Jump to content

User talk:Blanchardb/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (television)

{{rfctag}}

What should our policy be on articles that contain lists related to television? You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists (television). Taric25 (talk) 06:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

Speedy deletion declined: Calendars.com

Hello Blanchardb. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Calendars.com, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. According to the article, the store has the "largest inventory". Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

That's on the grounds of stuff added after tagging, but I still believe it won't survive an AfD, which I've initiated here. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Good idea. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

RE: Bartab Article Pending Speedy Deletion

Blanchardb,

I am currently in the process of removing any promotional material while adding more encyclopedic value to the bartab entry. Please allow me to finish my editing today before speedy deletion.

Thank you,

Nate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natejp24 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Update: Blanchardb,

I just saved the new version of the article. Please let me know if you think it is wiki worthy.

Thank you,

Nate

Natejp24 (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

your mean man

I've looked through your articles and found you just like deleting stuff, I find the technical aspect of theatre interesting just thought the world may do too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lutheaus (talk • contribs) 21:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Jeff Horowitz AFD

That sounds like a medical qualification, doesn't it? "Hi, I'm Jeff Horowitz, AFD, FRCS, and your health is my concern." Ahem. Where was I... Thanks for the courteous heads-up on the second AFD, but please note that on the user talk pages you've linked to the first nomination, not the new second one at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Horowitz (2nd nomination). It's best for me not to edit other editor's comments on talk pages, so rather than fix it myself, for your convenience you also notified User talk:Actioneditor and User talk:Magnius. Thanks, Empty Buffer (talk) 07:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've fixed the notifications. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 12:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

DJ Froggy

Hi, just a quick note to let you know that you declined the speedy request of this page because it passes A7, but I submitted it under G11; there seems to be many WP:NPOV issues with the article and would require a fundamental rewrite to be encyclopaedic. Granted there have been several edits since then; I will look again and see if it still meets G11. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. Two things, however. First, in a failed RfA three months ago, I've learned that many editors would prefer, in such a case, to see the article reduced to a stub rather than deleted. Second, I don't see that the current version of the article is promotional enough to consider invoking G11. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply; the author seems to have removed a substantial amount of the puffery since I first filed the speedy after I advised him to look at WP:NPOV. I'll probably leave him to it for a while, he seems to be making decent progress on bringing the article up to standard. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

About TeSSH page pending deletion

Please explain why you have marked the TeSSH page for speedy deletion. When you marked it with the Notability question I removed the "dated prod" marker and provided the explanation in my Edit Summary as requested. So I still do not understand the issue you are concerned about. When I was editing the Comparison of SSH clients page to add the information for TeSSH I saw that most of the other clients listed there also have their own Wikipedia page to give more details. I fail to see how the TeSSH page notability is any different than any of the other client pages linked to the Comparison chart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpotter27 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Our definition of notability means that either this list of search results or this one contain relevant results. No more, no less. It has nothing to do with the quality of the software, it has to do with whether reliable sources have acknowledged that it is worth looking into, and I see no such evidence.
Remember that notability, by definition, cannot be self-proclaimed. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Also, there is not a single topic on Wikipedia that owns any Wikipedia page, even about themselves. See WP:OWN and WP:COI. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I posted over on the deletion page which is probably a better place for this discussion. I understand the notability definitions but claim that using your standard would cause most of the other pages linked to Comparison of SSH clients to also be deleted. Feel free to mark those other pages as "not notable" as well, but I still fail to see how the TeSSH page is any different.Mpotter27 (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Arguement Help

Help- Im in an arguement (kind of) and would like your imput on the article Save the date (event planning company) I nominated for deletion Thanks

Battleaxe9872 22:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

A Thousand Suns

Just to bring to your attention, as I was one of the original persons who pushed for A Thousand Suns to be deleted the first time around, at the time we did push for its deletion based on the fact that there was absolutely nothing verifiable about the album. Everything was all fan-produced speculation. Honestly, the AfD wasn't even necessary. As you can see from it, there was absolutely nothing controversial about the deletion. I rarely ever see an AfD come to an absolutely unanimous consensus. But this time around, a verifiable - the band themselves on their official website - source has been produced and therefore the page, in it's present form, is now valid. Just saw that you had posted a CSD notification because it was recently deleted and wanted to bring it to your attention, that's all. Have a good day :) ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 22:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed that. When I came across the article, it was unreferenced and the old AfD was just a few hours old. However, the concern had been addressed to my satisfaction before you notified me, and that's why I took no further action. I'm gonna count that one in my personal statistics as a self-revert. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Notion (magazine)

The creator of the page just removed your PROD without leaving an explanation... This is just an FYI, if you want to take it to AFD. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 16:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, for having bothered you; it appears that Cobaltbluetony has just done that. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 16:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Biological wikis

Could you please reconsider you deletion nomination since the page does include a number of other existing pages, PDBWiki, NeuroLex, MetaBase, SNPedia and others? At the very least, this is not a speedy deletion. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I see that you're an experienced editor. Wouldn't a category be more appropriate? In any case, it would be easier to handle. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
We have articles about some of them, but do not have articles about others (although some of them deserve a separate article and others are good resources). I believe the best way would be to have a list for now and improve.Biophys (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
BTW, I saw recently a few articles that may need your attention: Docking Server, Secondary hydrogen bond and Tertiary hydrogen bond (I left some notes at article talk pages). Although nicely illustrated, they create non-existent terminology and supported by a single self-citation, obviously, to a paper by user Bikadi.Biophys (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I Hate you, Dad

Would you have called it an obvious hoax if there hadn't been any external links at all? For all I know, it could have been a mistake by the article creator, such as a copy/paste error; I've made plenty of those myself. Nyttend (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that one must look into the references to see that they are totally unrelated, I have a feeling that the deception, once exposed, will cause the AfD to be closed as a G3 delete. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Leave my page alone

