Jump to content

User talk:Excirial/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Excirial


Excirial
   
  Userpage Talk Awards E-Mail Dashboard Programs Sandbox Sketchbook Blocknote  
 
 
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Block of Ravaghi ardabili

Just a little question on the block of this user. Is the amount of vandalism really just enough for a one day block? This entire game of creating CSD pages has been going on since yesterday, the user has been properly warned and i don't think that it will stop any time soon. Besides, the sheer amount of vandalism would be enough for 2-3 blocks if each separate instance would have resulted in a warning. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 22:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Excirial,
I was of two minds when dealing with Ravaghi. On the one hand, this editor's contributions indicated a general unwillingness to read up on creating articles, and so a block of some length was warranted. On the other hand, I can't entirely tell that the editor actually understands English well enough to comprehend the warnings on their talk page. I gave a one day block hoping that if Ravaghi is trying to make meaningful contributions, that they will learn a little more before creating any more articles. If Ravaghi starts right up again with nothing but CSD's, then a longer block will certainly be in order. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth Wyn Wood

RE: Speedy deletion of Elizabeth Wyn Wood, I'm not the user who created the page. I just moved it to correct capitalization. Exploding Boy (talk) 07:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I just noticed that. However, i use the Friendly script to tag pages for CSD violations. Friendly automatically leaves a message on the origional creators user page when tagging. In this case, that was you (Even though your just the mover).

Speedy delition of Joseph Anton Koch

Okay, you can delete it. I just wanted to boast that there is an article in the Tagalog Wikipedia which is not in the english wikipedia. Dar book (talk) 11:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

JAF's page

I already moved it to User:JAF1970/Archive/1. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Gotta Be Playa

Technically, you can't speedy a song because songs don't have speedy cats. Also, the artist is apparently notable (thorugh association to a notably-owned label and other notable artists), so even that doesn't apply. However, I prodded it because nonnotable (unreleased and non-charting) songs should still be deleted/ not have articles. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks for dropping by, and citing that policy. Truth is i never went into the particulars of song notability, since there aren't a lot of new articles about songs. Since there is indeed no CSD category that applies to them (Unless its of course advertising or without context) i guess ill just AFD them. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 15:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Just a note regarding deletion: PROD may work faster, as if the tag is not removed or disputed legitimately, the article gets automatically deleted after 5 days; whereas an AFD can drag on, and get lost, therafter needing to be relisted. If the PROD doesn't stick, then by all means, use AFD. Just something to think about. Cheers and happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Rais, Martyr

What exactly made you think that an article about an Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic saint, with a reference provided, is not notable? --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  • This is what i would like to call a border borderline case. Personally i doubt that the WP:BIO criteria are met, since the references provided for this article are not exactly Neutral. Then again, i merely tagging pages for CSD, by which rationale its better to tag one page extra, then one page to little. In fact, i got to admit that i was interested in what the action of the reviewing administrator would be, as i know of no specific ruling for these cases(If a tag is rejected, the history always sites what rules apply). Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 15:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Mashad Carpet Company References

The references have been updated and more have been added. Would like to know if the article could now be taken off the "articles for deletion" list? Thank you. Aliazimi (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Speak of the devil... Guess at which page i CSD'ed i was looking at 20 seconds before posting it? In either case, this looks perfectly notable now. I removed the AFD template of the page, and unlisted it in the AFD section. I also requested that the original AFD request is being removed. Its not exactly following the rules, but par WP:SNOW there is no need to let this drag along for days, if the outcome is certainly going to be Keep. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 16:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your help and patience. Aliazimi (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I didn't exactly do a lot, i merely removed the pages from the AFD list. So in fact, you don't have a lot to thank me for. I would rather like to thank you for contributing a nice article, and even more for making the time to meet the guidelines. If you would ever need some help with writing an article, let me know. I'm not much of a writer myself, but since I'm a vandalism and new page patrol, i got a pretty decent understanding of the rules that apply to new pages. Maybe that can be of use to you sometime. Anyway, Happy editing to you :) Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 16:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Prasadz Multiplex

Hello, Excirial. Thanks for keeping an eye out on article quality. I'm dropping you a note to let you know that I have removed the speedy deletion template that you placed on Prasadz Multiplex because the article does not seem to fit the speedy deletion criterion. WP:CSD#G11 is only for "unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content" and does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes of any sort. Please consider other means for addressing ongoing concerns. Feel free to let me know at my talk page if you'd like to discuss this further. Thanks. Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I did make a typo. You tagged it for G1. Everything else still stands. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I should seriously consider getting a good night of sleep tonight, as i keep making those small annoying errors today. Anyway, thanks for notifying me. I have simply Prodded this article, as i kind of doubt i could get this to qualify as a G11 on second thought (Not promotional enough). Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 17:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
It's a bit funny, if you were going for #G11 and typoed #G1, and I was going for #G1 and typoed #G11. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed your warning template

That should be uw-create2, not Create2. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry!

Didn't mean to make a mess of things. Just trying to knock out as many as I can quickly. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 18:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

LEO LT

Thank you for your notification. Actually the article was deleted even before I finished fixing typos and I didn't had a time to response. But I think that you were wrong about A7. It was explained in the article why this company is significant to have its own article. Maybe it needed better explanation, but really not the case of A7. Beagel (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Haha, your right, the administrators are really fast around here. This was one of those cases where it was questionable if it should, or should not be tagged. However, since i am merely tagging the article, i tend to be quite trigger happy when tagging, since its better to have a tag declined by an admin, then allowing a questionable page to pass trough. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 20:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
No problem. I understand the reasons for tagging and have nothing against for having reasonable doubts. I was just amused that the article was deleted so fast (I was actually in middle of editing this same article and didn't see your tag).Beagel (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Micheál Quirke

Could you please explain on the article's talk page why you felt that it needed cleanup, and what the type and extent of cleanup needed might be? Thanks. Tameamseo (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  • The cleanup tag was added for some very minor things that i corrected now. It included a few typo's, making a list out of the external links and removing some extra spaces. Nothing serious, cleanup was mainly added so that those minor thingies would be spotted(And corrected). Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 20:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Gregism

Be careful with your use of G4 - it's only for articles which have been previously deleted via an XfD route - I'm not sure that this is the case here (although the same page is on the user's userpage). GBT/C 21:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I am fairly certain i saw this page earlier, albeit somewhat different contents. Since that was 10 minutes ago tops i decided for G4, only to see (To my surprise) that this was created by another user. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 21:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
OK - I only mention it because when we see G4, we're required to check through the various deletion logs to see (a) if the article previously existed, and (b) whether it is a substantial repost of the same material, which takes a little time. Just for future reference, broadly speaking you can't use G4 if its a repost of a speedily deleted article, either.
This one would have worked under G3 as a blatant hoax, by the way! GBT/C 21:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Haha, indeed. Thanks for notifying me about this. I mainly add G4 sometimes since i thought it would be easier on the admins. I expected that all that was needed was checking the delete history, instead of reading the full article. But if this is actually HARDER, then i will just file it under the normal reasons! Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 21:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Marijuana

Thanks. One of these days, I'll probably go too far and get banned for being "uncivil" but until then, I figure I might as well have fun. Mandsford (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Patrolling NP

Can you maybe mark new pages as patrolled when you've reviewed them? 194.75.236.69 (talk) 11:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Article needing citation

Hi, I just created a page on a quality control chart, XbarS chart. You have placed multiple banners in the page. I have removed the "categories required" banner and have categorized the page. For the banner, "article does not cite references", I don't know how to address. Because the content currently present in the page is from my knowledge as a quality analyst. When I didn't find a page for the Xbar-S chart, I felt I should start one and give a definition/intro. That is what the page currently talks of. Please comment.

