User talk:Glenfarclas/Archives/2010 3

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Glenfarclas. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

You probably knew this...

...but I thought I'd remind you. Anyway, when you close an AfD, you have to do this to remove the category tag...thing. Otherwise it'll show up as an active debate at WP:AFDC etc. Just thought I'd sy. Thanks, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 10:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you're quite right. My bad! Thanks for the reminder— Glenfarclas (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Why delete Moveandstay page?

Hello Glen,

I do not understand why this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moveandstay has to be deleted. This company is the number one serviced apartments and serviced offices provider in the world.

I do not understand also the rules in Wikipedia... I added tons of references (around 25 REAL BOOKS are referring to Moveandstay.com) and they were deleted from the article...

- It was accepted after editing big time the content - It was then edited by wikipedia members - Then got warning - Then this article was re-accepted - Then all books references were deleted from the article. - And then you ask for deletion.

I have edited the page once again with more references

Please let me know what you think about it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Efauvel (talk • contribs) 15:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Glenfarclas. You have new messages at OllieFury's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 18:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Outside Bozeman Magazine

Hi Barnstar/Glenfarclas, I'm editing the "Outside Bozeman (magazine)" page. Yes, the original entry was bombastic, but what do you expect from a 21-year-old editorial intern? However, your research was hasty and presumptious as we are not a tourism magazine, and we have indeed received plenty of statewide and national recognition -- at least as much as some other magazines currently listed in Wikipedia. I changed the text to be informative rather than self-promoting and instructed our intern to provide more reliable sources. She was only doing preliminary Google searches, which as you surely know is not necessarily a reliable or comprehensive source of information. Please be patient as she struggles to get this right. If she can't, then I'll step in and do it all myself. -Hedgehog —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.228.139.10 (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you're reworking the text; I had reverted you because you deleted a big chunk of content without any comment or explanation. As to the magazine, if you can provide evidence that it actually has "received plenty of statewide and national recognition" (in reliable sources, hopefully), please provide it and it'll be taken into consideration. However, the argument "My article is more notable than other ones on here!" isn't given any weight (see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS); at best, it's a reason to nominate those other articles for deletion, not to keep yet another non-notable subject. As to whether my "research was hasty and presumptious [sic]," the article stated that Outside Bozeman "is often used as a tourism resource" and "is . . . a valuable local and tourist tool," so I had some justification for thinking it a "tourist tool." Glenfarclas (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Cool, we'll get all our sources up there and hopefully they'll be sufficient. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.228.139.10 (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC) How's it looking now? We can keep digging for links (much of the collected press about Outside Bozeman is in hard-copy format) but the MSU Collegian is an extremely reliable source, as the official publication of a 117-year-old land-grant institution. The Coeur d'Alene Press is an established newspaper that dates back a century as well. The MSU Collegian is the only full-on profile piece but there are plenty of references to Outside Bozeman in numerous other publications. Let us know, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.228.139.10 (talk) 01:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm probably not going to convince you that your own magazine fails WP:CORP, but from my standpoint a profile in a student newspaper just won't cut it. The Coeur d'Alene Press piece requires a password, but I can't find any evidence through Google that this article exists. So, sorry, but I'll have to continue to disagree with you, even though your magazine is far from the least notable one I've seen come across Wikipedia. No hard feelings I hope— Glenfarclas (talk) 02:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The link has been updated and no longer needs a password, so please check again. Also, Montana State University's profile was in the alumni journal, not in the student-run newspaper, and therefore is quite the credible source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.144.153.131 (talk) 02:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC) She's right, the MSU student newspaper is the Exponent. No comparison to the Collegian, which is produced by professional writers and editors. I'm sure you get bombarded by megalomaniacal nobodies and thus it pays to be skeptical, but you do seem to be jumping to unwarranted conclusions. Even a small amount of due diligence should separate us from that crowd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.228.139.10 (talk) 03:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussion: Comparison between roman and han empires

Hello. You are invited to take part in the deletion discussion on the redirect Comparison between roman and han empires. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

