User talk:MuffledThud/Archives/November 2009

User talk:Xiekaibei

You gave User:Xiekaibei a warning about the speedy deletion of Www.handbags.style.com, then shortly afterward you tagged User talk:Xiekaibei for speedy deletion because it contained promotional/advertising content as well. However, if the page had been speedy deleted, the user might never have seen your original warning. If someone has promotional/advertising content on their user talk page, but there are postings from other users (such as yourself) on the page, I believe it's better to just remove the promotional/advertising material rather than deleting the user talk page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Next time I'll remove rather than tag, and thanks for the tip. MuffledThud (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9035chimi did it again

User:9035chimi just vandalized Siddharth Velamoor again.Cadwallader (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reported that user to WP:AIAV. MuffledThud (talk) 07:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yamila Abraham

I am Yamila Abraham the publisher/owner of Yaoi Press LLC. Anime St G canceled my appearance at their small convention last month. Due to the rude manner in which they did this all other guests of the show canceled in protest of their treatment to me. They are harassing me and the another guest in retaliation. This wiki was created by Anime St G to further defame me. I have been a guest at 150 conventions and have at times had to cancel my appearances or had my appearances canceled by the shows. This stub summarizes so little about my 10 year career. There is no reason for Anime St G to be mentioned. They are harassing me with this wiki, and promoting their show at my expense. I will continue to fight having my wikipedia biography used in this malicious way by Anime St G. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaoipress (talk • contribs) 16:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing at all about this subject, but I won't revert the deletion, since the sole reference for the deleted assertion is a blog run by the convention and therefore probably not considered a reliable source per WP:RS. MuffledThud (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of PV cross country page

I find that it is unecessary to delete the Palos Verdes Cross Country page. I am a member of the team, and have watched it grow to great standards. People should know about our team. And it is not all opinion based. It is true facts. I would like to know EXCACTLY what in the article makes it a nomination for ban. I thought wikipedia was to share information. This is a true event and I am trying to share it.Jratman (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please don't take deletion discussions personally: I try to be as even-handed as a human being can be. Have a read of WP:NSPORT, to get an idea of the guidelines on what makes a sports team notable. If you can find information that demonstrates notability, then the article won't get deleted. Please also add your comments to the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palos Verdes Cross Country. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify...

Re:

"Onedotzero^[1] [not in citation given] " - See the pasted lowercase text underlined below

_{"onedotzero’s 10th anniversary continues, and following previous events at the tate modern and victoria and albert museum, the celebrations move to the hayward gallery, southbank for an evening of shifting identities and digital rituals as part of the undercover surrealism exhibition.}

if you haven't already booked your tickets for onedotzero_counter:vision, book fast!

featuring short films, illustration and animation from spencer bewley [lazy eye], peepshow, new, black convoy and pandemonium, lighting show by willie williams [the lighting genius behind u2 + rem's world tours] and live av performances including the onedotzero commissioned av show, ‘the paradiso effect’ by saam [clor, the rapture], and a mix of cabaret, live vocals and music from george demure [output recordings]. there are also very special dj sets from britain’s hottest fashion designer giles deacon, and nathan gregory wilkins [electric stew, bugged out] plus other special guests and happenings. compere for the evening is the legendary matthew glammore [smashing, kashpoint]. expect naked people, costumes and props, and enjoy al fresco drinks in the sculpture courtyard.

the hayward gallery, upper gallery, south bank, london, uk. box office: +44 [0] 870 169 1000

www.hayward.org.uk"

- It clearly says "NEW" and "Black Convoy" please clarify why this is [not in citation given] ?

Thanks - Oz71 (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it says "New", but not "Austin". The citation doesn't support the assertion that you were involved. I'm not trying to get all legal about this, please understand, I'm just trying to uniformly apply the agreed criteria for notability and cites.