Also, how do you "wikify" a page? Irfan (talk) 12:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Citation is needed since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All the information here is tertiary information, which means that it is merely a (Large) collection of information gathered elsewhere. Because of this, articles must contain some form of sources that establish its Verifiability. This verifiability is needed to make sure all information is correct, and presented somewhere where it can be found. While references are quite important, its most times not a reason to remove an article. If you don't have any references, just leave the tag around till other wikipedians come around with sources that verify what you day.
Wikifying is a semi-specialized process that creates a standard wikipedia layout conform to the Manual of Style. Just think of it as creating a nice standard layout for each and every article. Don't worry if you can't Wikify it, as the tag is mainly there to signal other wikipedians that this page needs to be wikified. There are people around who wikify articles often, and when they spot a tag, or see it in the "Articles that need wikifying" list, they will simply do so. You are of course free to do so yourself, but i always deemed the Manual a little bit to long to call this easy work. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 15:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Selection of Speedy Deletion of Araz Ali Matubbar

Dear Administrator you have selected the page Araz Ali Matubbar, without knowing him. Just after the submission of that article, you have deleted. He was a renowned personality. Actually I am new in wikipedia. Please Keep the page. --Librarianpmolib (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

  • First of, i am NOT an administrator. Perhaps i will run an WP:RFA some day to become one, but at this time, im a new page patrol. This means that i will tag articles which do not seem to meet The criteria for speedy deletion so that an admin will have a look. When i originally tagged the page, it did not meet WP:BIO and general WP:Notable guidelines.
However, i see you expanded the page, and it is perfectly in order now as far as i am concerned. There would also be no problem whatsoever if an administrator stopped by, as they simply check if the notice is A: Valid, and B: Still applies. In this case they would just have removed the notice, since there is no problem anymore. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 15:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Petopia

Hi, you've recently added my page on Petopia for speedy deletion. I can asure you it is relevant but I ma having troble keeping it online and from being removed. If you could leave it on I would be extremely happy. Maybe you could help me develop it further? Thanks anyway.

  • The easiest way to do this is by creating this in your personal user space. You can do this by creating the article at Jackvandriver2/<ArticleName>. Pages created in the user space are not subjected to deletion (Unless it is an attack page) which allows users to develop the article freely without having to worry about it being deleted. Once your done, you can simply Move it to the article space.

Note that there articles have to comply to the notability guidelines and (in the case of living persons) to the BLP guidelines. Last, make sure that everything is Sourced. Good luck!. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 17:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

John Charles Dodson, 3rd Baron Monk Bretton

He's in the House of Lords, or the article claims he is. There is no way we can speedy someone who's in the HoL. J Milburn (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Grumbles something about unsourced claims. Google came back with a few results, none supporting the claim. But then again, someone who has a name consisting out of 3 words will probably just use a portion of that name. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 19:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
He's certainly within the nobility, so I don't think a speedy is possible- I have cleaned the article a little, I suppose you could nominate at AfD if you like. J Milburn (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
No real need for that i think. While the google test failed to support the claim, it did bring back a few thousand pages on him. I think that he is notable, but i would love to have a source on that. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 19:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thomas R. Carter

I felt he was notable, but after research, couldn't find enough individual notability, so I merged with Thelonious Monk Institute of Jazz. Thought you'd like to know. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the heads up. Actually, you came to the same conclusion as i did; The user created three pages, where two were about the person, and one was about the institute he represents. Since the non profit organisation was more or less compliant to WP:Corp guidelines (Save for the references, but with non profit im lenient) i just tagged the two persons. But this merge is a better solution. Nice work doing so, and even better work on sourcing it :). Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 19:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Hello, please slow down, and have a look at WP:FCDW. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:FCDW is where we write the weekly dispatch. The April Fools version of the featured article is a two-year tradition; it is the subject of the next dispatch. That page is where we work on the dispatch in advance, before submitting it to the signpost. A review of the page will show all of this, including discussion of the next dispatch. Also, please don't HOLLER on my talk page. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I actually (Accidentally, more or less) posted that before i should have been posted, since i saw a new message template pop up. Since I was fairly sure that would be the articles creator, i wanted to exit edit mode and go to my talk page, as i was fairly certain this would be an useless question. Yay for the fact that Speed and Accuracy don't really match. In case you are interested, what i wanted to type was I can just ask one thing: What in the WORLD is that page? Oo. I admit, this is in no way the most Civil line ever, but this page really startled me. It looked to much like a legit page to call this vandalism(It was actually formatted), and on the other side to weird to actually classify as normal. Of course, my apologies for yelling at your page, but be assured that this was more out of sheer speed and surprise, then that it was intentional :) Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 19:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorted out now, Mike pointed out that it had a weird typo, which probably caught your eye. I went back to the template where I set the weekly dispatches up, and for some reason, that was the only one with a typo <shrug>, and naturally the April Fools topic would make it look like vandalism. All's well that ends well :-) Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Ex, I'm sorry if I seemed to give you a hard time; I tried to do NPP for a while, and decided it was the hardest job on the Project :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Naah, you didn't. You gave a polite explanation what the project has, and the holler comment was not more then true :). Believe me, i had much and MUCH worse when being on vandalism patrol. In fact, i like new page patrol a lot more for the time being, as i deem it easier. However, that might just be because i had the uncanny knack that i wanted to revert Each And Every Vandal no matter what. Believe me, my current patrol is so relaxing compared to my previous 20 edits a minute rate.
Also, thanks for stopping by for this. You made my job by no means hard, but i of course appreciate the thought! Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 21:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Edmond La Beaume Cherbonnier

