User talk:Ishdarian/Archives/2013/June

Recommendation of deletion for Center for Creative Leadership

Hello, can you please provide information on which parts you considered to be promotional on my Center for Creative Leadership page. Everything there is factual and verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdchristy2003 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion on Lean Design Practices

This page should not be speedily deleted because this framework is an open source initiative (Creative Commons) and this page was not done for advertising. The idea is to create a referential for Lean Design practices that people can enhance and share. Which part of the article should I remove, adapt in your opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackhearta (talk • contribs) 20:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Tagging Articles for Speedy Deletion

I understand the particular satisfaction gained from marking an article for speedy deletion, but it is not always appropriate. I see you are an inexperienced editor, please read all the articles regarding speedy deletion carefully before mindlessly tagging articles for speedy deletion. RDN1F TALK 21:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems my inexperienced tagging was agreed with and the article has been deleted. My only advice would be to contact INeverCry and discuss this with him because, as a mindless editor, I am incapable of helping you further. Ishdarian 22:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

In an unfortunate turn of events, it seems I lost internet connection midway through the creation of the article and contesting its speedy deletion, however I would seriously suggest you do a Google search for a topic before marking it for immediate speedy deletion. It's far more productive to improve an article rather than just mark it for deletion. Just a word of advice. RDN1F TALK 14:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. I did a cursory search for other sources, however, nothing really struck me as significant. If you are in the UK, you might have access to more print or digital sources than I do since my search engine tends to be a bit more US-centric. I've done a few CSD tags and have a fairly decent grasp on the guidelines that surround them. The only thing I ask is that, in the future, if another editor tags an article you created for speedy deletion, assume good faith with them and try to be a bit less insulting when leaving messages on their talk page. Ishdarian 18:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Airgates came second in the Shorty Awards for UK Travel and Tourism site. RDN1F TALK 12:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Which, unfortunately, does nothing to satisfy WP:WEB criteria #2: The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. I'm going to hold off on sending it to AfD since you are still working on it, but I don't think the site meets the notability requirements at present. Ishdarian 19:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, RDN1F, I think this should be sent to AfD. I've tried digging around for sources and can't come up with anything significant. If others can dig up some sources to flesh out the article, then I' have no problem withdrawing the nom. Ishdarian 21:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Not important to be posted here

I went back and re-edited the article and contested the deletion but it seems my contest and redit was ignored.

In the redit I put Reactor1967 first appeared on the internet in 2008 with a method of Time Travel as a means of hacking computers and as a form of time travel in and of itself.

I have 10689 page views on my topic at my blog which I did not list as a source in my article but I can if you want too. That is ten thousand and 89 people who liked the topic well enough to read about it at a low traffic web-sight. I have people from all over the world come to my blog to read it. And this is not even my only most I have many others.

At http://timetravelinstitute.com I have 9404 page views of time travel with information. My thread on the subject.

Now the 9404 + 10089 off the top of my head that is close to 20,000 PEOPLE that have read me and that is not even scratching the top of the surface of the many other websights I have posted on. If those sights were counted I could easily have 50,000 to 100,000 people who read my stuff on post I have made on the internet.

CLEARLY THERE IS A INTEREST IN TIME-HACKING.

I was told that if I went back and got sources I could get my article published here. I did that. Why are you finding new reasons to reject me when THOSE REASON WERE NOT GIVEN TO ME BEFORE?

Please I have a edit in my sandbox. Please read it and get back to me. Again the subject matter to support this article is there. The interest is there from the public. Please reconsider and talk to me. Again, I can do more edits to the artilce. reactor1967@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrild (talk • contribs) 20:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing to establish notability. Hits on a website are great, but don't satisfy WP:N. The sources you provided have pretty much nothing to do with Reactor1967. Also, please read WP:FRINGE and WP:COI. Ishdarian 20:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

My sandbox

Im upset about the following things

You guys said in a chat log which I have a copy of that you would leave my sandbox along.

You again did not read my sources I know because I had a quick conversation with an admin at one of the sources you guys did not visit that source.

It seems your beef is with me personally and not about what I am writing about and it is the personal beef is why you keep deleting my sandbox and my article.

I said I would not resubmit and I did not. I did resubmit again after one of your admins told me I could if I included better sources which I did. Which again you did not check-out again.

Is it you guys who are hoaxing me? I wonder.

I want to use my sandbox and I have asked nicely for you guys to leave it along.

What I want to know is why am I being lied to. I am trying to work and you guys and you guys asked me to keep what happens at Wikipedia at wikipedia. To do that I need a fair break. I did just get off the phone with an editor at a major news paper. They said I could write a letter to the editor. If I do I will include the chat logs or links to them and the rest of my communications with you and of course you guys can have the right to respond.

