User talk:Blowdart/Archives/Archive1

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Blowdart/Archives/Archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  - FrancisTyers 15:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Blowdart. Just to remind you that 'advert' is not a reason for speedy deletion. I recommend using {{prod}} or {{afd}}. DJ Clayworth 14:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

See I'd disagree, the very existance of a template where you can specify the reason would lead me to think that any reason is fair game :) --Blowdart 16:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

There are actually very strict rules regarding what can be speedily deleted. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for more information. If they don't fit then you can use Wikipedia:Proposed deletion or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. DJ Clayworth 03:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Blowdart, While it seems that you are a strident user of this system I am new and wonder how to react to you tagging my first contribution on fish lures (a very mundane and trite subject)with this ADVERT tag with no way of understanding what brought you to this decision. While it may not be of the highest publication quality I believe this is a bit of a rash judgement.

First of all, according to the Wikipedia standards, I believe it meets the satndards. I quote "Advertising. Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic..." The base of discussion was concerning Akron, Ohio (a town I lived in 30+ years ago) is credited with the first commercial fish lures according to the Wikipedia Akron, Ohio listing (check it yourself) and that caught my curiosity. It also became the stimulus to investigate this subject, and inso became an intregal part of the story I felt.

Secondly; I not only do not have any connection with any of the companies discussed, hell I don't even fish! I found out the topic existed in my curiosity about the I-76 route of the U.S. Interstate system. I was just surprised anything of much note other than rubber and Lebron James came out of Akron.

So if you might be so kind, could you take a few minutes to guide me to what might be so offensive about this article and what you might suggest to improve it. Other than that I might be led to believe your action may be assumed to be just something to do out of boredom. This being based on your response to DJ Clayworth, "the very existance of a template where you can specify the reason would lead me to think that any reason is fair game :) --Blowdart"

"Platique"

Thanks for catching and fixing my typo so quickly! --Ed (Edgar181) 18:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

NRSRO

Thanks! I'm new to this and didn't catch that I had included the plural in the article. (Epstein's Mother 04:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC))

Re: Crazy Monkey Games

Sorry about that... I was watching the "recent changes" and saw an IP vandal add obscenities to a URL. As it happened, the original URL itself was also bogus. I didn't see your revision, and the "popup" reversion tool didn't warn me another edit had been made in the meantime – I'll have to look out for that in future! JRawle (Talk) 15:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Cappagh

Fair enough. I did make the original version controversial to try and attract some interest. ;) I've a few days off next week so might have a go at making a template table for NI villages/towns.

Were you referring to the James McDade article when you said "active service makes you seeth"?GiollaUidir 22:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Kuki Gallman deletion

Although it may have had the "hoax look", the content of the Kuki Gallman article was true, so I removed the speedy deletion tag. Ardric47 23:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Subtext

Hi. I replied on my talk page. Cheers, CiaranG 18:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

And again. CiaranG 20:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks for stopping those two word new articles. does he not know what an encyclopedia is? some of them may even be notable but if you create a two word under-stub you can't expect it not to be deleted!

Your db tag on Dave Carnie

Please take the time to read the history page before automatically adding a speedy deletion tag. There was only one edit with the edit summary as "page creation, more coming...." before you added the tag. Please assume good faith, I am still creating the page. - Ocatecir 15:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but every time I see more coming it usually doesn't. Unless you're going to mark it as a stub, rather than rely on creation comments, it's fair game in my eyes. Why didn't you just wait and submit it as a "complete" article rather than a single sentence. Even now you filled it out I really don't see what's notable about him at all, until you finally justified it with imdb and jackass links --Blowdart 15:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Daithi McKay

He is a candidate for the 2007 elections, and an elected councillor etc, and may be a MLA soon. To fully develop the Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007 article, isnt it a good idea to have an article about each candidate? Frainc 11:21 14 February 2007

Not convinced to be honest. Merely being elected isn't, to my mind, that notable. Feel free to remove the db if you feel otherwise. --Blowdart 11:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Your db tag on Ellen Hanley

Please check the date and time when consider nominating an article for deletion. I am in the middle of creating this article, based on the official biography template - which needs to be saved empty first before I can work on it. Please consider this before add a speedy to a new page. I see you've been reminded above about the policies and procedures regarding nominating deletions, and the strict criteria required for a speedy deletion. These are official policies, they are not optional - even if you disagree with them - so I suggest that you read them again Madmedea 11:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, expect of course you can happily create a user page using the template and edit that before add the new article, which would cull the number of misunderstandings. --Blowdart 11:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Rasul_Bux_Palejo

Can i know the reason why you tag this artilce for deletion.Please be carefull while putting tags.Khalidkhoso 20:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Simple; no assertion notability. As the tag says. Even if the attributes suggested are true there are no references to prove them. Careful? I find the tag entirely justified. --Blowdart 20:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

this artilce is taken from other language of Wikipedia check this[[1]]. Khalidkhoso 20:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Then translate it and put the full article and picture in, rather than create what is an empty article. If you are worried about your english then you will find other people will correct minor mistakes. But right now a one line article and a link to another wikipedia is not an assertion of notability. --Blowdart 20:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

will you give me time to do some work on it.rather then i should get warning from you.Please Khalidkhoso 20:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

will give me little time to do some work and put some work and links.Khalidkhoso 20:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If deleting artilce makes you Happy then you can delete it.Khalidkhoso 20:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

B the you can check these links [[2]],[[3]],[[4]],[[5]](Dawn News Papers),[[6]],[[7]](gulfnews),[[8]].Khalidkhoso 21:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not about just adding links. You must add more details. One line about someone without pointing out which link justifies your opinions is simply not suitable. Take a look around at some other politician articles for good examples. --Blowdart 21:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I just started artilce next second it had warning i am not machine ,i am searching and adding stuff on it.it work with steps rather then i should copy-paste from some other site.Khalidkhoso 21:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ,piece of advice just give little time to other to make some thing.Khalidkhoso 21:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Rasul_Bux_Palejo

Hello Now can you have some grammatical improvements in article.Khalidkhoso 21:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

new articles on Accounting

Howdy, I noticed that you tagged a number of articles about accounting concepts for speedy deletion. I have added hangon notes to two already, but I am somewhat unclear on the CSD used. I think is was fairly clear that the articles were about accounting (in fact one was even linked from the accounting article). Just wanted to let you know. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 16:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Your CSD tag on Online Idol

You tagged this article for speedy deletion, but you did not notify the article's creator that it had been so tagged. While such notification is not mandatory, it is strongly encouraged, and this is mentioned in the various speedy delete templates themselves. please consider notifying article creators of speedy delete tags in future. See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Notify authors about speedy deletion? where this issue was discussed. B1atv 20:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Kevin allen speedy delite ?

Hey just wondering why did you tag my article about kevin allen the author for speedy delition? trfccurt —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Simple, it said little and no proof of notability. See WP:Notability for what editors would find acceptable. Listing two books is meaningless. Reviews of the books would be a better indication of notability. --Blowdart 18:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sarah Bunting

Hi. You put a csd on Sarah Bunting, and left me a message about it. The subject is the founder of a major website which itself has a wikipedia article. What assertions of notability did you require? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meansarea (talk • contribs) 14:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks like an admin agreed with me. Simply founding a web site isn't enough. News articles. Awards won. Stuff like that would help your case. --Blowdart 15:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Derry-Londonderry-Doire Naming issue

It is unfortunate that so much time is still being spent with arguments over these Derry City and Londonderry county articles. Wikipedia, as an international organisation have made an excellent and impartial compromise with the naming issue. DERRY is the name of the article relating to the city as the majority of Derry's inhabitants and indeed the council wish it to be named so. LONDONDERRY is the name of the county article as this is how the people have voted in the article. I know unionists may argue that the official name is Londonderry and this cannot change, however the name was made official undemocratically by the British government of the time and not by the will of the Derry/Londonderry people. If there is going to be unsolicitated edits to change these articles to agree with others POV's then these problems will never cease! --  RÓNÁN   "Caint / Talk"  20:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually have no problem with the article name at all, despite having come from a family with a tradition of marching bands (*cringe*). However legally the city name itself, the official name is Londonderry, and to my mind that should be the infobox text. And in fact it has been for quite a while, through numerous revisions of both proddy and catholic editors. The infobox is a different matter to the article name. It clearly says "Official Name" --Blowdart 21:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Northern Irish mayors

Glad to see someone's been looking at the lists I've been creating! I can't see an article emerging on your aunt, unless she is notable in some other field; I suspect that only those linked names are likely to have the sources available to demonstrate sufficient notability. Warofdreams talk 17:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh I'm not actually expecting her to be turned into an article. Her ego is large enough as it is; not that I think she'd understand what wikipedia is :) --Blowdart 10:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland Infoboxes

An unofficial invitation to interested parties.
Folks, it strikes me that the current state of infobox warring going on needs to stop. Right now we have a choice between UK infoboxes, and Irish infoboxes and both political strands want one or the other. Neither have the same information, and by forcing your own choice we're missing out on useful information. For example, the County Londonderry article uses the Ireland County info box. This misses out a mass of information that is applicable, UK National Office of statistics references, UK MP information, ISO codes and so on.
The map is perfect, it no longer has NI floating in space, but the current use of an Ireland info box simply isn't applicable, it ignores the political reality that the north is administered by the UK.
So I propose a compromise. Specific Northern Ireland county, city/town/village info boxes. If we can merge the UK and Irish ones I think we'd come to a solution that everyone can agree with.
I'm willing to put the work in for this, but without broad agreement from people who kick with each foot it'll be useless, and reverts will continue. So I'd like your thoughts before I even make a start.
I'm going to seed a pointer to this bit on my talk page on a few of your own talk pages. I assume you know your "compatriots" better than I do, and I would encourage you to forward the link to them. If you've come here and I didn't leave a note on your talk page, then please accept my apologies. I wasn't ignoring you, there's just too many people to cope with! --Blowdart 13:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What is in the Irish infobox that is needed? Essentially what is the point of all that effort?Traditional unionist 13:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Aside from compromise? Acknowledgement of the old county division, making the Irish names a first class citizen. Right now the country maps are using the Irish place info box. It's missing a bunch of applicable stuff. Certainly the basis for the new info box would the UK ones, however by renaming and tweaking to be NI specific we avoid the politics of the infobox name and hopefully put an end to the childish infobox revert wars that break out once a week. --Blowdart 13:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be rude, but could that be surmised as "to appease childish Irish Nationalist editors"?Traditional unionist 13:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The Irish name could be used with the British box, see Cornwall.Traditional unionist 13:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

And you know fine well they'll say the reverse for you. Perfect NI compromise, it pisses off everyone. More seriously it gives note to both the current political reality and to history. Yes the Irish name could be put in the UK info box by manually massaging it but strictly there's no field for it. --Blowdart 13:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to do it, go ahead, but I don't necessarily see the point.Traditional unionist 13:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

(Sorry for crashing again, you're still on my watchlist TU.) I'd be on for a merger. There's far too many things that could be handled more effectively with more eyes looking at them if they were merged on a pan-island basis. I would also get Northern Ireland out of its current limbo where it often ends up with the worst of both worlds. This is one basic idea that could be floated. I had a couple more but this would be enough - only three groups have to be convinced by it - southern Irish/Northern Irish/British. --sony-youth^pléigh 21:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Blowdart and thank you for asking me if I would like to participate in this discussion. I agree whole heartedly that a compromise should be reached and for your method of creating a Northern info box containing both Irish and UK styles for Northern information. I both admire and aplause you in this for your level of compromise, something I would like to see more of from others both Nationalist and Unionist. I applaude you also for wishing to acknowledge the Irish people who make up ~42% of the norths political opinion and making efforts to respect that rather than deny it like Traditional Unionist user is doing. I wish he would understand that Irishness is a reality just as much as Britishness in Northern Ireland and BOTH need to be equally respected and catered for in this new settlement for our peoples by all sides. With respect to the Irish names, I want all unionists to understand that i know why they take offense to the language. they see it as a Republican propaganda, as well as the flag of Ireland. I am going to campaign on this to show Unionists that the language is something to be cherished as a beautiful part of Irish AND Northern Ireland culture and history. The flag of Ireland was originally drawn to represent catholics (green) and protestents (orange) and the hope of a lasting poeace between them (white). Such is the symbolism of that flag relevant to today, that i cannot but recognise it as the best flag to represent me and this island, not because of any Irishness but of the comming together of our peoples in peace. This is my POV but I just want unionists to know that because i have green on my page, it does not make me a terriorist, nor a person to be distrusted. Blowdart I would like to work with you in the future with regards to edits of both nationalist and unionist persuasion that may be biased and hopefully this discussion can be the start of resolving all politically motivated edits on articles relating to Ireland (north & south), the UK, Unionist culture and Nationalist culture! --  RÓNÁN   "Caint / Talk"  20:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have just taken a look at the UK version of the county box and there is some facts i would like to point out, in the Cornwall UK county article, it gives certain elements that would be difficult to include for Northern Ireland, such as MP's for the area. This would be difficult for the Northern counties area as MPs are elected differently here eg. Newry and Armagh MP area ALREADY has an article talking about MPs for the area, and Newry is part of county Down, but NOT the South Down MP constituancy area! thus i will argue for this part to be left out. The same goes for MLAs inclusion as this is also pointed out in the Parliment constituancy areas. Like it or not, northern Irish counties ARE and where designed by British authorities like every other Irish county, and thus it can be argues that the version of the infobox we are using at present should stay. However I respect Unionist fears of Irishness being shown on Wiki pages and would be happy to have the Geography, Demographics and Ethinicity being included in a northern county infobox, HOWEVER I do not believe Executive or MPs apply. Nor do districts, as most northern Districts are spread over more than one county Newry & Mourne District could not be shown in county armagh submap (as only part exists and would create the illusion that the small bit in Armagh is the whole district!) this also applies for the County Down submap (if drawn for districts) thus i would not agree with this inclusion also. Looking at the Scottish county infobox for Fife also. It also includes a "Scottish Gaelic" section which we could not add as we know this would be offensive to unionists. So in that regard isnt Scottish Counties somewhat different to their English counterparts but similar to northern counties in our shared gaelic history? to take it further then why not add Scots Planters also? lol I am highlighting this point Blowdard to show you that there will still be a degree of argument in the makeup of the county box and think that, even though you mean well, small minded people will still argue like our friend Traditional Unionist (user) above. Could I also say to Traditional Unionist (user) that the term "childish Nationalist editors" is both insulting and mocking and shows your utmost contempt for Irish people including myself. You have let yourself down and shown your level of maturity and respect to others. Can you not see why Irish names are needed in the info box? Are you that ignorant to where the county/town/city/village placenames came from (including your OWN areas placenames?) in the first place? The Irish name for the area is ENTIRELY relavent for the history of the anglicised county names we hear today. Please encourage yourself to look into the history of the topic before you comment further and not rely on your bitter and sectarian judgements on the Irish language and its people! --  RÓNÁN   "Caint / Talk"  22:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Lord this is turning into the pig fight I wanted to avoid by compromise. On MPs etc; some English "counties" (in quotes, because Berkshire isn't a real county anymore) span multiple parliamentary districts, and that's simply done by listing the MPs that cover the area. The inclusion of MPs (or MLAs) doesn't indicate they represent the entire area, it is (to my mind) perfectly acceptable to have MPs listed in more than one infobox if their area spans two counties. I agree the Irish name is relevant (the whole Scots Irish thing set to one side), my point is so is a lot of the UK info box stuff, OS map co-ordinates, NUTs and ONS codes etc. The area of "Ulster" to my mind isn't, or could be "relegated" to a "Historical" section. Heck it's rather fictitious these days (in the same way Berkshire is). The Irish info box just ignores a lot of useful and encyclopaedic information. However if it's going to become a Unionist/Nationalist pissing fight there seems little point in doing it. In order to work it needs broad agreement from both sides. --Blowdart 09:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Irish info boxes could and should be expanded also to include map co-ordinates etc. However I do not understand how the Provincial area of Ulster is not relevant and would like you to explain further on this issue. As I understand it from a Nationalist mindset, the provinces of Ireland come as you say from a historical background - A division of ancient Irish Kingdoms, however these provinces are still widely used in an all Ireland and international basis in terms of competitions such as sport (provincial Rugby teams, GAA organisation, Irish Dancing competitions, Special Olympic Teams organisation etc.) In my opinion for northern counties, adding the province of Ulster to the historical section would also allow for the argument to adding the northern counties to an historical section, this is because no northern county (except Fermanagh) is an administerative reigion anymore and, like the provinces, are used purely for sporting teams organisation (eg. GAA). Historically they were formed by the old British administerative divisions but this has become less relavent now with the use of District councils in the north. This is my POV and I would like your take on this. Thanks, --  RÓNÁN   "Caint / Talk"  13:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess it depends how you view the infoboxes, geographic, political, socio-economic etc. Ignoring the political representation would probably annoy the unionist side as much as relegating "Ulster" to a historical view (and in political terms, lets face it, that's what it is). District councils are handled reasonably well in the English infoboxes, harking back to Berkshire that's no-longer a county at all, but it's part of the Thames Valley authority area. But it does exist on maps, and in post office addresses. Oxfordshire has a bunch of councils, heck I have a town council here, and I'm part of the South Oxfordshire district council, and yet another NHS PCT. But none of that takes away from the existence of the county itself. --Blowdart 14:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This seems to me a no-brainer. Thank you for being prepared to put in the effort. Very John Major of you. - Kittybrewster ☎ 12:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Calling me grey is supposed to be encouragement? *grin* Still waiting to see if a vague agreement bubbles out of this discussion though. --Blowdart 13:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well i for one hope that it does not bubble out and an agreement does indeed arise on this proposal. I still agree in principle with the proposal as it will add increased county details to the articles. Can I just ask you however do you see my point in that classing the Provinces as purely historical can also be assumed for the county political systems also? I am interested in your POV on this matter as it is good to see how other people view the political systems of the island. thanks --  RÓNÁN   "Caint / Talk"  15:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that towns in Northern Ireland are ‘special’. They have dialing codes which can be and are used from the Republic of Ireland, and from mainland UK. Whereas the rest of the United Kingdom do not have such codes. I have been made aware of this information as someone who regularly crosses the border between the two jurisditions. As Northern Ireland can be connacted in two ways, not one, from beyond the British Isles, I thought it would be fitting to have both codes appear on the page. I am indifferent towartds their positions on the page with reference to the codes from England/Scotland/Wales. I did not apply this to other towns within the UK, as this does not apply to anywhere else in the UK. I genuinely do not know what you are trying to suggest by a ‘pollitically motivated’ edit. If you are tying to suggest that I am of an Irish nationalist/Ulster unionist persuation, I suggest you think again. As it happens I am English, living in Northern Ireland, and obstain from voting in NI elections, due to their sectarian nature and other personal beliefs. If you believe it proper to place “+44 28” before “+353 48”, and “028” before “048”, good. With hindsight I probably would have done the same thing myself, if I were to do it again. As it happens, you have deleted the information from the page, for your stated reasons, and I am not going to retype them all out again. That said, I must ask, out of morbid curiousity, why do you believe that they should not appear on the relevent pages at all? And if you do not believe this, why did you delete them? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:86.147.49.229&redirect=no 86.147.49.229 02:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.49.229 (talk)