Speedy declined - needs a lot of tidying up, but some assertions of notability there. This really isn't a candidate for speedy - needs to go to AfD if you don't think it makes the grade. You might like to try using WP:PROD and WP:AFD a bit more: I think you're tagging a lot of false positives with WP:CSD judging by this talk page! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Tssk, Never judge unless all factors have been considered. :). I assume that there are about 10 articles on my talk page that really refer to a case where a speedy was not warranted, the rest is just asking for an explanation. Your also forgetting a different variable: The amount of pages tagged within a certain time unit. Since the 23th till now (Well, 21th if you count the 50 or so articles that day) i tagged 1975 pages[1][2] for a speedy deletion. In short, i'm tagging 600 ish articles a day. Simply based upon numbers my error count is higher then the average patrol, but based upon percentages, im not doing half as bad i think. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 22:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
A fair point - but I still disagree with your fundamental philosophy (expounded elsewhere on you talk page) of tagging liberally on the basis that (a) it's best to be on the safe side and have one or two good articles deleted than let one or two bad ones survive and (b) the admins will check anyway so I don't need to be too careful.
I will admit that (b) hopefully does apply: now I'm an admin I certainly do check if I'm in any doubt at all about deletion. Although turning down a speedy means a lot more work for me than accepting one: if I accept, it's two clicks and the article's gone. If I deny, I have to edit the article to remove the CSD tag, then notify the tagging editor with a message on their talk page. (I could miss this out, but prefer to say why I've declined). So in the time it takes me to decline one speedy, I could have deleted 5 or 10.
That's a practical objection: my difference on (a) is more philosophical, in that I believe it's better to let a few weak articles survive untagged than to catch good articles in a tagging frenzy. Time was when I'd tag on sight, but now I pride myself on tagging more slowly, and sometimes stopping tagging altogether to rescue an article from deletion that seems potentially interesting. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I have to say that you noted some very valid points in here. You are indeed right that my main methodology is to tag when in doubt (And that doubt is on the side of delete). Why? Two reasons. The first one is that there is always a safety net available, in the form of an admin that will check (Indeed, if he/she does his job correctly) if the article meets the guidelines which i tagged them for. And second, because i am still not used to have things presented to me that are in a shady area when man looks at the rules. I used to look at partial diffs which either contained vandalism; Or contained no vandalism. There was no such thing as something being semi-vandalism, so my tagging became a bit of the same style: Good or bad, with some space in between.
In my humble opinion, i think that i don't hit a lot of articles that would classify as good. I am often tagging questionable articles with the standard maintenance tags instead of CSD tags. Of course, at the time of writing, my talk page shows exactly the opposite, which is also true at times. The article under this section was a wrong tag (But that was more because i didn't know part of the ruling), and the article you tagged came in with yourself is just, well, lets simply call it one of my worst tags of that day. I tag articles like this one once or twice a day for deletion, because they are in such a bad shape that simply re-writing them would be easier then repairing it. Generally this happens when i have to apply a mass of maintenance tags, and also question that it meets CSD guidelines (On this one that were G7 and G12). Is it a good idea to tag it for CSD then? No. But at times, it kind of just happens.
Anyway, thanks for stopping by again. As always, i appreciate feedback on my editing, simply because there is no better way to improve it :). And of course, i will adapt my editing because of this feedback. I think that i will step of adding CSD tags when in doubt, and simply add the standard maintenance tags instead of it. After all, your feedback somehow reminded me of the Inspector Essay, and i found that at times, it IS surprisingly equivalent to me. Kind regards as always, Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 07:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Well you can tell it's a slow day at the office, because I've just had a look back over the last couple of days of your contributions (five screens' worth of deleted contribs, to be precise.) As far as I can see, between 19:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC) and now, you tagged 243 articles for speedy deletion, of which 8 were declined and 235 deleted: a false positive rate of 3.3 per cent. I agree this is pretty good, and the 96.7% that were deleted were better off out of Wikipedia! But you're responsive to feedback from others, and I'm sure your false positives can drop to an even lower percentage. (Not sure I entirely go along with your choice of articles to rescue though...) Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hercules (chef)

Great work on the New Page Patrol. I appreciate you have to be hasty. I think you erred on the over cautious side when you marked the Hercules article as a CSD. I thought I would do you the courtesy of letting you know I challenged the db tag. The article was created by an anon IP at WP:AFC, so its style is similar to a lot of spam, but there is at least one hyperlinked reference to the notability claims that is verifiable, and the others look plausible. Please respond at the article's talk page if you want to follow up. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 22:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I originally tagged this one for notability par WP:Bio, Section Invalid Criteria. Simply said: His notability came from the fact that he knew a notable person, or in this case, served under one. However, looking closer at the rule itself, this little part kind of jumps into my eye"(unless significant coverage can be found on A). In this case, there seems to be coverage on the individual itself, which means he might just as well be notable. This is actually a case i never ran into before, so at the time of the tagging, i was not aware of this little sub line.
Does this make him notable? Well, of course we can argue over that, but at least it means that a speedy is not warranted here. And actually, this is to debatable to prod or AFD it as well. So let it be, let it free i say :) Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 22:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Anantara Solutions

Excirial,Thank you for your response. Anantara's philosphy has been much talked about in many newspapers and podcast's.The most prominent being the podcast by Kiruba Shankar. [1] Even steve Hamm has talked about this company. [2]Does this satisfy the notablity criteria?--Josephthomas81 (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Joseph.

Excirial, I just don't understand why my page on Anantara Solutions gets deleted with a message that it is ballant advertising. But i see pages on other companies on wikipedia. I am able to see complete profile of their companies in wikipedia under the catagory"Software companies of india". Joseph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephthomas81 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

  • For companies, there are two different duidelines that apply (Well, there are more, but those two are specific for them). To excist on Wikipedia, a company must have a certain Notability More specific details for company notability can be found Here. This ruling is to prevent every single company in the world from being added. Also, this notability must be stated within the article, and it has to be sourced. A claim that a company is the biggest in its section in a certain area will just be deleted unless there is some external source to back this up.
Second, and the reason why your page was deleted, was that it qualifies as advertising. Here the advertising guidelines apply. In short: An article qualifies as advertising if it contains any form of promotion for the company. A nice example of this is a company article with two lines of intro, followed by 100 rules of product details, chairman information and the like. If you write an article, don't go into specifics regarding company products, and certainly don't make a list of them. Good luck with it! :) Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 06:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of medicaltourism in israel

Hi, There is nothing in the content that warrents deletion... in fact I already have one example of another company that did exactly the same and it does not seem that their page is marked for deletion...pls. see 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imer 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Medical_Evaluation_and_Referral and tell me the difference, the content of our page describes medical tourism in Israel and nothing more. The content was prepared by our PR agency and not copied from anywhere. And as for the external link... it is the same as imer.biz who does eacatly what we do... is this fair? I don't think so... and this is only one example...I can given you others if you so choose... Respectfully your, Ira —Preceding unsigned comment added by Innaira (talk • contribs) 14:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ira,
I tagged the article you mentioned above for deletion, as it was indeed merely an advertisement page with no claim to notability whatsoever. I can't look back which article you posted, but i think the problem actually lies in the fact that it was created by a PR agency, as most times those companies create content that reads like an advertisement. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it does not allow any page that seems merely made to advertise a company.
Now, i assume that you still want a page about the company you represent. First and foremost, the company must adhere to Notability guidelines, and more specific, to the guidelines for Companies. In short you can describe this as: What did this company do to warrant an encyclopedic article? As an example: "The company is currently the market leader in the health care branch for the middle east." is a good argument why a company is notable, a claim that states "We do a good job providing health services" is obviously not good.
A second requirement is that the claims are Sourced by articles or web content independent from the company. An article in the New York Time that sources a claim is most times an excellent reference. An article that comes from your own website or press agency is an example of a bad source. Last, the article must be written in a Neutral point of View. I cant stress this last point enough. If the article is mainly a list of products and representatives, or if it is written in wording that mainly makes it an advertisement, means that it will simply be blasted away as Spam. A very bad line would be: " Our company, XYZ, is highly regarded for its speed, accurateness and easy of use". A good version of this line would be "XYZ is a company involved in research and development for medical equipment in the middle east".
If you are sure the company meets the above guidelines, and adapted the article to reflect that, you might want to post it at Innaira/<ArticleName>. Just drop me a note when this is done, and ill have a look at it to determine if it matches the most common guidelines. Of course, you are most welcome to post it back directly into the article space (As opposed to creating a sub page), but once its in the article space, it might be subjected to deletion again. Then again, if the article is really ok, it simply won't be deleted.
Kind regards, and apologies for the long read,
Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 14:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Medical tourism in Israel

