User talk:Moriori/Archive 2

Deletion of CoLab

Please stop deleting perfectly legitimate articles. I am still working on adding content to make it a complete wiki page and you keep deleting it as I'm working on it. I am fully aware of the rules for Wikipedia but you have to give me a chance to finish editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caseywstark (talk • contribs) 03:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of article

Leghari has contacted me to tell me you have deleted his article about my work three times June 14 2010. I cannot see why as it is a perfectly legitimate article. I will post this article on my FaceBook page with appropriate details of these deletions. I am going to persist with this until there is a satisfactory outcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waverleywattle (talk • contribs) 00:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To keep comments about the deletion of this article in one place, I have commented at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimfbleak#Deletion_of_article. Moriori (talk) 02:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Waverleywattle (talk) 03:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Butt Ugly Martians.

Your csd might have been a bit hasty. It is a real show and the editor who is new was trying to improve it. Maybe you can userfy it for him? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yes, it is a real show and we have this real article about it. I'll leave a message on his page suggesting he add details about episodes at the actual article. Cheers .Moriori (talk) 09:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I do have another issue with a article I'd like to have you look into. please see GameFAQS Sports and Racing: NBA Board I'm fairly certain this is a sockpuppet meat puppet issue. Need help clearing it up. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see User:Camw has already deleted it A7. Moriori (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of an article

Hello. You seem to have deleted my article (Asocion) about a product aimed at small and medium associations. This is a real product helping associations everyday life. Was there something wrong with it? Aleksi.pulkkanen (talk) 09:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this was a notable product it should be prominent on google. It isn't. The only reference you gave was the company's own website. Also it's a bit cheeky stating the following ".....there are two payment alternatives for Asocion: 29 € / month or 290 € / year. The order can be made straight from the editing view of user's website. Moriori (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can sure remove that part you mentioned, if it is too cheeky. I think the English version of our product is so new, that the Google visibility hasn't yet picked up. Finnish version is called Yhdistysavain.Aleksi.pulkkanen (talk) 06:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aleksi. Unfortunately, there are no mainstream references in English to support this article in the English Wikipedia. We need them to justify inclusion. Cheers. Moriori (talk) 08:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that sounds reasonable. Let's hope that changes in the near future, so I can add the article later. Cheers, and thanks for the specification. Aleksi.pulkkanen (talk) 13:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop deleting my article

Article deletion

I am wondering if you could provide me with some additional information regarding the article you deleted using the codes A3 and G11. I welcome your feedback and guidance and would very much like to correct my errors. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twelvenineteen (talk • contribs) 13:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which one? Moriori (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guiding Stars Twelvenineteen (talk) 01:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Twelvenineteen[reply]

Health effects of chocolate

I didn't actually add any content; I merely took that the #Health section from the chocolate article and made it into a separate article due to article size. If there is any copyvio problem in Health effects of chocolate, it must have been present in the original article. Of course I support merciless removal of any copyvio material. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 02:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) . Aaaaarrrggggghhhhhh. I'll give myself an uppercut. Those outside articles were obviously lifted from Wiki. Sorry to bother you. Cheers. Moriori (talk) 02:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there are verbatim copy-and-paste violations from reliable sources, I suggest we just re-phrase to summarize or paraphrase and keep the ref tags to the source rather than just deleting the page. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 02:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of article

go the hell away

what gives you the right to come around and delete peoples work. get a life. User:Melville.d Anon agrees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.145.91 (talk) 09:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article you created was nonsense, so it was deleted. This is an encyclopedia, not your patch where you can post provocative gang propaganda. If you recreate the article again, you will be blocked from editing. Moriori (talk) 08:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Control-S

G'day mate, im still working on that article, sorry it was a bit rushed. Im just adding credible references like the ministryofsound website http://www.ministryofsound.com/product/na/albums/cd/ez_the_essential_garage_collection/ amongst others.

The significance is the artist has track releases on Major Labels and i found myself looking for a wikipedia entry for them as they are so big, and was surprised to find nothing. Please see your way to removing the deletion when you have a chance so i can continue to add =)

Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by G33k84 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted article recreated

Hi there. Just want to inform you that the article which you deleted twice today has been recreated. Amsaim (talk) 09:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of I'll Get There. It Better be Worth the Trip

I would respectfully suggest you restore my article and re-read criteria for speedy deletions. Specifically the once used on my article: a7

A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content).