Actually it's simple. No other towns in any other country has the a dialing code other than the the standard international ones, and what you added wasn't really useful; instead of the full dialing code, you simply added the NI country prefix from the ROI, rather than a combination of the country prefix and the town code. So you added the same, incorrect, information to a bunch of towns. --Blowdart | ^talk 06:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Clearly erroneous A7

David Jacobson - list of films is a clear assertion. The speedy criteria are hard and don't stretch - please take more care with these. (This is becoming a matter of public concern and PR problems, so a few people are looking at all CSDs and particularly A7s lately.) Thanks! - David Gerard 16:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah well the list of films wasn't there when I tagged it, that came later. The original page just had that he was a screen writer and director with no real claim to notability (lets face it, an IMDB link is nothing these days). --Blowdart 16:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Explosive Child

I'm a newbee in wikipedia and I got your tag about my article on Explosive Child. Not sure how this work but I start a talk about it. Need your help. Thanks --Chrix Bedard 12:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

OK; you need to assert notability. Simple existence of a book isn't enough. You need to provide references, reviews, citations etc. Take a look at WP:Cite to see how to go about it. Read WP:Note to see what people will find notable --Blowdart 12:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I did an update, let me know if that better now. Thanks--Chrix Bedard 04:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah much better (a few grammar mistakes though *grin*). Now it reads not as an advert for the book, but as a description of the condition. Well done! --Blowdart 07:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I fix (as I can) the grammar mistakes. English is not my first language. Thanks for the guidance. --Chrix Bedard 02:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Proofreading "Embryo (jazz band)"

Well done! Thank you for proofreading the article! — Tirkfl^talk 09:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Student Youth Network

Blow dart why do you keep deleting the Student Youth network page! You have no reason to do so! If i9t happens again mI'll will be contacting wikipedia about the matter. If you want to help FIX THE ARTICLE, instead of deleting it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Any12345678 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I tried to point you in the right direction last time; pushing you to WP:BIO and WP:CITE but all you did was remove the noref and speed delete templates again and again without actually changing anything in the actual article. And again, back you come, posting the same thing again, with no changes whatsoever, hence it being marked as a repost. What exactly do you expect if you ignored every piece of advice last time? --Blowdart 07:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

May I ask then, why haven't any of the wikipedia articles on other Melbourne radio stations not been deleted as many of them if not all, contain very few references, and I doubt highly if as important as SYN —Preceding unsigned comment added by Any12345678 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not really the point; I only saw your article the first time because it appeared in the new list; and if I'm bored enough I may well go through the rest. You keep talking about importance but you simply don't prove it and your reposting of the article again and again without making any changes or paying attention to proving importance does not indicate any acting in good faith. Anyway can edit articles and ask you to prove importance. If you don't believe the other stations are important then you can ask their editors to prove it; the request will be treated just the same as this article. Don't view this as anything personal, it's not, but using the other articles as an "excuse" isn't helpful. If the station is as important as you think it is then please, prove it; give us 3rd party links talking about it. Again please read WP:Note to see what is expected when proving notability. --Blowdart | ^talk 07:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

why did you remove the tag? Please explain! --Any12345678 05:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Because you're trying (very trying *grin*) I've removed the db-repost for the time being, but don't be shocked if someone else adds another tag in. So what you need to do is look at why the station is mentioned in those links you put on the talk page, and work that into the article (looking at the links however every single one of them are documents or pages produced by the network themselves. They're not 3rd party links and so cannot be used to prove notability). So you need to find something like a newspaper article talking about the work of the station; it *must* be 3rd party and it must prove notability (again see WP:Note). Until you can prove notability with mentions by 3rd parties, and not press releases etc. as you have linked to above your article will fail on notability grounds. I wish you luck! --Blowdart | ^talk 07:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

rampage

It's hardly your fault. The actions of others can't rest with you alone. They stopped as soon as they started anyway so no real harm was done. -- Longhair\^talk 08:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy

I am also trolling the new pages right now and I noticed you speedied some without putting a note on the author's talk page. Please remember to notify the author in fairness. Just a head's up, keep on keepin' on.--Old Hoss 16:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit I do it, depending on the user, if it looks like a speedy one user, one edit, then I let the bot do it :) --Blowdart | ^talk 18:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Student Youth Network

This organisation isn't even in a grey area in terms of notability. It's well known and culturally significant in my home state, although I've never listened to it myself. I have little patience for people who insist on challenging the notability of topics they know absolutely nothing about, even in the face of previously uninvolved people who actually do. Rebecca 05:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Except as WP:Note specifically says you must prove it. There's no proof offered, hence the tag encouraging people to actually edit and offer proof. There's no citations other than self referential stuff. If you had taken the time to read the talk page you'd see I've been trying to encourage the author to actually provide some decent proof of notability. Until that happens the tag is perfectly valid, and indeed it's inclusion is there to encourage others to edit and offer such proof, not as a prelude to deletion. By removing it you're doing a disservice to the article. If you're that bothered find something that will count under WP:Note instead of just removing the tag. --Blowdart | ^talk 05:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it needs references, as do a great many articles on Wikipedia. The references tag remains on the article for this reason. The claim of non-notability, however, was utter bunk, and I called you on that. Simple. Rebecca 06:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah that may be my fault. See the talk page for Student Youth Network. It's the user's 3rd attempt to create this, the previous two having been culled as non-notable (and again they just cut and pasted the previous article in). In their whine over why the article should stay they tried to use the existence of other stations as justification. I pointed out this wasn't the point, and anyone could also mark those as non-notable. *sigh* That backfired --Blowdart | ^talk 08:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

What ramage?! I note (and with some amusement!) that you pick on people who try to make wikipedia better by creating articles. --User: Any12345678 | ^talk 04:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah your little sulk and tagging of other articles, as picked up by an admin. I've tried to point you in the right direction in the talk page for the article, but rather than take that advice you decided to run amok and tag other articles. Hardly helpful. --Blowdart | ^talk 06:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh and adding a prod tag to a talk page; oh dear. Grow up. --Blowdart | ^talk 06:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

They're well within their rights to be recreating the article. It's a significant radio station, and that it's been speedied says a lot more about the willingness of one or two admins to violate the speedy deletion policy than the notability of the article. If you are, as you state, so concerned with the referencing of this article, how about doing it yourself, rather than making utterly bogus claims of non-notability? Rebecca 06:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Because I don't know the topic. The article as it stands does not claim any significance at all. How can it, there are no external references? Instead of sulking if it's so important to you then *improve* the article by proving something that is acceptable under WP:Note. You've edited a shed load of articles, you know how this works. The existence of a {{notability}} tag is not a bad thing, it's there to encourage others who know the subject matter to help improve and provide proof of significance other than the fact it has a broadcasting license. --Blowdart | ^talk 06:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The Bridgeburners

Hi,

I was looking through the history and noticed you'd tagged The Bridgeburners for speedy deletion. I'm trying to work on it along with the user who created it (he's a newbie), would you mind holding off for a bit to give us time to expand it? Another user redirected the page to Gardens of the Moon (which isn't really appropriate either) and the reversion deleted the speedy tag. Also, if you still feel it should be delted, could you take it to AFD rather than speedy? I'm not certain what the community would say and it would have implications for other pages extant and still to be created for other fictional people and groups. WLU 17:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yea no worries, when I tagged it it was a list without any real explanation of the fact it was fictional etc. I'll give it a while :) --Blowdart | ^talk 19:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Lurvely. I'm actually curious about what the AFD debate would say irrespective, as there are many, many articles on wiki that are essentially walled gardens on ficitional topics, and really how do you link it to any other article? How do you link Gandalf to Luke Skywalker? How do you break out and link to fictional universes from the outside? Really, no-one is going to find a notable discussion on Richard Rahl off of wikipedia, so does it deserve it's own page if The Sword of Truth does? A strong application of WP:N or even WP:FICT with fictional settings and people would eliminate large swaths of wikipedia. The Malazan Book of the Fallen, The Sword of Truth, A Song of Ice and Fire, large chunks of Star Wars and Lord of the Rings. Gives me the shivers it does. WLU 19:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

*grin* I'm one of those with the opinion that a large knife removing large swaths wouldn't be a bad thing, given the amount of {{inuniverse}} cruft there is. It's funny the more detailed fictional sections are on sci-fi and fantasy books, which shows the underlying user base. However given the definition of encyclopedia even fiction is a particular branch of knowledge. --Blowdart | ^talk 19:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm struggling with it - normally I'm a policy nazi, in favour of a rigorous interpretation even if it means my pet articles are erased or articles I dislike are kept. But I really, REALLY like the Malazan Book of the Fallen (and ASoIaF, though TSoT could be buried in a shallow, salted grave as far as I'm concerned). I've got groin strain from having a leg in two very far apart canoes. A second review of WP:FICT seems to support there being some rational for keeping the in universe near-cruft (or even cruft-cruft), but it's almost a loophole and I hate loopholes.

Incidentally, {{tl|inuniverse}} gives {{inuniverse}} and saves the nowiki tags. WLU 19:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Turnerzworld

I am an employee, though I didn't write the original article. Should I have an outside revise the article? Turnerzworldcorp 16:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sean Mathias

Blowdart, I've removed the speedy deletion tag from Sean Mathias. Since you nominated the article for deletion, the author has greatly expanded the article and has made sufficient assertion of notability to preclude it from a speedy deletion. If you feel the current revision of the article still merits deletion, nominate it at AfD. Thanks, Caknuck 19:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Information Card

Hi Blowdart,

Thanks for adding the content about the managed card authentication methods and for saying that some of the post felt too marketing-esqe to you.

I expanded the managed card authentication info into its own section describing the details of managed cards, also including information about auditing versus non-auditing cards. I also changed the (possibly marketing-esqe) title "Benefits of Information Cards" to "Sign-In with Information Cards" and edited accordingly. More facts are good.

I am going to push back on one thing you wrote to me on my talk page, however. You wrote about "different keys are used at each site":

Whilst on a basic level that's true; it depends. With managed cards it's certainly not true, it's only for unmanaged cards that PPID are guaranteed unique, an STS may choose not to implement PPIDs at all.

Actually, even for managed cards that provide a PPID claim, they're required to use different keys for every site. As per An Implementer's Guide to the Identity Selector Interoperability Profile V1.0, where it talks about the privatepersonalidentifier claim, "An identity provider issuing this claim must do so using data present in the RST request." This can be done either with the target scope information from the RST or the ClientPseudonym. But in either case, a pair-wise unique PPID is required to be generated by all managed cards that provide this claim.

Cheers,
-- Mike

Actually no; that line does not require unique at all; look at the phrase target scope. It's scope, not web site. So, for example, if company A has 20 web sites, all with different domain names it *is* acceptable to serve the same PPID to every site because the realm is the owning company, not the domain name. (Guess what I've been spending the last 6 months doing *grin*). So yes it's pair-wise unique, but the RP pair may not be the web site itself. Make sense? --Blowdart | ^talk 14:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you know the spec well. I can guess what *kind* of work you've been doing for the past 6 months but I'm very curiuos what the actual work has been. You won't, by any chance, be at IIW this coming week will you? If so, I'd love to chat with you about what you're doing. If not, maybe you could drop me a note at mbj@microsoft.com and tell a little bit about it if you're willing. Anyway, back to Wikipedia issues...

I took another stab at accurately describing the unique pair-wise key generation behavior of information cards, this time incorporating your correct observation that realms need not be sites. I believe that it's important to document this property of information cards in the article.

Do me a favor, if you still believe that the wording is inaccurate for some reason, take a stab at fixing it rather than deleting it this time. Or tell me what you still think is wrong and I'll fix it -- your call.

Thanks, Mbjencyclopedia 02:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The Dramatic

How can I certify the page and properly display its purpose?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dramatic

thank you for your time —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedramatic (talk • contribs) 19:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Tokyo Diner

Thank you very much for your kind help cleaning up the page on Tokyo Diner. Thank you also for your advice on references and citations.

I was delighted to see that members of the Wikipedia community had made improvements to the page. Unfortunately, however, someone has now deleted the whole page before I had a chance to save a copy of all the improvements [see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Tokyo_Diner].

Is there any way to find the page from just before the deletion?

Richard Szumlicki 10:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh bugger, I put some work into that. Not that I know of I'm afraid --Blowdart | ^talk 11:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello again.

I am now beginning to understand the power of the peer-review process.

Other user’s deletions were very effective at getting me to read and digest WP guidelines, particularly the ones concerning notability and neutrality. I finally managed to produce a contribution that other users were willing to accept.

However, almost as soon as the page was accepted, a user called Irishguy decided to put up a COI banner. I did not like this, because I thought that I had removed all the COI from the page.

Nevertheless, I am totally committed to following the guidelines, so I do not feel that I am in a neutral enough position to remove the COI banner and have not done so.

Blowdart, I understand that you know Tokyo Diner as a neutral observer. Now that the page has had contributions from other users, do YOU think the COI banner should stay?

Thank you very much for taking an interest in this.

Regards,

Richard.

P.S. I've noticed that the protocol in these discussion pages is for each new response to be indented slightly to the right. I'm afraid I don't know how to do that. Where can I find out how to? Richard Szumlicki 11:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

P.P.S. Woops! I've just read the helpful comments at the top of your page, so I see that you had answered my question before I even posed it.

Thank you. Richard Szumlicki (talk) 10:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Coaches

Well....I wouldn't call two a bunch :D. But yes, they have no real information yet, but I was hoping to simply enter them in before I forgot again. I'm going to expand them later today. But I figured that their jobs have enough notability for them to at least be in as of now. Cheers! (mastrchf91) 20:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah I thought you were about to start a run on them *grin* We'll just have to agree to disagree on if their job makes them notable. After all it's not real football ;) --Blowdart | ^talk 20:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Email

If you've got an anonymous email address to hand, drop me a line. Not urgent or important :o) ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 22:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Donedid :) --Blowdart | ^talk 23:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Robert Wegman

He's definitely "notable" and I added a decent amount of material. Wasn't sure if I could delete the "notability" tag or leave that to you. Sn14534 (talk) 03:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Culled the tag; thank you for expanding it! --Blowdart | ^talk 05:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

William Adam Trellis Award

Excuse me? How is the William Adam Trellis Award 'made up'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.138.53 (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Prove to me it's not, above and beyond a silly little personal web site on a free host with a foundation that google cannot find. --Blowdart | ^talk 21:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The website is the Foundation. What on Earth has the fact that it is a free domain got to do with anything? Similarly what has it's absence from Google got to do with anything? Also do you have any grasp of (n)etiquette? Reverting an edit you disagree with is one thing, doing so and then threatening to ban the contributor is something else. If you disagree with an addition fine, that can be discussed. If, however you are disagreeing with a relevant, verifiable claim then what right do you have to threaten to ban the one making it? Please at the very least use some common courtesy.

Yoshi525 (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Yoshi

Verifiable? It most certainly is not. I suggest you go read WP:Cite to see what counts are verifiable. A single free hosted web page and a yahoo email address is not verifiable. --Blowdart | ^talk 21:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I stopped reading at 'This page is a style guide'. Style =! policy. Now do you have a more substantial challenge or are going to continue your bad manners by citing entire, and ironically irrelevant material as your entire argument? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippytrout (talk • contribs) 21:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoa now!

Hang fire a little! Please don't be quite so over-zealous when nominating articles under construction, such as Tumblagooda sandstone, for deletion. I'm going now going to have an edit conflict to resolve when I save the page! Anyhow, thanks for new-page patrolling so thoroughly, and all the best, Verisimilus T 12:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I have to admit some puzzlement *grin* Creating a blank page that just contains the under construction tag is well, a little, errr, blank *grin*. If there had even been a single sentence beyond the tag I'd have left along, but as it stood it was just too bizarre! --Blowdart | ^talk 13:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

XCritic

Worked on getting the page up to spec. It's one of my first pages so please bear with me. Also would appreciate not having it deleted but rather get some help.

thanks 24.21.183.177 (talk) 11:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hiding behind an IP doesn't make your case any better; it's pretty obvious that you're still Gkleinman, owner of the site in question. wikipedia is not your advertising medium. --Blowdart | ^talk 11:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)--Blowdart | ^talk 11:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Not hiding behind any IP. Nor trying to hide my identity. Just wasn't logged in. It's the same IP as when I started it. Again, I'm working on the content to make it of value, please don't penalize me for being a newbie!! Help don't punish. 24.21.183.177 (talk) 11:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

funny, you were logged in a hour ago, then suddenly logged out after people starting putting warnings on your talk page. That smacks of attempting to disguise yourself while you attempt to use wikipedia as an advertising medium for your new site. --Blowdart | ^talk 11:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

not at all. I'm sorry if it seems this way, but it's not the case. I've been working on the page off and on through out the night. I didn't realize I was logged out until I went into the history for the page. I removed the deletion notice as I didn't know you shouldn't. Again I AM A NEWBIE. I think it's important that you give some leeway to new people who are learning how to wikki. I know you get a lot of crap of people spamming the wikki and perhaps you are jaded, but realize that not everyone knows how to effectively wikki, so rather than make accusations here, help a newbie learn! 24.21.183.177 (talk) 11:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

He brought this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive118#Issue with user Blowdart. The XCritic article is now on AfD and the self-bio has been reduced in size by 80% to remove most of the self-aggrandizement. He also waved WP:BITE at me, but that policy is not a licence to abuse the 'pedia, as you know. Cheers ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 12:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC) (Noticeboard link edited to reflect archival process. --Blowdart | ^talk 11:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC))

And looking at his edit history I think someone that had their first edit 2 years back can hardly claim newbie status *grin* --Blowdart | ^talk 12:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair point. But seriously. WP:BITE It's not a license and i'm not abusing. There IS a learning curve. I just wish that there was a path to INFORM before rush to delete/criticize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkleinman (talk • contribs) 12:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyway we can call a Truce here and not have you reverse all my edits? Seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkleinman (talk • contribs) 14:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

When your edits smack of spam, no, I'm afraid not. --Blowdart | ^talk 15:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography‎ before proceeding with deletion. There are issues that need to be addressed. Gkleinman (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