Hi,

I will revert back to you with something a bit more substancial thanks Truely Frustrated Ira —Preceding unsigned comment added by Innaira (talk • contribs) 17:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, i will see you around then. You might actually be interested in the following page: Kinetic Concepts Inc. This is also a medical company, which article complies perfectly to the guidelines. It is sourced, asserts notability, and is written with a neutral point of view in mind. It might give a nice starting point for your own article, or at least an idea what is considered to be a good article.
Kind regards,
Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 17:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of page on Brad Simon

Hi - You just deleted an article on Brad Simon, and I am having trouble what about it consitutes "blatant advertising". He is an attorney who was pretty much responsible for bringing down a U.S. Senator (which does not happen everyday), so I wonder how I can write the article better. Your feedback is much appreciated.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgilbert1251 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Medical tourism in Israel

Hi, I thank you for your time and direction... Ira —Preceding unsigned comment added by Innaira (talk • contribs) 19:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Little black ant declined speedy

I followed the source link and found it to be verifiable. Turns out it's a species of ant, Monomorium minimum. Cheers, and happy editing! Dlohcierekim 20:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

PS. I agree with Kim's advice above. You might want to read through a little more looking for the sense of the article. Not all editors produce good work on their first edit. This was clearly not nonsense. It even has a verifiable source link. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 20:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
This one is completely my fault indeed. I wanted to tag this one for wikifying and references, yet it seems i mixed up two firefox tabs. Guess i tagged some article that was not notable with cleanup tags, and this one with a CSD tag. Simply a mixup. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 21:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The Artists and affiliates association speedy deletion

i want to write an article on the first ever artistic develpment programe of its kind in jamaica, how can i write the article in a way that it doesn't get deleted. i was sure i had it that last time but you deleted it, is their some kind of wiki mafia i can subscribe to in order to get the ball a rolling? i have seen articles on sizzla [jamaican reggae artist] and i believe that the information i have to present is far more ligitimate or beneficial to wikipedia than that, so please, help me out this one time i'll be very gratefull. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xx876xx (talk • contribs) 15:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Xx876xx,
First of, i can not delete articles, i can merely tag them for administrative attention. In the end, its the admin that decides if the article is correctly tagged. Since i taged it with a G11 (Advertisement), i think you should have a look at the WP:Spam guidelines, as it most likely did not comply to the guidelines there. Also, have a look at WP:Source, WP:Corp and WP:notable Of course im not telling you to fully read them, but skimming over them might help identify problems with the text you created. Once you are sure that the article is a-ok, post the article at Xx876xx\<Articlename>. This will create an user subpage, where articles won't be deleted. Just drop me a note once this is done, and i will have a look at it if its a good article, or if i can improve it in a way that will make it a-ok. You can simply WP:Move it to the article space after its done. :) Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 08:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

IMS Global

Hi, Just out of curiosity does this Wiki page a good article or should it be deleted? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMS_Global Ira —Preceding unsigned comment added by Innaira (talk • contribs) 14:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes, the article your linked does meet the guidelines it had to meet. However, there is a small difference with this article and other business related articles as this is a not for profit organization. Rules on non-profit are quite relaxed, which means they only have to cite sources to establish notability. Also, a non profit business has much, MUCH more lenience regarding advertising rules. In fact, if they state what they do, its merely a core part of the article. If a for profit business states the same, its quite often regarded as advertising. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 18:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Medical Tourism in Israel

Hi Excirial,

I am not trying to be difficult but I am trying to better understand... IMS (our company) reps all of Israel's 18 internationally recognized medical centers 15 of which are public and not for profit. we do not charge our patients for most of our services as we are outsourced by the medical centers and university hospitals. Does this qualify for easier guidelines? IMS also has a not for profit fund whereby we receive donations for financially challenged children who require surgery and other medical procedures. IMS in cooperation with our medical centers provide that service at cost using the donations. I may be grasping at straws but... I thought I might ask anyway,

Have a great weekend --79.182.143.98 (talk) 07:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

American Jewish Renewal rabbis

Hi Exciral: You recently nominated American Jewish Renewal rabbis for rapid deletion. You may not know, but there is presently quite a lot of controversy surrounding the deletion of articles stubs about various synagogues and while you may have possibly had valid reasons, it would have been better to do that via a regular AFD and at the same time to request help or input from editors at WP:JUDAISM who may have been able to expand on the topic or even to agree with you, as the case may be. You should also have placed a notification on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism so that editors who follow Judaic subjects could get a chance to respond in a timely fashion rather than facing a hasty deadline that they knew nothing about. Thank you for your attention. Your sincerely, IZAK (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Demographic and Health Survey

Please reply to my posting using this page, not mine. Judging from the below messages and my experience having a perfectly useful page flagged for "speedy deletion" I'm really getting the impression that Excirial is "deletion-happy". Here is the defense I posted on my talk page regarding Excirial's deletion request, but now I think it's better to post it here on Excirial's page so Wikipedians can see how overly zealous Excirial has been of late with deletions.... "I'd like to explain why it makes sense to keep the page I have created for the Demographic and Health Survey (DHS). First of all please note that on the DHS disambiguation page someone besides myself had already added Demographic and Health Survey as one of the definitions because this is a very large and well-known dataset. Note that the Human Development Index, Index of Economic Freedom, and most other such publicly available and widely used datasets tend to merit their own pages on Wikipedia. DHS is no different that those datasets... it is a public domain, widely used dataset. I have no personal interest in this dataset... I do not produce it and I don't care who uses it.... I am merely an economist who wishes to share with the world what the Demographic and Health Survey is."