Above you mentioned that you can cite offline sources such as books and magazines which are reliable per WP:RS and verifiable per WP:VERIFY: yes, please do, that's a fine idea. WP:CIT and WP:CITET are good for info on how to cite those. If you want help formatting the cites then just ask, I'll be happy to contribute. I could be completely wrong about this AFD nomination: I have been before! Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 10:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New to Wiki - happy for any help... Oz71 (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chucky of grass lake

I know you're just patrolling with Twinkle, but I think a new contributor who has just made a test page would feel more welcome without an automated template. :) A little insignificant ^{Bloated on candy} 13:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I did post a welcome, and you've removed the recommended speedy warning notifying the editor that the article's about to be deleted. I think that might leave the editor more confused than welcomed. It would have been better if you had posted your welcome in addition to the speedy warning, rather than removing it. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 13:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a friendlier template roughly equivalent to what you posted, I'd be willing to work with the maintainer of Twinkle to add that as an option. MuffledThud (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had typed the welcome and question while you were automatically warning them with Twinkle, so when the edit conflict happened I got annoyed and just replaced your text with mine. I then made another edit notifying them of your speedy.

I'm not aware of a friendlier template, I've always just considered a written message to be warmer and more informal. In general, I use the Twinkle templates except in cases like these. A little insignificant ^{Bloated on candy} 15:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks

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

Thanks re San Miguel Premium Internacional

Hi MuffledThud, cheers for removing the speedy delete on SMPI, i intend to grow the article over the next few days, including relevant citations etc. Best, 86.145.55.187 (talk) 21:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC) ((sorry, didn't realise that i wasn't logged in Darigan (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)))[reply]

Happy to help! I'll try to add a bit too. MuffledThud (talk) 21:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

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

They want to talk to you about your CSD nom of America's Next Top Model, Cycle 13, and so do I. If you check the page history, the article has been around since August and has had several hundred edits made to it in that time. The idea that such an article could still somehow be a word-for word copy of another page simply doesn't add up. That is why it is important to check the page history in copyvio cases. Speedy deletion for copyvios only applies when the article is, and always has been, a direct copy of another page. If copyright violations were introduced at some point, the article simply needs to be reverted to a version from before those changes were made. In this particular case, I think it is far more likely that the pr hacks from the studio that makes the show simply copied the WP text onto their Facebook page instead of trying to come up with something themselves, which they are perfectly free to do under Wikipedia's licensing. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done - thanks for the correction. MuffledThud (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. I was already at RFA before somebody pointed out to me that I was mis-using A3, since apparently an infobox is enough content to avoid speedy deletion. CSD is like wrestling with Vishnu sometimes. Every time you think you've got it figured out, wham here comes another arm you didn't know about. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Damn skippy! MuffledThud (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi please read my reply to your deletion of High Speed Data Link. thx

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

Stephen MacDonald

Thanks! Deb (talk) 12:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Pebbles

I find it insulting that you can put that up for a deletion when you have lots of pointless topics going. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloughy96 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete

please delete my todd turfe article(s) as i will start them up later. greatly appreciated thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prowrestling101 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been deleted by an admin. You might like to check out the Wikipedia:Article wizard. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted article

Hi,

I recently created an article "Sir Thomas Picton School-Year 10 Portal" and it was "speedily deleted" for not containing any real meaning, even though it did contain valuable content and other information about the topic in question. Is there any chance it can be restored, even if its just to let me ellaborate more? TGLewis (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, have a look at the notices that were posted three times to your talk page, all of which say: "the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia." For further info on notability for web sites, have a read of WP:WEB. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kuhn's Quality Foods

Some references have been added to Kuhn's Quality Foods You may wish to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kuhn's Quality Foods -- Eastmain (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly have. OK, nomination withdrawn, and thanks for your work on this. MuffledThud (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Keith Emerson

Thanks for your help with this! Much appreciated. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome! Thanks for the excellent (and, as you noted, much-needed) article. MuffledThud (talk) 23:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatle

Hi you deleted a page a made on the subject of The Beatle a newly formed up and coming techno band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grayrocks27 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete it, I only nominated it for deletion. Have a read of WP:BAND: if the band is newly formed and up-and-coming, then it's almost certain that they're not yet notable enough for inclusion according to the notability guidelines. I also can't find a word about them online[1] in any sources that are considered reliable according to WP:Reliability. Once the band is established and notable, then an encyclopedia is the right place to document them, but Wikipedia isn't the best place to publicize them to try to help them become notable. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaican art

Thank you for the editorial support you are giving this article. I will continue to 'clean it up' using wiki standards and a broader range of references. I created this article because it was long overdue and because as a scholar in this field I felt I had sufficient knowledge to do this. I recognize there may be a conflict of interest given my own webwork and published materials, but the field is still a relatively small one.PetrineA-S (talk) 10:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome: please ask away if there's anything I can do to help you build the article. MuffledThud (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the editorial support you have given Jamaican Art. I have made the changes suggested. I also plan to volunteer my services for the Visual Arts and Jamaican portals so that I can help to structure those areas with reference to the Caribbean. Can you take a look and if you approve remove the tags from the Jamaican Art page. Many thanks --PetrineA-S (talk) 06:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the article a little and removed the POV tag, but other issues remain. For example, the "Recent trends" section is a personal assessment referenced solely by your own exhibition catalogue. Thanks for the offer of help with the VA and Jamaica portals. MuffledThud (talk) 12:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Thank you again. I will get to work on that paragraph and get back to you--PetrineA-S (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC) I would appreciate you taking another look at the Jamaican Art page and hopefully removing the tags regarding conflict of interest. I have revisited the last paragraphs and offered additional references alongside my own text. Many thanks, --PetrineA-S (talk) 01:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for the support you have been giving my edits. I have revisited the last paragraphs and offered additional references alongside my own text. would you cansider removing theg tags regarding conflict of interest now? .Many thanks, --PetrineA-S (talk) 20:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Jamaican Art page I have been working on seems stuck. Can you recommend a way forward? Thank you again --PetrineA-S (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try posting at Portal talk:Visual arts and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jamaica, and ask for help with the article. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again, as advised, I have listed Jamaican Art with the above portals to ask for their support. Even so, I am keen for you to review the page again to see if the banner regarding conflict of interest can be removed. I have removed references to my own scholarship where possible; significantly rewritten those sections of the page that shared similarities with material on my site, and offered other citations the Recent Trends section. I have done all this because I understand and agree with Wikipedia's concerns for neutrality. As discussed previously, I am very keen to support the Caribbean and Jamaican portals but I want to get this page cleaned up first.--PetrineA-S (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is shaping up well now, and thank you for sorting out the COI issue. The article still expresses what appears to be personal opinion on historic and current trends in Jamaican art, citing books and other offline references. Using these as references is fine, but as I'm not an expert in the subject it would be best to involve more people who are, and make sure that what's being stated is verifiable fact rather than opinion, e.g. the current last sentence in Jamaican art#Recent trends about competing with bling funerals. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 11:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking at this article and for recognizing the changes made. Yes, I agree about having a broader range of opinion and I am actively trying to engage other art historian colleagues to support my efforts. I appreciate you removing the 'conflict of interest' banner. Hopefully you will begin to see more changes soon. I am also going to try to get support for the art sections related to the Caribbean Portal that is still an orphan page. With regard to the issue of bling funerals, I can remove it, but it does represent a current debate in Jamaica related to popular culture and African retentions. Bling funerals are a very real phenomenon related to African traditions that have been discussed in academic journals, one of which, I have cited. I will await a consensus on this.--PetrineA-S (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

why, thank you! and from the nominator, no less! --Milowent (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Legal blogs

Thanks for letting me know: I've replied at the discussion page. MuffledThud (talk) 02:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