XCritic again

Hi, I don't think referring to editors as "muppets" is helpful. For what its worth another user did create a pretty defamatory version of the xcritic page after it went through DRV and before User:Gkleinman recreated it. The defamatory page was quickly deleted but unfortunately Google crawled and cached it in the period it was up. So you can still find the inappropriate page on Google. I don't think Gkleinman is correct to say that the page has to be recreated in order to clear the Google cache, bu his complaint about the defamatory page is valid. The question of notability of the page is still completely valid. The page does make an assertion of notability so shouldn't be speedied under A7, but the AfD seems perfectly reasonable. Best, Gwernol 19:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh Kleinman is a fun editor, attempting to use bite and other interesting rule interpretations to stop his company page being deleted. It was fun <grin>. Interesting to see he's still pushing claims for notability that are in fact about another web site. His complaint about the defamatory page is valid, if made to google; not here IMO. --Blowdart | ^talk 19:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree that he needs to complain to Google not us, I made that point to him a couple of times already. Best, Gwernol 19:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems like you have had interactions over this article and its creator before, however, that does not mean that its appropriate to make personal attacks. Please try to deal with this in a civil manner. Shell ^babelfish 23:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Blowdart, it doesn't need to be personal between us. I'm more than willing to work within the confines of WP. BTW there is a renewed case for notability for XCritic. Another Citation in a Major Trade Mag for the industry and now pending membership in the Xrated Critics Association. If that goes through would you be willing to take another assessment at notability? (provided of course I don't write the article? Gkleinman (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Honestly I wouldn't consider that linked article anything near notability, it's a single line quoting something Xcritic said. It's not a review, it's not something that says XCritic is notable because. *shrug* But I hope the google link was useful. --Blowdart | ^talk 16:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It was thank you.Gkleinman (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

OK I think we're over the hump on the notability issue. We're now a member of the X-Rated Critics Association XRCO. Need more convincing? Gkleinman (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Honestly? I don't know. It doesn't seem more than an industry group. Does a budding author who joins a group for budding authors automatically become notable? Doubtful. If it had been a group that had taken worth and some proof of expertise to join (for example becoming a booker prize judge) then I'd be less dubious. But as I don't know about the industry, I don't know how notable judging in that association makes you. Someone else could make that call. Of course the COI issue still stands. And really asking for the article to be created by others makes me worry. A bunch. --Blowdart | ^talk 17:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Not anyone can join the Association, you have to be nominated and only the top in the industry are accepted. Also almost every org listed under the membership has WP articles. In terms of next steps, I think the appropriate thing is to continue to make the case for notability with the Porn Project team. Ultimately they're going to be the ones who are best suited to figure out when a WP entry is warranted and who is the best person on their team to author it. It wasn't my intent to repost the page to be an ass, if you read what was posted and cached by Google you'll understand why I felt the need to act.Gkleinman (talk) 01:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah that's interesting; certainly looking more "notable". But is membership granted to you as an individual, or to XCritic as a company? If it's *you* then its you that is notable, not XCritic. A good start might be to expand out the XRCO article yourself and document the nomination procedures/how they choose members. Then list the current members, and link to their pages and add XCritic, but leave it as an uncreated page. Then see if anyone picks it up.

And being an ass? Well I'm awfully good at that; but hopefully you can see my point. You recreated a page that was already deleted, with no new claims to "fix" a problem with google, rather than asking google to remove the cached page. Considering the instructions I found were easy to find it looked like you were using the whole cache as an excuse to recreate the article again, rather than acting in good faith. --Blowdart | ^talk 07:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I did add some 'juice' to the XRCO page, but more to give it some references than anything else. I think the quote on IMDB's page is the clincher for notability of the members "The organization is an amalgamation of established reviewers representing a wide range of adult publications, including Adam Film World, Hustler, AVN and many retail Internet sites." Link to IMDB. What do you think? And yes it's XCritic who is a member not me personally. Gkleinman (talk) 02:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

UltraBac Software

Thanks for your help. Do you now see my notability references as sufficient and properly done to take off the notability warning on UltraBac Software? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevetechguru (talk • contribs) 15:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Rating articles help

I noticed when I click on my watchlist which contans articles I created and edited ,there are green theumps up and a number. I was wondering how I could also rate other articles.--Gia Primo (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hoxs64

Please say you were joking saying that a gaming review website is a good example to back up statements about the accuracy of a C64 emulator :( Apparently you have no idea of the subject. To be able to compare the C64 emulators in terms of their accuracy, you need to see tens if not hundreds of demos and have a really good eye for tiny details. A reviewer from a "gaming review website" playing Last Ninja to relive his youth will not be able to tell a difference, sorry. You may want to discard CSDb as a trustworthy source, but then again you're discarding the most trustworthy source about the C64. Abc64 (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

patent nonsense

Careful with what you're calling nonsense out there ([9]). That one is better candidate for {{db-web}} or {{db-context}}... Nonsense is reserved for things like 21340923afdsh089//afds09234 and the like. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, --Nsevs • Talk 20:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

DPI Labs, Inc

Thanks for tagging this article with a G11 advertising tag. My own tag was (In my eyes incorrectly) previously removed by a third user. You just saved me from having to spend 10 useless minutes to create an AFD for this, since the rules forbid the origional tagged to retag when a third user removes the speedy. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 22:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

CSD notices

Thanks for helping with the new pages. Please notify, however, per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion the article creators of the tagging, e.g. with the template message displayed on the tag itslef or e.g. with {{firstarticle}} for articles created by new users. Many tags (e.g. A7) point at issues that can be remedied if given the chance. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi blowdart, please note that "non-notable" is not a speedy deletion criteria. Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

nor is dupe! – ThatWikiGuy (talk | life | I'm watching you!) 11:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, duplicate, please put full word in future. – ThatWikiGuy (talk | life | I'm watching you!) 11:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Inter-Activa

Hey -I have just updated the article. Citations have been added where possible. Some of the comments are difficult to cite since there are no articles in wikipedia yet about those subjects or there are too many articles and liks scattered throughout the web... thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Machinima (talk • contribs) 11:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

OK I've switched the citations to use templates; but I've removed the youtube link as it doesn't really prove anything. --Blowdart | ^talk 11:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Notability tag

I saw your notability tag on Woopra and was curious as to why you didn't list it for speedy. It seems to be fairly blatant advertising. Sunray (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I did; editor DGG (talk · contribs) removed it. Consensus is a wonderful thing :) --Blowdart | ^talk 21:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure it is! I will ask him about it. Sunray (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

DGG replied here. As you were there first, would you be inclined to list it on AfD? Sunray (talk) 22:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

At the minute, no; after a bunch of us cut it back my immediate spam concerns were mollified. Notability however hasn't been; but my own rule of thumb is to leave something notability tagged for four weeks to see if anyone else picks up the slack; then prod or AFD. But please, by all means, go for it yourself. --Blowdart | ^talk 05:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I will hold off and see what your approach brings. Sunray (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

coleraine

im not quite sure what you mean regarding your last messageHalowithhorns89 (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah right. OK, given the political "nonsense" around Irish/UK it's a fun issue. The existing templates for Northern Ireland rail routes treat them as UK railways; which they are, Northern Ireland being part of the UK. Classifying them as "Irish" or "Ireland" railroads, or using Irish rail templates rather than UK ones may well end up in the silly editing nonsense that infects the Derry article on a regular basis. It was just a thought; there's also consistency to take into account; one or the other really; and previous templates have always treated themselves as UK railroads. --Blowdart | ^talk 12:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm going by the geographical island of Ireland, rather than any political entity. Personally i call it Derry, however it is officially Londonderry Waterside railway station. I'm just being accuarate. the Sligo Leitrim Northern Counties Railway is in both NI and ROI, so how would i do that? have i done a good job on the templates?Halowithhorns89 (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh the templates are grand; no doubt about it. If you're going by the island itself then the existing templates need to change for consistency though. Don't you just love politics :) --Blowdart | ^talk 12:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh good! Well, i wish i had a colour guide/catalogue rather than just using 00bb00. When you say existing templates, what do you mean? i read the "this is an Irish railway" as this is a railway on the island of Ireland. How do i make thigns consistant? just done the Mallow to Youghal and Cobh, but forgot to put "line" at the end, so need an admin to do that, currently on Mallow to Tralee. Would all branch lines deserve there own template? I hate politics lol, i'm very political, but on here i just go by facts.Halowithhorns89 (talk) 13:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh, ok. UK railways are grouped by their political entities; and have the UKrail-header. They are classified under Templates for railway lines of the UK. As Northern Ireland is part of the UK, regardless of politics all railways which are self contained with NI should, to my mind have that classification. Cross border ones; well they could be categorised as both, although what header you use is anyone's guess. Interestingly Template:Dublin-Belfast railway line uses the UKrail-header, but does not have the classification of a UK railway. It's all a bit of a mess :) --Blowdart | ^talk 14:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...well isn't it possible to re classify them? as the railways of NI were never part of British Rail, they were always part of the Irish network (Great Northern of Ireland operated County Armagh, Cunty Down, Louth and the line to present day Dublin Connolly? maybe an open discussion, in which put their two pence in. although my two points would be a sysytem for the rail network of the european island of Ireland, and that they were never BR.Halowithhorns89 (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah but then they are NI Railways, a self contained company running over the NI rails (and to Dublin). Indeed historically a separate company ran the lines within Ulster. But they're still UK railways, as Britain != UK. --Blowdart | ^talk 14:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

7 companies in all have lines that crossed the two political entities, i dont want to make a template under one country, and have ppl warring saying "this is UK" or this is ROI. I have been categorising the stations of ireland past present future, to keep all of the stations of one company in same place i always done as Ireland and Britain rather than ROI and UKHalowithhorns89 (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

we were gentlemen deletion

Sooo, I'm am still wondering what the reason is for deleting my complete article when there are referenced bases to help support what the band is. should i add more accomplishments for them. please do tell so i can revise it and put it back up. i feel it is important for fans to know what happens to some their favorite members of bands and what they are doing now, in that being concise in talking about any band. let me know what i can do to make it a "worthy" article thank you --Xjerkkx (talk) 07:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well; in general, as of course I can't see the article any more, nor can I see the state it was in when I tagged it the following would stop me from marking it for speedy deletion. Single / Album releases on a well known label, chart placements and reviews from well know newspapers or music press. References taken from the band's web site are not good references/citations. A read of WP:Note and WP:Cite would cover the common guidelines. --Blowdart | ^talk 07:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Braves-mets rivaly

Hey I not done editing this page can you wait till im done please —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam81291 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Gary McHale

Good work finding the cites. I have been looking though news archives for something (anything!) with a positive spin but like you have not found anything - perhaps that is telling in itself.... Kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 13:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

And I ended up just using the nice ones; as opposed to the ones calling him racist, foolish and point out that he travels over 100 miles to stage his protests *grin* It'll be interesting to see if any of the sockpuppet accounts I believe are his start posting as well. --Blowdart | ^talk 13:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Gary McHale

I am currently adding all the links to news stories regarding this topic. In fact over a dozen links have been added but are continually deleted.

Negative news appear okay to link to but not positive news stories. Maybe I should be allowed to finish with all the links before it is deleted and decided whether it is unverified statements.

Deleting the whole post when there are many links cannot be reasonable and then claimed the statements are unverified.

Please reply ASAP —Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryMcHale (talk • contribs) 13:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

See response --Blowdart | ^talk 13:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Bindass Programmes

As suggested the Bindass Programmes page has been merged with Bindass. I was just trying to incorporate how other similar channels work..For e.g. see NDTV Imagine Programmes. Should I put a request for deletion for the programmes page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganeshcp (talk • contribs) 09:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, blank it and add a {{db-blanked}} tag to the page please. I realise consistency is good, but really, with that small an amount of programmes keeping everything in one place is probably best. Thanks. --Blowdart | ^talk 09:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Dylan Taylor

Thanks for tagging, but I've removed the speedy tag as the article does contain assertions of notability.

I suggest Prod or AfD may be appropriate.

Anyway, keep on tagging... we need RC patrollers like you. --Dweller (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Scribble Wiki

Please can you explain what was wrong with the page that I created? MillionaireMan (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It didn't make any claim to notability or provide any citations, hence it was non-notable and eligible for speedy deletion. --Blowdart | ^talk 18:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

you obviously cant read it said under construction. I was still creating the page when you slapped the tag on it MillionaireMan (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There was no under construction message. You can always build pages in your own user pages where they will be safe until you are ready to move them over. --Blowdart | ^talk 19:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Who do you think you are?

Don't delete my real information sequence that I had to edit.

This is real research. This is a common conspiracy theory about leprechauns and aliens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jahalmightyone (talk • contribs) 19:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Then perhaps you could prove this is commonly known; see WP:Cite. However generally conspiracy theories are not encyclopaedic. --Blowdart | ^talk 20:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Denys Page

I second the above comment. Honestly, have you seen Special:whatlinkshere/Denys_Page? Tiddly pop (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

OK so? You need to provide proof of notability. You haven't, you've simply said he's was a scholar. So go find citable proof of notability then A7 will not apply, or mark it as a stub and categorise him, which would go some way to mollifying the CSD. --Blowdart | ^talk 14:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Aramaic Music Festival

How come you want that article to get deleted, when there are a lot of other music festival articles here in wikipedia? List_of_festivals#Music_Festivals AramaeanSyriac (talk) 09:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You make no claim of notability. Just because the festival is taking place does not make it notable; indeed the fact that it's in the future makes notability even less likely. --Blowdart | ^talk 09:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The point is that its the first music festival ever held for the aramaic people which is a stateless people. the aramaic people lives in a diaspora and this music festival is a step forward for uniting the aramaic people. its not a usual music festival. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 09:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok so there's a claim of notability. Now you need to find citations to back up that point of view and reference them within the article. --Blowdart | ^talk 10:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Understood. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 10:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You should note though that you should not remove speedy delete tags from articles you have created yourself. --Blowdart | ^talk 10:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

usury

"at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Usury, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed"

I just added a missing space after a coma at the beginning of the article - this needed to be done. Regards, MrMPS

This is very weird. The diff showed that you had completely added the following; "The bible is an arcane, frequently tribal and sectarian text, dealing primarily with religious themes and issues. It is not a textbook on modern banking, economic and lending systems.", hence me rolling back. Bizarre. --Blowdart | ^talk 12:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

What? No comprehend? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archilles last stand (talk • contribs) 01:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ballot paper order

Hi Blowdart. Its just the order the returning officer places the candidates on the ballot paper by their surnames, simply A-Z order really. All we do is follow it as per WP:NPOV. Cheers - Galloglass 17:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I never knew that's how it was done. How interesting! I was simply adding people in party alphabetical order, but hey-ho, if that's the standard I will know for the future. --Blowdart | ^talk 17:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

dthree

There are numerous references to companies that exist soley for the purpose of identifying them. Seibel is a prominent example. If all references to all companies are removed I will not contend this , however if you do not remove Symantec, Oracle et al then you have no right to remove my company. Mitchton (talk) 23:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Mitchton

Yup.

Okay, yes. I see what you mean for speedy deletion. My bad. If you need me, i'll be deleting something now. MKguy42192 (talk) 09:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Platsauries, AQ Worlds, Artix Entertainment

Excuse me, but all of the edits I made were requested by the community of Artix Entertainment. These were all factual edits with no errors. I don't understand the noncompliance with your policies. Plus, vandalism? I think not. No part of what I wrote was vandalism. All of these edits were in good faith, and are honestly trying to improve Wikipedia. None were compromising its integrity in any way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirgelicious (talk • contribs) 19:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You added "The game has also generated a new word called Platsauries". A new word is hardly notable; or frankly believable. So unless you can prove the existence of this new word; notable citations then any such edits will be up for removal. --Blowdart | ^talk 08:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

LeagueUnlimited

I dont see why the LeagueUnlimited page should be deleted cause other websites, notably, BigFooty have their own page on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Novacastrian panther (talk • contribs) 01:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears someone agrees with your evaluation of Bigfooty and has nominated it for deletion as well. As far as I remember you made no claims of notability about the web site; hence it being nominated for deletion as a non-notable web site. --Blowdart | ^talk 08:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

canalside

ok, no worries. will sort it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slide89 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, would like to point out that I based it largely on the page for the River Cafe in London. Therefore, as the content is of a similar style, I think you are being unjust in deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slide89 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah but the river cafe has notable chefs and a book. Canalside doesn't, or rather you provide no evidence of such. Have a read of WP:Note --Blowdart | ^talk 13:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

For me what you done is a vandalism

Did you "navigate" into the Bella web site, I do not think so. If I descibe the page as Eduardo's biography is because the site includes three different links with a biography about the subject. As a matter of fact it is important for all the people who wants to read about the subject and to get more information about the movie (which is included into the biography)to obtain another link about the movie and more information about Eduardo Verástegui (life, role as producer and cast member) I still do not see your point of view por deleted the link and for being so rude calling me "lyer" because I am not, also please let me know if set the Bella the movie link with a short biography about the subject and all the information about the movie causes a "damage" instead of provide with more information to the people who uses the wikipedia as a source. For me what you done is a vandalism, because you are trying to force to the people to get your personal point of view and not allow to everybody to get the information they want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eduardosalg (talk • contribs) 19:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You are adding an external link to a page which does not match the subject, and worse, lying about the link contents; I tried to navigate through and was defeated by the copious amounts of flash; if there was a straightforward HTML page with its own URL then maybe that would be a suitable link. There is already an internal link from the page the Bella article; it's stated he was involved in the film; his own biography page does not need a link to a film promotion site. --Blowdart | ^talk 19:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not lying and you are so rude to still say that, if you are not able to navigate it is not my fault, I did and I read the subject biography, otherwise it is very clear for me, that the only point of view which is valuable for you is your own, on the other hand you did not respond my question about if the movie link information (which includes the bio) causes any damage to the people or not; besides it is important for all the users to have all the information available on line; I do not want to waste my time, especially if you think you are the owner of wikipedia and believe that nobody elses are able to make a contribution. May the peace be with you.--Eduardosalg (talk) 00:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Reviews

I understand the thinking of the order you put them in. I also thought the positive and negative review does reflect the balanced reviews. i replaced the SF Chronicle since Roger Ebert gave it a pretty good review and he is much more known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.243.218 (talk) 04:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough to me; for a change it has a touch of balance. It won't last! --Blowdart | ^talk 05:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Maidenhead Astronomical Society

Hi, just to let you know that I have listed this article for deletion here, after your speedy request was turned down. -Toon⁰⁵ 15:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Henley

Yeah this by-election has been strange for knowing who are standing and who are not, heh. I deleted the wrong candidate, as it goes, but have now filled the list as per SODC (snigger, ahem) so all should be well. I can't believe we use light green for The Common Good; any ideas for another colour? doktorb _words^deeds 14:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, a Christian party? My immediate feeling would be some sort of white; but how much of that is from my upbringing. Now if we could get polka dots for the Loonies ...--Blowdart | ^talk 14:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Heheh. I think we use purple for the Christian Peoples' Alliance, but dunno about the Common Good, who bring to mind the Alliance For Change (UK) for their electoral obscurity. doktorb _words^deeds 14:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Purple? How very general synod *grin* Hmmm; some sort of light purple then? Mauve? --Blowdart | ^talk 14:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hah! Yeah I think a mauve should do it, suggests a connection between all the X-ian parties. I'll get onto it now doktorb _words^deeds 15:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course now we have a problem; the "Fur Play Party". Oh lord, I think I may attend the count myself just to see some of this lot. --Blowdart | ^talk 15:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I hope no-one tries to create an article for them. Unless there is a furry expert around to make the necessary citations :)

Recent locals

I've reverted your unexplained edit changing the year of the locals (with the somewhat misleading edit summary, "spelling") as South Oxfordshire is listed on UK local elections, 2007#Whole council up for election but not on UK local elections, 2008#District councils. Do you have any evidence there were any elections there in 2008?