So please, what is really going on here? Because now with all the lies I am confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrild (talk • contribs) 21:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what anyone else has told you, but please please please read WP:FRINGE and WP:COI. There is no conspiracy against you. Your article just doesn't belong on Wikipedia right now. Maybe someday, but not today. Ishdarian 21:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

So if not today why do you keep deleting my sandbox? That can stay there for tomorrow. There is no reason to delete it except to be mean. You have the logs to my chat conversation so you too can look as see who told me my box would be ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrild (talk • contribs) 21:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, I don't. I have no access to the IRC chat logs, if that's what you're talking about. User:Prodego deleted your sandbox, not me. If it had the same material as the article, then no, it doesn't belong here. Ishdarian 21:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

So if not today why do you keep deleting my sandbox? That can stay there for tomorrow. There is no reason to delete it except to be mean. You have the logs to my chat conversation so you too can look as see who told me my box would be ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrild (talk • contribs) 21:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I read the links not a place for orginal research. Ok, but you guys need to understand what I have not gotten to you yet because YOU WONT READ MY FREAKING SOURCES. That there is people out there writing about this stuff. I can find it all day long. So, if I put it in there then there should not be a problem. I put at 3 sources but I can get more.

So, If I prove it is not original even change the subject if that would make you happy can we do something the can we do something? Im into computer science big time I know how to find stuff written on this. And at Sciencedaily.com, space.com, about.com and other places there are sources.

It's still fringe science. Ishdarian 21:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

On the conspiracy part. When multiple publications/web-sights who have some of the same employees ban together against one person then yes. By definition it becomes a conspiracy.

On the fringe science you published Ronald mallet How the heck is that fringe science. On some of your articles you do not even have sources or external links but invite the public to provide them. Are you hoaxing me? Please, there are far many less professional articles than my own and the difference is. I TOLD YOU I WOULD COME UP WITH THE SOURCES. So please how is Ronald Mallet and John Titor and the other time travel articles you have her not fringe science when I gave code sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrild (talk • contribs) 21:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

So please how is Ronald Mallet and John Titor and the other time travel articles you have here not fringe science that you published when I gave code sources and web sources and news paper sources. Ronald Mallet - Oh please.

Arbitration Resolution Services sandbox

I'm trying to figure out how I can write this article so it won't be deleted.

ARS is one of the only completely online arbitration systems available in the USA. The Board members and founders are from CITRIX, FINRA, AAA...etc. It can makes the arbitration court even faster and is completely accessible through cloud based technology.

It's an important company. What links should I provide to make it notable. I'm new to the process so I appreciate your patience and time.

All the best. Benjaminraphi (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Sarah Murnaghan

I want to thank you for marking the Sarah Murnaghan page for speedy deletion. The piece was obviously put together by someone quite biased and contains many falsehoods and misrepresentations. I'm new to Wikipedia and so I'm not sure how to proceed, but I'm hoping you will continue to monitor this page and get it deleted. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inky265 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I tagged it for CSD because, at the time, it looked like one of those 'flash-in-the-pan' stories, however, the issue has become so politically charged that the CSD criteria no longer applies. I don't want to get to dragged into this debate at present because of how heated it has become. If you have concerns about the page, my advice would be to ensure it complies with our biographies of living persons policy, bring up any issue to the article's talk page, and if you truly feel the article does not meet inclusion criteria, take it to articles for deletion. Ishdarian 18:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

thanks for the help! ~Eph516 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eph516 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

Thanks for catching my mistake! Way2veers 00:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Ha, you're welcome! I saw it pop up on NPP and I was a bit puzzled at first. :P Keep up the great work! Ishdarian 00:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Faceware page

This page should not be speedily deleted because it's information about one company that offers facial mocap software. It's no different than other 3D software Wikipedia page that exists and is in fact less detailed than many. If there is particular information on the page that shouldn't be there or perhaps too many links to other Wikipedia pages please let me know and I'll happily change the information. Techschuey (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

subject: gcity studio article

i totally agree with you but deletion is a kinda strong word. I'm sorta new here so i guess i need to edit it and before then, take it offline. Thanks for your comments though — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcitystudio (talk • contribs) 19:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The deletion process

I assume no subject has to be high or important enough for an entry. If there is something wrong, please give me specifics. I am new to Wikipedia authoring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wesbrooks (talk • contribs) 23:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey

hey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.54.0.165 (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I assume you are here regarding Main Hoon Shahid Afridi? Ishdarian 22:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Yes I would like more time to finish it was just creating it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janet j Jones (talk • contribs) 22:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)