First Comics News

Glen you added "This article may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion as an article about a web site, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. See CSD A7." to First Comics News. Site like Newsarama, Comic Book Resources, and Comics Bulletin all have Wikipedia articles and all duplicate the same news. However if you want to get the latest news in anything but English you are our of luck. First Comics News translates to Arabic, Bulgarian, Catalan, Chinese, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, Filipino, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Hindi, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Latvian, Lithuanian, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish, Swedish, Ukrainian and Vietnamese. All the super hero movies are shown in these languages and many of the comics are licensed and translated into these languages. First Comics News is the international communities only place for this type of news. This makes First Comics News unique and important. How do I get my article reconsidered? Gearalt Finlay

The response from User:TrulyBlue at Talk:First Comics News pretty much sums it up: look at the criteria discussed in the guideline Wikipedia:Notability (web), and provide reliable sources (this will generally exclude blog posts and the like) that show that your website meets at least one of them. If you can't, don't worry; as TrulyBlue pointed out, it would be unusual for a website to be encyclopedically notable when it is brand-new. Cheers— Glenfarclas (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris M. Allport

I've done some work there and ask that you revisit Chris M. Allport. As the man does not always use his middle initial, it seems like many (not all) of THESE are our guy. More important though, and through further research, it seems the fellow received multiple awards and nomination back in the 90s that allow notability per WP:ANYBIO. I've begun sourcing these in Chris M. Allport#Awards & nominations. Now that it belongs to Wikipedia, and since even 1990s notability is not temporary, why not warn the author strongly about COI and we allow it to be improved through regular editing? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your "sockpuppet" message

Is it not allowed with multiple accounts? I did not know that./Uekhen (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Right, generally it is not allowed, as explained at WP:SOCK. Glenfarclas (talk) 01:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

blanking of another user's subpage

Your blanking of User:Stevenrcross/The_Tire_Choice_&_Total_Car_Care was, in my view, inappropriate. User subpages are precisely for working on articles that may not be suitable, but the user hopes to make them such. Please assume good faith and allow the user to experiment in his own user space without fear of immediate reprisals. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I respect your view on that, and thanks for your polite message. From my standpoint, it was a completely unsalvageable advertising page for a non-notable company, and rather than waste people's time at MfD I thought I'd blank it (which people generally suggest anyhow) and then discuss it with him if he had any questions or bothered to revert. I know this has been introduced as an article and deleted several times. So, I appreciate your viewpoint, and I certainly don't plan to revert your de-blanking or anything like that, but even after reconsideration I do feel my response was within the realm of reasonable AGFing for an advertisement of this sort. So, chalk it up to a difference of opinion on this one, but rest assured that I don't go around blanking people's subpages willy-nilly; this might be like the second or third time. Regards — Glenfarclas (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The user was not properly notified about his contributions to Tire choice, as evidenced by his comments here. Therefore, an MfD is the least we can do, at least to educate him and avoid being bitey. I have not encountered blanking like that; usually it could be marked immediately for speedy deletion, or MfD'ed; or, just snowballed by any administrator. I'm going to wait for any response from him; if it goes as I suspect, though, it'll be deleted anyway. Cheers! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Peanut Labs, Inc.

Hi there-

If you could give me a few pointers as to how I can improve this page so that it is not deleted. I was trying to tie it in with virtual currency and market research i.e. Synovate. Let me know your thoughts, thanks in advance. (Cgomez10 (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC))

The two main problems are that the article is basically an advertisement for the company ("innovative, forward-thinking," etc.), and that it does not indicate how or why the company is encyclopedically notable, as is required to have an article about a company. The page WP:CORP gives the guidelines for inclusion of an article on a company. Glenfarclas (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Michael Schmidt entry on Usenet Celebrity article

You deleted the Michael Schmidt entry based on "unclear notability". What's unclear to you? A 13 year Usenet history clearly referenced, which has inspired comedic parodies and off-Usenet websites which are referenced. What's your standard of notability, an expose' on Nightline and their own exhibit at the Smithsonian? They're a notable "eccentric personality" if ever there was one. I've been looking at Usenet for around 10 years and of the others mentioned in the article MI5 victim is the only one I've heard of outside the Wikipedia article.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 08:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, the problem falls under the issues of reliable sources, verifiability, and original research. Basically, it sounds like you frequented these newsgroups and said to yourself, "Hey, that guy's a minor celebrity! I'll put it on Wikipedia!" That would be original research. In short, Wikipedia's policy on verifiability says that claims "must be attributed to a reliable, published source." You can check Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources to learn about that topic, but newsgroup postings generally don't count. In other words, although it's impossible to give specific criteria, we'd probably be looking for something along the lines of being mentioned in a magazine, newspaper article, book, on a TV show, etc. Those are the most common kinds of sources. And we'd be looking for a source that says, roughly, "Michael Schmidt is a Usenet celebrity" -- not a source that just provides a bunch of facts from which the seasoned observer could deduce that he is likely a Usenet celebrity; that falls under Wikipedia:SYNTH.