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 17:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Mostly it was spelling corrections you realise? Look at your original edit; the link was red. It was somewhat unclear what you were trying to link to, to be honest, and comparison of local council elections to parliamentary elections is suspect at best. I was sorely tempted to bin the whole paragraph; as it's rather subjective rather than encyclopaedic. --Blowdart | ^talk 17:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes and Bella

Hi. I just wanted to let you know that i updated your edit to include the positive alongside the negative thus showing the high ratings from the users/people and the lower ratings from the critics. I led with the people and finished with critics which flowed well into the other critic site you added. i hope this is ok with you. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.243.218 (talk) 04:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well considering the section is Critical Reception; "ordinary" people aren't really critics. To put a user rating first is rather disingenuous to my mind. The Bella (film) article is (for some reason) the subject of a lot of editing to try to push how wonderful it; I'd rather see "proper" critics given more prominence in a section which is supposed to summarise their reviews, hence I've swapped it around. --Blowdart | ^talk 06:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I wan t to know who declares you a "proper critic" and gave you the right to judge the othe people and named "ordinary"; you have no values, please stop insulting or trying to demerit the people; you have to learn to see different point of views, not only you have the knowledge or the truth. Peace!--200.85.31.70 (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

National Junior Angus Show

It was an awful start, but I think it passes WP:STUB. Bearian (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

So you did, good job! --Blowdart | ^talk 04:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of WebQuick

Hello. There are articles about many CMS solutions here and I intended to describe WebQuick like it has been done for other CMS (like Clearspace for example). Do you have any suggestion in order to prevent my article to be deleted? Thanks, Wikibourg (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Electrical Equipment in Hazardous Areas Links

Hi Blowdart, If you object to my inserting external links to so called commercial sites, why do you tolerate Inglewood Engineering's commercial site link (Hazardous Area Inspections)? Am I free to remove it too, to match the standards of links? And then can I remove all the links that are to commercial sites on the RFID page too? Cheers! Abby1001 (talk) 05:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You can do what you want *grin* But yes, in Electrical Equipment in Hazardous Areas the link to Inglewood Engineering doesn't seem that suitable; in fact the whole section could do. However I don't see any blatant commercial links in the RFID page myself.

No speedy deletion anymore of the Rockstar

Excuse me Mr. Blowdart, how dare u say this comment to me. Being the person closest to the Himesh Reshammiya has full right to upload his gallery as well as create the new section. I have full A-Z info regarding our the india rockstar.

So, its my request u don'nt perform speedy deletion ! Also I have mentioned the link and external source webisite for your help ! As i have started the new section, so it will take some time to expand it ! We r humans not robot like u Mr.

It will be the rockskar and my insult if u do speedy deletion

---

Thanking You —Preceding unsigned comment added by HR4 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here for you to use as an image gallery. As famous as Himesh Reshammiya may be you need to a) prove you have permission to upload any images of that person; and prove that they are licensed suitably; b) put them in the main article if anywhere and c) do so with a few images, rather than turn the article into a fan page. --Blowdart | ^talk 10:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Mr. kelvin or blowdart is a foolish, non-sense, stupid and unminded fellow or guy of the Wikipedia

Mr. Blowdart,

This is to make avery kind request that u are degrading and making the downfall of the wikipedia by performing all sorts of non-sense activities. To name few, speedy deletion and other rubbish. If u think ur enough expert then do visit the article named "Pritam". u will first of all find the artcile unsystematic and secondly is the unusual illegal picture.

Now lets take an example of another big personalities, say "Shahid Kapoor", "Salman Khan", "Modern Talkings", there we observe some unusual illegal photos. So in this case where is ur rules are gone.

And inspite of the fact the "Himesh Reshammiya" is the grand Indian rockstar, u can't challenge him.and there we find no photo bcoz of ur stupidity.

Well ok i also agree the free image i have uploaded. But u can manage the legal photo of the Rockstar in any and how, when u have managed to keep other pics safe in ur wiki stores like "Shahid Kapoor".

So u plz. upload else i will stop contributing some factual matter on any topic or article.

---

Thanks

Jai Mata Di Lets Rock !

Rock the Wiki my dear brother Blowdart ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by HR4 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

How exactly is pointing out you lifted copyrighted photographs a challenge to someone who I doubt even looks at wikipedia. The photograph you claim to be illegal on Pritam has a valid justification; rather than the uploader lying as you did when you claimed your images with GNU licensed. The clarification they used can be covered under fair use; although it should be noted that a fan gallery such as the one you attempted to start most certainly is not fair use. As an editor if you have a problem with images or articles you are free to edit and flag them yourself, assuming you can find the source.

I have no intention of going hunting for a photo of someone I neither know nor care about; what I do care about is your blatant disregard for copyright. If that means you will no longer contribute; so be it. --Blowdart | ^talk 23:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the Ravi Agrawal issue

In apparent accord with your own theories, I've established a suspected sockpuppet page for the creator of this article and two suspected socks. Since you've been monitoring this situation and may have theories/evidence of your own, I just wanted to draw this to your attention. Even if you decide to weigh in against my theory, that's fine. It'd just be a more legitimate thing, I think, to include the opinion of someone else who's "in the know" on what's going on. Please take a look if you have the time. Thank you! - Vianello (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Ametheyst RPG

I was just wondering why you speedily deleted the Amethyst RPG article I was in the process of putting up?

Argent Mantle (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC) Argent Mantle

Notability. You didn't have any reviews; external citations; anything that would match up with the criteria in WP:Note. --Blowdart | ^talk 23:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

And I notice that this hasn't be addressed in your new article (or rather the repost of the deleted one) and someone else thinks the same. --Blowdart | ^talk 23:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I just got around to reading through everything. The original article was 2 paragraphs, the original deletion was due to Section 11 and is completely rewritten. This time the deletion is due to notability... okay. I will make additional changes and add additional references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Argent Mantle (talk • contribs) 16:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool. You're going to need citations, members, and if possible awards (in my opinion) --Blowdart | ^talk 17:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Great. I appreciate the advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Argent Mantle (talk • contribs) 20:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

About desktopbsd screenshot

I used {{db-i3}} on Image:Desktop bsd screenshot.png, because DesktopBSD logos and artwork collection are licensed Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 License. Austria. Ref: http://desktopbsd.net/index.php?id=76 According to policy for non-free content and CSD I3, all images, including DesktopBSD screenshots with DesktopBSD logos or/and artwork will be deleted immediately. DesktopBSD screenshot include bubble DesktopBSD in taskbar, that is licensed Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 License. Austria.( Ref: http://desktopbsd.net/index.php?id=76 ), thanks Shooke (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

However because it's not a full resolution image fair use applies. If it didn't there wouldn't be *any* screen shots of any software which has a copyright or license on their logos or their UI. --Blowdart | ^talk 17:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I can see WP:NFC#Non-free image use in list articles, Excuse me Shooke (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The screenshot is not free, also, is a screenshot of KDE with logo of desktopbsd Shooke (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, that a piece of software is free, does not necessarily imply that the imagery, logos, etc. presented by that software are also free. Dragons flight (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No, but it's simply a display of a BSD licensed OS, with the GPL licensed KSD. The screen shot is a derivative work of two freely licensed pieces of software. Mind you the CC license of the logo is rather daft. --Blowdart | ^talk 19:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Nonetheless, a screenshot that includes that logo is not free. I suppose you could crop that logo (if it is the only problematic component), but that might not be desirable. Dragons flight (talk) 19:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

remember that the screenshot have graphics parts of KDE (with logo and wallpaper of desktopbsd) Shooke (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

And KDE is free licensed; under the GPL. So; the only worry is the stupidity of licensing the desktopbsd logo under CC. --Blowdart | ^talk 19:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Speedy Deletion of MySpeed

This was a first draft, we are open to making changes, however, after careful review of the standards, and our submitted article, we can find no violation in what we submitted. Therefore, i respectfully request that you identify which specific portions if any, violated the wikipedia standards. Please help us to understand how to craft an appropriate encyclopedic description of a free software tool or commercial software tool. We worked hard to remove any "sales pitch". I have reviewed many other commercial products listed in Wikipedia, and our article was purely factual, made no comparisons with other products, nor any claims, furthermore the product is free. There were no opinions in the article. The uses described were strictly factual and provided as important information about the use of such technology.

We do not understand why the simple straightforward description of our software tool is considered blatant promotion of a product. Especially one that has such educational benefit (used by numerous Universities and Court Reporting schools around the country) and when so much educational video is being moved to mainstream media outlets such as Youtube (MIT OpenCourseWare). Does this mean Winzip, Photoshop, Microsoft Office, Realplayer, Windows Media Player, Flash, QuickBooks, Quicken, TurboTax, Easy Media Creator, Rhapsody, etc etc, all should be removed? This was a first draft at posting the article so that my colleges could review it and add to it and the history of the evolution of the article would be preserved. We were sharing the [[User::Enounce]] because the user needs a number of revisions before being able to upload an image, such as screen shots. There is almost no content on Wikipedia about the field of Time-Scale Modification of audio or Variable Speed Playback; a very important component of online learning, readers for the blind, electronic voting, etc. Our submission was deleted even before any review of the content or augmentation from the community could take place. We had planned to add more articles in the field of Time-Scale Modification but now the User:Enounce account has also been blocked. We felt that our company's significant role in the field of Education and participation with the US Library of Congress 1 2 3 to support electronic readers for the blind would enable us to post informative factual articles on a very important technology and the products that help visually impaired and learning impaired individuals. New standards for Electronic Voiting starting in 2008 require that Voters be able to control the speed of audio instructions presented to the voter. "Many blind voters are accustomed to interacting with accelerated speech. This feature may also be useful to voters with cognitive disabilities." Sec 3.3.3-C.8

Other references: Autonomous Technology-Assisted Language Learning/Input

In closing, I would like to request a re-review of our submission and our status as a submitter. I look forward to your reply and remain open to removing any offending material you identify. We reviewed our submission and found it in line with all the stated requirements. --Rosso1876 (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC) (really User:Enounce)

As I can't see it, it's hard to comment. Do you fancy recreating in your user space again and I'll have a look? Of course remember, other editors' opinions may vary. --Blowdart | ^talk 15:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I sound a little confused but I'm new to this and since your name was the one on the comment on the User talk:Enounce page, I had assumed you were the one that did the deletion and had assumed you had reviewed the page before deleting it. Just out of curiosity, is it possible to know who deleted the page? The comment says its possible to get the entry back which would be easier as I made a few fixes and additions in the Wiki environment. I noticed your name was not listed as one of those willing to perform recovery, so I guess I'm suppose to add an entry to one of their talk pages and refer them to this discussion? I can post it again but where do you suggest I post it for your review. --Rosso1876 (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

RPG Pogrom?

I notice today that you're AfD listing a massive number of rpg-related material. Would you care to explain the recent surge? Since they're all independent deletions with an assertion of no notability, you'll have to forgive me for raising an eyebrow. Why all the separate listings instead of a large, related entry that could collect everything together? On the surface there is the appearance of WP:NCR or more likely WP:POINT #3. This is only an appearance, I am just curious and want to hear your thoughts. HatlessAtless (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was because I tagged one earlier in the week for a speedy; and one of the talk page discussions was "But look at all the existing ones, they're just as notable". So I did *grin* I haven't tagged everything, but rather those I had concerns with. I wasn't aware that I could do a group listing; something I shall remember for next time. The spiderman costume isn't me I'm afraid; I'm much more of a Bond villan... --Blowdart | ^talk 16:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

*laughs* Fair enough. You might want to go back and ask for a group listing of your existing ones. Please be careful. This is exactly what WP:POINT, WP:JNN (which is how most of your nominations appear to be phrased), WP:WAX and WP:ALLORNOTHING, all of which are defined as poor arguments to use. Perhaps we should collaborate on defining a better notability criterion to help clarify what should get included and what shouldn't for rpgs. HatlessAtless (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• At the risk of being daft then, how do I go about turning it into one big listing? Criteria is a interesting idea, lord knows the D&D section needs "cleaned" as well. --Blowdart | ^talk 17:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• There's already a notability guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (books) for games that rely on sourcebooks, and another proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (toys and games) which directly addresses RPGs.
  My personal opinion is that we don't even need this level of complexity. If we've got a reliable, secondary source we should at least have a redirect, and expand out from the publisher articles as more information becomes available. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
• Thanks for the heads up. Personally I have to disagree with you on the other part; the reason for expanded guidelines is that some things are more amenable to the general notability guideline than others. More specifically, some notable things are more likely to receive RSS coverage (main stream media or academic journals) than other things that are also considered notable by consensus. Oh, also, I agree with your suggestion, for most of the source books nominated I agree with your end result; redirect to the publisher unless we run into either a WP:undue or an independent notability situation allowing for a full article. My suggestions in the AfD were to avoid the issue that it looked to me like a possible deletion flood on the part of Blowdart, which it wasn't, and I am trying to keep in the spirit of WP:PI HatlessAtless (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I would also rather they be nominated as a whole. The closing admin will be able to delete/keep individually if some are notable, but if your argument for all is that they don't have sourcing to assert notability (and they are all small rpg's), then we should probably nominate them all at once. Protonk (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

OK cool; but then how do I it? Can I merge them now, or do I close them and start again or what? :) --Blowdart | ^talk 05:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Setp 1 would be to edit each of your nominations and citing that you are going to bundle the nominations in the edit description. Second, towards the end of the nomination instructions there is an explanation of how to nominate multiple articles together. HatlessAtless (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Please reverse T. Boone Pickens, Jr..to Pickens Plan

I did it by mistake, wasn't expecting Pickens Plan to got removed ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poseidon123 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Observer's Law

I understand my article may be a bit pithy, hence, instead of simply deleting, can it be merged into a relevant section under "Godwin's Law"? Perhaps a "Variations" section would suffice. Thank you.

BTW, I wonder how you're so quick. Is there a function to view newly created pages in Wiki? เอๆ (talk) 16:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Well considering how there's only one mention I would doubt it's notable even for a side mention; a single blog entry does not make a phrase. And yes, there is, Special:NewPages. Regards. --Blowdart | ^talk 17:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

TownTalk sites

I notice that you've edited a number of pages relating to towns etc to remove links to TownTalk.co.uk websites from the external links sections, with the comment "towntalk.co.uk spam link". Whilst I hold no brief for these websites, I think they are valid links. I notice from the main TownTalk website that the TownTalk project is supported by the regional development agencies, the DTI (now BERR) and the European Regional Development Fund. In the case of Frome (the town I'm interested in) I also notice that the local District Council received a presentation from TownTalk's Chief Executive about their project. So they would appear to be bona fide. Dmvward (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that's interesting. I culled them all because there was a large spam run adding them to over 30 UK town sites. I have to admit I don't know if the site itself would pass WP:Note. What marked it for spam for me was the description of most links as "Official Internet Site", stretching the truth somewhat. Whilst the web site may be bona fide, their marketing techniques on here certainly smack of spam, to me anyway. --Blowdart | ^talk 17:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You mean the series added by Biggiewiggler I presume? However some of the links that were deleted are not new but have been around for a while. I'm not an expert on the notability guidelines, and whilst I could well agree that describing them as "official sites" is maybe stetching things a little (but then, what is an official site of a town?), some of the ones that that user added were simply labelled "Guide to the City Centre - Events, News and Information" which doesn't seem unreasonable, or greatly different from having a link to the local Tourist Board. It looks to me like these sites provide the user with useful additional information about the place in question. Dmvward (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it was Biggiewiggler; and after that I went searching. It just smelt, with the official site description in the link summary. A tourist office I can understand, it has some semblance of official standing; but towntalk? Not so sure. If the parent site isn't notable enough for its own article (no idea of course, haven't tried) are sub sites? --Blowdart | ^talk 19:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Gun in Hand

Your speedy deletion was removed by the creator. I added it back. Might want to keep an eye on it. Virek ^{(talk♦contribs)} 20:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah good stuff, thanks! --Blowdart | ^talk 20:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

New Link?

Hi Blowdart - I understand you must comply with rules etc. however this is not an advertisement. This is something I found helpful with my new lawn. I thought that was what wiki was all about?!? I am new to this and used this website to help me. why was this not right for wiki?

--Geri222 (talk) 10:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Meh

Maybe watch this and the user? Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah you star; if he's going to remove a prod well then it's AFD time I'm afraid. Looks non-notable to be and very COI --Blowdart | ^talk 16:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of .ZAV

I fail to understand why you keep deleting our entry for decribing the GPS file format.

The fact that you cant find this a google seach I suppose will depend what search criteria you are looking for and where you are looking.

This is a Chinese defined file format very commonly used for goods sold in Europe and USA. Currently the file format is used and supported by 15 different Chinese manufacturers of small GPS units. The same file format is adopted by all 15 manufacturers to allow interchangeable point sharing between different units manufactured by differnet companies.

If you have a no-name brand GPS then most likley this is the format it uses.

Zavvyy (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I searched for .ZAV "file format". If you can find some references that prove it is notable then by all means add them, but please read WP:Note first. Finally wikipedia is not the place for detailed file format information; compare the details section for ZIP (file format) against yours. --Blowdart | ^talk 17:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

My intention is to maintain and update the desciption over time, adding in lists of the units that use it etc. But I am not going to type that up all in one hit. I will come back to it and improve it as time goes on. So yes it may migrate into a detailed description similar to .ZIP format but it wont happen immediately.

The format is currently in use on the Guider being handed out at the Olympics in Beijing. You can see the Beijing guider here. http://www.pmr-technology.com/pmr/gpscompass/index.htm

So please leave it alone and give me a chance to finish the edit. Zavvyy (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

But that device link you posted doesn't prove that it uses your file format; and lets be honest it's probably the PC software that reads it and translates into something suitable for the device; unless you can provide citations to the contrary. --Blowdart | ^talk 17:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

re: Richard Douglas vs Dick Douglas

Hello there

Yes, for two reasons.