SECONDS after my U.I.C. page was started, you proposed it for speedy deletion WHILE I WAS ADDING REFERENCES! And to top it off, you still tell me that you want to have it deleted while I'm adding the references cause they're not good for Your Majesty... That's totally ridiculous. Why do you keep on ruining other people's work when you clearly don't know a think about garage rock and punk rock? Why don't you leave my page alone instead of trying to ruin my work? I DON'T WANT YOU ON MY PAGES ANYMORE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terveetkadet (talk • contribs) 17:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You should read this tidbit posted below every Wikipedia edit window: If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. This said, by posting your article, you have irrevocably granted me and everyone else the right to edit it or nominate it for deletion. Please read WP:OWN. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Wanna know something? I don't care about your "tidbits", don't care about WP:OWN and don't care about you!!! Terveetkadet (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

"Interesting" lawsuit in the US

Greetings,

I came across this document which refers to a lawsuit against the DHS. In one paragraph, it contains the following text:

Further, during his investigation, petitioner was contacted by an individual going by the name Blanchardb who is located in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. (See Plaintiff's Exhibits A & B, attached hereto and incorporated herein.) Said Blanchardb shut plaintiff out of all of the several programs of the Foundation, ending petitioner's ability to further investigate the Foundation.

Do you happen to know the username or IP address of the person you blocked? From the information in this lawsuit, I appears your decision was correct, btw. :) -- Mathias Schindler (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found it -- Mathias Schindler (talk) 12:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
This was posted in a newsgroup. In the US, an attorney can get disbarred just for accepting a case like this. Furthermore, given the plaintiff's history, it is likely that he'll be forced to pay Wikipedia's legal bills in advance or else the courts will just refuse to hear the case. I wouldn't worry about it. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
No lawyer was involved and the case was dismissed. I doubt that Wikimedia had any expenses in this case and I do not know if DHS is going to send a bill to him. -- Mathias Schindler (talk) 06:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I like your persistence

I really do. This time I disagree, but we will see what happens. :) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

adding a wiki page about a company

Hello, I'm trying to make a page for OriginOil but no matter what I put, the page gets tagged for deletion. I don't get it, since here are a few examples of company pages that exist on Wikipedia, which read to me no less or no more like promotional pieces as you say my OriginOil page does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapphire_Energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PetroSun http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe%27s_Stone_Crab http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baskin_Robbins

What is it about these pages that make them okay for wikipedia, but other company pages (namely the one I'm trying to create) that break the rules? Do you need news citations about OriginOil? There are plenty. I thought you wanted impartial references; impartial means to me that OriginOil would not be mentioned but related technology would be.

Thanks in advance for clarifying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cre8factory (talk • contribs) 22:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The "impartial references" you added are not about OriginOil at all. They are about the problems that led to the creation of OriginOil. There's a world of difference. What we need is for you to show that OriginOil meets our notability guidelines, and that means more than merely showing that the company attempts to be a solution to a major problem. That means, in your case, showing that your company is already recognized by independent reliable sources as being a solution to the problem it intends to fight.
Notability, not mere existence, is the make-or-break inclusion criterion for all topics, and notability, by definition, cannot be self-proclaimed. You can't just say, here's a notable problem, and we're the solution. When you do that, you must show that the solution itself is notable. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
What we mean by "independent reliable sources" is this: the sources must be about OriginOil, must be more than mere mentions (non-trivial), must be written by people unrelated to the company (independent), and must be reliable. That means blogs and press releases are out. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
An example would be this, which is used in the Microsoft article. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, however I did not link to press releases. I linked to these pages:

http://www.originoil.com/news.html (see right side of page, "OriginOil in the News"

and http://www.originoil.com/multimedia.html (see left side of page, which includes CNN, ABC, etc.)

So why was my contribution deleted?

Thanks.

Cre8factory (talk) 00:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't deleted. It's still there, at least, as I am writing this reply. As for your references, the URL alone says unacceptable to establish notability: you're linking to the company's own website. You should link, instead, directly to the news sources themselves. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Confused

It would help me a lot if you didn't have a signature that I can only see which to reply to by hovering over them and squinting. My mother always said I would go blind.

I've left you a TB on my talk page, anyway. Nothing viscious, but seems to me you PROD almost anything that doesn't get tr'd in a few days and then you want to keep this? Not sure why. PNT is not AfD anyway, so not sure how to proceed now.

I do appreciate your hard work old bean, just not sure what you're getting at now. Odd for you to leave a message on my page instead of simply ignore me, so I imagine I missed something.

Best wishes and keep up the hard work Si Trew (talk) 23:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

James Baar Deletion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Baar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdconnolly (talk • contribs) 13:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I hope this is the right place to put this. I'm writing hoping you might reconsider your deletion of James Baar's bio.

Note: James Baar is a prolific published author. With regard to references (I thought the rule was you only needed one), his biography includes 7 books with their ISBN numbers. The deleted page also included a link to an article referencing him in the Providence Journal.

Also note: "But Wait there's More" [1]

Lastly, note the page reference in Who’s Who and extensive references in O’Dwyer’s Directories.

I hope you reconsider.

Brian Connolly bconnolly@furthermore.com Bdconnolly (talk)

For the time being, I cannot reconsider. No evidence has been given that Baar meets our inclusion guidelines. And the arguments you gave are simply insufficient, most of them are in fact irrelevant. Just because a book has an ISBN number doesn't mean the book is notable: it merely means it exists. So that cannot be taken in consideration unless you can show that a criticism of his books has itself been published by a reliable third-party source.
O'Dwyer's Directories will include anyone willing to pay a fee. That alone disqualifies it as a reliable source to establish notability.
As for Marquis Who's Who, their inclusion guidelines are not the same as ours. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, isn't the Providence Journal a reliable source [2]? How 'bout Media Bistro [3]?

Bdconnolly (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the Providence Journal is a reliable source, but it appears to be the only one. Mediabistro.com is a blog. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought technically, one only needed one reliable source. Also, certainly someone reliably characterized as a "Golden-age power player" deserves inclusion.

