Jump to content

User talk:Kinu/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

"The Door Within Trilogy" Stub

Hello Kinu -

Could I please get a set of Wikipedia's guidelines and/or standards for stubs? I read your notice on the article "The Door Within Trilogy" and I figured you'd be able to help.

--I The Bluejay 17:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Moderator

How does one become a moderator as opposed to an Admin ?? BrianRFSU 21:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

  • On Wikipedia, Administrator is the accepted term; however, the use of terms such as "moderator" and "sysop" indicates that these levels of user rights are one and the same. In many ways, administrators have no "rights" on Wikipedia, they are instead responsible for "janitorial" and other type of voluntary duties and responsibilities. If you are considering an request for adminship, however, I would advise against it; you have very few edits. I would work on familiarizing yourself more with Wikipedia policies, guidelines, process, etc., and then consider it in the future when you have more experience. --Kinu t/c 01:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Randy Brooks (disambiguation)

Why did you tag this page with the cleanup tag? (Reply here please) Milo 07:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I saw the page and determined it needed the proper disambiguation headers and footers (per WP:DAB). (I suppose this is more of a Wiki-stylistic thing than a major cleanup issue.) I had planned on coming back to this myself at some point, but feel free to fix it yourself. --Kinu t/c 07:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The Ashley Treatment

Why did you mark this new article as a "candidate for speedy deletion"? It's breaking news of great importance. At least the wire services and general media think so! As do several medical ethicists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mjk1971 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

  • The article as tagged (this version) had very little context, had no references, and the only link was to a blog website. Creation of an appropriate stub, with at least basic sourced information, is crucial. In its current form, the article looks much better and is not a speedy deletion candidate. A fellow new page patroller will likely remove the tag without hesitation. Thank you for the update. --Kinu t/c 07:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Quick note

I see you're using < nowiki > {{template}} < /nowiki >... I thought you might be interested to learn of {{tl}}. Cheers, Tomertalk 02:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Here, for example, {{tl|sources}} would do the same thing you wanted (thusly: {{sources}}), although including a link to the actual template. You're free to continue using your method, of course. :-p Tomertalk 03:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA

Two days left! 63/1/0. Let's hope you get only more and more support votes, Kinu. =) Nishkid64 22:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Two hours! Nishkid64 03:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations!

Well done on getting a 99% support consensus at your RfA! You must be really pleased at the result! A Bureaucrat will be along shortly to issue you with a shiny new set of admin tools. If you need any help in using them then please don't hesitate to ask. I will do my best to answer you! Regards and happy mopping, (aeropagitica) 05:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

RfA result

I am pleased to let you know that, consensus reached, you are now an Administrator. You should find the following forums useful:

Congratulations on your promotion and the best of luck with your new charge! Redux 11:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, Kinu! I knew you'd do fine in your RfA. =) I wish you the best of luck, and I hope you have fun with the admin tools. If you have any admin-related questions, feel free to contact me. =) Nishkid64 15:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I will strive to do my best and will definitely drop you a note if I have any questions relating to my bearing of the Wikimop. Thank you again for nominating me! --Kinu t/c 20:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Congrats and well done -- Samir धर्म 05:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Scavy

Hi Kinu, 

I understand the reasons for speedy deletion, and thought that I would let you know that the article does not really add anything important to wikipedia, and in my opinion should be deleted as soon as possible. As you can tell I am new user, and misunderstanding of the notability guidlines is partly to blame for this. 
Sorry to wsste your time

-- Tdparker 20:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Aethern

twat there was fuck all wong with that page lay off dude

twat there was nothing wong with my page loay off dude -- Adz79 21:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

lol well if you had let me finish the darn page maby i would have been able t put up the 'notable' things on the page you just pressed delete the monent you saw it i think thtas a bit judgemental aint it?