1: He's active in the one of (the?) highest profile public finance jobs in the UK and not a relatively obscure former politician 2: He's actually known as Richard Douglas, rather than Dick. Doug graeme (talk) 09:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well now you've broken existing links; you could have instead created a disambig page; which I've done instead. Were you planning to fix the pages linking to the original redirect? "Known as" probably wasn't a good enough reason to be honest! --Blowdart | ^talk 09:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - yes, I was and you've beat me to it. I'm a bit new to the editing and was feeling my way around. (PS thanks for the signing tip, which I had meant to do but as a lame n00b forgot to)--Doug graeme (talk) 09:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough *grin* You probably don't want to blithely overwrite name redirects like that, but rather create a disambiguation page and name your new people in such a way that the page name is unique. Looking at the links to Richard Douglas he's also an Ozzie rules player and an american football player. A disambig page like that allows scope for expansion! --Blowdart | ^talk 09:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You wikipedia lot aren't scary at all, really rather nice ;-). Thanks for tip(s) - entirely sensible--Doug graeme (talk) 09:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

External linking on Lawn/Sod pages

I don't see how including an external link to a page that expressly shows you how to install sod yourself without any sales information could be considered vandalism. Same thing goes for the lawn care guide. There are other guides on there that are much less deserving. Considering there are no external links on the Sod page at all, I don't see how affording the user the opportunity to find other websites that show them how to install their own sod is anything but helpful. Here are the pages in question that you referred to as vandalism, which under Wikipedia's guidelines cannot be considered as such (they are helpful): http://www.evergreenturf.com/do-it-yourself/index.php and http://www.evergreenturf.com/lawn-care/index.php

Please explain how you came to the conclusion (within a very, very short period of time) that these pages were not helpful to the end user. 70.184.122.73 (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Because the links you posted didn't even cover the topic you suggested they did. Lets look at Laying Sod Yourself. It has nothing of the sort, it's simply a page asking if people want to sign up for a newsletter. So how exactly isn't it spam? --Blowdart | ^talk 19:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That was a mistake, it was supposed to be http://www.evergreenturf.com/do-it-yourself/index.php Either way, the purpose of that page is not meant to be a newsletter sign-up as much as access to all the lawn maintenance guides. Just because it includes a newsletter sign-up doesn't imply spam. 70.184.122.73 (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Mo abudu

how can you help me to get Mo abudu to stay on wikipedia. each time i put it online , ,it is deleted . Mo abudu runs a talk show called moments with Mo, this program has touched so many lifes in africa, and still is. i need to build a pages on her please help. she has som website , www.momentswithmo.tv,inspire-africa.com, the talk show is on MNet west, NTA, Stv tv chanels —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inspireafrica (talk • contribs) 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

ipex computers

excuse me whats your problem this article is none of your bisness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutajarc (talk • contribs) 10:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

articles are everyone's business, that's kind of the point of a wiki. Once you create a page it is not yours. You haven't proved Notability in any way. --Blowdart | ^talk 10:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ricky K

Just a friendly note on Ricky K. I declined your speedy on the article because there is a claim of notability (nationally syndicated show).--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Belfast

Yes it is a British city. Great Britain is the island. Britain is not an island. Britain is either the United Kingdom or the British Isles. Being part of the United Kingdom or British Isles, makes it British. Belfast is both. The Birmingham page says "This article is about the British city" not "This article is about the city in England". The Belfast article should be styled exactly the same way. Christopedia (talk) 10:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Have a read of British Isles naming dispute; it's a contentious issue. London for example doesn't have that qualifier at all, nor does your change add anything useful; it's in Northern Ireland, so why not say so? --Blowdart | ^talk 10:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It says it is in Northern Ireland in the first sentence.Christopedia (talk) 10:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

So? This is justification for changing the disambig statement as well? Afraid not. Petty political point scoring is hardly a reason. --Blowdart | ^talk 11:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Why mention Northern Ireland when Birmingham doesn't mention England? Everyone knows where London is. It's about 30 times the size of Belfast. Seems the Irish want to insert the word Ireland in an article about a BRITISH city as much as they can for petty political point scoring and because the city is located on "THEIR" island that they think they should have all to themselves no doubt. Northern Ireland is our part of the island and its got nothing to do with them. Christopedia (talk) 11:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah so it is political point scoring you're after. Well you can try, but it will keep getting reverted. Regardless of who owns it politically it is a city in the country of Northern Ireland, facts win over politics every time. --Blowdart | ^talk 11:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Quick Question

is there a quick command to enter the ( --Theonlyoxymoron | ^talk 10:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC) ) information, instead of having to type it up everytime

Ahh signing? You add --~~~~ or press the signature button on the editing toolbar. See Wikipedia:Signatures --Blowdart | ^talk 11:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you --Theonlyoxymoron | ^talk 10:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

better breakfast

not sure if you saw, but the creator removed the PROD. It's AfD time, kids! Yay! Ironholds 19:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I was creating it as you left the message :) --Blowdart | ^talk 19:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:NN tag placed on Yeardot

Hiya, I noticed that you placed a {{notability}} tag on the article Yeardot. I feel this may be an error. I've delved slightly deeper and it seems it is a national TV program that stars at least one person, Gilly Flaherty (a professional footballer) already determined to fulfill WP:NN Articles exist a Ghits such as here and with another star being a candidate for election to parliament (one of the youngest ever). As such I feel that it passes WP:NN and I'm going to remove the tag. If you feel this is an error. Please place the whole article up for deletetion. Thanks and have a nice day! fr33kman (talk) 23:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me; thank you for letting me know and providing a detailed justification, I really do appreciate it! --Blowdart | ^talk 06:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No probs! Cheerio! :-) fr33kman (talk) 00:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Jessica cha

Hi

the author of this page who you have placed a CSD:BIO tag contacted me showing me he edited the page showing the notability. I removed the WP:NOV & WP:BIO tags I have placed and I'm asking you if it would be a good Idea to remove the speedy tag.

your

Alexnia (If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.) @ 11:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC),

Red Shirt Security

Why did you delete my artical on Red Shirt Security? The C of E (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't delete it, I simply nominated it (and the reason is on your talk page; it wasn't notable. The deleting editor agreed. --Blowdart | ^talk 12:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Henley-on-Thames

Hi. I'm not too bothered about it but is there any way of mentioning that the two venues are in Bucks, not Oxon, or is it just not worth it. The Berks/Oxon border is more pronounced due to the river, but the Bucks/Oxon may is less obvious, and I don't like seeing places categorised in the wrong county. Mpvide65 (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion I don't think it's worth it; sure the town is in Oxfordshire, but really it's talking about things nearby, I don't think it insinuates they're in the same county, it doesn't mention county at all there. Now if the articles for the locations themselves have gotten it wrong ... well that's different :)

The Italian Job

Hello Blowdart. I want to make a suggestion about dealing with User:DavidEMorton on the page for this film. First off you were quite right to remove his edits. The info he is putting in has all sorts of problems. The two big ones being that they violate WP:SOURCE and WP:COI. The also have WP:NOTABILITY problems since the whole thing is really only important to him. I want to suggest that you use any of these as the reason for removing his edits in your edit summary rather then claiming that they are vandalism. In my time of editing here I have seen some editors who were doing the right thing get in trouble for using the vandalism edit summary in this kind of situation. If DM persists in entering this info we will have to report him to admins at some point and I think that COI is probably going to be our best bet. If we were to take it to AIV I think that they would be unlikely to block as they would say that it is a content dispute rather then out and out vandalism. Now as I say this is just a suggestion and I want to apologize if you are offended by any of this or if you think that I am sticking my nose into your business. I am just trying to give you some of the benefits of my experience and I have the film on my watchlist too and I will be trying to help out with this editor if he persists. Keep up the good work and happy editing and again apologies if I have caused offense. MarnetteD | Talk 23:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Something or other

Please stop making modifications to the page online classified ads. The page did meet the guidelines of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.213.57 (talk) 17:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh you mean removing the spamming you're adding for your own site on Online classified advertising. You see Peter hiding behind an IP address isn't exactly fooling anyone. Your little ad site isn't notable, and adding links to it doesn't help anyway as it won't affect your google ranking anyway. So shooh, there's a good boy. --Blowdart | ^talk 18:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Jayden Sparks

For the last two hours i have been attempting to post and edit articles relating to a book which is currently in the publication process. i am not advertising in any fashion. I am putting up various articles to help answer questions people have had about my story. how can i post these without having them deleted before the article i try to reference is set up?

Rogue ghostie (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Given that you are creating multiple articles with the same text that's a bad start. As your book isn't published it's hard to see how it would meet any notability criteria necessary for an article to survive, unless you can come up with reliable citations illustrating that it is somehow special beyond all other upcoming books. --Blowdart | ^talk 22:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Abandon Chip!

I have referenced to an article advertising the fact a new fanzine was available back in 2006 on the Scarborough FC website.

Is this a reliable enough source to remove the notability warning?

October 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lurgan. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Toddst1 (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

As the edits constitute vandalism (removal of well cited resources) I'd say that falls within the 3rr exceptions, but feel free to differ. --Blowdart | ^talk 15:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Middendorf's

Why did you vandalize my recent page on Middendorf's restaurant? I am new to this wikipedia, and if you would have spent the time to look at the history, you would see that I gave an appropriate citation to the Southern Living article, but I couldn't figure out how to link it. http://www.southernliving.com/southern/travel/food/article/0,28012,607588,00.html is the source.

You sure did go a little overboard by seeking the deletion of this important article, which details the history of a very important New Orleans area restaurant, because it didn't have one quote cited properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NOLAhistorian (talk • contribs) 15:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Jerk: Maybe you should read the rules on Wikipedia before going on an editing splurge. You live 6000 miles away and do not understand anything about the importance and history of New Orleans food, but you feel you are an authority to say that my articles are advertisements? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NOLAhistorian (talk • contribs) 15:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Well now I'd suggest you read the guidelines yourself; WP:Cite being the main one, and learn how to sign posts on talk pages before accusing someone else of not knowing the rules. You simply don't provide any proof of notability; simply being established is not enough. While you're reading the rules I'd suggest WP:Note would be a good starting point. Your southernliving reference doesn't refer to the catfish as you started and is hardly large or notable in my opinion. --Blowdart | ^talk 16:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering I was IN THE PROCESS of editing the article while you felt the need to assert your online authority, you might want to reconsider what you've written. All one has to do is look at the history of the page to see that I was in the process of linking the quote I gave, and you stepped right in, not to help, but to nominate the article for deletion. That is the antithesis to Wikipedia community guidelines, and judging from your brief history as an editor, not an isolated incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NOLAhistorian (talk • contribs) 16:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

According to the Southern Living magazine article I linked, it states, "Quite possibly the best fried fish in the world--yes, the world." Next time read the citation before making a false statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NOLAhistorian (talk • contribs) 16:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Which does not appear to refer to the catfish as say it does. Indeed the catfish at the restaurant is not mentioned; the comment is on the place as a whole. Does Southern Living have a notable reputation for food reviews. Indeed as they say "possibly" it's hardly a fact, but an opinion, which is not encyclopaedic.

Wikipedia is a collaborative effort; the page is not yours, it is everyone's. Anyone can and will edit and have their own opinions on the notability or suitability of the content. If you want to write a history that is yours then wikipedia is not the place to do it. Your accusation that I nominated the article for deletion is simply wrong. Adding tags as such marks the article as in need of improvement; people look for those tags and edit to improve and remove them, as you have seen from Toddst1's edits.

As for a briefing editing history and the insults; I'd suggest you learn more and read about what wikipedia is and how to act upon it before slinging insults around.

Once again please sign your messages on any talk page. --Blowdart | ^talk 16:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Again you have not read the article thoroughly. It is listed under the rubric "Fried Catfish". --NOLAhistorian (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

As to the voracity of Southern Living's reputation as a legitimate source of food reviews, I suggest you read the Wikipedia article on the magazine. Will you edit it also? --NOLAhistorian (talk) 17:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It may be listed under fired catfish as a category, but the description itself simply mentions "fired fish"; this is setting aside the fact that it's an in passing reference. I have the article on the magazine, and nothing mentions a reputation for food reviews; simply that its a lifestyle magazine with an impressive readership. --Blowdart | ^talk 18:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You're a pedantic, bloviating blowhard. Chew on that fried fish, son. Stay in English Imperialist Wiki articles and in articles on which you have a smidgen of knowledge. --NOLAhistorian (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest you read Wikipedia:Etiquette as well; once you've finished reading the notability and citations links I provided for you above. --Blowdart | ^talk 21:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism on my user page

Thanks for that. William Avery (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Necessary Heartbreak

I just wanted to give you a heads up about this article. Books are not eligible for speedy deletion; consider instead a PROD tag or AfD. I saw where you offered to help the author on the article's talk page, which is great. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 15:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Notability

Dear Blowdart,

Any help you can give me to keep off the notability tag on the Necessary Heartbreak stub would be much appreciated. Thanks! Conniesmall (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

OK so you are going to have a hard time here. I assume there are no reviews of the book, it hasn't won any prizes and its not inherently notable because its from a famous author. WP:Note and more specifically WP:NB will guide you in what you need to prove; if you can't, then it's not notable enough as it stands. --Blowdart | ^talk 13:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the speedy response. the author is a well-known sports writer, has published 6 books previously as well as a popular book about new york city that was the lead for a column by cindy adams. if i add an author bio paragraph, would the notability tag still be an issue? thanks - cs Conniesmall (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It would, because notability is not inherited; so the book still wouldn't be notable. I'd start with a biography of the author; and then maybe list the books under there, with suitable redirect pages for the book titles. Then if the book becomes notable you can hive it off into its own article. --Blowdart | ^talk 13:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

thanks. i'll follow-up with your advice. -cs Conniesmall (talk) 13:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

blowdart! i put up the new page on the author, mj sullivan. could you merge the necessary heartbreak page with it? i'll edit it from there for relevance. thanx. cs Conniesmall (talk) 14:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You're probably better off going it yourself to start with; list his books in a book section along with the ISBN numbers; see Daniel Abraham (author) as an example. You might also want to add an info box as well. Then you can either leave the book article up there and see (being notability flagged isn't an immediate delete flag or anything) or consider merging a couple of lines into the author article. --Blowdart | ^talk 14:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Great. Thanks again. -cs 24.47.209.51 (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

AIV report user:217.42.124.43

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If they continue to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you! --VS ^talk 11:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Darn I missed the diff? Doh. Appears they left though; so never mind :) --Blowdart | ^talk 12:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Microsoft Visual Studio -- DreamSpark License

I'm sorry I didn't link to it. They don't have a copy easily available, however I had just agreed to the license when I made the modification to the article.

One significant term that comes to mind was that one cannot write commercial software and if one does, one must buy the products from Microsoft before one can sell software made. I am sure that provision is not within the normal license agreement. Second, I remember that if Microsoft doesn't like what you are doing they have the right to tell you to delete the software from your computers. Further, you are only to use the software to support work in a science, mathematics, something something, or engineering curriculum.

I'll poke around a bit and see if I can find the license text to link to.

BrotherE (talk) 02:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I found someone quoting parts of the license here:

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

3. STUDENT PROGRAM USE RIGHTS.

a. Installation and Use Rights. You may install one copy of the Software made available to You through the Student Program on Your own device, but only Angel to support science, technology, engineering, mathematics and/or design (“STEM-D”) courses, labs, or programs You are enrolled in and attending through Your educational institution; (b) in non-commercial STEM-D research; or (c) to design, develop, test, and demonstrate software programs for the above purposes.

b. Restrictions. You may not use the Software:

• for commercial purposes (except as permitted under Section 3(d); or

• to develop or maintain Your own administrative or IT systems, or those of Your educational institution.

c. Violations. If Microsoft informs You that You have violated these license terms, You must immediately discontinue any use of the Software provided to You under the Student Program, and You must return or destroy all copies of the Software in Your possession.

d. No commercial use. If You use the Software to create software programs, You may only commercially use or distribute them upon the purchase of appropriate commercial license(s) for the Software.

4. END OF STUDENT STATUS; TERMINATION.

a. End of Student Status. If You no longer qualify for the Student Program (by failing to meet the definition of "You" above), then Your membership in the Student Program will automatically terminate, however, You may continue to use the Software You obtained prior to termination of Your student status subject to the terms of this license.

b. Termination. Microsoft may terminate Your usage of any Software obtained from the Student Program if You fail to comply with any of these terms.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Point 3c is what I was referring to when I said I remembered that Ms could tell you to to stop if it didn't like what you were doing. On one hand this section seems to be geared towards "you must stop if you are in violation and MS tells you so." But what it says is that you must stop and delete everything if Microsoft tells you that you are in violation. It does not say anything about your actually having to be in violation for this to be in force. I could see a judge going either way in a case based on this, thus I remembered the more extreme interpretation. Either way I feel that section 3 qualifies as significantly more restrictive than the standard license.

BrotherE (talk) 03:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I now have a link to the full license agreementon the channel 8 website. However, you may need to be part of the student program to access this page. I had to sign in before I could get there. So I have put a copy in my user-space for you to look at.

