin community and for showing support! Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Shoit Neh Pig

Hi. I appreciate your dedication for the project, and your interest in patrolling Wikipedia's newest pages. However, I'd like to alert you about one of your recent taggings, Shoit Neh Pig, which you tagged for CSD G1. Unfortunately, this article does not fall under that criterion. This is because I can actually understand what the author is trying to say, and the article is not simple gibberish or incomprehensible. For example:

• If the page was kgdhggfhdgudihgdfiuhfgdiuodfgbsosgbgjbdfgijbdfgi, it could be put under CSD G1, because it's simply a random string of characters with no meaning.
• If the page was Foo bar baz the bestest baz in foo bar, it could be put under CSD G1, because no reasonable person would be able to understand that text.
• If the page, however, was Shoit-neh-pig (sh⋅ot-ney-pig) A way of greeting another person of which is of equal or higher ranks..., it could not be put under CSD G1, because I can understand what is trying to be said.

The article is most likely a hoax per this, so I decided to PROD (as non-blatant hoaxes cannot be speedily deleted). For further reference on these matters, please take a look at the field guide to proper speedy deletion, or the essay, Why I hate Speedy Deleters. You might also be interested in User:Balloonman/CSD G1 survey, an interesting sample of data from pages deleted under this criterion. Best regards, The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 05:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the prod was contested, so I AFD'd it. At 1am, anything can look like patent nonsense, ya know?  ;) ArcAngel (talk) 05:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Gaelen S's RfA

Hi, ArcAngel. Just informing you that you forgot to sign your !vote here. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 08:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. Someone has already added the unsigned template. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 12:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Lin bing

Hello ArcAngel, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I contested the speedy deletion of Lin bing - a page you tagged - because: The linked article indicates that the name was chosen after "22 million postcard-votes". Votes are evil, but that's enough indication of significance. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Tim Song (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Grrr.....yes, apparently I do still have problems. Maybe I'll keep my hands out of the CSD jar for now until I get more clued in on the process. ArcAngel (talk) 21:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

This one's actually okay - the assertion in the original article is borderline at best. The only reason I contested it is because I looked at the linked news article out of curiosity :) Tim Song (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for letting me know. ArcAngel (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Rfa

I have been trying to find pages that meet the criteria for speedy deletion and such but have been for the large part unsuccessful due to a inability to find a tool that would work in that regard. If you know where I could find such a tool that would make the job easier, I would be much obliged. Regards, Gaelen S.^{Talk • Contribs} 22:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

If I were you I'd go over to the New Page Patrol page with a fine tooth comb, making sure to understand how the process works. You could go to Special:newpages and look for CSD candidates from there. First, I recommend the following reading material: criteria for speedy deletion, field guide to proper speedy deletion, or the essay, Why I hate Speedy Deleters. You might also be interested in User:Balloonman/CSD G1 survey, an interesting sample of data from pages deleted under this criterion. ArcAngel (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that was quite helpful!

Regards, Gaelen S.^{Talk • Contribs} 22:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Blackwashing

Your serious so I won't even ask. BUt guess what. The article is going to be put on and stay on.

Is there a "whitewashing" article? Yes. And you know the COlbert bump is going to be bringing this word into Wikipedia. Delete the article. I don't care. I just had to put it on to start the ball rolling. See you in a few weeks when the Blackwashing article stays on. Toodles! --Panehesy (talk) 01:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The whitewashing you refer to is not in the same context as the article you put up. It could be seen by some (like me) as a race attack, and there is no room for that here. ArcAngel (talk) 01:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Rfa changes

I am really am not referring to myself. The only real reason I am letting my Rfa play out is because I want input on what I can change in order to be a better editor. However, I cannot seem to get the point across which is that the fact remains that we need more administrators and right now standards are too high for any significant number to be elected. This is a legitimate suggestion that has a good chance of being successful for other users in the future. Please consider it with all fairness because it truly is a good-faith suggestion that now has absolutely nothing more to do with my Rfa. - Regards, Gaelen S.^{Talk • Contribs} 07:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)