AfD vs. Speedy Deletion

Hey, can you give me some guidance. I am having difficulty distingushing the situations where I would place a AfD tag instead of speedy deletion. I have been patrolling newly created sites, and have been placing speedy delete tags on articles about people of little/no notability (after doing a google search). In the article OMAR BARNETT, you placed an AfD tag, right before I placed a speedy delete. Would speedy delete be inappropriate for such an article? "Omar Barnett" has zero relevant hits on google. Some direction is appreciated. -Taco325i 00:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping that user trying to get me in trouble

Thanks for the help with User:74.140.190.187. I had not noticed his posts to his page with my sig. Looks like he copied all the details from one of my posts. Will (Talk - contribs) 08:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

And Chaos Died AfD

Metamagician3000 and I have reworked the article on Joanna Russ's book And Chaos Died. It's not a great article, but I think it's much better than what had gone before (on the AfD, 23skidoo has changed his vote to keep). While it could certainly be expanded, it maintains an encyclopedic tone, establishes an amount of notability and includes external hyperlinks. Thoughts?

Best wishes, Anville 20:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Approved for AWB!

Thank you for your recent application to use AutoWikiBrowser. I have approved your request and you should now be able to use the AWB application. Be sure to check every edit before you save it, and don't forget to check out the AWB Guide. You can get any help you need over on the AWB talk page. Feel free to contact me with any questions,

Also, congrats! I guess you could have just added yourself... alphachimp 00:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The rapture right

I'm editing the Rapture Right page...This page does qualify as notable. It's not just a band but a new Christian movement started by the two founding members..This is of historical importance..Do more research about the band and their movement.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jezariah (talk • contribs)

  • It still looks like a speedy deletion candidate, but I'll assume good faith and send it to AfD instead. --Kinu t/c 19:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Concerning the Rapture Right....This group is notable because of the new movement they have started here in the US. A simple google search will pull up over 1.4 million articles about the the Rapture Right. Their webspace is the very first thing to come up on a google search. This band and their movement are of great historical importance...Please consider this....More proof of notability is on the way.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jezariah (talk • contribs)
      • The Google test provided is a poor indicator of notability; indeed, I only get about 14,000 results, and many of the results are irrelevant statements that feature the word "right" after the word "rapture" in completely unrelated contexts. Excluding those, most of the results are about the Rapture Right movement itself, not this band, and I find zero evidence that this band had anything to do with the creation of this movement (instead, it appears more like this band taking the name in an attempt to transfer notability onto itself). Please read WP:RS to see what constitutes a reliable source. Has the band been referenced in any media works? Professional reviews? Provide sources indicating if and how the band meets WP:MUSIC and indicate it in the article and at the AfD page. It's out of my hands and in those of the community, and if enough information is provided, the consensus will be to keep this article. --Kinu t/c 20:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I see that you noticed that I speedied the article. ;) Honestly, I'm not one for cutting off AFDs, but given that you had previously speedied it, the personal attack on the talk page, and that it doesn't come close to meeting the requirements, I went ahead and hit the button. I was about to leave you a message saying to feel free to reverse me if you disagree (I'm new at this) ... but a redirect is fine, too. ;) --BigDT 05:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the heads up. You know about theses things better than I, but as far as I can tell nothing further should be done right now, right? BTW, congrats on your recent RfA. Thanks again. -- Pastordavid 19:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


Judo Ireland

Ah, now that was mean of you. -- Caoilte 21:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Not quite sure what "that" is (a deletion of some sort?). Chances are it was a consensus-based decision that was as objective as possible. I tend not to be mean... I consider myself firm but fair. If you feel that's not the case, WP:DRV may be what you're seeking. Thanks. --Kinu t/c 05:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Nicktropolis

May I get back the content for the article "Nicktropolis"? Thanks. Mr. Tropolis 17:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Help over at CAT:CSD

Hi, and congrats on your promotion! Per this discussion, I'm dropping a friendly note to some of the recently-promoted admins requesting help with speedy deletions. I am not an administrator, so if you don't feel comfortable diving into deletions - or if you need more info - please don't come to me, but I'm sure that Cyde Weys would be happy to guide you if you want to help. Any help is great, but I'm sure that Cyde and others would deeply appreciate it if you could put the page on your watchlist and do a bit of work there on a regular basis? Maybe weekly? Thanks in advance! Anchoress 18:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


Help

Hi, I am from China. Can you tell me how to write China and People's Republic of China in Oriya? Thank you very much!--icywind 08:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Un-Deletion Review for the Arizona Jewelers Association

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Arizona Jewelers Association. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 71.223.143.86 00:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Statistician help needed