Bdconnolly (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Technically speaking, the "one source" policy is that if a biographical article about a living person has at least one relevant source, reliable or not, the BLP PROD deletion process cannot be used. And that's not the deletion process that was used here. The process that was used was Articles for Deletion discussions, where a consensus is sought among Wikipedia editors as to whether the inclusion guidelines are met.
Our main notability guideline calls for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Please pay a special attention at the clarification on the term "sources": The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected. Multiple sources from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. If only one person calls the subject a "Golden-age power player," and no one else picks up on the appellation, then this is insufficient to establish notability, regardless of who that person is. We don't want people to be regarded as notable on the basis of just one lucky break with the media. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, to characterize Mr. Baar's long business history and extensive credentials as based on "just one lucky break with the media" is ironically incredible. Fact is, Mr. Baar is 81-year old retired businessman. Fact is, the references you are looking for that support a "golden-age power player" in all likelihood no longer exist.

Would you consider contacting him directly? I am certain he can better help you with what you need. He can be reached at (contact information removed).

ADD ONE: See the notes under "Stages to Saturn" http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4206/sp4206.htm [4]. NASA references his book "Polaris" variously. See notes Chapter 1 #s 11, 13 and Chapter 9 #52. Bdconnolly (talk) 01:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Contacting him directly would violate the very spirit of neutrality, which is one of the five pillars Wikipedia is built on.
Now I see that this is going nowhere, and now that the article is deleted I can't do much unilaterally, so if you are not happy with the outcome of the deletion discussion, please take your case to deletion review. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Blanchardb. You have new messages at GorillaWarfare's talk page.
Message added 01:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Blanchardb. You have new messages at Codehydro's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Lionelt's talk page.

You deleted my article on Buzz Foto

I wanted to place the hang on tag {{hangon}} on the page, I woke up late. Everything in that article was sourced with third party references including, ABC News, Extra TV, Federal Trademark websites, etc. Why was it deleted???? "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Buzz Foto". It is a company that proves a very important point for Photographers of the world, that their craft is art.

It makes no sense when other pages such as "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Nunez" with no references and of one who is not-notable are accepted????

Why???? Can I please have a chance to fix my page which I worked hard to reference? Can you show me if the page exists so that I can make a copy of it so that I can fix it?

--Mambopolice (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You've been given several chances. You were told that the submission was declined on the grounds that it was promotional. Each time you resubmitted it, it was even more promotional than the previous submission. Sorry, but we do not host articles that state that a company's personnel is highly qualified. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Also, when you want to complain about the deletion of an article, please do not mention the existence (or lack thereof) of other articles, unless you can point to a deletion discussion about said article. Such arguments are not taken in consideration. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 12:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I was feeling very emotional that day. It is hard work to get an article up and running especially when you look for references. I think I have put plenty of time on that article, and I am learning. It is an important subject and it should be brought out. Thanks for understanding. I have made a lot of changes to fit the tone of Wikipedia. Please take a look. It is completely different than before. I think I finally understand how to write in the format required.

Thanks,--Mambopolice (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Psoriasis Levia

Just FYI: [5]. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  19:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Wageless Economy Robotic

Hi Blanchardb

We propose that "Wageless Economy Robotic" is an important entry in the lexicon of WikiPedia in that it is a concept crucial for the advancement of humanity, and just because it is not already known by all, does not mean it is not known by a huge number of scientists, nor that it does not already exist waiting in the wings to materialize, a catch 22 to be sure, but nevertheless one which admission into Wikipedia can only remedy once admitted.

It is not pure research either since it is based on all prior endeavors and is simply what is going to happen next, especially if people understand what it is, hence the need to include it in Wikipedia post haste. Additionally, references to the work are included, please advise if additional references are desired.

We have added a new section called ORIGIN to the bottom of the article which we hope addresses the non-original aspects.

Would like to share with you some thoughts offline re: religion related to your interesting thoughts on the matter expressed in your page, please feel free to email me here at your earliest convenience Blanchardb: sysop@TeamInfinity.com

If there is anything else we can do, please let us know.

Cheers be well Blanchardb.

Graciously yours,

Eric Sean Tite-Webber Roboeco (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You have to come up with reliable sources establishing that this concept is already known by a significant number of social scientists and known by those scientists by that name. Failing to do so means the article is still original research. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Wageless Economy Robotic

Greetings Blanchardb,


http://TeamInfinity.com, the origin of "Wageless Robotic Economy" was one of the founders of the Internet as one of its earliest BBSes, then ISPs in the late 80s early 90s, pre-AOL.


Here is our Domain Record:


Domain Name: TEAMINFINITY.COM
     Created on: 22-Aug-93
     Expires on: 21-Aug-11
     Last Updated on: 23-May-10  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roboeco (talk • contribs) 21:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


Numerous citations exist that specifically mention TeamInfinity in hard copy books in technical book stores such as Reiters, including refinements of the concept, initially known as "Robotic Wageless Economy", and lately as "Wageless Economy Robotic", mere variants.


One of the hurdles we face is the fact that most humans are being used as robots currently, and the notion of them being released from this status is very much antithetical to the less intelligent members of the establishment that rely on their being relegated to being robots, the establishment that has used religion to facilitate the relegation of the less intelligent and those with no choice to being used as robots.


There are however people in the establishment, the Tite Family for example, who have broken with less intelligent members who insist on believing in fairy tales meant for the less intelligent to keep them happy, but never intended to be taken seriously by the more intelligent establishment other than for its powerful organizing effects on the less intelligent masses who otherwise would be extremely dangerous in their unharnessed condition. None of which suggests the Creator of Existence Itself does not exist, which existence is of course ample evidence it does !!


For the latest high-tech upgrade to religion posing as science being used as robotizing mechanism of the general public, please see: http://teaminfinity.com/COMMUNICAE-Building-a-Religion.shtml now that traditional religion is loosing its grip on the public. This article clearly shows the powerful well funded forces in commandeered academia, University of Pennsylvania in this case, attempting to create a new religion posing as science, preposterously & pompously claiming freewill is an illusion, for anyone ready to believe it !!