Hope this explanation makes sense; please let me know if you have any more questions. Glenfarclas (talk) 09:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Who is "we" as in "we'd be looking for a source..." Are you referring to yourself as an assimilated part of the great Wiki-borg?

You're apparently selective regarding how you apply the criteria you've outlined. Many of those mentioned in that article are referenced with essentially the same credentials as the Schmidt entry.

The very first - Alexander Abian - one reference to a Usenet post about his death. There's a claim of being a "Usenet legend" the basis for which appears to be solely from within Usenet. Robert E. McElwaine - sole reference is to an archive of his Usenet posts. Valery Fabrikant - notability seems to be that he ultimately went on a killing rampage, not his Usenet activity. The sole reference documenting his Usenet activity is a dead link to his now non-existent Geocities home page. B1FF - some references to blogs, some Usenet references.

Some seem to have some notability outside Usenet for example in academia, however the fact that they've posted on Usenet merely a happenstance, not the source of their notability. Seems to me you either need to cull a number of the existing entries or stop being an impediment to this one.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 03:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

"We" as in Wiki-borg? Yeah, I -- er, we -- think that's about right ;) As to the rest, your way of thinking is very common and completely understandable, but a classic Wikipedia fallacy. If your problem is that existing content isn't up to standards, the answer is to delete or fix it, not to use it to shoehorn in additional content that is similarly problematic. When it comes to new articles ("Hey, my web business is more notable than these other businesses that already have pages!") I link to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:ALLORNOTHING, which lay out the general view on this issue. In short, each piece of content is to be evaluated according to its own merits. Did you find some content that doesn't belong here? WP:SOFIXIT!

As for me, I reverted some vandalism on Usenet celebrity with Twinkle once, which leaves the page on my watchlist. I therefore noticed your new changes, although I hadn't similarly scoured the article's existing text. Looking over it now, I can say that as regards Alexander Abian specifically, if he's notable enough for a standalone article (which I'll presume, since he has one) then he's notable enough to be mentioned in this article. And if you click on his name, you'll see that his notability actually is referenced to articles in People Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post. Glenfarclas (talk) 07:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

My "way of thinking" is you're being inconsistent both with your editing and your standards. "...if he's notable enough for a standalone article...then he's notable enough to be mentioned in this article." - You're conflating issues. The article is about Usenet celebrity which you proclaim needs to have a certain type of documentation. Someone may have an article but is their Usenet notoriety per se documented per your assertions? In many cases the answer is clearly no and in many cases they have neither article notability nor the type of referencing you assert, yet they've been considered a good fit in the article for some time until you came along. But now you seem to be saying - "well, if they're famous they belong in the article" whether that fame is particularly based on their Usenet activity or not and meet the standards you claim are required. The fact is, Usenet is something of a "niche", and most of these people are in sub-niches. I've never heard of most of them. However, I have no doubt like Schmidt they're quite well known to those who frequent those areas. Saying the New York Times or whatever has to publish an article about someone's Usenet activity to make it "notable" within that milieu is ludicrous. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 01:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you're quite right, that was slightly loose writing. I meant, if he's notable enough as a Usenet celebrity for a standalone article, which he does appear to be, given the referenced statement in his article that his theories, "made in thousands of Usenet posts during the last portion of his life, gained Abian mention (not entirely favorable) and even interviews in such publications as Omni, People, and The Wall Street Journal." Obviously, you know, Wolfgang Mozart and Chiang Kai-shek are notable enough for their own articles, but don't belong in Usenet celebrity. And you're correct that claims don't all have to be sourced to publications as prestigious and the Wall Street Journal, but they do need to be sourceable to some reliable source. Glenfarclas (talk) 02:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the info. I guess I was just trying to keep the guy honest. It won't happen again. Adamlankford (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of We have band