The WikiProject Vandalism Studies (Wikipedia:WikiProject Vandalism studies) just finished its first study and I was hoping that you being a statistician could help us formalize our findings. You can find our draft conclusions here [1]. Here's an excerpt of what we found so far:

The current study analyzed a sample pool of 100 random articles. Within these 100 articles there were a total of 668 edits during the months of November 2004, 2005, and 2006. Of those 668 edits, 31 (or 4.64%) were a vandalism of some type. The study's salient findings suggest that in a given month approximately 5% of edits are vandalism and 97% of that vandalism is done by anonymous editors. Obvious vandalism is the vast majority of vandalism used. From the data gathered within this study it is also found that roughly 25% of vandalism reverting is done by anonymous editors and roughly 75% is done by wikipedians with user accounts. The mean average time vandalism reverting is 758.35 minutes (12.63 hours), a figure that may be skewed by outliers. The median time vandalism reverting is 14 minutes.


Thanks. Remember 15:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

deletion

Hello Kinu,


I saw that you recently deleted a page titled Sam_goucher. Thank you for doing this as this wasn't a valid article anyway. I teach at a middle school and it seem that some kids have been trying to write bogus entries in Wikipedia. I noticed that the IP was locked for creating new articles which is a good thing. In my opinion, all entries coming from that IP previous to the ban should be scrutinized as I don't think legit information would be put in from the school.

Thank You

Dan

Sorry

Sorry about my redirect category. I probally went too far with "nut sack", buy I swear I wasn't trying to vandalize. Kip the Dip 14:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

tommies.co.uk

Hi, You 'speedily deleted' a new article that I created about the social networking website Tommies.co.uk. I am unsure why this would be deleted when there are articles on othere social networking website e.g. Bebo. Can you contact me asap, as I'm interested on your reasons for removing the article Prcjac 15:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC) BTW this may sound slightly rude, but would you help us at Tommies.co.uk by creating an account, Thanks if you do! And apologies if that was rude!

  • Response at your talk page. --Kinu t/c 15:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Wow, thanks for the follow up so quickly! Unfortunately I was in the process of adding relevent information and padding out the article when you deleted the article. (So have lost everything!!!) Your points addressed in the Wikipedia:Notability section have been noted. Hopefully when I come to write the article again (once we have more users) it will fit these guidelines. Do you know any websites that can spread/advertise this site effectively? Prcjac 15:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
      • No problem. Glad I could help clear things up. If and when the site is notable, I'm sure someone who is not directly affiliated with the website will create an article on it. In the meantime, I can't help you on the last part... all I can say to that end is that Wikipedia is not a medium for advertising. Best of luck. --Kinu t/c 15:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Mouth of Garbage Cinema

I just started this article and would like some time to expand it. Not deleting it would be cool. Will dwane 17:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

  • No problem. I just did a check on the non-English term you provided and it appears to be a true genre of film. I apologize for jumping the gun in tagging it for deletion, even though there was a minimum wait of five days, and I would have assumed that another editor with more knowledge on the topic would have removed the tag. Nonetheless, I do thank you for letting me know and look forward to your expansion. Thank you for contributing! --Kinu t/c 20:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

WrapMail

Why was the WrapMail entry deleted? Ny2525 17:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

  • The version of the article that was written like a press release was speedy deleted as WP:CSD G11, blatant advertising. Both versions of the article that contained no content other than either a) the link to the website or b) the link to the patent description were deleted as CSD A3, no content whatsoever. The version of the article which contained a brief description of what the product/site does and nothing else was deleted as CSD A7, unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. Please refer to guidelines on notability of web content, notability of software, reliable sources, and advertising for more information. If you feel that an article can be written on this topic within these guidelines, please visit deletion review. --Kinu t/c 05:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted entry

Hi Kinu, I recently did a google search on my legal name and found that a Wikipedia entry had been posted, and then deleted because it was a personal attack. I am hoping to get any information on this post from you, including the original post. I have an Order of Protection against someone who continually harasses me and I would like this data to confirm who posted the entry and use it as proof to have the Order renewed. I hope we can communicate further about this issue via private email. Thank you. FireDoll 4/20/07

