User talk:Caulde/Archive/6

Thx

Hello Ceedjee. I've transferred your comment from the changing username page to the help desk, where the question will be answered appropriately. You can view it here. Regards, Rudget _zŋ 20:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your support :-) -- Ceedjee (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Rudget _zŋ 20:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2009 UEFA European Under-21 Football Championship Qualification Group 2

The page was incomplete. 2009 UEFA European Under-21 Football Championship Qualification Group 2 now has more information in it now. Believe it or not, they DO qualify for World Cups a few years BEFORE the actual event. ViperSnake151 14:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North West England portal

Hello Rudget! In addition to adding it to one of our project's key templates. I've been adding the following to a couple of articles:

See Manchester as an example. Thought it might serve as a means to generate a bit more interest????? Hope that helps, -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind gesture of the barnstar! I'm most proud to recieve our project's official award!

Since my last message, I've added the portal to the Greater Manchester, Lancashire, Merseyside, and Cumbria navigation templates (not sure why we didn't think of it before now!). I haven't added it to Cheshire material because they appear to have their own portal. I just hope it helps somewhat! Thanks again, -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what more do you want to know?

I apologize if my answers weren't clear enough. Maybe it's my journalist's inclination, but I thought getting to the point and expressing my views in a succinct manner was the way to go. If you want to know more, feel free to ask here or on my talk page. Thanks ... Blueboy 96 13:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hi Rudget

Aloha Again, Wiki-Stepdad :-) Can I ask you something? If you think that a section of an article should be splitted into a new article, and if it is quite controversial, what can you do except putting the proposition template there? Thanks. --escondites 15:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are article are you reffering to? Then I can appropriate the advice. Rudget.talk 16:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's Tindouf Province, I think Sahrawi refugee camps should get a seperate article. --escondites 16:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's somewhat controversial because most articles redirect to "Tindouf Province" in reference to the refugee camps in particular, not for statistical information about the Province itself. --escondites 16:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I splitted the section now. Did I do everything right? --escondites 06:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radio stations

I understand that this was a WP:SNOW close, but all the reasons for keep were completely ridiculous, not based in any policy or guideline, and ignored the policies cited in the nomination reason. They were based on some unwritten rule that a FCC license makes a radio station notable. However, that is directly contrary to the notability guideline and most of the article content fails WP:V. Other reasons for keeping were in the range of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - comparing those minor stations to the BBC World Service. The AFD tags were removed from one article before it was closed with a very OWN-ish reason. I've started a thread at the Village Pump about this strange notability rule. I would also like to point out this in case you didn't see it. Mr.Z-man 19:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to pass in here out of the blue, but I saw the topic at the pump. I looked at the afd devate, and, having read the comments at the afd, I have to say I can see no discussion, no-one is engaging and looking to build consensus, and the one objection has not been addressed. I'm also disturbed that you state at the pump you gave the opinions expressed by the admins in the debate greater weight. Admins are simply editors who become admins when using admin tools. If they aren't using the tools or discussing actions resulting from using the tools, they are just editors and their opinions are worth the same as every other editor. I'd take more care when closing afds, it's hard working out the contentious ones but that's what admins are trusted by the community to do. Steve block Talk 21:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Steve. I would like to start by saying thank you for wanting to dicuss this topic with me. Secondly, I didn't mean that administrator !votes should help swey the AFD in favour of their comments, because that would be a violation of a whole host of policies, unwritten rules and guidelines. I also strived to meet with non-admin closing AFDs guidelines, all of which, in my opinion, I complied with. For example, I didn't interact in the AFD as part of the general discussion, all !votes were keep, consensus seemed reached (even though some may have been "pile on" edits) and the rationale was provided in the closing line. I would also like to mention the fact that, as a participant at AFD since July 2007, I have gained a greater understanding of what is consensus and what isn't. It is usual (IMO) where articles that have been misplaced at AFD gain a unanimous keep and it is regular that all keeps are left short as per the first one or two users who explain their reasons for keeping the article, like here for an example. Thanks once again for replying to me and I'm sure that we can work together in the future at AFD, and I will try to maintain a stricter policy on what other users may see as consensus. Regards, Rudget.talk 22:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Due to concerns with the keep rationales and the possible canvassing noted at the village pump, I've taken the articles to DRV. Mr.Z-man 23:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how you followed the guidelines on non-admins closing afds, since I think you'd agree this discussion was not closed as part of a backlog. Steve block Talk 10:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thx spam

Thank you, Rudget, for supporting my RfB, which I withdrew at a final tally of (33/12/1). I failed to overcome the not unforeseeable opposition, but I am humbled by some extremely supportive, encouraging words I could read. In order to honor your trust, I once again vow to continue working and improving. Please contact me should you have any advice or recommendation to give. Or, should you need assistance. I am, as will always be, at your service. Again, please accept my most sincere gratitude.