Hi can you be more precise, i'm a fan of this group and i can't create a page ? how is it possible ? can you help me keep it Jonusbaum (talk) 09:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

University of St. David

Hi Glenfarclas, about the template that I use should not be use in the bio-living person. Do you have any suggestion for it ? Thanks (KentLA 06:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tecacwebmaster (talk • contribs)

Yeah, I suggest you give up trying to promote your fake university, and stop forging the signature of User:KentLA, who by the way doesn't exist. Just stop. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is another for your collection of universities. They tried for an article some time ago and got speedied sharpish. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 07:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a bizarre one, all right. Thanks, John! Glenfarclas (talk) 07:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. all this stuff recently online. In the future it will have quote from reliable source. I've marked your trying to find out any discuss and sources about it however it has been online how can I get it for your reference. I hope you don't judge the thing by your own feeling. I really need your help just want to make the world better. thanks u. (KentLA 07:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tecacwebmaster (talk • contribs)

About User name as your wish It can make confuse. I really need your help to suggest to make it better. My opinion view is win-win solution. thanks for your post. (KentLA 07:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tecacwebmaster (talk • contribs)

Sorry, no university has a half-century history, an enrollment of 10,000, and a papally-appointed president, but has never been mentioned by anyone on the internet. It's so fake it's painful, and you should be ashamed of yourself. Please give up. Glenfarclas (talk) 07:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Glenfarclas, may be currently your point is right. As I mention before, the University recently online and try to keep helping the world. In the previous time no one knows and it charity just for indoor people. Today, in order to keeping and helping the disadvantage people I've tried to make it online. I know it is the first step and the hardest step. That why I really need your help to keep the post and optimistic. Do you have any suggestion? (KentLA 07:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC))

Hi Glenfarclas, I have some problem about template MfD. I hope you understand and help me in this situation. Thank u. (KentLA 09:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tecacwebmaster (talk • contribs)

Yes, the problem is that you keep removing it. Please stop. Glenfarclas (talk) 09:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Glenfarclas, Thanks for your helping to keep WIKI right and clear. Is there any problem with the information that I provide in my User:site.We are in the same site to make the world better. I need your corporate, please remove the template MfD and your inappropriate personal reviews. Thanks u. (KentLA 10:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tecacwebmaster (talk • contribs)

If there were any remaining doubt, large chunks of the text, including the "gently rolling hills" of the campus, "Nadia Magnenat-Thalmann, founding Director of MIRALab", and the "Global Immersion Programme" offering "international experience of up to a year in two locations" are copied from Nanyang Technological University! JohnCD (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your reference. I will keep notice about it. (KentLA 06:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tecacwebmaster (talk • contribs)

Deletion of Restricted military area

I added some information. Can it still be classified as a dictionary entry? AirplanePro^Radio_Checklist 02:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it's not much more than one. I may or may not send it to AfD, we'll see. Glenfarclas (talk) 04:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

ELIANCE Enterprises

It's ok to delete this. It was supposed to be a special page (which I already created). I got too click happy. Cyprian Henterfield (talk) 08:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem, sometimes it happens. An admin will come around to delete it sooner or later, but thanks for the note. Glenfarclas (talk) 08:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for being understanding. :) Cyprian Henterfield (talk) 08:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

JNM Publications

It's ok to delete this. It was supposed to be a special page (which I already created). I got too click happy. Cyprian Henterfield (talk) 08:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Korean notes and coins redirects

What is your view on the (about 45) redirects on specific notes and coins here, please? Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I had seen those. I don't know that I have much of a problem with them in principle, but I'd delete the ones that don't specify South Korea, since ~~Best Korea~~ North Korea also uses the won. Alternatively the undifferentiated ones could be retargeted to Won, but I don't see much of a point. And I might also delete things that don't exist, like the South Korean 1 won note. Regards-- Glenfarclas (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

{Barnstar moved to userpage.}

Aw, thanks! Poor widdle stub just looked so cute and helpless. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Qtorrent

FYI, I reverted the edits to Qtorrent which involved copy/paste of another article, and then tagged it for speedy deletion. Either way it gets killed. Hope that's OK with you. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Works for me! Glenfarclas (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

take a look

hello, you are a well exprienced editor, so plz take a look at Ahoora and Mohammad Pazhutan deletion disscution, thanks, Rock ON! --Spada 2 ♪♫ (talk) 09:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

"Catholic Answers" is "official" and I restored it...