  • Unfortunately, for liability purposes, I cannot speak for Wikipedia and/or the Wikimedia foundation with regards to legal matters. Nonetheless, I can point you in (what I hope) is the right direction. If you would like, please check out WP:LIBEL if you feel that the information posted was indeed libellous in nature. There's a link on there to contact Wikipedia, and I'm certain that they will be happy to assist you (or pass the information along to a party that can assist you) and get the matter resolved to the fullest extent. Sorry about this potentially negative experience with Wikipedia; my hope is that this matter can be resolved to your satisfaction. --Kinu t/c 05:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Warning on my talk

I think you got confused somehow when you warned me; I was just userfying the page. Veinor (talk to me) 22:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Article deletion - George Knight, Boston

Kinu, you are so right. I tried to start a page and made it "live" by accident. I know I should have written it offline and vetted it personally before I posted it. Thanks, I wish I could have deleted it myself and started over.

A question: is it possible for the user to do this if an accident occurs, or is it a status only veteran Wikipedians enjoy? This has happened to me a couple of times, and it would be great if I could apply the brakes on my own. Please respond to User:sswonk. Massachusetts is great too, we love Texas, not taxes.

Re: Antistasiology Entry...

What would you suggest I do to improve the article to satisfy your concerns regarding verifiability? The only link I have been able to find on the subject so far is on Frank Discussion's own website itself where he gives a brief definition and history here. One of the people who came up with Antistasiology, Frank Discussion has a valid entry in Wikipedia and is mentioned in the entry on the situationists as well I believe. I have included the link and hopefully that will settle this to everyone's satisfaction.


Thanks

Lozen8 01:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

  • At the moment, I can find no reliable sources about the topic. For example, Google, Factiva, and other search outlets get zero results with the title. This appears to violate Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. Unless sources independent of the original author can be provided, this article will likely be deleted. If you can find reliable sources for the information, please do not hesitate to introduce those to the article ASAP; they will likely help the article's chances of survival. --Kinu t/c 05:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks anyway. It appears it is simply too big of a hassle to introduce articles. Go ahead and delete it if you wish. It does rather sour me on Wikipedia's process and policies when you can find a page on Torgo and a serious page is set up for deletion. It certainly explains why so many people refuse to take Wikipedia seriously... Oh well. In fact, I would prefer a speedy deletion so I can be assured of not being associated with Wikipedia. Thanks.

But I will use Wikipedia every time I need information on Torgo or other silly 'cults'. I guess now I'm another one that refuses to accept Wikipedia as a valid source. Most schools won't, and now I have an inkling why. One last thing, I am unable to find information on how to delete my account as I do not wish to be associated in any way with Wikipedia. Thanks.

Lozen8 15:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

After I posted, I did a few searches, it just got worse and worse. A few searches demonstrated to me just how randomly your policies are applied. You allow commercial interests and characters from late night comedy shows to have entries. There is extremely inaccurate information on serious subjects I happen to be familiar with. A number of the 'facts' are not verified and are in fact unverifiable as they are categorically incorrect. In general the level of scholarship is appalling. Next year I should be happily employed as a prof here in California and I will certainly warn my students that Wikipedia is to be considered a non-verifiable source itself. I have to accept some of the blame though, as even a cursory investigation into Wikipidia would have shown me how unreliable and often downright silly it is. I was under the impression Wikipedia was a serious scholarly attempt at having a GNU style online encyclopedia. I was sadly mistaken. My apologies for not realizing that Wikipedia is actually an in-joke.

Lozen8 16:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Sorry that the answer I gave you was based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and not the one you wanted to hear. Your defensive attitude leads me to believe that any such sources do not exist; as such, do not fret, the article will be deleted. And yes, the reason Wikipedia is considered an unreliable source for academic papers, etc., is because anyone can edit it and introduce incorrect and/or unverifiable material. (The irony in this situation is not lost on me, don't worry.) As to your other question, please visit Wikipedia:Right to vanish. --Kinu t/c 16:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. Perhaps I was simply embarrassed because I was unaware Wikipedia was another online in-joke. Searches on Wikipedia showed me a multitude of examples of it's silliness, I found some rather hilarious ones on YouTube, another great scholarly endeavor (along with MySpace). And if you *are* actually serious about any of this, Antistasiology is indeed a valid area of study as described. And any serious scholar would be a little 'defensive' at having their entries deleted by someone who apparently has zero knowledge of the subject area at hand and whose area of expertise (economics) is utterly alien to the subject in question, one who agrees that an entry on a company who owns a TV station(????) on the other hand is a fine entry for an online encyclopedia. LOL. 16:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Tenminutemajor