BrotherE (talk) 04:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah good stuff. That no commercial use is a right sod :) --Blowdart | ^talk 06:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Derry GAA

We are not "vandalising" wikipedia. We are making it impartial and representative, instead of only reflecting British opinion on the matter. The GAA is Irish, not British, and the Republic of Ireland, and therefore its registered sporting bodies, refer to "London"Derry as Derry or Doire. By being representative of the language comprimise in Ireland, Derry GAA is being refered to as Derry and not Doire. The Anglo/ Gaelic debate should be the only one which affects the GAA side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.61.159.26 (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The compromise on the Derry article doesn't spread to the rest of the "Catholic" articles within wikipedia; even if it did the naming compromise indicates that Londonderry should be used for the county. Regardless of how that community views the name Londonderry the fact remains that is the name of the county; it didn't even exist before Ulster was split into constituent parts; there was never a County Derry. --Blowdart | ^talk 14:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Derry/Londonderry

We have another anon user now, going the other way, changing Derry to Londonderry. User:78.33.101.58 mainly dealing with City of Derry Airport. May wish to assist me in keeping in eye on him. Canterbury Tail talk 15:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah joy; that one is in the watch list now :) --Blowdart | ^talk 15:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If it's not one side viewpoint, it's the other. Gets a bit tedious after a while does it not. Canterbury Tail talk 16:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe someone should make StrokeCityBot *grin* --Blowdart | ^talk 16:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I wish they'd rename the city and county to Bob or Fred. Solve all the problems of both sides bickering over silly things. Canterbury Tail talk 19:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Some things you cannot change! The official name of the city is Londonderry and no amount of discussion or debating will change this!—Preceding unsigned comment added by The Maiden City (talk • contribs) 17:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Make a page

To prevent a ForestFire, please see User_talk:Xaosflux#Speedy_deletion_of_Make_a_page. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 15:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

watch out

watch out before deleting content, I see you have a history of making unneccesary removals, kinda childish isnt it? read the articles next time

--Caloss (talk) 12:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Windows Home Server

Please use your brain when reverting. Thank you. The first edit was a ref fix if you did not notice.--Kozuch (talk) 11:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Common Travel Area

Thats fine by me, but might I suggest just saying the full name of the UK instead of using brackets to include NI? It reads a bit better.78.16.109.244 (talk) 11:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

A little long worded perhaps? Brackets at least gets the point over without becoming a large mouthful. I should point out that switching IP addresses this morning does *not* free you from the outstanding 3RR warning; you have broken 3 reverts in 24 hours. --Blowdart | ^talk 12:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Windows Azure

I'm pretty sure you aren't quite understanding why I chose to fold Windows Azure and Azure Services Platform into a single article. It's pretty simple -- the two things are part of a single package offering from Microsoft. Don't be fooled by all the hoopla and fluffy terminology... it's just an application hosting platform with some interesting development tools. This doesn't entitle us to write a whole set of articles on it... it's one product, one offering, one thing. If Azure Services Platform expands to the point where there is so much information that splitting it into multiple articles makes sense, then yes, an article on Windows Azure may make sense. But not now.

Furthermore, w/r/t its placement on {{Microsoft Windows family}}, Windows Azure isn't a release of "Microsoft Windows" in the traditional sense. People aren't going to be installing it on their desktops or servers as a replacement for Vista, 7, or Server 2008. It's a hosting and development platform. Don't be fooled by the presence of the word "Windows" in its name; not everything Microsoft calls "Windows" is "Microsoft Windows". Take "Windows Live", for example... Windows Live has about as much place on that template as Windows Azure does.

Furthermore, it's hard enough for the average person to understand what the hell is Microsoft is on about with this cloud computing stuff... spreading parts of the information across multiple articles doesn't help create an understanding. Quite the opposite, really; over time you'd get a variety of edits across the articles that could end up being either repetitive or contradictory. I've seen it happen... it's really ugly, and reflects badly on the encyclopedia.

I know it's fun making a pile of articles, but at some point you have to stop and ask if it makes sense to have a pile of tiny articles, or if one larger article serves readers better. When talking about closely-related components of a larger topic, the latter is pretty much always preferable.

I hope that, instead of engaging in a stupid edit war over this, you'll have some trust that after three constant years of working on Windows articles, I know what I'm talking about here. Warren -talk- 22:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I disagree; the platform is separate to the service; you may as well merge Linux into Amazon S3 because that's the OS it's sitting on, or merge Apache into PHP and so on; but of course you wouldn't. Instead of merging there is already a template for Azure which shows the layers quite separately. If you feel it's non-notable take it to a prod. --Blowdart | ^talk 22:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't particularly care that you disagree -- the facts are simple: "Windows Azure" is touted as an operating system, yes, but it's not a planned release of "Microsoft Windows" as all the other elements of that template are. I also didn't say that Windows Azure is not notable; clearly it's Microsoft's way of attaching the Windows brand name to another of their online services offerings. Arguing that Windows Azure is a release of Microsoft Windows is like arguing that Office Live or Windows Live are releases of Microsoft Office or Microsoft Windows. They're not, right? They were repurposing established brand names for online offerings, but neither of them share any real, actual heritage to the original product. Right?

For now, a redirect will work fine for the amount of content we have on the topic, which is practically none. Everything that was in Windows Azure was already in Azure Services Platform, so why repeat it? Again, stay focused on what I'm really saying here -- we do not need several tiny articles on a single topic. Warren -talk- 22:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Because the platform and the OS are separate entities. Part of it is the redirect direction; if anything, to my mind, it should be Microsoft Azure, or Windows Azure as the title, if it was going to cover both. --Blowdart | ^talk 22:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No they're not. How can I get Windows Azure without Azure Services Platform? How can I get Azure Platform Services without Windows Azure? The answer is this: you can't. Windows Azure is the base run-time component of the Azure Services Platform: It's clear as a bell: http://www.microsoft.com/azure/images/servicesPlatform.jpg ... Microsoft is not marketing Windows Azure as something separate from the Azure Services Platform. They also aren't calling any piece of this "Microsoft Azure", so it's inappropriate for us to use that name on Wikipedia.

Microsoft describes it thusly: The Azure Services Platform is a cloud operating system and collection of services that can deliver web, mobile, or hybrid software-plus-services applications to users. ... they describe the "Windows runtime environment" as a component of the Azure Services Platform -- not as something separate from it. Everything on {{Microsoft Windows family}} has been a retail or OEM product that bears the "Microsoft Windows" brand. That's why the template has the words "Microsoft Windows" on it; that's why Microsoft's other operating systems aren't listen; that's why Microsoft's other Windows-branded products aren't listed.

You won't understand this fully until you accept that Azure is not a release of "Microsoft Windows". That's the key. Warren -talk- 16:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

And yet on whatisazure.mspx it is marked out as a separate OS. Yes the naming is incredibly silly; nor do I claim that you will be able to buy the OS yourself (although that's a whole other discussion for certain large companies). Taking the component argument then Windows Presentation Foundation should not have a separate article. The template is called the Microsoft Windows family, not "OEM/Boxed copies of Windows"; otherwise we'd have to remove Nashville et al. Like it or not Microsoft are calling Azure the OS that the platform runs on. To say they aren't calling any piece of this Microsoft Azure is correct; they're calling part of it Windows Azure; Windows® Azure is a cloud services operating system. Heck you can't get the services platform either; that which you install locally is not the real platform, it's a simulated API for local bits; so should we remove the runtime article as well? --Blowdart | ^talk 17:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

cwnusa - xbox

Dear Blowdart,

I am thankful for every hint.

However I do not agree with your opinion regarding my xbox edit.

For me it appears pretty arrogant to ignore a part of the xbox history. The history of the idea and its name (and the people behind) is an essential part of the xbox history.

To accuse me of vandalism is detractive.

To make it very clear, here in short:

1. The box is nothing without its name. It is nonsense to separate the name from the box. What do you think why Microsoft bought the name?

2. At least Bernd H. Pollinger was technical part.

3. Your objection does not meet the reality: The existing article talks about the advertising issue in the UK, which has nothing to do with the box itself - at least not more as its name. Are you measuring with different measures?

4. Many articles are talking about inventions and the names of the inventors and other people who were involved in any way. It is simply part of an encyclopedia to honor poeple who were involved in a world wide known product etc. It is kind of intellectual vandalism to ignore people who participated in an invention. People are interested in the facts I added.

5. What gives you the exclusive right to judge the value of my edits?! I did not edit judge or remove any part of the existing article, although I do not agree with everything.

6. Instead of fighting we should find a way to provide the users of wikipedia with correct information. Proposal: We could add part called "History of the xbox Brand" - although this does not meet the reality because Bernd H. Pollinger had the technical idea and proposed this to MS... (I have been in contact with all the involved people.)

Thank you for your respect.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cwnusa" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwnusa (talk • contribs) 15:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to sign.

It's ok, you can respond on your talk page, or here, it doesn't matter.

It's not what I think about the name, it's what you can prove. Supposition isn't enough; if the name hadn't been for sale would MS have changed it? We simply don't know, and it cannot be stated as a fact; and that's what wikipedia is about, facts. For claims like this you need to add citations to prove it.

Herr Pollinger's contribution would be to on-line gaming as a whole; not to the XBox specifically, unless he worked for the MS team that developed it.

The advertising issue was for an advert specific to the xbox. The name issues you bring up were for other products.

An inventor of a name, for a separate product or service cannot be credited with the invention of something from someone else.

If you wish to add something about other uses of the xbox name, then I'd suggest a separate article. But the name issue you describe was local to one company and bad luck on Microsoft's part rather than anything to do with the device itself. Regards. --Blowdart | ^talk 16:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

--Cwnusa (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Changes to Lurgan

thanks blowart,

I didnt realise my mistake --PastorMcNabb (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries :) --Blowdart | ^talk 22:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

AFD

go ahead and delete it. My bad.

I was trying to work out how to create a user talk template. Any ideas how to go about it? Lihaas (talk) 09:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Red hair

why are you to delete my pic? sarah ferguson has red hairs and is good example of red haired woman? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellas1980 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You're uploading an obviously non-free image, claiming that it is free, and then replacing a free one with your non-free one. This simply isn't acceptable; and the existing image illustrates a female with red hair perfectly well --Blowdart | ^talk 17:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

but i upload it myself and sarah is more beautiful than your woman? i don't understand ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellas1980 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You may have uploaded it yourself but that does make it free. Did you take the picture yourself? Do you have a model release form? Do you own the copyright on the image? I have a sneaking suspicion the answer to all of those is no. --Blowdart | ^talk 17:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

no i found on internets. its a problem? if you say its a problem i believe you. please receive my apology. i will make only free images. cheers, ~ ~ ~ ~ Hellas1980

The rules for images are here. Have fun! --Blowdart | ^talk 17:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

What is Knowledge Management‎

Thought you might like to know I nominated What is Knowledge Management‎ for deletion here --Clubmarx (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Reporting vandals

Hi! I saw your vandal report for User:195.153.101.94 on AIV. I did initially block them, but then realised that they hadn't had any warnings since early October. This is what is called a stale warning, and so they unfortunately cannot be blocked as yet. I unblocked them and added a level 4 warning on the talk page. If they vandalise again in the near future, then they will be blocked. In case you don't know where they are, there are a list of useful warning templates on WP:MLT. StephenBuxton (talk) 10:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. What is the "official" definition of stale? I was going with "if it's under a month"; but obviously I'm wrong *grin* --Blowdart | ^talk 10:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ginger

Data of both tables (on Garlic & Ginger) is correct, by mistake i did'nt replaced header of table relevantly. I'm sorry for that, anyways I have rectified the error. Thanx for your message.
-Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 12:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Charles Saatchi

You're doing a great job addressing the problems. But I think the removal here[10] was over-severe. It's appropriate to have content relating to the Saatchi Gallery (with the main content at the dedicated article) especially when it highlights Saatchi as a person (the gallery is his personal expression). For example, content about "the only completely free-entry contemporary art museum of its size in the world" and "a private museum grand and serious enough to compete with national institutions" is relevant and significant (and referenced), certainly in the gallery article, and I would have thought here, as it shows his philosophy and achievement. The fact that it is favourable to the gallery is not our concern, any more than it is if there is relevant and significant content which is not favourable to the gallery. Ty 05:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough; I just it was puffery, especially the bit are upcoming exhibits; so I was rather ruthless --Blowdart | ^talk 06:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Spreed

Re User_talk:Euqueria, User_talk:Rocco15FN, User_talk:Cfrisemo, Sockpuppet, spamming articles, Spreed - I added a speedy delete tag, this person is kinda out of control. - Perhaps WP:V and WP:N tags should be added as well. - Cheers - DustyRain (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

oops - forgot to add User_talk:Saloob (another scokpuppet). Hopefully an admin will take a few minutes, review references (a reference they provided does not even mention them??) and speedy delete this. -

The Troubles

They were not privateers, however, and they identified themselves with those national symbols. I think it is perfectly valid to have the flags on the infobox, since the templates used in Wikipedia to refer to both ideologies (Irish Republicanism and Ulster Loyalism) show the respective "colors".--Darius (talk) 14:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Whilst they may have identified themselves with the symbols; those symbols certainly did not identity with the fighters. It simply gives the impression of official backing, which is very wrong. By adding the flag you are giving the impression they were modern privateers. The templates are about their respective topics as a whole; and indeed the loyalism one uses the ulster banner rather than the union flag. --Blowdart | ^talk 15:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yuyuan Tourist Mart

Please see the article Yuyuan Tourist Mart again to see the meaningfulness of its content for the largest retailer in China and the operator of Yuyuan Garden in Shanghai. Ricky@36 (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thx for the Help...

...but would you want to edit the article anyway?!

Anyway, I'll take it into account!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bapunque (talk • contribs) 09:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Misleading ?? Article Linking

• • Hi - please review Zoho_Office_Suite - lots of external links, they make edits that disguise themselves as having separate articles (they link to their headings using # heading instead of linking directly to their article). It's kinda misleading, topics focussed on a certain subject make them seem like their main article focusses on a topic while in fact they have a one or two liner. Also, their article is a weak for references (most links are to their own site or blogs), the article is written as an advertisement. If such practices are acceptable no reply or comment is necessary. - Cheers - DustyRain (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Archive

Hello your page is verry long I think you should Archive it. Jammmie999 (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Boris Johnson piracy claims

Dear Blowdart,

I have irrefutable proof of Alexander Boris de Pfeiffer Johnson's buccaneering ways. Is a citation needed? As a rookie contributor to Wikipedia, I must confess to be feeling somewhat out of my depth when it comes to substantiating many of gems of knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.247.177 (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Why have you removed my edits? Topological skeleton

Hi,

I am a PhD, Computer Vision/Medical Imaging, and an old member of Wikipedia. I did not post any thing since a year. Therefore, I am not a spammer!!. Yesterday, i shared with the several communities several external useful links to materials i authored from a ".org" site. Lately, I post my stuff there, since I graduated and I do not have an access to my university's server anymore. Could you please gives me reasonable explanation why have taken that action?

Happy Thanks Giving

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabry hassouna (talk • contribs) 16:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

So the fact that you authored them gives obvious WP:COI COI issues. Then there's the problem that you're linking to a site that seems to do nothing but host links to other sites. What's wrong with linking to those directly? The fact that it's a bounce, and a non-notable bounce site at that smacks of spam. --Blowdart | ^talk 00:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

You are still giving me hard time. Again, you have removed my links, while they are not violating Wikipedia external links (EL). So, let's review what Wikipedia rules are

1. "Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic" -> (TRUE) skeletonization datasets. 2. "information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail; or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." -> (TRUE) these are datasets, which can not be embedded inside Wikipedia. 3. "No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable." -> (TRUE), any new research in this area requires datasets to validate the performance as well as the accuracy, which is barely found on any website.

Therefore, i would ask again you to undo your last action.

Thanks

These are links to datasets and Wikipedia does not host datasets but text!. Theses datasets are so important to validate any skeletonization technique. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabry hassouna (talk • contribs) 2008-12-01 17:03

And once again I point you to WP:COI. You are adding links to your own work with no proof it's notable, or even correct. You cannot judge the accuracy of your own results. Oh and please sign any edits you make on talk pages. --Blowdart | ^talk 17:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

As i was expecting, there is a big mis-understanding. In your last reply you said "You cannot judge the accuracy of your own results.". Well, these are not results, they are benchmark datasets. They are generated from converting meshes into volumetric objects using special computational geometry programs. New researches in this field find difficulty in (1) obtaining these datasets in mesh format. (2) finding the appropriate programs to do the conversion.

thanks Sabry hassouna (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Boris Johnson

Given what happened with the last commissioner I think warned is a more appropriate term for what he said. In any case, it is widely acknowledged that Boris forced the last commissioner out, and it seems relevant to the comments he made to the acting Met commissioner. Whatever you think about the former Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis's comments, he did make them, and they are relevant. Please do not remove large chunks of text from articles just because you disagree with them. It can be considered vandalism. Dolive21 (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Except you're presenting what is Blair's opinion as a fact; and ignores the failures of the Met under his leadership which may have contributed to his departure. In addition it's not like the major can fire him anyway. And you cannot say warned because that, again, is opinion. Unless Johnson has stated he warned the current acting commissioner it's POV language. So I am removing POV and uncited commentary that is presented as fact --Blowdart | ^talk 18:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Operation Ore

Hi Blowdart, I notice you hae just reverted an edit to the talk page. I was just reporting the topic to the BLP board as the whole DA-Notice thread on the talk page looks like the work of one obsessed individual with a conspiracy fantasy who uses multiple IP addresses. I think the whole thread needs deleting and was wondering about whether it should be oversighted as he seems to have an onsession against Hodge. Given the fantasy also seems to involve other cases such as the Jersey one (which has since been demonstrated to have been a lot of smoke with no fire) I was wondering whether the individual ahs been active on other articles and where we would be most likely to find people who might recognise their modus oeprandi. What's your opinion?--Peter cohen (talk) 20:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Bumping it to oversight wouldn't do any harm; as you're already in the process of reporting it I'd suggest upping it to them as well. --Blowdart | ^talk 20:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Infoart images

I think we can take it that Infoart is acting with the authorisation of the gallery. The gallery has not at any point questioned this link or suggested otherwise, including in emails I have had with them. In this case, some of the images, e.g. general gallery shots, may be viable for keeping, but I'll leave that to you to decide. Ty 18:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Well the general gallery shots I tagged as "useless", because they're not used within any article. The ones that feature the art itself, as either a full image, or the majority of an image have a more interesting copyright query around them. It's doubtful that the gallery owns the copyright at all and thus cannot give it away - they might own the art, in which case the copyright is still with the artist (as I understand) or if they have just shown it then they definitely don't own the copyright. Then there are the newspaper covers where they cannot own the copyright and yet still claim they do and claim the right to license it under the GFDL. It either shows a misunderstanding of copyright (which I doubt - they're happy enough to throw legal threats around already) or they were put there to be promotional, like most of infoart's edits. Plus, given their heavy handiness I wouldn't put it past them to suddenly claim copyright and make a media bruhaha over the images being there, disowning infoart altogether. --Blowdart | ^talk 18:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The images are not eligible for speedy deletion as "useless"; they should be moved to the Commons instead if their copyright status is ok. Mike Peel (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The useless criteria are "not used in any articles and has no encyclopedic use." None are used in any articles, and to my mind don't have any use either. Their copyright status is suspect as well given Infoart's other submissions. --Blowdart | ^talk 20:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Please put them through WP:IfD then. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Under what criteria? None of the ones at IfD seem to match really. --Blowdart | ^talk 07:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right. Either Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images if their copyright status is unclear, or move them to Commons. Mike Peel (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Bethmenzies

Just making sure you are aware that she has not actually added any further links since I warned her, explained the situation and informed Wikiproject:SPAM. Not all of the edits have been undone yet which they need to be, but they all predate any warnings from anyone. Mfield (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah fair enough. I've removed the eyerevolution ones, and I'm just about done with her boyfriend's site. *shrug* Well, best to get the full 4 warnings on there; otherwise if she does do it again we'd have to go through the tiers to get a block if necessary. --Blowdart | ^talk 00:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

neo.org and deletion

Hello

My thinking is that neo.org should not be deleted, as it is a growing entity with notable members.

neo.org is a growing site founded by XING co-founder Bill Liao with some notable members including:

Rachel Sterne - founder of GroundReport.com who was interviewed on CNN CNN interview Rachel Sterne

Arnold Mindell

International organizations such as The Hunger Project, Collective Wisdom Initiative, World Business Academy, United Religions Initiative, New Dimension Radio, are also represented by early members.