I'm not sure why SOME editors seem to have a hang-up against the notion that the RCC "OFFICIALLY" does not consider all professed "Christian" groups as "separated brethren." Is it because this well-sourced FACT personally bothers some people, so they wish to obscure or suppress the fact? What's with you (and Nova)? It should be made CLEAR to the reader that viewing Mormons as "polytheist" or "nontrinitarian" is an OFFICIAL view of the Roman Catholic Church, and NOT just the view maybe just some individual Roman Catholic apologists...

also...

the reference source that WAS there before was "Catholic Answers" or "This Rock" AND IS AN ESTABLISHED AND RECOGNIZED "OFFICIAL" CATHOLIC ORGANIZATION AND SOURCE. See the Talk page and see how that was well-proven, beyond question, where even NOVA ADMITTED EVENTUALLY.

The problem with Novaseminary is that he or she is uptight and neurotic and devious. He/she did not like this article's very existence from the get-go. And Nova just battered it with wiki-lawyering and uptight tags left and right, and I'm NOT the only editor who thinks this way.

Again, you rudely removing the word "officially" was UNJUSTIFIED, simply because of the citation, especially given the fact (in case you forgot) that the citation WAS OFFICIAL, AND THEN WAS REMOVED. Not sure why....

I just restored both the word "officially" AND the "Catholic Answers" citation source, as there was NO valid reason to summarily remove those things. Is there a reason you want even sourced facts suppressed? I did not invent the FACT that the RCC does NOT consider certain specific professed "Christian" groups as "separated brethren" and does so OFFICIALLY...not just loosely or individually. Again, Glen, while I do appreciate a number of your edits on this article, I feel your deletion was not only unwarranted but is only catering to Nova's neurosis and uptight actions on this article.

This whole Mormon thing was SUPPOSED to be a settled matter a long time ago. And Nova gave the impression in the past week or two that it was. But then look what happens......WHOLESALE REMOVALS AGAIN OF WORDS AND PHRASES THAT HE/SHE DOES NOT PERSONALLY LIKE, WITH THE COP-OUT ARGUMENT OF "UNDUE". Forgetting that the whole article is dealing with this specific subject. And leaving whole important points and facts out will cause the article to be sloppy and incomplete.

This is NOT supposed to be just a dictionary definition or stub. And what you (and mostly Novaseminary) have been doing now is reducing this article, when, if anything, it should be ADDED TO AND EXPANDED. Anyway, the source is official that I restored to that part......"Catholic Answers". peace out... Sweetpoet (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll respond on the article's talk page. Glenfarclas (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

fair enough, and this was my response in case you don't go back to that Talk page any time soon......(don't worry, I won't be writing to your page again after this most likely)

It should be its own article, as it is a stand-alone subject and sourced by itself, and IS an official term from Vatican 2....ayayayaya....it sounds that you might be almost as uptight as Nova, if that's possible.

Listen...please.

This phrase IS official.... from the Second Vatican Council (try reading the article again, that's if it has not been butchered and chopped up too much with facts being removed).

Also, it's a STAND-ALONE SUBJECT, that can be easily proven, sourced BY ITSELF, and this matter was already discussed.

Now as to your other point and argument. That "This Rock" or "Catholic Answers" (which is a Vatican-recognized official and well-established Catholic organization and source, and NOT some website that some individual Catholic who owns a pizza place slapped together two years ago) in that particular page did not use the term "separated brethren."

Ok, now....even so, the CONCEPT was stated fairly clearly that not all who are professed "Christians" are considered "fellow brothers" or "fellow Christians" if they deny Nicean formulation, or the co-equal Trinity doctrine, etc. The overall sense and concept IS there in that Catholic Answers This Rock page.

Also, though, not sure why Nova removed the "This Rock" source to begin with, as this was already discussed AT LENGTH the last few weeks, and he (presumably) came around to ADMIT finally that it's a "good" source, or decent enough, and established.

Unless he/she changed his/her mind, or was waiting for a time, when he/she thought I'd not be around maybe, to simply remove the thing. Don't know.....

