User talk:Asterixie

repost of previously deleted material GroundReport

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your article GroundReport was previously deleted according to WP:AfD, because it fails the test for notability. It also does not conform to WP:MS, which you should also study. Please see previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GroundReport. Please do not repost it until you address the concerns. Please acquaint yourself with Wikipedia policy. Again, welcome! --Bhuston 12:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of GroundReport

I've nominated GroundReport, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that GroundReport satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GroundReport (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of GroundReport during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Awyong J. M. Salleh 12:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GroundReport

Hi Asterixie. I got your email, regarding the deletion of GroundReport, which took place here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GroundReport (2nd nomination). I think the problem people had was not so much the lack of sources (as you say, there were 3, but that they were not the 'multiple, non-trivial, independant sources stated in Wikipedias attribution requirements. If you can create an article that does meet these requirements, then please, by all means, do so. You can ask at Wikipedia:Deletion review for a copy of the deleted content; this may help. Best, Neil (not Proto ►) 11:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Groundreport logo.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Groundreport logo.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 04:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Gr screenshot.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Gr screenshot.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 04:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:GR trans.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:GR trans.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:GR trans.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:GR trans.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Haot

Hello. You seem to be very familiar with Rachel Haot, and I note you have also substantially edited GroundReport. Are you Rachel? This is not a problem per se, however you've removed sourced information from an article without discussion, and while I agree that the initial wording on the paragraph was substandard (e.g., "some"), nonetheless it represents a piece of information that might be included in the article. So, I ask again - are you the subject of the bio? If so, we need to make sure that we note that in the article's talk page to ensure that we don't run into conflict of interest issues, which Wikipedia takes seriously. Thank you! §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes that is me. There were a number of factual inaccuracies that I corrected about my life, including birthplace, current occupations and engagements, where the photo was taken (which is 6 years old!), and a wide over-generalization based on a targeted, selectively reported (and highly repudiated) account from a single reporter. I am happy to discuss any concerns or explain what I corrected, please let me know. Thanks for reaching out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asterixie (talk • contribs)

Thank you! We'll leave that whole paragraph off because I just realized there's actually a second piece very similar to that one, which were addressed in some way here. It does smell like a bit of a hit piece to me, and we also have a policy that governs whether to include these types of information in articles. Those pieces by Byers are really badly written indeed. As to the rest of the information, please remember that it needs to be sourced, from reliable sources and so on. I see you participated in the deletion discussion for GroundReport so you're probably familiar with how pesky we can be about sourcing information. By the way, if you wish to upload another photograph that you'd prefer be included in the article that would be fine. I found a bunch of them in the mayor's photo feed in Flickr but I'm not sure those licenses are compatible with Wikipedia. And finally, we usually welcome new editors with these flashy templates and information bullet points, plus some cookies... however I see no one bothered to do that for you, so consider this a belated welcome, and thank you for your contributions :) §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you, I am so honored! I consider Wikipedia an incredibly important and powerful resource and it has influenced so much of my life and work. I will be sure to source more thoroughly in the future - it has been a while since I edited Wikipedia so I need to come up to speed on protocols. Thank you for your objective and rational approach to the discussion of including that article for the page. And sorry to miss my signature before - here it is: --Asterixie (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rachel Haot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fortune (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rachel Haot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rockaway. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of GroundReport for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article GroundReport is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GroundReport (3rd nomination) 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. Mar11 (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]