Forward thinking academics are neo.org users as well. These include Dr. Srikumar Rao, London Business School, Dr. Ian Mitroff, Professor Emeritus Marshall School of Business at the University of Southern California, Futurist Peter Bishop, Professor Prasad Kaipa, Indian School of Business, Bruce Lloyd, Professor of Strategic Management, London South Bank University, ...

Notable media people have also become neo.org users. These include Alan Webber, founder, Fast Company magazine, James Autry, author of Love and Profit and other books, David Schwerin, the author of Conscious Capitalism, Robert White, author of Living an Extraordinary Life, Sanjoy Mukherjeem, editor of Journal of Human Values, Dr. John Adams, author of Thinking Today as if Tomorrow Mattered, Debbe Kennedy, author of Putting Our Differences to Work, and a diverse roster of others from around the world. The creator and host of the U.S. television series "Thinking Allowed," Jeffery Mishlove, is an early signer.

David Roosevelt, grandson of U.S. President FDR, is also an early signer.

Thank you for your time. Intersys (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC) intersys 12/11/08

My handle

Sorry; new to actually doing things on Wikipedia instead of just being blown away by it's facility and depth, and was therefore blissfully unaware of the actual naming policy. I've put in my name change request per your suggestion. The documentation said it would take a couple of days to fulfill.

BroadswordCommunications (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images

Please make sure you sign your submissions to PUI by adding ~~~~ at the end. Also, if the only problem with an image is that a free license has been claimed but there is no verification of it, you can tag the image {{subst:npd}}. Stifle (talk) 12:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops, how many did I miss? It was a long slog doing them. Apologies. --Blowdart | ^talk 12:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Christopedia

Hi Blowdart, I noticed you (I think it was you --- I'm not sure I know how to tell) put a tag on my article "Christopedia". I'm aware that the article isn't very good atm, and reeking of POV, but the site is growing quite rapidly (454 to 538 articles in a week) and *may* represent a trend that should be reported. What do you think?--Leon (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed; it's very POV which is reason enough. But even then you don't make even an attempt to prove the site is notability. It's simple not fit for inclusion as it stands. --Blowdart | ^talk 19:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

My Wiki Entries

Hi - So far you have deleted everything I have tried to put up. These pages were a work in progress and no where near finished with history etc to be added but as I am just finding my feet on here, which is quite frankly the least user friendly site to add to in the world. Please can I have the copy from these pages as I clearly need to develop it a little more? Thanks in advance, and any tips or advice on what you do accept would be appreciated. Becbranded (talk) 09:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Blowdart needs to be removed as an editor

He roves around like a maniacal megalomaniac whose sole purpose in life is delete articles he deems unworthy. He thinks he is far more intelligent than he actually is, and his status as an editor gravely injures the quality of Wikipedia. Please ban this bloviating blowhard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NOLAhistorian (talk • contribs) 20:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Please Advise

Hi Blowdart,

Please can you advise as to why the feelgd entry to wikipedia is in breach of insertion rules, i am new to this so as much help as you could offer would be appreciated.

Regards --Helpfulwriter2009 (talk) 12:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy tags

Hi. About this. Just want to inform you that the template {{repost}} (WP:CSD G4) is used only when an article that was deleted via a deletion discussion is reposted. I have checked any link of the article to WP:AFD and found nothing: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miley Cyrus: Wii. That means the tag isn't the proper one. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 13:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah my bad; it was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Princess Daisy I was thinking of; although the user that created that also created the Miley Cyrus: Wii article yesterday, and then got banned as a sock. --Blowdart | ^talk 13:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Its fine. But I, too, is nega about the page. I would like to suggest to prod it, but you're already there. --Efe (talk) 14:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Virtual Playground

Hello I have provided sorces to verify the infomation on the Virtual Playground page however you keep putting messages on the page saying I havent please explane. Jammmie999 (talk) 15:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the tag now you'll see it's talking about primary sources. The references you've added aren't independent, hence the tag. --Blowdart | ^talk 21:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Corporate Tai Chi

Would an ongoing study validate the topic? Would a review on a website from a CEO who has purchased corporate tai chi for her (his) company validate the topic? Would the discussion or actions of members of a Corporate Tai Chi Association validate the topic? Could you give me some advice here? Thanks for reading.

I am fascinated by Wikipedia. Being an editor or books and screenplays, I am respectful of the process. Corporatetaichi (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Lets see; and remember this is only my opinion

Would an ongoing study validate the topic? it depends what the study would say; and whether it would be enough to warrant a separate article.

Would a review on a website from a CEO who has purchased corporate tai chi for her (his) company validate the topic? I'd say no, it's likely to be opinion and biased opinion at that.

Would the discussion or actions of members of a Corporate Tai Chi Association validate the topic? doubtful; again they're not going to be reliable sources. --Blowdart | ^talk 21:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Lost and Found By Andrew Clements

I've removed the deletion tag from this article; it now shows context. In future when tagging pages could you please hit the "mark as patrolled" button? It removes the page from Special:NewPages and means other patrollers don't need to look through pre-tagged pages. As to a comment I saw above ('Indeed; it's very POV which is reason enough'); POV is not an immediate reason to speedy delete. POV and spam are different things entirely. Ironholds (talk) 15:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

*shrug* Not marking it patrol is a drawback of twinkle, and not one I feel is much of a drawback really; especially as speedy tags are up for contesting and so a second viewpoint is often desired - so I'm going to pass on that. As for the POV comment; that article was so POV it was smacking of an attack page - however that page was speedy, then taken to AFD on notability grounds alone. --Blowdart | ^talk 15:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

No, twinkle allows you to auto-tag pages (other than prods) as patrolled; not sure what's going on there. The second viewpoint on is it/is it not deletable can come from the admin; the rest of us have to wade through your pre-tagged pages wasting time. Ironholds (talk) 15:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I haven't over-rode twinkle in any way shape or form. --Blowdart | ^talk 15:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Troubles

Please note: All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related.

You have now made 3 reverts on this article in breech of the above sanctions. Please revert yourself and use the talk page. In addition, please read talk page guidlines because edit summaries like this here are not acceptable anymore on Troubles articles. Editors should be civil and adhere to good wiki etiquette when stating disagreements. As a matter of polite and effective discourse, comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people. Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 20:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd argue it's not a true revert, as it involved the addition of a rationale to the image in question rather than the blind removal of it. However if I'm banned from more than one revert then how can I revert myself again; I'll be even further over the count. *sigh* It's no wonder Mooretwin feels put upon at times. --Blowdart | ^talk 20:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You have been informed of the 1RR rule, and having been informed reverting yourself to avoid breeching the sanctions would be a corrective action on your part. However, if you don’t wish to correct yourself, having been informed of the sanctions your intensions must be questioned. The above template is on the top of the talk page, after the second revert editors would at the very least raise the issue on the talk page and become aware of the sanctions. Is it now your intension, having been politely informed, to ignore the advice offered, and not address your clear breech of AE imposed sanctions?--Domer48_'fenian' 20:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It was a serious question. If there's a 1R rule on it (and please, how many people read talk pages first) then am I actually allowed to revert again, even if it's myself? If another revert is somehow acceptable as not breaching the 1R role then fine; but please answer that point before you start to wave the heavy hand around. --Blowdart | ^talk 21:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You clearly breeched the 1 Revert Rule, do you wish to correct your inadvertent breech having now been made aware of it or not? --Domer48_'fenian' 21:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear god, just answer the question. Does another revert, if it is my own edit, affect the count and the 1R restriction or not? Does the 1R restriction only apply to reverts of other people? If I revert myself and that does not breach anything then fine; that's acceptable; but if the 1R applies to any revert then reverting myself simply pushes me further against the restriction. So please, answer the simple question. --Blowdart | ^talk 21:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well let's hope it doesn't - it's done now. Might I suggest next time you wield the sanctions you apparently have been subject too you explain that a further revert of oneself will or will not affect the 1R count, as opposed to just leaving the question hanging and leaving users not knowing if that drops them further into trouble (no pun intended). It is a simple question, and rather than ignore it an explanation would have been more useful than laying a heavy hand on people. --Blowdart | ^talk 21:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your corrective action on the Troubles Article, it is very much appreciated. We can now address the concerns you have on the Article Talk Page which I have opened. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like the question I kept asking here answered; but I don't hold out much hope of that. --Blowdart | ^talk 23:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"having been informed reverting yourself to avoid breeching the sanctions would be a corrective action on your part." Correcting a mistake, is not a mistake. Thanks again, --Domer48_'fenian' 23:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That's all you had to say in the first place *sigh* --Blowdart | ^talk 23:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.

He actually did notify me. I remove most notifications to WP:DRAMA when I receive them from the person posting so as to not tempt myself to immediately respond. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah fair enough, my apologies to both you and the thread starter; I didn't think to check your talk page history! --Blowdart | ^talk 09:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

No apology necessary. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

SocialGo

Not sure why this was removed from the "list of social networks" by you.

Its one of the newest, and yet already one of the biggest. Alexa has it moving up from 2,000,000 to 5,000 within two months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.190.218 (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It clearly states at the top of the article

ONLY place entries here that are links to actual Wikipedia articles about notable social networking sites. External links, redlinks, substubs, non-notable sites or sites that are not social networking sites will be removed. If you have questions, use the talk page. Please try to keep entries in alphabetical order. Adding unnecessary links or text anywhere else will also be removed. Thanks.

A page for SocialGo does not exist, and so was removed. --Blowdart | ^talk 13:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so one should be added then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.190.218 (talk) 14:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Once which proves notability, see WP:Web --Blowdart | ^talk 14:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Stevie K Band

Hi, Dont see how it differs from any other contribution and therefore why it should be deleted??? I dare say I'm finding the contribution process a little tricky so perhaps you could enlighten me to what I have done wrong with the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mankef (talk • contribs) 22:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops Mankef (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:MUSIC - it gives you guidance on what would be considered notable for a band. --Blowdart | ^talk 13:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

www.medicalir.com

Why did you remove this link under "medical imaging" - there are no relative links included under this discussion that cover "thermography" in any shape or form. This is perhaps the only web site online that does cover infrared thermography news, discussion, and images. Please explain how this link is not only relevant but necessary to further the information available for infrared thermography medical imaging. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.77.42.214 (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

If you could please respond, otherwise I am going to assume your removal of the link was an act of vandalism and replace the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.77.42.214 (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand how it took less than 2 minutes for you to determine that what I had edited in was vandalism, and yet a week later you still have not responded - my only conclusion is that you do not have a response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.77.42.214 (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Lloyd Bond

I've deprodded Lloyd Bond. The article was indeed a press release. I've stubbed it to remove the copyright violation, and feel that there's probably sufficient notability claimed at least to merit discussion at AfD. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

fairy snuff :) --Blowdart | ^talk 20:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Man of Ice Awards

Hi Blowdart the Man of Ice Awards are a 'notable' awards ceremony as they are the main awards ceremony of the UK's PROFESSIONAL ice hockey season. Please can you reconsider? Also please can you give me some advice on exactly how I get things listed on Wikipedia as I am struggling. Becbranded (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here for your advertising purposes. You make no claims of notability for the event and frankly, given your history, I have the nagging feeling you work for Comtect, as the articles you have created all have a connection with that company. Would you like to confirm or deny this? --Blowdart | ^talk 16:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

BUCK Magazine

I agree the notability's borderline at most. I'd most likely vote to delete in an AfD if no other sources showed up. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd almost go for it, if it were not for the citation saying it replaced Arena on some shelves. That's probably notable in itself. If it were nominated I'd be a weak delete right now. --Blowdart | ^talk 09:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That play

Thanks for removing that, it was on my list of things to do. You'll see I keep removing what looks like an OR interpretation of the author's interviews. dougweller (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's the author back again, under a new username. It was deleted before, along with a biography and a company article. Given it was a short run, even with reviews I'm not sure it's notable. I'd support an AFD if you went that route. --Blowdart | ^talk 19:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Half Smoke

I'm not sure what you are referencing because the link you provided on my talk page was dead. If you're referring to WP:NOT#NEWS then I'm sure you know that pertains to articles not information within the article, "not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own." On the other hand if you were referencing WP:NOTNEWS then I'm sure you realize that was a essay. Only Policies are enforceable, even guidelines are just that; guidelines are not law. An essay is just an editor's opinion. One cannot justify a delete with it. Thanks, I'm going to reinstate the edit. Naufana : talk 02:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry here you go this ought to clear it up. WP:ESSAYS Naufana : talk 03:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you look at the Half Smoke talk page you'll see that I wasn't the only person with that opinion. Really, I'm not sure what a little story adds to the article itself, especially as it's politicians blowing hot air and posturing for publicity. Sure, it's a nice anecdote, but what does it prove about half smokes, or add to the article other than some local colour? --Blowdart | ^talk 06:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

mobX Web Article System

hello Blowdart, ive readed the G11 rule but i think i didnot understand it well... mobx is a web article system i made for webmasters and people who want to make a website for articles its totally free, yet to think about it , i want people to know a about it, i didnot understand why it has been deleted but i think Cpanel is not deleted, yet its under a company copyright its like an advertisment for it, iam sharing something for free here , iam not a company

hello blowdart,

ive readed the G11 rule but i think i didnot understand it well...
mobx is a web article system i made for webmasters and people who want to make a website for articles its totally free,
yet to think about it , i want people to know a about it,
i didnot understand why it has been deleted but i think Cpanel is not deleted yet ,

its under a company copyright its like an advertisment for it,

iam sharing something for free here , iam not a company

best regards HS-M0BX (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

OK so you need to prove notability. Even if it's not an advert the software may not be notable So you need 3rd party reviews, examples of how and were it's used and so on. Because you're the author of the software you also have conflict of interest issues. Generally you should not be starting articles about something you are closely involved with; but leave it to independent others who feel your software is notable enough to create a page for. --Blowdart | ^talk 13:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Death of Baby P

I am not in the United Kingdom, I am in the States of Jersey, the court order does not have any jurisdiction over the people on the Island. The local media have published this information as has the press over in Gurnsey too. 90.197.118.16 (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah it was the Sky IP address that made me assume the UK. Who knew they had spread their tentacles out there. Regardless if you read the talk page the consensus has been not to put the names on wikipedia, and any time they are published the revisions that they are made public in will be deleted; and if a single user keeps doing it over and over they will be blocked, or, if they choose to hide behind an IP address that IP will be blocked. So please don't. --Blowdart | ^talk 22:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

CTA

Please note from this diff that I am only reverting to the status quo. The start diff is you reverting BHL's changes to my edit showing there is no change. Though I understand your concern I am not that Wikipiere character, I just don't have an account.194.125.86.146 (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism of Howard Winstone article

I thought you might want to know, I have corrected two edits made by user 193.62.43.139 to the above article. They seem to be mild forms of vandalism. I noted that this address has a number of warnings for vandalism and that you were the last person to issue one. Dposte46 (talk) 13:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Link to page

How can you say that a link to a site containing information on turf is against your terms and conditions. You have 2 links from the turf page to "the turf tavern" a pub, surely this is advertising as the pub sells beer. Another link to the "turf hotal" what information can these 2 sites offer other than promoting the existance of their establishment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.137.255.6 (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

COI and advertising

I am sorry, but I was asked to put up a page for my play. When it was pointed out that there was a conflict of interest, I merely passed relevant materials to a third party and let them do it. What they have produced I personally would not have produced, but I have left the text unaltered. However, they mentioned including certain productions photos (to which I own the copyright) and the programme notes explaining where the play came from (to which I own the copyright). I fail to see how this in ANY way contravenes the terms and conditions of this website. I am currently filling out a well-sourced page for myself having previously deleted it MYSELF. I am not sure who you are, but, whilst I admire your interest in keeping Wikipedia objective, I fail to see your actions as objective since I am not breaching any of your codes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiskeharrison (talk • contribs) 14:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Simply because you're asked doesn't mean you have to do it; and by getting someone else to do it there are *still* COI concerns. Interestingly your "3rd party" reposted exactly the same initial page as you did before it was deleted the first time. As for adding program notes, they're not factual, they're not objective. The photographs don't really add anything and you've lied in the copyright release saying you created them yourself, which you say here you didn't. And finally, you didn't delete your own page yourself, you blanked it after you were tagged, and creating a page for yourself *again*, despite the COI issues really does indicate some self promotion agenda. --Blowdart | ^talk 16:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Changes

This is a minor change, which i believe is a fair change to Globespan. As you have for Thomson and thomascook as 'British' it is only fair that Globespan is the same —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joyce118 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

yea, globespan could be argued (so I'm not reverting that one), except I'll put money done in that they are registered in Scotland. As for places, err, really, why? --Blowdart | ^talk 20:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

(RC) Flyglobespan Scottish/British

FYI: I had reverted the change, too ... but an admin in the UK (and an aviation expert) makes a case for British on the talk page. NOTE: Yes, there may be other thing at play here (and other considerations), but life is short. :) Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Self-promotion

I have no interest in enterring into an argument about this. There is a certain amount of good stuff and a certain amount of rubbish in circulation written about both this play and myself (see how they cut my interview in Tatler or my old school friend Charlie Methven in the Daily Telegraph or Andrew Haydon's oh-so personal venom in Time Out). When someone said my play had no page and neither did I and I should put them up, I agreed at first. Then I didn't. Now I do again. It is a thorny issue. Their page probably looked like mine because when I sent them all the information and told them that that had been objected to, I sent what I had written so they could avoid repeating whatever errors you lot decided were there.

In order to gather as much information in one place about that play and other work I have done in the public domain, it seems to me to make sense to put it all here. That way, if people want to add things, they can add onto a sound basis. There is something self-seeking and self-promoting in all human action, but in this case, mine is no more than usual. Just trying to lay out the facts so when people ask for them, there are some there.

