User talk:Luk/Archives/2008/08

This Archive Page goes from 1/8/2008 to 31/8/2008 (dd/mm/yyyy)

Previous conversations prior to 1 August 2008 (UTC) are archived there.

Old Page Deletion

Hello,

I noticed that our old page outlining the game "Battletech: The Frontier Lands" was deleted about a year ago and wanted to get a better explanation of why this happened. It had a lot of good information on it if I remember correctly, and the links were just fine. We'd love to get this restored, as it was a good source of traffic.

The original article as at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battletech:_The_Frontier_Lands

If you need proof of validity, you need look no further than http://frontiermux.com. We have been operating for over five years now, I have no idea how the validity of the article was questioned to begin with. Please email me back at gtaylor_l11solutions.com if you wouldn't mind.

Thanks

--KelvinMc (talk) 06:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't email you at the moment (as stupidly as it sounds, I don't have a real Internet access, I'll try to have a look later) -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Note if someone comes around: I'm on a forced wikibreak at the moment, if you could have a look for me... :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll check back periodically. --KelvinMc (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I still have no Internet at home and I try not to work on Wikipedia during my work-that-provides-food hours. I unfortunately can't access your website (my company's proxy blocks it). The reason why the article was deleted was because it fails to address why "Battletech: The Frontier Lands" is "notable" by our standards. Notability criteria for websites can be found at WP:WEB#Criteria. If you wish, I can temporarily undelete the article, but in its current state the discussion that would follow would probably endorse the deletion (according to the bit of googling I did). I might be wrong, though, so if you can provide with external, well known, sources that discuss this website I'll be happy to undelete it. -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Logo france televisions 2008.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Logo france televisions 2008.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done gone. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Florida 2000 election goof

I saw a post at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Florida 2000 election results. You made this good faith goof which might be trout whacking worthy considering the huge importance of that famously close election you turned into a landslide with Bush winning every county ;-) Your format looked much better but I wanted to fix the problem quickly so I reverted to the old format by simply undoing your edit. Will you reformat again? PrimeHunter (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

hahaha crap! Thanks for noticing, how could I miss that... I'll try to fix it later. Good catch, I definitely deserve the trout wacking on that one! -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 59

Hey there! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 59: An Interview with Sue Gardner at Wikimania 2008 has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page (at least one listener thought this could be the best interview ever), and as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. Peace. WODUPbot 01:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Cleanup

Thanks for the help cleaning up after the latest rampage by Primetime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 60

Hello! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 60: Diplopedia has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page, and as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 05:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 61

Hello! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 61: Corpus_Linguistics has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 06:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

sourcing

Sorry, I'm at work as well, can only access a few websites. the tone of the whole part of the article was not one I would expect from an encyclopedia anyway, and I think if it is really relevant, it could be added, but then should we add every living person's sexuality as per norm? I just have this gut feeling it was put originally on as malicious/tabloid gossip. Dunno? Equine-man (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look around tonight and maybe if I can get some time, might reword it. Have a good one :) Equine-man (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

for the block of the vandal. --Sulfis (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: AIV (and Huggle?)

reverting a vandal by this IP Huggle immediately recognised that this user has passed 1,2,3,4, and sent a request for AIV .I'm completely confused now because this is a normal routine can you please state why this IP user is not a customer for AIV? Alexnia (talk) 12:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)t

Northwich Victoria vandal

I was just explaining about user:Tile join when you intervened. Thanks. NVFC (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

hehe no problems :) The name ringed a bell so I had a look at his entry on the abuse page. After that it was easy to confirm that was him and not a clueless newbie :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: report of 151.207.240.4 at AIV

Good point, and if the network admin would actually listen, they'd probably just block from their end anyway. Keep an eye on them, and an extended length block should be dropped at the next sign of vandalous intent. Thanks for the swift reply. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 14:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC) \

Editor 437

I'm as annoyed by what he's doing as you--but I think the G11 speedy on Sela Roofing was reasonably appropriate, though perhaps A7 would have been best for this local company without any hint of notability. DGG (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm of two minds about it, but I agree this might not pass A7. Feel free to axe it. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

SmartLabs LLC deletion

Recently, while patrolling, I noticed the SmartLabs article (see here) actually consisted of two separate topics (a company in the US and another company in Russia). So I separated it into two separate articles: SmartLabs and SmartLabs LLC. The latter was quickly tagged for speedy-delete, which I contested. It was speedy-deleted anyway for lack of assertion of notability. If that is the consensus, then it is highly likely that the remaining SmartLabs article should be deleted for the same reason; it too does not assert notability. What do you think? Truthanado (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Replied on this user's talk page - 08:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Re User:BortonKarl

Thanks for the feedback. Something strange is happening there though. Either User:FixGeoffry is a sock or that company has got a whole team working on the articles. FixGeoffry is removing speedy tags and is so far only dealing with Borton Lawson articles created by BortonKarl. De728631 (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Replied on this user's talk page - 17:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

John D. Rockefeller

Thanks for the Borton-Lawson assessment. Something else: you might want to have a look at User:NothingWorthy who is tinkering with that article and who's calling me names on my talk page for reverting one of his rather unproductive edits. De728631 (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikipéire again?

Hi. As you were involved in the indefinite block Wikipéire of and his socks back in May, you might like to look at this new case. Regards, --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

[[Sarah Young

She is the also the cellist for the band Cloud Cult, so I reverted your edit to make it a redirect (again...).ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Replied on this user's talk page - 16:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Cannabis College Amsterdam

Hello there- we are a non-profit info centre in Amsterdam and we have been trying to make ourselves an article in wikipedia- the only mention of "Cannabis College" is some song snippet by some American singer, where as we have existed for ten years and are well-known in the international hemp and medical movement... How do we describe ourselves without you deciding that it's "blatant advertising?"

12:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Cannabis College Crew (talk)Cannabis College Crew12:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)~