Best regards, Hús ö nd 03:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

My RFA

Thank you, Rudget, for participating in my RFA, which passed 35/1/0. I look forward to helping out. If you have any concerns or suggestions/advice, my talk page is always open.—Random832 14:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Small

I think the significance of the subject has been established. The article just needs sources. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1400

A good round number! I hadn't noticed the numbering, so thanks for letting me know. Regards, Bencherlite ^Talk 21:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adopting me

Tell me more about yourself and what kind of articles you are interested in editing. New York Dreams (talk)

Based on what you told me, you are more then welcome to adopt me until 2008. :) New York Dreams (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Officially accepted. New York Dreams (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

jsferreira

Can you tell me if my page on Mervyn Alleyne is up to Wikipedia standards now? Thanks, Jo-Anne —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsferreira (talk • contribs) 18:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, new at this. Jo-Anne

Jsferreira (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC) Yes, that would be great! Thank you! J Jsferreira (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically what to do about this: This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims. Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. --Jsferreira (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC).

And do I reply on your page or my page. Is there like a pdf manual "Wikipedia for dummies"?Jsferreira (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed that tag, because I now feel the article conforms to Wikipedia policy on notability, and is reasonably sourced with independent references which makes it verifiable. As for the "Wikipedia for dummies" - I could suggest a couple of things: if you ever get stuck and I'm not online, go here for help, it never takes any more than 10 minutes to get a reply from an experienced user; another thing is, the introduction to Wikipedia (which is a brief sort of thing explaining how to edit pages) and finally the tutorial, it has a short explanation and links at the top, to various other help pages. There no PDF as per se, but I'm sure this makes up for it none the less. Oh and don't worry about making mistakes, all users do, and people are nice around here, so there will always be kind words exchanged when an erronous edit is made. Regards, Rudget.talk 20:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm back. I volunteered to be part of the Linguist List Wikipedia Update. Just wanted to know if I am doing the right thing re: Trinidadian English as a starter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Trinidadian_English (I added both these: WP Languages|class= --Jsferreira (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user is a participant in WikiProject Languages.

Closures of WRNY (AM) and WRRC (FM)

Never saw that firestorm coming, eh? ;-) Funny thing is, those discussions were a long time in coming and really needed to happen, so it looks like it's going to turn out for the best after all. We might get a good notability policy for media out of all this, which would be great. I'm tired of all those AfDs based on WP:CORP. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for November 19th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 47	19 November 2007	About the Signpost

An interview with Florence Devouard	Author borrows from Wikipedia article without attribution
WikiWorld comic: "Raining animals"	News and notes: Page patrolling, ArbCom age requirement, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: History
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pure Weight Loss deletion

I attempted to post an article yesterday on the weight loss company "Pure Weight Loss." The article was flagged as spam and speedy deleted, but it was not spam. I was not writing to advertise for the company, but was actually posting the article because of all of the controversy surrounding the company at this time. It has been involved in multiple lawsuits and featured on news programs (including 20 20). These articles, including one on a .gov page, were included as references. I did notice that eDiets, Weight Watchers, Curves, and many other similar companies do have pages. Could you please advise me on what I can do to assure the Pure Weight Loss article can be posted? Your help is greatly appreciated! Seerinteractive (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shalom-- just explaining my own !vote

Would not think of seeking to change another's !vote. Just explaining my own position. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm?

Thanks for your offer to co-nominate me, but I have to ask: do I know you by another name perhaps? Apologies in advance if appropriate: I'm one of those people who just doesn't remember names unless I've been reminded several times :). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why I ask, you mean? I was just (pleasantly) surprised that someone whose name I didn't even recognize would make such a kind offer :). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 16:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<grin> :) Be careful with that... most of the "best candidates" probably wouldn't want to go through the RfA process. I speak from experience here: I had a small group of people putting a lot of pressure on me to be an admin a year or so ago, and it's really not a fun position to be in. OTOH, if you do know someone who would be of great value to the community but would feel timid about doing an RfA, please feel free to refer them to me in my Wikiversity capacity: mentorship is a wonderful way to help people learn how wonderful it can be to have tools and help others in times of need. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 17:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your vote

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a vote of (53/0/1).

As a token of my appreciation, please accept this bowl of tzatziki.

I feel honored to be trusted by so many of you. Wikipedia is such a large community, that my acceptance in the face of such large numbers truly is humbling. I will use my new tools to continue the tasks for which you entrusted them to me.

Gratefully, EncycloPetey (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I appreciate the offer. I don't see why not. You might want to co-ordinate with Pedro and Henrik. I'm quite giddy right now. I never dreamed I'd have so many nom offers. Also a bit logy, because I just got home form the the salt mine. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 06:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel really bad pointing this out, but in some cases, Rfa !voters have had negative reactions to too many noms (for some reason I can't really understand) and it would be a shame if that happened here. If you want to Dloh, I'd be happy to let Rudget take my place. henrik•talk 08:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciation and humility here Thanks again. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Manchester big screen.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Manchester big screen.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. OsamaK (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya! Please could you tell the user it is your picture so it can be withdrawn. It is on the Manchester article and this will affect the WP:FAC process. Thanks! _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 17:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator notified. Best, Rudget.talk 18:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, I've never seen Exchange Square that full. --Deskana (talk) 16:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Didsbury_1905.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Didsbury_1905.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. OsamaK (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Barlow_weblogo.PNG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Barlow_weblogo.PNG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. OsamaK (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted after I requested speedy deletion, which wasn't related to this incident. Rudget.talk 17:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Didsbury_Parish_Church.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Didsbury_Parish_Church.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. OsamaK (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your images

These images are ones of long backlog, don't worry and assume good faith :)--OsamaK (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]