"Wageless Economy Robotic" has been in use for eons using robotized humans, all we are talking about now is using real robots instead.


Thus it is vitally important that we lead rather than follow establishment pandering academia and release the well established, yet not widely known concept of "Wageless Economy Robotic" into the public domain, everyone benefits, even those who think they already know everything there is to know except for who they are really working for, and will be freed from if this concept can permeate the public psyche rendered semi-inert by pseudo-religious mind-control, now that real robots are viable.


Thank you for your time Sir.


Best,

Sir Eric Sean Tite-Webber Roboeco (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

Blackbird article

Last night I submitted the basis of an article on the Blackbird downwind vehicle. This is just the beginning of an article that still needs a lot of work. You reviewed it and commented that it looks like unsupported original work. I don't know where I'm supposed to respond to your comments, so I did it by editing that page. Please let me know the proper procedure. I'd really appreciate your help in producing a well documented page. There is a fair amount of independent information as I mention in my response on the page I edited with my comments.

I apologize for not understanding this process very well, but I'm willing to learn. Spork33 (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


No answer regarding the article I submitted? I had kind of hoped you'd help me make it suitable for Wikipedia. Spork33 (talk) 04:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the problem is not with the article. Sometimes, there are topics that just don't warrant articles on Wikipedia, and this seems to be one of them. The sources you provided do establish the notability of the concept of a wind-powered land vehicle, but not that of the Blackbird.
Please note that when an article is deleted, or its creation denied, on notability grounds, that means the notability of the subject must be established before any work on the article itself is done. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 14:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Help creating a user warning template

I want to turn User:TenPoundHammer/afdwarn into a user-warning template with optional paramater for the article name. Can you please help me do this? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Kangoeroe Vlaanderen

As I said in my comment at Pages Needing Translation, we already have an article on the international organization and I have added to it the little info that this article adds. It's also superfluous on the Dutch Wikipedia, or I would have added it there. I think it should be deleted but other than saying so on the project page, don't know how to go about suggesting that. That's why I didn't edit it at all other than to fix a wrong URL that went to a swami's website. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The various deletion processes are explained at WP:GD. In your case, you might want to use the simple proposed deletion process, which is initiated simply by adding a template to the article to be deleted. If the template is not removed within a week, the article is deleted. For more information, see the documentation on the template {{prod}}. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Charlotte Milchard's page

Dear Blanchardb, I am sorry, I am new to Wikipedia and have never written anything before. What do I need to do to prevent Charlotte Milchard's page from being deleted? I thought that an actress who has played a lead role in a Hollywood feature film would make her notable. I don't know whether you have seen it but Charlotte Milchard share's the lead role with Milla Jovovich in Universal Picture's film The Fourth Kind. Since the The Fourth Kind's release, she appears to be creating quite a fan base and as she is listed on The Fourth Kind's Wikipedia page and on the Internet Movie Database, I thought that this would qualify her. Please could you help as I would really like to support this page to remain and have your skills an an editor in doing so. Many thanks in advance for your help and support in this. Gabriel Martinez Battlestar Man (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Basically, you should read the notability guidelines for entertainers and the general notability guideline. We do not regard the Internet Movie Database as a reliable source to establish the subject's notability, since it accepts user-created content. For the same reason, we do not regard Wikipedia itself as reliable, with the additional caveat that citing Wikipedia in a Wikipedia article would amount to Wikipedia citing itself.
This said, I was unable to locate reliable sources that would have established Milchard's notability. If no such references exist, we cannot keep the article, no matter how big her achievements or her fan base are. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, I have been reading all the things that you have recommended and I will work on the article including all the information that I believe you require as I would really like to save this article from deletion. Many thanks for the advice. Gabriel Martinez Battlestar Man (talk)09:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

Adf Nomimation and editing Hassle

Apologies Blanchardb. It took me a wee bit of time to see what was wrong with Hero Factory Afd edit I did. I saw the delete and thought somebody had made an editing mistake and I automatically fixed it, not realising that it was part of the Afd spiel. As an aside, is their not an assumption that the AfD nominee want to delete it, otherwise why nominate it. scope_creep (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Elementary Schools in Jakarta

Why did you keep redirected the article into East Jakarta? It's not correlated and it's an article about an Elementary Schools within my area.... Please do not redirected again. Thank you NaidNdeso (talk) 19:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Per numerous precedents at WP:SCHOOL, elementary schools should not have articles on Wikipedia. They should be redirected to either the school district or the city, and that's precisely what I'm doing. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 19:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, but here in Indonesia, the articles is very important for the matter of education. Please consider this. Thank you...NaidNdeso (talk) 19:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Do Indonesian primary school matter that much outside Indonesia? That's the real criterrion. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 19:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Career Transition For Dancers

Hello Blanchardb, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Career Transition For Dancers, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article makes assertions of importance + http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Career+Transition+For+Dancers%22&btnG=Search+Archives&ned=us&hl=en&scoring=a. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Theleftorium (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Please note that A7 is not about notability. Theleftorium (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Restaurant Notability

A formalized vote has begun regarding notability and your input is desired, thank you :) - Theornamentalist (talk) 03:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

barnstar

The Articles for Creation Barnstar
For your diligent and prolific reviewing of new submissions without being either hasty or bitey. Keep up the excellent work. sonia♫ 06:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Working on Notability

