User talk:FreplySpang/Archive/Feb2007

This is an archive. To leave a new message, go to User talk:Freply Spang.

Commondreams

FYI: Talk:Common_Dreams_NewsCenter#Removal_of_information Travb (talk) 04:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

deleted articles

Hi - You left me a message a couple of weeks ago regarding my two pages, Early Intervention in Psychosis and Easy to Read, noting that they were similar to or the same as pages from www.osmhi.org. I replied, explaining that I am the author of the osmhi.org pages, and my program (the Open Society Mental Health Initiative) would like to contribute its work to Wikipedia in the areas (such as Early Intervention in Psychosis and Easy to Read) where there are not yet any pages. I have not noticed a reply from you about this situation and whether or not, under these circumstances, it is possible to re-post the pages. (If you replied and I have somehow missed it, I apologize - I am new to Wikipedia and am still learning the system.)

We would like to continue to share on Wikipedia, but I am hesitant to do so until I can fully understand what is acceptable and what is not. I look forward to hearing from you, as perhaps you can help with this.

Thanks very much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Katielipp (talk • contribs) 16:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

yea dude

well im kinda in jello productions and uhh? wats ya prob? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Diepie (talk • contribs) 09:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC). [reply]

Kyle Collins

I came across this while prodding another of Sly-eye's articles. Do I understand the template right, that you deleted it as speedy without listing it first? I'm just trying to learn about this part of WP, but it seems a very unusual thing to do. Is there some special explanation--I had thought this was not a permitted procedure in general.DGG 04:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, of course, that what is obvious to one person is not obvious to another, and there is no way to check. (I do recognize the convenience). I am not sure how to solve it, except possibly an attempt to more precisely define the rules. DGG 16:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not the least interest in the subject; only in the process. No system can completely trust any one person with doing anything right all the time, training or not, and this is no reflection on admins in general, or their role in WP--or certainly you. One way to decrease the error rate is using multiple people, so that (with say 2 people) instead of (say) an average 1% error rate, there's an average 0.01% rate. The second is an audit. The nearest we seem to have as an audit on the deletion process is observing the behavior of admins at AfD (& talk pages)--most seem fine, as I would expect., but possibly not all do, as I would also expect. A third, which is what WP now does, is rely on complaints. The complaints are relatively infrequent, probably because most people are unwilling to complain--either timidity, unfamiliarity, a sense of hopelessness, . (And those who do tend to complain most also tend not to be quite level-headed) --I'm generalizing on the basis of other systems I know.

Personally, my feeling is that any system which is not open, is not fair--or at least cannot be shown to be fair. (except in the few cases or real privacy concerns--and these too need some kind of audit, tho not with everyone watching). And let me just mention again that i have no complaint about any page I have worked on--I very soon learned how to work in a way that would be accepted, and when & how to work around obstacles. I've had to abandon a few things, but that doesn't wound me the way it does some people. I appreciate your responses, for it helps to know how people think--its not a challenge. It's just that it happened to be you that I noticed first. DGG 23:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i would like to know

today you deleted the page i created on the cyber-nation on GreenUK i would like to know the exact reasons that it was upon and why i was not given time to give an argument as to why it should be included on wikipedia

i belive that it is unfair that my page has been deleted as the reasons as i understand them for it's deletion were that it was a vanity article and that the content within the article beared no relation to the subject however i must inform you that the article posted was written by myself a member of GreenUK and while not stictly true was the origins of a cyber-nation meaning that whatever is posted within the cyber-nation is true so if the origins posted in the article were written within the cyber-nation it bears a relation to the subject and therefore does qualify for inclusion on wikipedia

today you deleted the page i created on the cyber-nation on GreenUK i would like to know the exact reasons that it was upon and why i was not given time to give an argument as to why it should be included on wikipedia

i belive that it is unfair that my page has been deleted as the reasons as i understand them for it's deletion were that it was a vanity article and that the content within the article beared no relation to the subject however i must inform you that the article posted was written by myself a member of GreenUK and while not stictly true was the origins of a cyber-nation meaning that whatever is posted within the cyber-nation is true so if the origins posted in the article were written within the cyber-nation it bears a relation to the subject and therefore does qualify for inclusion on wikipedia

i do apolagise i forgot to sign it last timePeroxwhy?gen 22:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles to be deleted

Hey! I have a few articles you might be interested in deleting. I tagged them but they are still there. They all satisfy speedy delete criteria.

Mbralchenko 02:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC) (always forget)[reply]

I'm not a new user time-wise, but I have only really started to edit a lot (RC Patrol) since late January, so I'm still getting the hang of things here. Other articles I've nominated before where gone in less than a minute, so I was a getting rather concerned. Thanks, anyway, and sorry if I violated protocol/bugged you etc... Mbralchenko 02:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grecia Trujillo

Thanks for the correction. I'm a bit embarrassed that I put that on the Wiki-page rather than the user page. Sorry about that. Take good care. Smoove Z 10:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

As an editor to this page, you may be interested in this AfD:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common Dreams NewsCenter Travb (talk) 11:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

okay..

thank you..

so..how can i post a article about the word "gameza" ?

regards, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tharshan (talk • contribs) 17:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Gears of Life? Thanks for taking the time to correctly tell me what article I didn't vandalize.

SpuriousQ

You're the first sysop online I found... The article SpuriousQ is turning into basically a war. It is an attack page and nonsense. Please delete it! Mbralchenko 02:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply re: copyrights

Thanks for your message. What you wrote is very clear, and I understand the reasons behind it, as well. My program will have to discuss the options and see how we would like to proceed with sharing information through Wikipedia. Thanks very much! Katielipp 10:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

leadership lessons from the great pyramids

hi,

thank you for your info, i am the author of this article and have submited it to MANY article submission sites, i have a few questions:

1. the original article is on my site Directivecommunication.com, if i add...

on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later."

will that give others the right to claim it as their own? i dont mind if others add to it, but not keen if they claim ownership.

2. do i need to have this statement on EVERY place the article is published? there are 96 places it appears and would be difficult to modify all —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carmaz (talk • contribs) 10:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Carmaz 10:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

request

hey, requesting a review of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:St._Fitzhugh_Day. - Jaredcheeda 19:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

It is not over

I will ruin you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 6hawkt29 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC). [reply]

re nick hornby (artist) sorry

re nick hornby (artist) sorry -- I wanted to add nick hornby the sculptor. I'm in the process of learning how to do this correctly. Tom. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thomasfairbairn (talk • contribs) 23:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC). [reply]

James Spraggen

This is not an attack page, the sources used can be backed up with an excess of over 700 school pupils —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dwahl01 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]