Can you take a look at this editor? He created the article Obopay, which I tagged db-spam, but he keeps removing the tags. I warned him, but he does not seem convinced. Can you look at the article and tell me if it is speediable, and if so, tell him to stop removing the tag? Thanks. ---Charles 05:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

  • The article itself doesn't look horribly spammy, but it is in that gray area in which it could be speedied as such. I'm going to err on the side of caution and leave it at the moment, and reread a few more times to make sure, but might end up deferring to a more experienced admin on it. If the article does go, I wouldn't be too upset about it, since one could probably write a better, less advertising-sounding one, but this may in fact be a decent start. (For what it's worth I have heard of the company, but can't quite say if they meet WP:CORP, or if this version meets CSD.) As far as removing the tags, I've warned him about it, since not only is s/he removing those, but the cleanup tags as well. If s/he persists I'll take action on it. --Kinu t/c 05:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick action on this matter. I was not completely convinced it met the qualifications for db-spam, and wanted another opinion. However, when he kept removing the speedy and edit tags, I started getting annoyed. Again, thanks for your time and efforts. ---Charles 05:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
      • No problem. FYI, I have gone ahead and banned this user for 12 hours. Blanking the page would ordinarily constitute an G7 I think, but in this case it appeared more like vandalism than acceptance of a potential speedy... --Kinu t/c 06:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

deletion of Strawberry Pegasus article

Hello,

May I ask why my page was deleted so that I may correct my error?

Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TooManyIllinois (talk • contribs) 06:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

  • For the reason listed on your talk page and in the deletion log: it was "about a non-notable individual, band, service, website or other entity." Please see WP:ORG for information about what is considered a notable club by Wikipedia standards, and WP:BIO for what is considered a notable person (or group of people). If it can be shown from reliable sources that your group is notable, then an article on the topic will be a welcome addition to the encyclopedia. Otherwise, it will likely be deleted. (Also, as a rule of thumb, it is a very bad idea to create an article on a topic in which you have a vested interest.) --Kinu t/c 06:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Kelley Enterprises (Michigan)

Hello. I noticed that you deleted the article I had created within a couple minutes of saving. I did not actually write the content, but was attempting to disambiguate from an article that contained two different companies with the same name. In fact, I hadn't even finished with the disambiguation yet. I understand the concern that the company does not seem notable, but it was already linked incorrectly from the (notable) television station that it owns. Can this possibly be restored so that the disambiguation will work? It seemed silly, to me, to have an article with multiple seperate companies listed. Thanks. *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 07:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Since you were just trying to fix the redlink, I can tell that you have your reservations about the Michigan company as well... do you feel that it deserves a page per WP:CORP? If not, I can go ahead and undo the page moves such that the Tennessee company goes back to its unqualified title, and the link in the TV station's article is removed (such that it doesn't appear as a link, red or otherwise). Otherwise, if you'd like to create the article, I can restore it... but depending on the notability issue, it might end up at PROD/AfD. Let me know which works best here! --Kinu t/c 07:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
You know, I'm really not too sure, having not attempted to disambig before. Basically, I received the Kelley Enterprises article in my Wikify backlog, read it and noticed it had two companies in it, and attempted to split them into Kelley Enterprises (disambiguation), Kelley Enterprises (Tennessee), and Kelley Enterprises (Michigan). I keep thinking that it might be better to leave the disambiguation, since that's a pretty common company name for some reason (we even have one locally, where I live, which is in neither state) and the "which one?" issue might come up in the future. I know that notability isn't inherited, but it's entirely possible that the Michigan company might be notable because of the TV station (which is WMKG-LP, by the way) or something else, and might just need some more content, who knows. Basically, if it ended up at PROD or AfD in its current state I would understand, but I'm thinking "better safe than sorry" on at least having something. I'll leave it up to your judgement, though. *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 07:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. I too can see how the disambiguation page might be necessary at some point. I'll go ahead and restore the Michigan one's article and keep everything in place for now. Thanks for letting me know! --Kinu t/c 07:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks for that! I'll see if I can get some time to fish up some content to put in the Michigan article, at least. I just wikified the Tennessee one, so at least that's a tad more presentable. I've done the page patrol for a couple days, lately, and know it can be nerve-wracking at best. Thanks for all the hard work! *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 07:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

why cant i get my stuff on wikipedia?

why cant i get my stuff on wikipedia please help —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaythaone212 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

re: MadV

So you deleted the entry that took me about a week to research, and the last 4 hours to type up. Thank you. I understand that you may not be open to new ideas, or people you haven't heard of - but hear me out.