Hello Blanchardb,
I enjoyed working and thinking about creating 2 articles on Wikipedia… which are now proposed for deletion : Flux2D/3D and InCa3D, because « Non notable software product ». After rereding the Wikipedia beginner's advice, and the notability page, i've completed the article with new references from official IEEE.org official web site and from other International scientific symposium which are normaly considered reliable and verifiable. I’ve also removed some references mentioning some comparison mentioning customers measurements compare to some simulation they've done (which is often an important clue in the relative new world of electromagnetic device simulation). Those 2 software are used by major company such as the NASA, Boeign, Rolls Royce, ABB, BMW, Bosch, Goodrich, Siemens, etc, so i thought they were notable. Do you have any indications to show those products are notable in the electromagnetism community? Thanks for your answer in advance 3Dsoftware (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, a list of clients is not an indicator of notability, even if it can be verified. The notability you've asserted here is that of NASA, Boeign, Rolls Royce, ABB, BMW, Bosch, Goodrich, Siemens, etc, but not Flux2D/3D and InCa3D. Please note that the references used to establish the notability of a topic must be considered reliable and verifiable and non-trivial. While it is true that your references meet the first two criteria, they fail the third one. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 06:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello Blanchardb, Thank you for your advice. I've completly reworked the references of both articles Flux2D/3D and InCa3D. They should now be considered reliable and verifiable and non-trivial. Could you please have a look at it? Thanks for your patience.3Dsoftware (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Lisa Christiansen AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Lisa Christiansen

I am requesting that you consider reviewing the above mentioned article and consider recommending that the article is kept, based on copyediting and established notability. I initially opposed the inclusion of this article on Wikipedia due to blatant promotional tone. The article is no longer written in a promotional tone and cannot be considered spam. The article was copy edited, but still lacked content establishing her notability.

After extensive work on the article, review of her books, and research of books and magazines that mention her, I realized that notability is established, based on the fact that a book has been written entirely about her. WP:BASIC states:

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.

The book, Gi–Dee–Thlo–Ah–Ee, of the Blue People Clan, was written in 1974, independent of any involvement by Christiansen, published by the Cherokee Nation, with copies in the Library of Congress, which includes this book and noted in their catalog and listings. Gi–Dee–Thlo–Ah–Ee is Christiansen's native Cherokee name given at birth.

I am now recommending that this article be kept, due to established notability as the subject of a published book, reliable and independent of the subject. Christiansen was eight years old when this book was written. Her notability was established according to the Nation upon the death of her mother, since Christiansen was then the last surviving descendant of Sequoyah. I would like to invite you to review the article and consider recommending that the article is kept, based on corresponding criteria WP:BASIC that establishes notability. It is my opinion that the article needs additional references. However, notability according to policy has now been established. Thank you. Cindamuse (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTINHERITED. Being a surviving descendant of someone notable does not, by itself, make anyone notable even if you can provide references. This warrants only a mention in the article Sequoyah that simply states something along the lines of "His last surviving descendant as of 1974 was Lisa Christiansen" with no mention of her current occupation. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate the feedback. Notability is not proposed due to inherited notability or simply because she descends from someone notable. According to policy, she is notable as the subject of a published book, reliable and independent of the subject. That said, I have no vested interest in the subject. I simply support the inclusion according to established policy. Thanks again for responding. I respect your opinion and thoughts. Cindamuse (talk) 09:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
The subject of the published book is Sequoyah, not Christiansen. And using that book as your main notability-establishing source for the article means everything about her work as a motivational speaker must be reduced to a one-liner. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 14:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Bible

Are you willing to work towards turning the above article to a higher level of quality? If so, I suggest you join with the editors of Wikipedia: WikiProject Bible and improve its sourcing. The article currently suffers from a lack of good references and a huge excess of POV.--Gniniv (talk) 05:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

Template:Hasty

Ooooh, I like this one. I'm surprized I haven't seen it around more. Thanks for (inadvertantly) bringing it to my attention. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 04:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

why?

why did you report me? imma brand new account —Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwardMcBride (talk • contribs) 17:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Care to explain this then? -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I can't remember the password to the other oneEdwardMcBride (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Blanchardb. You have new messages at WP:AIV.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

my original account is user:gilsonrohan, get a cu if u dnt believe me —Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwardMcBride (talk • contribs) 17:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Whats wrong with it?

You say the page i made about AGIX 3D dosent meet the guidlines. Care to expalin what its missing? I also updated it a bit so look again. ******* —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncleiroh13 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What's missing is evidence that the topic (not the article itself) meets our guidelines. Such evidence would be the existence of third-party reliable sources discussing this topic, such as reviews in major magazines or webzines that have a reputation for double-checking its facts. Right now, the only sources you have are the download site and a Youtube video, both of which were created by the developpers themselves. These merely attest to the software's existence and are useless to establish the software's notability.
If the software's notability can't be established, no article on it will ever survive a deletion discussion, no matter how well-written it is. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
What ever happened to everyone can edit wikipedia if its real? Why would I need a third party source? Magazines and sites would never take note of this engine. Thats why I made this page to see if anyone would like to note it to some big bad important people. What are you a admin? Uncleiroh13 5:09 AM, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Our notability guidelines state pretty clearly that you must provide evidence that the "big bad important people" have noticed some other way before the Wikipedia article can be created. Please read Wikipedia's five pillars, especially the first one, stating that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not your personal blog or webhost.
If you want the "big bad important people" to notice the engine, your alternatives are Facebook, Twitter, a blog, MySpace, or a personal or corporate website. Once the "big bad important people" take note, then you can come back to Wikipedia and start the article. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Just one thing twitter, myspace, and facebook suck. A blog... Ill give him the idea. Plus this isn't a, let me quote, "personal blog or web host". I know that its a encyclopedia I just want to make a addition to it. Since its not gonna be deleted until the 1st then Ill look and see if another site then youtube or his site has a reference to him. Uncleiroh13 11:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Just a heads-up: The references used to establish the engine's notability must be third-party, reliable, and non-trivial. That would mean it has to be the kind of references where the developpers of AGIX are unable to get anything changed without involving their attorneys in the process. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Lucky me here you go: http://www.gamedev.pl/projects.php?x=view&id=165 Its in polish btw. Uncleiroh13 11:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
That's a download site. No good. "Unable to get anything changed without involving their attorneys in the process" means just that. At that site, all they'd have to do is cancel a contract or just refuse to renew it. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Fine you win. BUT THIS ISNT OVER!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncleiroh13 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Borehole 10-x