But again, why the big hang-up with the word "officially" when it is so well-sourced that this IS an official Roman Catholic position? Sweetpoet (talk) 01:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Your cute "welcome to WP" was nice. And points taken, but please meet me half-way too. Anyway, I responded on the talk page again....to you, no insults or anything, so don't worry. But there still is some straight talk... check it. thanks... Sweetpoet (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

That's the standard Level 1 template for that issue, I didn't pick the wording. My substantive comments are on the article talk. Glenfarclas (talk) 02:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It was cute that you did it at all. Anyway, it's frustrating that my other comment was not finished, and I was trying to add something (that you still kind of evade in a way), but you were in the middle of yours, so you never saw it.....this was my last comment to you:

I KNOW what it ("disparate") means, and you were saying that they were unrelated or different or something.

anyway, this is what I tried to add to the other comment, but you were in the middle of yours....please address it:

Are you prepared to say that THAT (the Second Vatican Council) is not an official Catholic source? ??? I mean, goodness, Vatican 2 is the very thing that OFFICIALIZED the term !!! The information is there. peace.... Sweetpoet (talk) 02:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Report of Sweetpoet to 3RRNB

Please note that I have repoerted Sweetpoet's violation of WP:3RR at Separated brethren with this report on the noticeboard. Novaseminary (talk) 04:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

and this was my response to this nonsense, on the notice board....

I'm not wasting my time with this stuff anymore, with Novaseminary. I will say this: the citation "This Rock" was a source (if you examine the Article talk page) that Nova him/herself came around to admit was a "reliable source" and was one that he/she himself put in weeks ago, and was established per the talk page that should remain. It was a settled matter from the past, and was DISCUSSED ON THE TALK PAGE.

So Nova eventually removing it was not exactly respecting the whole thing on the talk page. Anyway, I've had it with Nova's antics and constant whining to the notice board, like every week, and not seeing how he himself is part of the problem (two to tango) and is always "edit warring" himself. I don't care anymore.....This article is not worth this crazy stress, and Nova is DEFINITELY not worth this aggravation.

Again, I simply restored a citation that was already agreed upon per the Talk page, and was already established. Nova doesn't care to respect that, but likes to make whole-sale removal of things that he/she does not seem to personally like. Instead of expanding the article, Nova just wants to wiki-tag it to death and/or make giant deletions. And other editors have noticed it too (in this article and in others.)

I undid my own revert, per the talk and per the situation, PRIOR TO EVEN KNOWING THAT NOVA WENT TO THE NOTICE BOARD, and, as I knew already, that made NO difference to Nova, as, from what you can see, he runs neurotically to the notice board page to squeal on me ANYWAY....ignoring his own edit-warring, and for the sole spiteful purpose of getting me blocked. This individual has been very demoralizing and exasperating, for some reason...and extremely discouraging. Sweetpoet (talk) 04:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't need extra copies of everything on my user talk, but thanks for the heads up. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Jammie Jolly

hi someone deleted my page from my user box. Can you tell me why? it was not posted yet —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnice27 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Byzantium Novum/List of Micronations

How do you add a reference for it? Does it need a website link so it can remain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senjuto (talk • contribs) 04:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Here is the link to Byzantium Novum so you can look for yourself. http://byzantiumnovum.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senjuto (talk • contribs) 04:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

List of micronations is intended to be a list of notable micronations. You can read about the general concept of notability at WP:NOTABILITY. The problem is that a lot of people "invent" a micronation with two friends one night, and then try to put it on Wikipedia. Generally, notability requires that the topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." That could be articles in newspapers or magazine, TV coverage, mentions in academic books, that sort of thing. There are other ways to become encyclopedically notable, but that's the main one. (We especially don't want things that clearly just fall under WP:MADEUP.) The important thing is that coverage must be in independent sources, not a self-produced website. We're not just talking about proving that the facts are true, we're asking why the subject is important enough to the rest of the world so as to belong in an encyclopedia.

As to how to physically type in a reference, the easiest thing to do would be to discuss the reliable sources on the article's discussion page first to get feedback from other people. Frankly, ever since that book about micronations came out, we've been deleting about three non-notable contributions a week because everybody's eager to make up a micronation and get in on Wikipedia. The new ones that have been added generally haven't made it without some discussion first, so that's the place to start. Once we get past that point, we can worry about how to format the citation for the article.