If you want to know why MadV is notable here are the reasons, with references.

1. He holds the record for the MOST RESPONDED VIDEO OF ALL TIME on the Youtube (if not the internet). http://www.youtube.com/browse?s=ms&t=a&c=0&l= if that's not enough, i will continue.

2. He is more 'popular' on Youtube than some other members you already have listed on Wikipedia

  • 37 most subscribed of all time (directors)
  • 49 most subscribed of all time (all accounts)
  • 100 most viewed of all time

http://youtube.com/profile?user=MadV surely that makes him more notable?

3. Nominated for Youtube's 'most creative video of 2006' http://youtube.com/ytawards?name=ytcreative (that makes him in the top 10 of all creative people on the site)

So, go on. Allow the entry on MadV Thanks

  • This has nothing to do with my openness to new ideas; it has to do with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Youtube and the blogs you cited in the article are not reliable sources. The individual fails guidelines for notability. The article contained no assertion of notability, just that he's one of the most popular posters on Youtube. I feel that speedy deletion was justified. If you still contest the deletion, please feel free to go to Wikipedia deletion review and make a case there. --Kinu t/c 19:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand...

I'm trying to add information that I feel people will want to view. Why do you keep deleting it? It makes no sense! Jaboolo 19:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

  • If you are referring to the article Equastone, it makes perfect sense... the article was deleted (multiple times) because all versions of the article were a copyright violation and/or spam. Articles that do not conform to Wikipedia policies and guidelines will be deleted. Please refer to WP:SPAM and WP:COPYVIO. Let me know if you have any more questions. --Kinu t/c 19:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Elaine hyman

This looks like a copyvio, but I can't find the source through googling. I notice that you have already deleted it once; is the recreated article still the copyvio you identified the first time? -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

  • According to the note on the original version of the article, this is from a yet-to-be-published book, which I'm suspecting is by the author of the article. I speedied it as a potential GFDL violation (since technically, by asserting that it will be published, it's not "free" in the sense of modifiable, etc.). The article itself is the same as the one I speedied, minus the note about it being from a future book. I posted it as a suspected copyvio to gauge consensus, and because I'm not quite sure what applies here. Personally I would speedy it again... but what do you think? --Kinu t/c 20:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I concur, especially since I'm not googling up anything I could use to verify information if I just cut it back to a stub. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sherwood list

I appreciate your efforts to keep up wikipedia's standards, but please give people a chance to create their pages before slapping banners on them. My list was not even up for 3 minutes before you attached an "unsourced" banner and a "tone" banner to it. While I appreciate your diligence, I was in the process of working on the page and, if you had looked carefully, you would have noticed that I actually referenced the book I was using to create the bibliography in the single sentence on the page. Just because there was, as yet, no footnote, was no reason to put a "source" banner on the page. And while I realize the "I" was inappropriate in my sentence, like I said, I was in the process of putting the page up and was just about to go back and revise. I can't imagine that it is very productive to label newly-created pages that editors are in the process of improving. If you had bothered to look at the rest of my work (by going to my userpage, for example), you would have realized that the Mary Martha Sherwood page is very much under construction. Thanks. Awadewit 21:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

  • My bannering was not intended to be offensive in any way, and I apologize if you felt that way. Sometimes the new page patrol buttons make it too easy to tag pages. Indeed, it is refreshing to find a page that is encyclopedic and worthy of an immediate cleanup tag rather than an immediate deletion one, so thank you for your contributions. --Kinu t/c 22:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Ah. I did not realize that there were "buttons" somewhere or that most new pages are headed for the deletion bin. I just felt that I was making a good faith effort to list the works on a separate page, since the list was getting rather long, rather than clutter up Sherwood's own page. Awadewit 22:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kinu/Archive_3&oldid=1146649667"