Hi, I saw your CSD tag on it. I did a quick Google search and the hole does indeed exist, so it isn't a hoax. I'm going to see what a more experienced admin does with it, though :). Regards, Airplaneman ✈ 17:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

In the end, in light of what you've found, I've decided to self-decline my speedy tag and put cleanup tags instead. Boy, the article was so badly written as to be self-discrediting. :-) I'll see what else I can do to prevent someone else to re-add the tag I just removed. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok; thanks. I'll keep an eye on it :) Airplaneman ✈ 17:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Water and weight loss

Hi. You tagged the page Water and weight loss, which I started and filled out, with the notability and synthesis warning templates. (I have since renamed that page Weight loss effects of water, which I hope makes clearer what the article is about.) I believe that as of right now, the changes I have made have been a reasonable attempt to address both the notability concern (which was IMHO a bogus claim even when you attached the tag) and the synthesis concern. Would you like to take another look? I've been WP:BOLD and removed the notability tag because it's obviously notable. If you say nothing within 2 days, I'll assume that the synthesis tag can be removed as well. BTW, I am quite proud of what I've done so far.--greenrd (talk) 03:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll be honest with you: any article that begins with the words "Recent scientific research indicates" sounds like snake oil, and most people[weasel words] usually don't bother to read the rest. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the honesty. I haven't spent a great deal of time on making it sound good - I've been focused on filling it out with lots of info, and addressing Wikipedia guideline issues. And frankly I'm not that motivated to make it sound good just at the moment - my main motivation has been to protect my existing work from being deleted, and I'm going to bed now.--greenrd (talk) 03:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Query

Was this in reference to the Salamat Sadykova dust-up? 69.181.249.92 (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it was about Xilinx ISE. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah. Well, it's in AFD now. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Neurovision

I would like to comment on Neurovision, which is on "review on hold" stutus.

Neurovision is a scientific term, which is widely used in scientific published literature in the area of visual-neuro science, such as PNAS, NATURE, JCRS, Trans Am Ophthalmology, etc... You can see a partial list of articles at http://www.e-med.co.il/emed/new/Usersite/Presentations/opto0709/index.html Therefore, I believe this term can have a place on Wikipedia.

Uri —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.156.19 (talk) 12:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

(R) and (tm) ..?

I saw your comment "The ® and ™ characters are not welcome in encyclopedic coverage. Remember, the owner of the brands DOES NOT write these articles.". I'm curious as to the reasoning behind this. You probably have a good reason but I would like to know "how it works" ..? Electron9 (talk) 10:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) as a starting point. Bongomatic 10:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, there you go. These characters give the impression that the Wikipedia article was written by the company that makes these brands. Even when that is the case, it gives the impression that the article was written with a conflict of interest. Take a look at the article Microsoft, and tell me where you see "Windows®" in it. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 14:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

La Zagaleta Page

Hi there, regarding this new article page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/La_Zagaleta

I am trying to understand the status of the page as it has two declined boxes. I added the external relaible source references and then inline numbered them. Is this OK or are more references needed? best regards, Chris. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andalweb Andalweb (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)(talk • contribs) 21:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The real problem of the article is that it currently reads like a travel agency tract and not like an encyclopedia article. As for the references used, two are from partners involved in the project (Carrington, Marnoch), one is a press release (ABC de Sevilla), one (Financial Times) is accessible only with a subscription, so it would help if you'd include information such as article title, author, anything to make sure it isn't yet another press release, and in the case of the last (Sunday Times), the information given in the references section is so vague as to be useless. Someone wishing to verify the information cannot be asked to look for a needle in a haystack. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 21:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the dtailed explanation, I will try and revise the article and look for more sourses. Andalweb (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)



The Barnstar of Diligence
Awarded to Blanchardb for due diligence, exercised first by nominating Roni Deutch, and then by adding sources to the article and withdrawing the nomination. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Nikolaos Georgikopoulos

An article that you have been involved in editing, Nikolaos Georgikopoulos, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikolaos Georgikopoulos. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Drmies (talk) 12:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Request to Search GBooks and GScholar Before Nominating Software AfD

Please search GBooks and GScholar for articles before nominating software AfD. In a recent AfD you wrote "Contested prod. Software with no assertion of notability. Google News only returns press releases." For most software, GNews is not a likely source of articles that would prove notability. Most likely, any articles found on GNews would not qualify as reliable anyway. I hope you will accept my suggestion for future nominations. It's frustrating for me to see your omission of valid sources available on GBooks and GScholar. At this point I still assume good faith. — Respectfully, HowardBGolden (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Will do. But GNews still turns up good stuff. Wired, among others, is listed there. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't mean to disparage GNews. If it "turns up good stuff," that's great. My comment on GNews was simply about the likelihood of it being useful in demonstrating notability of software." — HowardBGolden (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Request to Stop Using WP:PROD for Substantial Software Articles

I have noticed that you recently have used WP:PROD for deleting substantial software articles. I don't believe this is consistent with the WP:DP#Proposed_Deletion policy that WP:PROD should only be used where you "believe[] a page obviously and uncontroversially doesn't belong in an encyclopedia" (emphasis added). It seems to me that one should not expect that a substantial article that has existed for months is obviously and uncontroversially a deletion candidate. Therefore, I request you directly go to WP:AFD in these situations. — Respectfully, HowardBGolden (talk) 23:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of WP:PROD is to check whether a deletion would be controversial. Mind you, only one objection is required to abort the whole process, even if it's done in bad faith, and even after an article is deleted a single objection is enough to have the article restored.
If you want to know, I compile my entire prod nomination history here. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I guess we interpret the policy differently. As I read it, WP:PRODs purpose is not to test controversiality. If this is the custom, then I hope the policy will be updated. — HowardBGolden (talk) 00:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, with so many AfD's getting so little attention that they have to be closed as no consensus for lack of participation, some alternatives are preferred by some editors. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Relisting straw poll.
Also, prods still need the opinion of a reviewing admin before the deletion is carried out. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
There are individuals that try to contribute content rather than getting useful information deleted. And doesn't find this kind of distraction amusing in any way. That said there are articles that simple isn't notable. But determining that, requires using proper research methods. Electron9 (talk) 01:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Women & Politics Institute