NPWatcher

Dear Excirial,

Thank you for applying for NPWatcher! You've now been approved to use it. Rettetast (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

FASHION AFD

You were involved in an AFD for Scene (Fashion Trends) and seem familiar with both it and a related AFD. I'm currently commenting on an AFD here [3] and think it might be related to those previous articles. Since I have never seen either of the previous articles can you shed some light on if this is part of some kind of article recreation?--Torchwood Who? (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

A comment on your ideals

I appreciate all that you have done in this web site, but I feel that you are overdoing the bounds of reality. for example, if a person wanted to create a page that is not created otherwise, and you deleted it due to the so called guidelines of wikipedia, it might be a possible insult to the said person's morality. I just wanted to bring that up for the many people who think likewise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danspr (talk • contribs) 02:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Great, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a sketch pad for random articles and thoughts. To keep wikipedia as clean as possible there have to be certain guidelines that determine what can, and what can't be on wikipedia. For example, what if every single company would create a page? Or what if people started to post their own opinions on various matters? Or what if everyone created a memorial of their loved ones? I can tell you, things would just become a bloody mess.
I'm am aware that people don't like it when their article gets removed (And i had several hate mails and attacks on my talk page for that). If an article's removal insults someone, then im truly sorry, but it won't change the facts there is simply a set of rules that needs to be followed. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 10:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Milk's Favorite Cookie/Status

Wow, yeah. Misza's status changer is screwing up. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep :) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Godspy on Afd

An article you previously tagged for speedy deletion was deleted, recreated and has been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godspy. Toddst1 (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Vandana

Can you tell me the reason of posting a speedy deletion tag on the article about Vandana Singh? This is an article about a real person and the article contains enough details about her eligibility to be posted in the encyclopedia, with sufficient external links to various sources confirming her importance to the world media. if Jessica_McClure can be placed in the encyclopedia, why is Vandana Singh ineligible for being posted? Vishalsh521 (talk) 10:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

After re-reading the article i have to agree that this tag is indeed notable. I misunderstood the article for another (self) biography that tried to claim some notability by saying someone fell down a pit. Had i had a better look at the sources, i could have known that this was not the case. My apologies for the inconvenience caused by this mistag. Regards, Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 10:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

TKS Vishalsh521 (talk) 10:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Patent nonsense on Shindiggler

<Removed quoted text from WP:CSD. Takes up to much space>

  • Well, i already knew that entire text you have quoted, as my work as a vandalism patrol regularly causes me to have to look up some specific cases :). Since the article is already removed i have no possibility to determine why i issued a CSD G1 warning. It Might be related to the fact that i tag articles with a G1 par WP:Snow every now and then since running it trough WP:AFD would take up a lot of useless time, and WP:PROD is already on a long enough backlog as is. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 17:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the overuse of the patent nonsense clause on items which frankly aren't given a snowball's chance in hell to be proven if they wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving as an article, or at least if there were any salvageable data in them. In my opinon it's overused, if not abused, as an easy out -- even when so many of the items fall under WP:SNOW anyway.
I'd like, then, to propose a new speedy category, that of "hopelessly unverifiable information." It might technically require a user to Google a topic, but at least it would be a reasonable speedy category. This could, properly worded, easily wipe out all articles started by students about their favorite place to smoke, or their really cool bike, or stuff like that:
  • This page may meet the criteria for speedy deletion because appears to be made-up information which has no hope of ever being proven in any verifiable way. (See CSD R13.)
Thoughts? - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Personally i would wholeheartedly support the move to add such a category to the available CSD templates. Personally i refer to the WP:SNOW guideline quite a bit(Perhaps slightly abuse at times), since at times its almost certain thats its a shortcut to the same result. Once i had to start an entire AFD for an article that contained a made up word invented by some friends. They actually sourced it with *.tripod.com sites, and at that time my CSD 1, nonsense was rejected because it was not patent nonsense. The admin that rejected it even claimed that it had no chance whatsoever in an AFD, but it should still be run. (Not blaming the admin, rather the rules). Result? 10 minutes work to start the AFD, and it was a 12-0 delete vote.
Adding a category such as the one you would prevent some SNOW abuse, and would nicely fill that empty gap in the ruling. Personally i would change the text a little bit to make it a bit more general:
This page may meet the criteria for speedy deletion because the articles current shape would require such substantional editing that its unlikely to be encyclopedic without a complete rewrite(See CSD R13.)
Perhaps this is a little to general, but it could be used to cover articles in such a bad condition that a complete rewrite is the only solution. Might be tough to get clear ruling on it, so it might be wiser to suggest your line instead of it. When you do, please give me a call, so i can come over to support it! :) Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 18:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Dark and Shattered Lands

I got your message on my talk page about the Dark and Shattered Lands speedy deletion, I'm trying to make it as encyclopedic as possible, as opposed to sounding like advertising, and I will remove anything you ask me to in order to fit in with the Wikipedia standards. I may need some time to make changes, but I will try to get them in there ASAP if you will give me a chance with this. --Rahennig (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, its certainly clear that you want to improve this article, so here is a small list of what i think should be changed. (Note: Im not in charge of deletion, im just tagging articles for admin attention)
  • Notability
In order to be on Wikipedia, each article needs a certain amount of notability, or rather: a reason why the article is inportant enough to stay around. The rulings for websites can be found here. Make sure the article meets the set guidelines.
  • References
Any notability claim should be referenced with external sources, such as website links, directions to external articles and so on. All these references should be establisched third party sources that have a certain (Lets call it notability) themself. For example: The NYtimes is notable, mywebsite.tripod.com and such are not. The rulings can be found here
Other then that: Good luck with the article! Its a lot better to have one good article around, then removing a bad one. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 17:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. What about WP:ORG? I was also referencing WP:WEB (I think that's the one) and although it discourages USENET, it did make an exception with respect to those regarded as experts. I also noticed that awards were also criteria for notability. I will try to add sources as much as possible as I improve the page, so that it can tie in with MUD history in general, past and current.

Dark and Shattered Lands falls more in the WP:WEB section then in the WP:GROUP section. The article's focus is more about interactive web content, then it is about a product or a group of people. Granted, i think this is a faitly gray zone with some overlap, as arguing that the website delivers a product is just as valid.
For the entire matter this difference is luckily quite trivial, as the requirements for the article are fairly (if not completely) identical. The website should claim some form of importance(A reason why it should have an article), and then back it up with reliable sources(Anything that has some sort of notability itsself).
On the awards:
Make sure it are major awards from recognized sources. An "Best Game" award from major PC magazines and websites (PCGamer, IGN) are quite likely to be valid, but awards from websites that are not major (MyMultiplayergame.tripod.org, SiteYouNeverHeardOf.com) are not valid sources. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 18:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I will do my best, I also wanted to ask about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Massively_multiplayer_online_games, although I don't know if that could be criteria, but I would hope I could try to tie in DSL with this project somehow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahennig (talk • contribs) 18:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Replacing speedy