An article about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works. This criterion does not apply to species of animals, only to individual animal(s). The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion. Fosnez (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infact don't worry and restoring it, I've re-created it. If you wish to delete it again, please use the correct 7-day deletion process. Fosnez (talk) 23:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I see you have recreated it, and I have deleted it again. I should have pointed out the blatant advertising/promotion the first time. I didn't. But I have now. Fosnez, this book is not the first of its kind, so it can hardly be notable (unless there is some compelling evidence to the contrary that google couldn't find). Moriori (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, how about that I had not heard of the book and I came to the biggest encylopedia in the world to read up on it. It's history and impact on the culture of the 1960s. It is people like you that have caused me to completely loose faith in this project, as you can see by my lack of recent edit history. Fosnez (talk) 23:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You came here to read about a book you had never heard of, then created an article which said in part it "will be reissued in September 2010 from Flux, an imprint of Llewellyn Worldwide". Moriori (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for I'll Get There. It Better be Worth the Trip

An editor has asked for a deletion review of I'll Get There. It Better be Worth the Trip. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Fosnez (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sippy hole

Hi. If you can restore this article I'm working on I would appreciate it. Your deletion rationale is also erroneous. Thanks. Freakshownerd (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your stub was dreadfully bare, looked like a dictionary entry, and lacked suitable referencing. Also it wasn't truly encyclopedic to say it "can be used for recreation by rednecks". Why don't you create a better article at User:Freakshownerd/Sippy hole, and when it is done, move it to article space? Moriori (talk) 23:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can argue about whether my description could have been better refined, but it certainly wasn't meaningless and I was actively working on it. If you want to move what was there to my userspace while it's being worked on that would be fine. Thanks. Freakshownerd (talk) 23:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Recreated at your space. Moriori (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks bro. I'm not finding a huge number of reliable sources covering the subject unfortunately, so it may have to be merged into Swamp buggy. We'll see. Media bias and all that... Freakshownerd (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your last deletion

Would it qualify for revision deletion? ----moreno oso (talk) 03:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You already did that, and requested speedy, and I obliged. Or am I missing something? Moriori (talk) 04:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rev del is different. If you follow the link, it erases the entry as if the edit never existed. ----moreno oso (talk) 04:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. You erased all text in this "Fuck you for points" article leaving an article which was empty except for your CSD tag. The deleted text is still available to admins. Isn't that sufficient? Moriori (talk) 08:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technical equipment, or Machinery

You have deleted the Technical equipment article. The reason was A3: Article that has no meaningful, substantive content: DicDef. The description of A3 is the following: A3. No content. Any article (other than disambiguation pages, redirects, or soft redirects) consisting only of external links, category tags and "see also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, chat-like comments, template tags and/or images. However, a very short article may be a valid stub if it has context, in which case it is not eligible for deletion under this criterion. Similarly, this criterion doesn't cover a page with an infobox with non-trivial information

I think that was a mistake. The article had plenty of meaningful, substantive content. In fact, the new article is a translation of a Russian article which has a long history but has no English interwiki. I tried to find an equivalent English article but I failed. Therefore I created this article. Ufim (talk) 07:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting that the article was called Technical equipment but your heading for your posting here is Technical equipment, or Machinery. Whatever, A3 doesn't say an article has no content, but that it has no meaningful, substantive comment. This was an essay without any references and, if it had any meaningful, substantive content as you claim, it had exponentially more meaningless, irrelevant and insubstantial content. A bit like the infobox you mentioned. You created this article, then edited a redirect to our Tool to come to this article, and edited a redirect to our Machine to come to this article. That hardly helped the Wiki project. Also, can you assure us this translation of a Russian article is not Copyvio? Moriori (talk) 08:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re MBTs generic style article

Hi Moriori, would you mind looking at my request on CJ's talk page, User talk:CJ#MBTs, with regard to MBTs. I only ask you because you've clearly been keeping track of deleting repeated creations of Masai Barefoot Technology. And I guess I asked CJ first since he's seen my little edits for several years now and gotten to know my WP identity. If you can look into this instead though that would be great as I understand CJ is busy outside Wikipedia and may not respond for a while. Thanks in advance. Donama (talk) 07:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't answer for CJ but (1) I wouldn't support recreation of Masa Barefoot Technology which featured a company rather than a technology, and (2) I sure wouldn't support redirecting Masai Barefoot Technology to Round bottom shoe which is blatant advertising bereft of any explanation of what a round bottom shoe actually is. Moriori (talk) 08:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough then. I might have to try and do some work to reduce the overly commercial feel of the stub article. I came to Wikipedia to try and find some unbiased information on this kind of shoe and couldn't find anything. That's why I created it. I have added a link to round bottom shoe on the MBT disambig page. That should be enough to help those who'd search for this via the most common brand name. Donama (talk) 11:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

For your information [1]. XLerate (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phew. Tks. Moriori (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stone (mass)

"according to the Battle of Coronel article, the germans coldn"

Just an intrested third party, how do the two articles conflict with one another?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Coronel article says that mines in the harbour made it impossible for the germans to get to the coal anyway. Moriori (talk) 09:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Bud! :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]