Hi, I'm trying to improve the information that's found on Wikipedia about the Women & Politics Institute without being biased. Could you please give me some tips as to how to improve the article so that it better fits Wikipedia's guidelines? LucyAlice (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all, before you even begin the article, you must determine whether the Institute meets our notability guidelines for corporations (that the Institute is non-profit makes no difference). If not, don't start an article. If it does, you should start the article based entirely on sources not maintained or written by the Institute. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Who is in charge of removing the tag of "may not meet the general notability guideline" or the "copy edit needed" tag? Am I able to remove these or must it be done by a wiki admin/editor? LucyAlice (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

09:45, 26 August 2010 (diff | hist) Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tourism Development & Investment Company (TDIC) ‎

Blanchardb, please could you explain in what way I haven't addressed the previous reviewers' suggestions? I added plenty of links to external sources and other Wikipedia pages to show the importance of the subject matter. I think TDIC warrants its own page as separate from ADTA (as another editor suggested I do). If you take a look at TDIC's website (www.tdic.ae) I think it become clear why it is important in itself. Other companies that are part of ADTA, such as Aldar and Mubadala, have their own Wikipedia pages, so why not TDIC? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Louisewhitlock (talk • contribs) 05:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

For the most part, the article reads like something that would better fit the company's own website than a Wikipedia article. None of the sources used are reliable: they are all connected to the subject. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

Inline citation tags

The tag below was placed on the article after a new section entitled "Background" was inserted by the creator, Piszkosfred.

Indented line 'This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations where appropriate.'

I am a newcomer to Wikipedia and can use your help with two questions:

1. If the change suggested below is minor, may I - the subject of the article - correct it instead of the creator, Piszkosfred ?

2. The links to the internet are not used to validate the content of the article, they simply expound upon the content for the convenience of any reader who may like to know a little more. Since readers can do their own independent serches, do you believe it is preferable to simply strike the links rather than try to trace the sources within the links?

As an example --- for the first sentence in the Background, go from this:

Indented line George Lucey Jr. (nicknamed Stormy) was born on a rainy night in New Orleans, Louisiana on November 13, 1937 to Phyllis Claire Curott and George Kenneth Lucey, an overseas navigator for Trans World Airlines.

To this:

Indented line George Lucey Jr. (nicknamed Stormy) was born on a rainy night in New Orleans, Louisiana on November 13, 1937 to Phyllis Claire Curott and George Kenneth Lucey, an overseas navigator for Trans World Airlines.

Regards, Luceyg (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

My bad. There are inline references. However, they are not done, technically, in the proper way. The way it's currently done, if someone inserts an important fact in the middle of the text, he'll have to renumber every reference from that point on. Omissions to that effect is where confusion arises. See WP:CIT for the technicalities of citations.
As for your point #2, validating the contents of the article should be the primary purpose of references. A link that provides nothing but "further reading" may be deleted at any moment as not supporting the cited fact, or your article might end up with a lot of [failed verification] tags. A "further reading" section could be created, but some editors see those as spam magnets and frown on them. Alternatively, you could use the sources of the "further reading" to expand the article.
Finally, the part that says it rained on the day Lucey was born should be left out entirely. Anyone interested in the weather on that day could consult NOAA statistics, which Wikipedia will not reproduce. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for the clarification --- I will go learn the proper formatting in the sandbox, which may take a bit of time, but for now I will remove the links that are for extra reading rather than validating the content.

Luceyg (talk) 06:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I made the first edit of number of links inthe article and removed 14, leaving one in the Patents list as a verification of the list. Could you review [1] for me to be certain I am on the right track, then I will do others

Luceyg (talk) 03:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I tried to edit the article to comply with the previous advisory that the links are excessive and the format for references needs improvement. The new tag advising me that my doing this compromises the autobiography neutrality is understood - it must be left to the creator. Sorry, just a novice at this.

Luceyg (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


ACE Electoral Knowledge Network

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from ACE_Electoral_Knowledge_Network, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that this article should not be deleted from Wikipedia. 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 No clue (talk) 19:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy

Proposed deletion: If you disagree: Any editor who disagrees with a proposed deletion can simply remove the tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjennmom (talk • contribs) 01:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Xavier Buck

So are we cool? Soupy sautoy (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. Someone gave you a warning thinking he was giving it to someone else, and that's all there is to it. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Soupy sautoy (talk) 05:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

M734 Fuze

Could you review the Wikipedia article on M734 Fuze? I was not the originator, but I was the Army manager back in 1978 so I have been making contributions and - being a novice at the Wiki formats - I want to learn to do them correctly.

24.170.246.95 (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikiproject Cryptozoology/main page update

Unprotected. Let me know when you're done doing what you need to do. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

Sticky prods

Hi Blanchardb, you forgot to inform the newbie that you've proposed their article for deletion. The idea behind sticky prod was to re-educate newbies who don't supply references. ϢereSpielChequers 13:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

That happens. Given that I still refuse to use automated tools on NPP because of flexibility issues, such an omission is possible from time to time. I don't have a problem with resetting the clock in such a situation. Can that be done? -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Blanchardb I was assuming it was a slip. The newbie hasn't edited since, so I don't see a problem in telling them now and resetting the clock on the sticky prod - it would seem like a good user of IAR to me. I held out against automation for a long time so I know where you are coming from. Mind you Hotcat doesn't count does it, and then I tried a few scripts that gave me dropdown menus for blocking, and now I seem to even have succumbed to Twinkle.... I guess I'm a long way down that slippery slope now. ϢereSpielChequers 22:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Alberto Rigoni