From WP:Deletion policy -- "Renominations: Either a page fits the speedy deletion criteria or it does not. If there is a dispute over whether a page meets the criteria, the issue is typically taken to deletion discussions, mentioned below." The tag & hangon were placed respectively, by me, and Berian. We have considerable different notions about notability and another things, but neither of us are newcomers to Wikipedia. A sober nrief description of a business is not spam. I have now placed an underconstruction tag on Goldford stud, which as normally interpreted gives 5 days to expand it. Please feel free to send it to afd after that if it isn't improved. DGG (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The change log stated "(better tags)" as a clarification to the CSD removal. My assumption was that the CSD tag might have been overwritten due to the page being edited twice within a minute (Sometimes pressing save twice happends). The clarification notice was mainly added to cover the case where this was not an accidental removal.
However, i still stand by my judgment that this article is written like an advertisement: A leading horse breeding facility. Some of the finest thoroughbreds.
Now of course, this is a matter of simply writing it as WP:NPOV, but the article also states no reliable (Or any at all, for that matter) third party sources. The combination of it being written in an advertisement-like way, along with the lack of sourcing was enough for me to drop a CSD in the first place. On the other side i got to admit that i am fairly, if not overly, zealous when it comes to articles about for profit companies. Perhaps that is playing up a little again, but either way: the article needs some work to meet the guidelines. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 19:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
yep, spammy, but if it can be easily improved it gets improved not deleted, per WP:Deletion policy. Obviously, if nobody improves it & sources can't be found, it's another matter entirely. Sorry I didn't leave a clearer edit summary. Almost all of your G11s were good G11s, and I (and I see Berian also) deleted the articles accordingly. Just try for a little greater precision, and remember the usefulness of WP:PROD. (and, by the way, we regard spam from commercial and non-commercial sources similarly--feel free to apply the same criteria to non-commercial--though in their case it's always worth checking first for copyvio, since that's frequent and of course unambiguous.DGG (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Will do. Sometimes i forget that between DELETE and KEEP is also an option that is called IMPROVE. Before starting on new page patrol i only did vandalism patrol, which did not include such an option. For non profit im quite a bit more lenient, where im almost always ok with the articles if it has some notability, and a source(I just add some maintenance tags then).
As for the prod: I don't like prodding articles. There is a clear ruling that CSD tags may not be removed by the original user that created the article. If the user does so anyway, its possible to add a warning for doing so if it happens repeatedly. Since any user is allowed remove the prod, there is no objection if the creator of the article removes it over and over, which causes the need to spend 10 minutes or so to start a fairly SNOWy afd :). Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 19:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Opera Deleware

To answer your question, I am currently searching through the Opera News database for articles pertaining to Opera Deleware. There should be some articles in a moment. But honestly, common sense if you look at the topic would make you realize that it isn't really a speedy deletion candidate.Nrswanson (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

While common sense leads me to think this may just as well be notable, its the "May" part that kind of ruins it. You would be surprised how many articles are created that claim to be fully notable, yet a quick Google search shows its some unknown 5 person company. Of course the age of the company suggests its notable, but as long as there is no claim and no source for notability, it falls under A7, not notable. But if it is really notable, it should be easy to fix :) Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 20:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Your navigation bar

I like your navigation bar. Do you mind if I use it and modify it for my own userpage? — scetoaux (T/C) 21:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Go right ahead! What i stated Over Here is still valid. :) Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 21:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

DPI Labs, Inc.

Interestingly Anna removed this from her user page. If it was deemed insulting, again my apologies for that.

I noticed that you put an article up for speedy deletion, however it was only up for a mere few seconds when you did this, DPI Labs, Inc.. I have replaced the speedy deletion with appropriate tags. Although there are some articles that are worthy of speedy deletes, this article 'may' have the ability to become a good article, the author may just need to be notified it needs to be rewritten. Deleting an article that was made in good faith by a new user might dis courage that user from writing or posting another article. Thanks and have a nice day. AnnaJGrant ([[User talk:|talk]]) 21:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is a clear G11 promotional article. No sources, speaking in the "We" form, Riddled with WP:Peacock words, and no claim that makes them really notable. And of course: The always present contact information on the bottom of the article. In short: this article would have to be fully rewritten to become acceptable. If i count the amount of articles with this quality that "May" become good quality, then we would have 10.000+ ish articles more around here.
Guess i will have to spend 10 minutes to create an AFD for this one now, as the rules forbid replacing speedy tags removed by anyone but the original creator or the original placer. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 22:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
At the time of posting the last comment i was slightly busy, so its not exactly what you call informative. Since im done with the work that was lying about, i can now give a usefull explanation why this was a G11 article(And also a A7, non notable company at the same time). Also, if the last comment sounded a little harsh: Sorry for that. It was not the intention for it to be (I just hate creating AFD's) :)
You should know that, especially on companies, there are some quite harsh policies around for deletion; These are mainly written to prevent a lot of not notable companies being added on Wikipedia. As WP:Corp states: for a company to be notable there has to be citation of it in secondary sources. In this case there was no citation available, and not a single line in the article claimed anything that made the company important in any way whatsoever. Not having any form of notability makes the company fall under WP:CSD subsection A7, non notable companies. In fact, this is the main reason why the article was tagged, not the fact that it was only an advertisement.
The G11 advertisement was cited because the page was a pure promotion. Have a look at this line: This ensures the highest standards of quality and performance for the unique requirements that this market segment has.. Not exactly the average encyclopedic line, is it? :). Even if those were removed, the company would still fall under A7. In short: There would be so much work that simply removing the spammy bits would not solve the problem.
I hope that explains, and with kind regards, Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 22:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Stoopid user error

Thanks for fixing my dumb mistake [4]. It appears that I clicked the "internal link" button rather than the "redirect" one on the editing toolbar.  :-( --Kralizec! (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, and glad to know that i didn't take out some special redirect tag by mistake :) Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 18:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion under G12

I have declined your request for speedy deletion of William Hamilton (soldier) under G12. You stated that the content was online but you did not provide the url, so I had no way to verify the violation. If the material is not online or appears to be a violation but is not blatant, please use {{copyvio}} instead of G12 and add the page to WP:Copyright problems. Thanks.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 19:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This is probably one of those nice mixups that are caused when the article layout is a mess. The original G12 tag was added because a highly possible indication for copyright violation was posted right into the articles source in the first revision: [5]. The layout, along with the Online text copyright © 2003, Ian Lancashire for the Department of English, University of Toronto. Published by the Web Development Group, Information Technology Services, University of Toronto Libraries. line is 9 out of 10 times a sign that there is a copyright violation as it almost always signals a copy and paste of a website.
However, having looked a little closer at the text, there is a section called "Notes provided by RPO". Perhaps the notes section there had to be the header for a references section where the copyright section had to be. No idea if that is the case, and in fact, i don't really mind if it is, as i cant find any website copyvio..
Other then that, does this qualify as an encyclopedic article? 95% of the article consists of a poem. Unfortunately, i have no idea what guidelines apply to poems (Never seen one around). Any thought on this? Thanks in advance :). Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 19:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
first off, it was published in 1917,so its public domain by now. As for poems, we do not include literary works, even out of copyright, except in the context of a discussion--there are examples for some short famous lyrics where we do include the whole. From what I can see, AfD would do nicely. He seems to have published nothing else.DGG (talk) 03:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Excirial! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Ale_Jrbtalk 15:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Bochica & Bite the newbies and get rewarded with an adminship