Oh, and as for copyright issues, I have purchased all copyrights when I, as CEO of Mephisto Productions, employed myt friends Matt Jamie as photographer and Andy Cooke as designer. I have no need to credit them, but it seems to me very, very rude not to. Whether I ticked all the boxes on this frankly incomprehensible sit I am not sure. I am learning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiskeharrison (talk • contribs) 18:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Alexander Fiske-Harrison —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiskeharrison (talk • contribs) 18:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

OK then you need to release the works under a GFDL compatible license; this means anyone can take the work and republish or use it as the basis of another work. You will also need to provide proof that you own the copyright as well. You need to understand all the ramifications of doing so. --Blowdart | ^talk 10:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Responding to your email Fh: I did not want to add the pics in case they fell foul of Wiki rules. --Bigjimedge (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you want my writing on your page, you're welcome to it. I see you removed my reference to my bullfighting essay from the Wiki article on the subject; despite it being a comprehensive essay in probably the most prestigious magazine of debate currently in the UK, when no one else is producing such a thing. Hmmm... but then your type of person is infinitely more interested in form, being unable to generate content. So I guess this site does encourage self-promotion then, but not in the obvious way, but of a far cruder and more insidious kind. And to think, for Britannica they had Van Doran. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Given the obvious COI it's not up to you (or your mates) to add references to your work; if they're truly notable (and that is unclear) then someone else will take note and add them. Do you not understand the COI concept? You can always suggest COI additions on the talk pages of articles and let others decide. As for personal attacks; oh dear. I'd better tell my publisher they can't publish that technical book at all because someone on wikipedia says I cannot generate content. Oh woe is me. --Blowdart | ^talk 00:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No, not 'unclear', all one has to do is read. Which is why I have letters of congratulation for the essay from Frederick Raphael and David Aaronovitch, because they read it, whereas as you did not.--Fiskeharrison (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Or, perhaps if you won't read that, you'll read this. Please note the line: "a piece which sparked one of the most in-depth discussions ever to feature on this blog". So you write technical pieces? And you didn't notice that my Times Lit. Supp. piece describes my time as a judge of the annual contest of AI that is the Loebner Prize? --Fiskeharrison (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

EOffice

Hi there. I disagree that the awards establish notability. The British Council of Offices is a minor trade organization that hands out awards to it's own members, it is not all inclusive of all companies doing business in this area. Doing a full news archive search for "eOffice 2000" or "eOffice 2000 Limited", which is the article subject full company name turns up all of a single press release. I don't believe this company meets notability requirements. I'd like your thoughts on whether I am missing something. Best regards. --Chasingsol^(talk) 10:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Not so sure to be honest; there's enough to decline a speedy with the HSBC finalist position. If anything I'd say an AFD, where I'd vote a weak keep. --Blowdart | ^talk 10:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of references on the Viadeo Site

I don't agree with your deletions. For example, what facts can you show to contradict the reference I gave for the fact that the French Grande Ecole system is unique to France, especially as I referenced the Wikipedia page that says this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JGaynard (talk • contribs) 11:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

OK firstly I deleted a single reference, which was a blog. Blogs aren't consider reliable sources by wikipedia and shouldn't be used in references. I then corrected your Grande Ecole reference to be an internal link, so it's still there. However the wikipedia page does not state that system of education is unique to France. It says the French system as a whole is unique in cutting off specialised schools like that, but it doesn't say specialised schools are unique to France, only the separation is - your wording indicates that the schools are unique within themselves. Furthermore you haven't proven that the knowledge on how to implement a French alumni scheme is down to the graduation from these schools by the owners as the article states. Does that make any sense? --Blowdart | ^talk 11:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I had to read it a a couple of times but I think it makes sense. I will see how I can rewrite the relevant parts to take your recommendations into account.--JGaynard (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

iVote

Okay, I read your message on the iVote Mobile talkpage. What would I need to indicate the proof of the subject. I've added a link to the main website in the External Links section and that I think holds sufficient proof. I also read the Notablity page, but I would like more help. Tigernose (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

OK so. Adding the link isn't enough. You need to find write ups in reliable sources which show the software is notable. For example reviews in major publications, that sort of thing. At the minute nothing says notable at all! --Blowdart | ^talk 18:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

about peacocks

I´m sorry to bother You, but for me it´s very hard to understand, what´s wrong with You guys. If some artist (for example Nelly Drell) has already proven herself, if critics are enraptured and giving prizes, journalists (like me) writing articles about her... What more she have to do, to get some respect and fair attentiveness? Sleep with you?

And btw, how many Estonian artist You know in Saatchi gallery?

You can post me Your answers by e-mail: lauriito@mail.ee —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauriito (talk • contribs) 12:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Saying something is a peacock term doesn't mean the article will be deleted; indeed you've proved notability. However phrases like "Nelly Drell’s creations catch the eye by being bold and realistic and having lots of figural compositions. She isn’t afraid of experimenting with different art styles" are not factual unless you can prove it by citations from reliable sources. Opinions are not encyclopaedic and will be removed unless they're from, for example, a well known critic and are provided in the context of a quote with a citation to back it up. If she is winning prizes you would be able to include that, if they are notable prizes, along with a citation to prove it. --Blowdart | ^talk 13:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What do You think about those lines? Somebody removed them: "She looks like a blonde Miss World finalist and paints like a jaded academic. I think of Drell as a born illustrator and a born painter, an artist for whom, by her very nature, academic studies and plaster drawing are ideal – an exceptionally rare quality among artists of her age." Harry Liivrand (art-historian)

"She is able to mould an image even with the most erratic of brush strokes, lend it depth with the gentle tempering of tonalities, and what is most important – bestow on the image a sense of well-heeled cogency. Drell does not obfuscate her visions in a tactful or delicate artistic fog: she paints them with a pitiless honesty." Johannes Saar (art critic)

Those are taken, rewrited (shortened) and translated - original sources were Estonian newspapers. I didnt put them to Estonian wiki (there are direct links to articles, but I think for english-speaking art-freaks/english wikipedist is too difficult to read in estonian). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauriito (talk • contribs) 16:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Online Scratch Card

What is wrong with this text?

Scratch games are a relatively new development in the online games industry and are unique in that they provide the user instant gratification (like an online lottery).

Its exactly what it is... Its a fact...

Peter.neo (talk) 13:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well you don't provide proof, a citation. However the warning was about your addition of spam links to that article and others to a specific provider, not for that sentence. --Blowdart | ^talk 13:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

so I only need to put the link there where I got it from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter.neo (talk • contribs) 13:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Only if it comes from a reliable source. --Blowdart | ^talk 13:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

what about Neo Games

No, most definitely not. Considering that site is trying to see software for online scratch cards it's hardly unbiased or reliable. --Blowdart | ^talk 13:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

But what is the difference then with wikipedia sites like Party Gaming and 888 Holdings? These are sites that provide many gambling sites and I see that as pure advertisement. Besides promoting their product, they have several links to their own websites. Why are they allowed to do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter.neo (talk • contribs) 13:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Other stuff exists isn't a good enough reason. PartyGaming's article is about the company, its history and other factual information. Whilst it discusses Party Poker it doesn't link to it, the link is simply to the corporate web site. Even then the link is in the context of an article about the company, not randomly slapped over articles about something you are wanting to promote. --Blowdart | ^talk 13:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point and see the difference besides that, I didnt want to point my finger at something(one) else, but I am just trying to understand it.
I was thinking: they are having their site promoted on wikipedia as they have links directly to their sites. Besides that, they could mention Poker instead Party poker. I see it as pure advertisement as Party poker is their product. Don't you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter.neo (talk • contribs) 13:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Not really; mentioning a company's notable problems is acceptable within the context of the company's articles. Their article doesn't link to their poker web site, but to the company web site. There are no links to PartyPoker on the Poker page where it would be rather suspect. Even on the company page the party poker section has notability given it's size and the citations given. It's hardly advertising when criticisms are mentioned either. --Blowdart | ^talk 14:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Bad publishing is also publishing and it works very good. I see that this page probably wont work for the American Market as bad publishing is there very sensitive. Write it in an article for the European Market and you will gain trust and admiration as Europeans don't believe in a perfect world.
Besides that, probably everyone that is searching for Party gaming knows a little bit about the online gambling world. They all know then what it is what they promoting. Then again seeing them having a Wikipedia site, is a huge promotions. Don't you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter.neo (talk • contribs) 14:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No. I disagree. A simply factual article, mostly about the company, is not advertising for their products, unlike adding a URL to a gambling site on a generic page. --Blowdart | ^talk 14:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

So I may write an article about a company here and to put some other facts (like financial facts) in there, without putting any links to their products, but still describe the product? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter.neo (talk • contribs) 14:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You could try, but you will need to prove WP:Notability and provide citations to back up the claims for notability. And please sign any posts you make on a talk page. --Blowdart | ^talk 15:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! For all the information. Keep on going like this! --Peter.neo

Sockpuppetry issue

• Sockpuppetry is not true. There are some wiki-admins that they are misusing their administrative rights and say that there are some GC Wiki-admins in 1600 Wiki-admins and they can do whatever they want. We complained this situaiton to the Wikipedia Board. Also, notice that the wiki-admins that block the North Cyprus Wiki-users are all the same Wiki-admins. We submitted their list to the Wikipedia Board as well. Not only VivaNorthCyprus is given as an example of sockpuppetry but also some other Wiki-names are given as well like ForeverTruth etc. Also, if that was the case, why we took that issue to the ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_February_7 ) page and consult the other Wiki-admins. Please, could you remove "vandalizing sign" from my talk page? Thanks a lot. Look at the History page of the Contributions part of my said Wiki-admins. Cheapfriends (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• I looked at your speed deletion tags, but they say "speedy deletion for vandalism". We need a speedy deletion tag not for vandalism reason, but for the old page became obselete reason. Do you know any such tags? It would be better to put that tag (if any) to the old "Northern" pages. Thanks a lot Blowdar. Cheapfriends (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No. Your pages are vandalism as they are a mass of cut and paste moves. Even without the sock puppet issue you are vandalising wikipedia with your edits. --Blowdart | ^talk 21:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Blowdart, I looked at the reasoning of the user and you. The user seems to find no solution to move of the pages. So, you could suggest the user to put db-move tags to "Northern"s. That's the solution, no such bot exists as the user required. Since, what user did is not a vandalism, it would be better not to put such tags to the user page of the cheapfriends. You are putting the db tags to "North" incorrectly. IntensityOfTheLight (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe I am. The user is an unconfirmed sock but the evidence is pretty blatant, hence is it vandalism and the tags are correct. --Blowdart | ^talk 21:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I looked at what the user is trying to do. So, I compared the Category:North_Cyprus and Category:Northern_Cyprus. It seems that they were just on finishing the conversion. Notice that there are nearly 20 articles in total of these two Categories. Hence, any ordinary wikipedian - including me - can make the changes. For a total of 20 articles, it seems to be losing time to write a bot that makes the related business. IntensityOfTheLight (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I find it very suspicous a brand new user account comes in just as another is banned, pushing the same POV. Funny that. As for saying it's a non-contentious edit that's an obvious falsehood, otherwise the banning wouldn't have happened. As for the limited edits that would have been because of the 50+ deletions and a bunch of reversions. --Blowdart | ^talk 22:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Friend Blowdart, please do not misunderstand us. North Cyprus is under embargo, and the internet is the only way of getting our voices out. If someone blocks the one NC Wiki-user, the other NC Wiki-user can try to express the things truely. So, putting me to the list of sockpuppets is not a good thing: Here, I am in the dorminatory of a NC University. What NC people do here is follow the internet. You can be sure that another NC Wiki-user in another NC Univ's dorminatory will edit the Wikipedia with correct knowledges. Thx for you patience to read this much :) IntensityOfTheLight (talk) 22:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Is that a threat that you or your fellow students will continue to vandalise? --Blowdart | ^talk 22:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Dear Friend Blowdart. We are ordinary Wiki-users from North Cyprus, not Wiki-admins. Also, even if we are Wiki-admins, that does not mean we will leave the truth! Please, think once more the meaning of "vandalizing". That word includes some kind of damage. Here, we are trying to prevail the related law. Think please: There is a quick adaptation of the new name: when you just google (http://www.google.com.tr) the "North Cyprus" and "Northern Cyprus", the following hit numbers occur: "North Cyprus": 1 450 000 and "Northern Cyprus": 815 000. But, don't forget to use quotation marks (" ") when googling since only in the quotationed case, the reality is seen very neatly. 1 450 000 > 815 000. We cannot interfere to the hostings of the web sites in which North Cyprus related pages exist! Hence, that adaptation is not emanated from North Cyprus internet users. Thx for kind attention. TitanicLordIceberged (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
• (deindent) Hi Blowdart...these are all socks of User:VivaNorthCyprus. I, along with several other admins, have been tracking this a long time (If you want to see some detailed evidence, email me). You might want to consider removing this whole section in accordance with WP:DENY. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• What we do is not vandalising: Some Greek Cypriots are using "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus", "Northern Cyprus", "North Cyprus". Hence, they try to prevent a usage of one unique name for the North Cyprus. Else where we are (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

What you are doing is vandalism hence your constantly being banned. You are POV pushing and cut and paste moving both of which are types of vandalism on wikipedia. Stop it please. --Blowdart | ^talk 23:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

User: Fiskeharrison

Just in case you missed it:

'Please note before I did this, I did contact the administrator User:MBisanz, and I quote his response of January 24th: "You are free to edit it, or ask someone else to edit it, or place comments on the Talk: page where others would be free to add to the article. Our COI policy lets subject edit their articles so long as they do so in a neutral manner."'

And then your statement: "I suggest you read WP:COI yet again and understand it, stop editing pages about yourself and stop trying to redefine it to justify your own actions"

Do you see the contradiction?--Fiskeharrison (talk) 06:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No - anyone is free to disagree with an administrator, they're offering an opinion, unless there's been a full blown ArbCom decision. It doesn't help that I'm not convinced you are editing to be neutral, but rather to promote yourself. I point you to Rick Ross (consultant) as an example of the best way to approach this. Mr Ross is active on wikipedia but limits his endeavours to the talk page of the article about him, even when he feels that edits are misrepresenting who he is or what he has done. --Blowdart | ^talk 07:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No man ever understands quite his own artful dodges to escape from the grim shadow of self-knowledge. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 12:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Use of references

Hello Blowdart. I have posted on the troubles talk page retracting my statement that there was a precedent set on the use of references at the British Isles article. I should have double checked before I made my statement as the editors involved appear to be coming to an agreement over the wording. Anyway, apologies for leading you (unintentionaly) to think that was the case. Titch Tucker (talk) 14:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries; I think we're both wanting the same thing, it's just getting suitable, non-clumsy wording that's the hard part. --Blowdart | ^talk 15:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong tagging for speedy deletion

Hi Blowdart. Thank you for your work on patrolling pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I just wanted to inform you that I declined to delete Lambesis Studios, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion under criterion A7 because of the following concern: Please remember that A7 can only be applied if there is no indication of notability. If the subject of the article is owned by a notable artist and/or notable artists used it, notability is indicated. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion and especially what is considered Non-criteria. In future you should rather tag such pages for proposed deletion or start an appropriate deletion discussion. Regards SoWhy 11:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree - notability is not inherited. Whilst the products of a studio may be notable this does not indicate the studio itself is notable, in the same way ownership by someone notable does not automatically infer notability. --Blowdart | ^talk 11:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

A7 is not about notability, although this is a common misconception. It is only about the mere possibility that notability might exist. And it might exist for the reasons I outlined in my message. Regards SoWhy 12:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. Well I guess you could argue that *shrug* --Blowdart | ^talk 12:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your comments here it was much appreciated. On Whiskey in the Jar, just to let you know that the use of a rapier can date the lyrics back to at least the late 18th century. This could also have referred to a rapaire or halh-pike in Irish. Hope that helps, --Domer48_'fenian' 14:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Rivers of Ireland

Hey Blowdart, I've made a suggestion on how to progress with this on Talk:Rivers of Ireland (I've outlined it better there than in my response on Superfopp's talk page)—thought you might be interested. Fattonyni (talk) 01:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

deletion of MD5 external link

Dear Blowdart,

I saw your deletion of my edit to MD5 external link to www.hashsum.com which is a online crytography calculator for FILES. I object to the deletion. hashsum.com is a first since there is no such online service available; most provide less and none support hashsum calculation for very large files -- even multi-Gigabyte files. A few other links on the MD5 external link section provide similar service but only for strings. Why are they allowed but not hashsum.com? I feel I created a service very useful to myself and many, and disagree with the deletion. Rabbler (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Londonderry

My edit was helpful. What gives you the right to say it wasn't? If we aren't going to use legal names for articles, we have no basis for an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.231.118 (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

BUGtrack

Hi Blowardt, I just recieved such a message

No assertion of notability, none found via google.

I just wanted to let you know that BUGtrack has changed its domain.

This is the old address:

http://www.google.com/search?q=link%3A+www.skyeytech.com%2Fbugtrack%2F

Is everything ok now? Please, let me know.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnaVovk (talk • contribs) 10:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't help you in any way. You need to prove notability on all of the pages you've entered, which you have failed to do. Reviews of the software from notable sites/commentators and reliable sources. There is nothing on your pages to show your software is special or notable and I could not find anything beyond press releases when I looked myself. --Blowdart | ^talk 10:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Dunmanway

Hi, I understand the rules but I just reverted my own revert for the sake of resolving the dispute, so I don't see why I should be blocked. See Talk:Dunmanway Massacre Jdorney (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, two things. One. Is it bad faith if I don't answer every time Domer writes something on the Dunmanway talk page? As this is a, extremely tedious and b, pointless. Every time I answer a point he comes back with a barrage of more stuff, using it as a smokescreen to delete whatever he doesn't like. Have a look at the Tom Barry quote on the talk page and see if this is good faith editing.

Two. How do I get a Request for Comment on this article. It is just not productive using the talk page for this anymore and Domer has already rejected the advice of third Opinion. Jdorney (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Bad faith? I don't believe so. I can understand your frustration here, and even the accusations of tag teaming (although really I doubt it's that arrange, it's just there are groups of people with the same viewpoint watching all the troubles articles. It would be nice to think neutrality would be the biggest group but sometimes I wonder).

Third opinions aren't binding, what you have is a content dispute. If you want to head towards an official arbitration because you feel consensus on the talk page is not forthcoming then you should head over to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts which is probably the best fit (amusingly, given the current bruhahah of ethnic in the introduction to The Troubles).

I'm not going to comment on the content in this because I simply don't know that area of history well enough, and I have an inherent bias, as everyone seems to have - I just admit mine more freely. --Blowdart | ^talk 15:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Surely admitting our own biases is necessary if we're going to edit articles like these? Only then can we reconcile them by including both, or all. The only people who won't state where they're coming from are the true pov pushers. Ok, I'll try the notice board. The problem is that anything that is not binding, Domer will ignore and try to use some sort of sanctions against the editor. Regards, Jdorney (talk) 15:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well if that happens it's off to Arbcom, where I believe you've already been. Approaching 3rd parties or the noticeboards shows good faith somewhat. From there, well, Arbcom would probably get involved. --Blowdart | ^talk 15:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. I await developments. Oh, and re admitting our biases, I wasn't referring to you, sorry if it sounded that way. Jdorney (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)