I removed the prod tag you placed on Alberto Rigoni, as an editor has explicitly objected to deletion on the article talk page. Compliance with policy/procedure is the only reason I removed the tag; I have no prejudice toward opening an AfD if you still believe the article should be deleted. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The objection rationale just won't fly in an AfD, so yes, I've sent it there. Had I caught the objection before you did, I would have removed the prod myself. I keep all articles I prod, and all prodded articles I happen to come across, on my watchlist, and I even keep a log of my prod activity here. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Advertising NewViews

The history of NewViews goes back to 1985, the main reason for the article is to have a link so that the software is listed along with the other accounting software Comparison of accounting software. Could you be more specific "This article is written like an advertisement". There are several dates in the article, this is common to accounting and tax software. Did the bot get triggered by the "dates". The article reads neutral to me. Thanks in advance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Matcalfe (talk • contribs) 22:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You say the article doesn't read like an ad? Gosh, I don't know where to begin to prove you wrong.
  • Every instance of "NewViews" is in bold characters. Let's be thankful that the ® character was omitted. Per WP:MOS, only the very first instance of the name in the entire article should be in bold, with all other instances being displayed with no attempt to make them stand out.
  • It also provides an environment that allows... That early in the article, such a sentence is promotional, period.
  • The result will suit you perfectly... In encyclopedic coverage, there's no such thing as "you." (Actually, I missed that when I first tagged your article!)
  • NewViews Does Not Close the Books... as a section title?
  • The flexibile (sic) setup that characterizes NewViews... Flexibility is factual, or just the user's opinion?
These are just some of the problems. The only reason I didn't tag the article for speedy deletion is that I believe the software does meet our notability guidelines, however the article will need a rewrite from scratch if it is to be neutral. Remember that "neutral" means the article must not look like it's been written by someone hired by the developper. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

Your vandalism in Wikipedia

Concerning List of Hindu temples in Poland Are you mad, stupid, or simply irresponsible? You've destroyed my work and cancelled my article without any apparent reason. This article was a copy of other similar articles "List of Hindu temples ..." in different countries. Additionally my article was linked to 3 other articles. You may be Christian but this don't give you the right to ruin my work about other religions. People like you are destroying Wikipedia! SETI3 (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me that you've recreated the article. I've initiated a deletion discussion. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Through marking my article to delete you've made a mistake. There were no logical and objective reasons for such an action. It was a pure vandalism. But obviously you're unable to recognize it. You want a revenge instead by repeatedly nominating my article, and in my opinion your behaviour is completely incompatible with your desire to become an administrator of Wikipedia. I'll supervise your attempts in this direction and will take adequate actions.

I apologize to you for my too rude remarks I've made before on your character and behaviour. I didn't want to hurt you. I recognize it was unnecessary, although my personal opinion about you is in fact much worse than you've been told. SETI3 (talk) 12:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Just want you to know I'm not running a popularity contest here. I'm pretty sure there are others who have been monitoring me the way you say you'll be doing, but I'm not letting that bother me.
One word of advice, though: please heed WP:AGF. Otherwise, you risk getting in trouble without me having to do anything. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 06:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I always assume good faith of other editors. But in your case you've nominated ONLY one of numerous similar articles without any serious reasons. You didn't assume yourself my good faith when I removed your notice from my article and explained that you had been wrong. Instead, you nominated my article one more time and initiated a discussion which led to the conclusion that NOBODY supported your opinion. Now you are claiming your good faith in this affair. I don't believe you. SETI3 (talk) 07:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you point to similar articles here? That's where I found yours. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Lucey autobiography

As you recommended, the creator of my autobiography rewrote the article and corrected the mehod of referencing. Could you check to see if the improvements are sufficient? Also, to improve the impartiality, should he undo the changes that I improperly submitted before his rewrite? Luceyg (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No. You should wait for the article to be edited extensively by someone you have not commissioned either directly or indirectly. You're calling that person "the creator of my autobiography," which implies that you hired that person. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 21:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast response. Understood how things can look to others, for the record no one was hired but I did learn of the my creator. I simply am unfamiliar with all of this and will let it be as you suggest.

Mostly I was wondering how the tags ever come off and I am trying to learn how to improve my editing knowledge since I am contributing to the M734 Fuze wikipedia article and wish to avoid tags by asking questions when I see an event.

Regards, George Luceyg (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I am enjoying contributing to the Wikipedia, but have much to learn and wonder if you would mind telling me how long it took you from scratch to become your level and whether you have a proof-reader / technical reviewer/ language background !

My background is an MS in Mechanical Engineering, I published technical articles and patents, but always relied upon others for review so I may be too much of a novice to be contributing to other people's Wikipedia articles at this level of my learning. Is the best approach to just insert the contribution after sandbox testing and, if it is significant, look for previous editors talk pages on the history tab and ask one for a review? I have been hesitant with the M734 Fuze contributions I have been making because there appear to be people who call themselves viruses and dump trash once they discover you.

Regards, George

Luceyg (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, any constructive contribution that is not about yourself or your achievements is welcome, and you are even encouraged to make significant contributions to the encyclopedia in any topic within your field of competence. Note also that the article about you has not been nominated for deletion. We don't delete articles on the grounds that they need improvements, except in extreme cases or in cases of blatant advertizing. WP:BOLD explains the process of article building. The principle laid out there should tell you that the fear of being called names by your peers shouldn't stop you from writing what you know. My personal take on that is that someday you'll be vindicated if that happens. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Understood about being bold in making contributions as long as it is the area of expertise and not about self. For what it is worth, I have been contributing to the M734 Fuze and in so doing discovered a possible manufacturing defect that threatens the stockpile of war reserves for that mortar fuze and am bringing it to the attention of the Army. Thanks for your feedback and the note about not deteting.

I never did understand a few months back why there were 250 hit on my full name (since few people knew it) unless it had to do with my patents.

Regards, George Luceyg (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Blanchardb/Archive_11&oldid=1139812559"