I have read trough the Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship section, and i have to say: I am quite irritated that this edit, which is over a month old, somehow served as some kind of "Proof" for your statement. Even worse is the fact that you come to my user page, and somehow seem to claim that i violate WP:Bite on purpose to get some sort of good reputation if i even wanted to become an admin.
Let me tell you, i'm offended by this to say the least. If there is any behavioral guideline that i value it are WP:Civ and WP:Bite, simply because they create a pleasant, non violent editing sphere. As of such i regularly find myself upon a new user page, dropping a few lines about how to create Reflists, How to link articles, explaining what could be improved be improved in their article and so on. And what is the response to this? A cutout of 1 of my (On average) 2500 edits a month showing i missed some time. How wry is that?
Now for the explanation: I have been, up till about a month ago, been exclusively a vandalism patrol. For a change of work i decided to give WP:CSD a try, mainly because it seemed to be a bit linked to my normal WP:CVU work. The edit you singled out there is one of my early CSD edits, at whose time i was still busy learning the rules, and adapting to the different edit style required for this task. I have stated in the past that my first edits there were quite overzealous, mainly because i tagged anything that seemed to miss even the slightest thing. My reasoning therefore was that if i did something wrong i would get a little nudge from a seasoned editor, and i could always look which pages were, and which were not deleted (Those who are not deleted must have been good articles, and therefor an example of what NOT to delete).
I have already been whistled at for this editing style, and as of such it has long gone been adjusted to get rid of the deletionism habit i seemed to suffer from. So please, the next time you feel the need to scrub around for an example, please take a recent one. Or at least, you might not want to imply that my tagging is just to "Win favors (To get) upstairs", as i at this time have no desire whatsoever to become an admin. Maybe in the future, but not now. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 06:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Mineralientage

Hi. I published an article about the Mineralientage and I saw your notes. Mineralientage is the biggest european mineral show in Europe. I visited it many times and I think it could be very interesting for many wikipedians that likes mineralogy and paleontology. Mineralientage is not only a Trade Show, there is also mineral exhibitions, conferences, activities for to introduce children to the mineralogy... It is not a commercial page, but to inform about a Mineral show you must use some details about visitors, mineral exhibits...I think is not a commercial add. Thank you for your control in Wiki. Best Regards Joan User:Joan Rosell (talk) 13:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Dont worry to much about the advertising tag, as its simply a maintenance tag signaling (Mostly the seasoned editors) that the article needs a little bit of work. It was placed because every now and then the wording in the article is a little off, for example the use of the word "We" (Not neutral), and a peacock word every here and there(very interesting cultural and gastronomic treats).
This is by no means an indication that there is anything significantly wrong with the article itself; In fact, i rather enjoyed reading it myself. The article won't be delete because of these minor issues, so if you worry about that, don't :). If the article would have been a pure spam page rather then a quality article with a little wording issue, i would have issued a DB-Spam, and it would have been likely already deleted. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 18:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


  • Thank you for your indications. I will work on the article.

BSRG Joan Joan Rosell (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

April Fools Day

I fell for it, good idea ;) Tiddly-Tom 21:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Glad you did ;).
I pulled this little joke on 8 editors, so i already hoped one would fall for it. Actually i only just managed to get this joke up in time, as they actually blacklisted [6] (No, not a joke) the usage of a link to the april fools day article while i was placing them (Wanted to place 10 of those notices). Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 21:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, if that was another April Fools joke I fell for it.... Tiddly-Tom 21:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually it wasn't. When i was placing joke number 9 on a talk page i got a message stating that the link i added was actually on a blacklist, and it referred me to the article it just linked. Either it was because i posted it 8 times in a short time sequence, or someone actually played a pretty neat joke on me Oo. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 21:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


Thank you for the warning you placed on my talk page. Unfortunately I realised immediately that I was fast approaching my daily allowance of keyboard presses, and I wouldn't therefore be able to follow your advice witho...  DDStretch  (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm guessing it was because you did it in such a short time. How come everyone except me can come up with something funny :( I was going to made a fake warning but I'm sure I would get in trouble ;) Tiddly-Tom 21:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

About Mineralientage

Thank you for your comments. I am just starting with Wikipedia and I must to learn more about rules. I've changed some things in in the article. Please, check it.BSRG
Joan Rosell (talk) 08:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Acceptable articles

Could you help me to determine what is an acceptable article and what is not? You helped me a lot on the 300 Bowling and Entertainment Centers article but I had a CSD placed on the 300 Atlanta article that I just posted about one of the 300 Centers. I'd like to learn what formats, copy, etc. I should start incorporating when I post articles in the future.

Can you help?

JuliaBWebster (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Sure i can!
The reason why the second article was deleted is most likely an A7: Not notable issue. One of the reasons that this is placed upon a page is because the subject of an article must be notable, that is, have a reason why it should be on an encyclopedia. In this case the subject of the article on the 300 brand is notable because it follows more or less complies with the notability guidelines in WP:Notable, yet the individual location is not notable (On wikipedia being related to notable things doesn't give notability. So a popstars family should not get individual articles just for being family). One of the easiest ways to check if something is notable is asking yourself: "If i am only discussing the articles subject, is it special for any reason? (Special can also be substituted for: Does it meet the specific guidelines for the subject in WP:Notable?".)
As for the Wikipedia formatting, its pretty easy to learn, but takes a bit of time to master, and you never seem to get finished learning it :). One of the easiest places to learn about formatting using wiki markup is WP:Markup. This page offers a basic overview of the most used wiki markup; Its doesn't cover any templates that can be used, but 9 out of 10 times those are only used for maintenance work, and not for writing articles.
Hope that helps, and as always with kind regards,
Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 19:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Eusebius Juma Mukhwana

There's actually a couple of decent notability claims buried toward the end of this. I suggest AfD to check if they're strong enough / it's a hoax. --Dweller (talk) 11:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion for UsedEverywhere

I was wondering why you deleted the UsedEverywhere page? Please forgive me if I'm not following standard content protocol. I'm still learning. I'm not sure why it sounds like an advertisement. What changes should I make? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canucks1000 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  • It looks like i tagged it for G11, Advertising, which means that the page in the one or other way seemed to serve no goal except the promotion of the product or company described on it. One of the core rules within wikipedia are that articles should not be advertising websites, products articles and the like, and should be written in a Neutral point of view. Most times articlesare tagged for G11 advertising if they either contain a whole lot of words that are not NPOV (Great article, Best in its market)), because the page makes unsourced (Biggest company in the world, Makt leader) or if it contains a whole lot of links to external sites.
A second possible issue you i want to warn you for in advance is A7 Notability, which states that an article should be Notable enough before it can stay on wikipedia. I estimate that abut 60-70% of all the pages get deleted are either of those reasons, so keep an eye on them when editing.
I hope that answers the question and if it didn't , just wander back in here :)

I made a second version. Tell me what you think. I tried to make it similar to Kijiji's. Unfortunately, I don't know about any consolidation that they've been involved with. The partnership is the only thing of note. Should I do external links instead of internal links maybe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canucks1000 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 17:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Martin D. Weiss