Please let me know if there's anything else I can help with-- Glenfarclas (talk) 04:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

atheism feminism

I tried to add some new content to the atheist feminism page, make it more of a real article with some good links and citations, but I totally screwed up the formatting and I can't fix it. Sorry! If you could fix the formatting without changing what I wrote that would be wonderful. If you have objection to what I wrote please could we discuss it after the formatting is fixed? So I can read it clearly. Thank you so much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dante8 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Having spaces at the beginning of a paragraph (as though to indent the first line) will cause that problem. Glenfarclas (talk) 04:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dante8 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem— Glenfarclas (talk) 04:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Redirect tagging

Thanks I appreciate your note, but my edit was appropriate. I added {{album|class=redirect}}, which adds the article to Category:Redirect-Class Album articles. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries Happens to the best of us. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Dameans

The article The Dameans has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article does not meet the general notability guideline.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bigvernie (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of The Dameans

I have nominated The Dameans, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dameans. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Bigvernie (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

List of Pakistani musicians

Be sure to let the editor know why you're reverting them, then start giving them uw warnings, so if they continue, they can be blocked. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Oakwood Law Group

Hi, at Talk:Oakwood Law Group you wrote "Being a law firm that handles patent applications does create notability", but didn't you mean to say "...does NOT create notability"? Cheers, --CliffC (talk) 02:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

LOL, yes, thanks! (A Freudian slip? Nah, don't think so ;) Glenfarclas (talk) 03:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

We have to be careful about giving lawyers anything to grab on to. :) CliffC (talk) 03:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:AspergesMe.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:AspergesMe.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Acather96 (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Message: As I explained on the description box, Candombe was Invented in Uruguay, your false accusations prove the lack of knowledge and therefore should restraint from Undoing my Edits, I recommend you experiment with a history book of the region from where I assume you know nothing. My edits are as political as fixing the the page of an american founding father when false history is added to it. Regards CMCmazzoni87 (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Gardel Birthplace

Info which confirms French birth. Now in article. Tapered (talk) 02:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

This blog post does not confirm anything, unfortunately. The will could still be valid even if the factual recitals in it were false. Glenfarclas (talk) 02:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 3#Valeri Lilov

Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valeri Lilov (2nd nomination), you may be interested in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 3#Valeri Lilov. Cunard (talk) 09:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Holistic ten perspective for deletion

The article Holistic ten perspective is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holistic ten perspective until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Corvus cornix_talk 19:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Redirected Page

You redirected an article I was working on to a disambiguation page and I was wondering what constitutes a "notable" artist? Also if the article was ambiguos should I re-title it more specifically (although the artists are known as "K.M")? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottebya (talk • contribs) 22:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

A notable artist would be one who meets the criteria in the inclusion guideline WP:ARTIST (or, more generally, WP:BIO, or e.g. for musicians WP:MUSICBIO). Most commonly, this means that the person "[h]as been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." I didn't see evidence that K.M met any of those criteria, but if you think they do then you can revert my redirect and add appropriate citations to reliable sources that would show their notability. Regards— Glenfarclas (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion also at EAR here. --CliffC (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

John Hammond, Jr. (disambiguation)

Re John Hammond, Jr. (disambiguation):
Replies for you at talk:John Hammond, Jr. (disambiguation)#My bad lead & ...#Piped link & real other options.
--Jerzy•t 05:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem, sorry about that. Glenfarclas (talk) 07:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

[1]

Probably a mistake but you shouldn't have warned me, I redirected, just after that you marked it for proposed deletion and it automatically sent it to me. Go and warn this user: User talk:Scrollofmystery :) Ju ze 10:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Moved it there. Ju ze 11:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that. I don't always double-check when Twinkle does something odd. Thanks for taking care of that, Juze. Glenfarclas (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Wiki race RfD

If you want to clean up a few more redirects, there is also Wikiracing and Wiki-Hopping. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, Gogo. Glenfarclas (talk) 07:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

AfD of C0c0n

As you added "No evidence of significant coverage or other indicia of notability that I can find for this conference. Glenfarclas (talk) 04:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/C0c0n : i don't know if google is down at your end but you can see the conference videos (as they also being cited)at http://stagevu.com/uservideos/c0c0n and speakers list at http://www.informationsecurityday.com/c0c0n/speakers.html