This article also asserts notability, though badly. Please take it to AfD. --Dweller (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The tag was for G11 advertising, and not A7 notability. The only claim to notability is that the user says the articles subject has been in some newspapers, a claim which is by no means sourced. Other then that the article is one major promotion for a the subject and book he wrote, and only contains links to websites of companies help by this user. The article is in such a bad state that everything would need a rewrite before it would be a good article. If you seriously want me to do so i will take it to AFD, but i predict this is just going to be snowballed. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 13:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but I disagree that it is such blatant and unredeemable advertising that it can't be knocked into a decent article, which is why I tagged it with {{advert}}. There are other notability claims, such as writing a best-selling book. Now that may be untrue, but it's the sort of thing that should be examined at AfD not speedy. Where there's a doubt, it's far better for things to go to AfD. I agree there's a fair chance AfD will decide to delete. I disagree it's a cast iron certainty. --Dweller (talk) 13:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Okidoki, ill take it to AFD then :). Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 13:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Cool. I do tend to speedy 90%+ of stuff that I see tagged - you're probably unfortunate in seeing 2 in quick succession that I disagreed with. And I do know that some admins take a more aggressive line than me, but I think it's important to push AGF (and BITE) - especially where a decent notability claim could be lying covered in the baggage of advertising and nonsense one often sees from newbies. In fact, when I think back to my own early new articles, I shudder with embarrassment! :-) --Dweller (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Your thought about your first articles, is my thought about my first 2-3 days tagging for CSD :). My tags back then were way to aggressive, even by the still vigilante standards i use now. I fully agree with you that WP:Bite is an important aspect of the entire wp:civil code, and should be followed whenever possible (Didnt see this was a new editor though). Im personally not exactly a fan of WP:AGF, but that is mostly a leftover from my vandalism fighting days, where that rule happened to cause me quite some extra work.
As a little sidenote: the AFD is started at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin D. Weiss, so perhaps you want to have a look at it, since you were also involved. Either way, happy editing to you , and see you around (At the 90% chance ratio i hope!) Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 13:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Lol. btw, see my contrib to the AfD. I think this chap's actually notable. --Dweller (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually i just found a very nice example to emphasis that there are conversationist and deletionist administrators (How about starting a new religion for those two?): Martin D. Weiss Martin d . weiss . The user posted the exact same article twice, and i both tagged those; One came out deleted and one came out with a pretty good chance to live at AFD, thanks to your Google lookup. Makes a person wonder how many potentially good topics have been deleted cause of his CSD tags, and how many junk articles would have gotten trough if he wouldn't have tagged anything. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 14:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

To be fair to all, it did need this pruning effort before I could even tolerate it! I don't categorise myself as deletionist or anythingelseist, except perhaps appropriateist. I'm as happy as any admin to whack the delete button on most of the junk I see tagged. Perhaps I'm just a bit more sensitive to newbies and bad editing? I dunno. More likely it's just that I have a thick skin that means I don't mind seeing articles I've "saved" getting dumped at AfD, preferring that to seeing potentially good topics disappearing at CSD without wider scrutiny. --Dweller (talk) 14:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Dutch translation

Thanks for the information about Pet (Patrick) van de Luijtgaarden -- I've deleted the page on your recommendation. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

CSD Patrols

Hi Triwbe :)

I think that you are being a bit to aggressive with the CSD tags for the moment. For example Helmeringhausen does have context, and Terry Bellamy asserts notability. Dont forget Wikipedia is a Work in Progress, which means new articles are rarely perfect, so as long as they don't clearly violate WP:CSD they should be kept around.

Thanks in advance, and with kind regards,
Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 17:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, but an article without at least one single reference has to be questioned. I already asked the editor to add refs or possibly merge into the country. But also I will try to "hold my fire". --Triwbe (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, tag that with {{unreferenced}} instead. If you dont do so already, you might want to try Friendly (The tag part) , which allows for easy tagging of pages with maintenance templates. I find it particularly useful as it allows some of the better articles to survive, instead of CSDing them. Also, not having references is not a vadlid reason to CSD an article, unless the article fits in one of the categories dealing with them.  :) Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 17:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Marking your patrol

Yo, is there any chance you could mark articles as patrolled once you have viewed them? I have encountered several articles you nominated for speedy deletion that were marked as unpatrolled; marking would cut down on redundant patrolling. Regards, Skomorokh 15:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hopi Dictionary

I am more than a little annoyed at your moving and nominating for deletion a created article within 5 minutes of its creation. Thios behaviour is disrepectful, arrogant and counterproductive. It is standard wikipedia naming policy that articles on books be located at the full title of the work which in this case is "Hopi Dictionary : Hopìikwa Lavàytutuveni: A Hopi-English Dictionary of the Third Mesa Dialect With an English-Hopi Finder List and a Sketch of Hopi Grammar". This is where the article should be located. If for soem reason the name should be shortened you should let someone with knowledge about the work find out which alternative title is preferable. I request that you promptly move it back to its original location and let me finish editing the article. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 09:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I moved the article par WP:MOS, article title subsection, as the article's title was far over the 10 words soft limit for the article title. I originally tagged the other titles for R3 removal because i deemed it implausible that anyone would ever type the full name. In short: More went wrong here then went right, as in retrospect i could better have created some redirects to the original title, or changed the long title to a redirect to the short title name. My apologies for the inconvenience caused, and with kind regards, Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 09:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Apology accepted. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 09:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Rhyd Ddu railway station

Hi Excirial, I have reverted your recent edit to Rhyd Ddu railway station. The article is about a British railway stations so its appropriate that it is written using British English spelling rather than US English spelling. Thanks, Gwernol 16:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I see you have been switching US to UK English spelling on a lot of British articles, such as Contempo (band) and The Experiment‎ . Could I ask you to take a little more care with this. Referring to these spelling differences as "typos" isn't really appropriate either. Thanks for understanding, Gwernol 16:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice on that Gewernol; I'm currently busy checking random articles for their spelling and grammar, but as a non native speaker of the English language the difference between American and British English is sometimes quite hard for me. It also seems that Word (Which i slightly rely on to detect the correct article language) does not always correctly detect either of the two languages.
I assume that the main problem is caused by the "Ise" and "Ize" ending(Organise, Organize), as i got a remarkable lot of results regarding that letter combination. I already found it a little weird that i got so many errors on those, but my guess is that is one of the differences between the US and the UK variant. Either way, i will lay of correcting those type words, as i have a lot less of a problem with other words; Most of the corrections are based upon accidentally switching two letters/lettres. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 16:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The differences can be subtle and confusing. Yes, you're right that "ize" vs "ise" is one of the more common differences between US and UK English. Another one is UK English often uses an additional "u", for example "colour" instead of "color" or "flavour" instead of "flavor". Wikipedia has a couple of good article on this at: American and British English differences and particularly American and British English spelling differences. Word won't help you unless you check using both their US and UK dictionaries. Good luck, Gwernol 16:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar for you

The Editor's Barnstar
For taking the challenge to successfully and thoughtfully tag at least 50 articles for speedy deletion, I, Wisdom89, hereby award you this Editor's Barnstar. Good Job! Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Excirial
  2. ^ http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Excirial&site=en.wikipedia.org
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Excirial/Archive_3&oldid=1142543150"