InterExec

Please may you explain the necessary changes for this article to remain on wikipedia. The article isn't promoting the business practises of the company, it merely states what the company offers and what others have said about it, much like many other articles on Wiki. The company are truly unique in their field, this isn't to say that other companies can not replicate this business model - but it would be most appreciated if you could fully explain the necessary changes so that this page can meet your requirements. Thank-you.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FS61" Hidden categories: User talk pages with Uw-spam1 notices | User talk pages with Uw-spam2 notices —Preceding unsigned comment added by FS61 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is full of promotional language about the company:

"Executive Management company specializing in advancing the careers of Top Executives when they wish to secure a new appointment" "InterExec found an innovative way in which to circumvent the Employment Agencies Act 1973..." "...through further innovative thinking, InterExec proved to be resilient... " etc.: You also added similarly promotional language and links to Executive search and Recruitment: please have a read of WP:SPAM. You appear to have a clear WP:Conflict of interest on the subject and should therefore avoid writing about the company here. Please feel free to ask me for help in editing articles about any other topic. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 12:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, this article will be dumbed down and the sentences you have highlighted will be removed and given a less 'less promotional' description. The rest of the verbiage shall also be scrutinising revised in order to remove perceived bias.

Sorry - new user, although thankful for the advice and will make changes accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FS61 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and thanks for making the changes so quickly. I'll remove the speedy tag now to give you time to fix the article. MuffledThud (talk) 13:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers thank you, I have removed the biased sections - so they have gone, and will now work to gather more facts before developing the article in a more factually streamlined mannor. Appreciate you removing the tag, as well as pointing out the necessary changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FS61 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MuffledThud, may you please now remove the 'warning sign' as it no longer reads bias, nor advertising. More facts are to be supplied helping the continuation of bolstering this article. Cheers, FS61 (FS61 (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Done! MuffledThud (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vendormate

Please review the references that are already included in the Vendormate article. Apart from the company press release, the rest seem to be from reliable sources. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this here Feedback requests

Directed to Rgannonc

Please read your first heading and opening two sentences, and compare to the second paragraph of this paper

Competency-based education

What is Competency Based Education?

The major premise of competency based education (CBE) is that diplomas and credentials should be awarded on the basis of demonstrated performance on competency and on results, rather than on accumulated or completed credits. In fact, CBE is often tied directly to the occupational requirements of working professionals. CBE presents adult learners with opportunities to solve the real-world problems of managers, teachers, computer programmers, nurses, engineers and others.

Comparing Institutional Approaches to Competency-Based Distance Education

What is competency-based education? Its major premise is that diplomas and credentials should be awarded on the basis of demonstrated student performance – on outcomes and results – rather than on the accumulation of credits, the number of successful semesters completed (seat-time), and adherence to campus residency requirements. CBE is often tied directly to the occupational requirements of working professionals, requiring degree candidates to solve real-world problems of nurses, teachers, computer scientists, and business managers.

Can you explain?--SPhilbrick T 02:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After not hearing an explanation from the editor, I went ahead and reported this to Copyright issues. I wrote some comments to Moonriddengirl here SPhilbrick T 16:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea: she knows a lot about that, and has been helpful for me in the past. MuffledThud (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio at Ustad Rais Khan

Thank you for noticing that Ustad Rais Khan was a copyvio. An alternative to deleting the copyvio is to turn the article into a stub, thereby eliminating the copyvio, as I have just done for Ustad Rais Khan. -- Eastmain (talk) 14:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right again Eastmain, and I will try to remember that in the future. You're an inclusionist fire extinguisher to my deletionist flamethrower, and it's always a pleasure to edit with you. MuffledThud (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find that it helps to take a little more time with each article to see what references might exist and whether the topic is discussed elsewhere on Wikipedia. A lot of good articles start off in pretty weak shape, but sometimes an unimpressive article can be expanded to something worthwhile.

My other thought is that there are alternatives to speedy tags. If something doesn't unambiguously qualify as {{csd-a7}}, for example, it can be tagged {{notability}}, and you can add a note on the talk page indicating what ought to be done, and perhaps post a note on the appropriate WikiProject talk page asking for someone to expand the article. And if the topic is notable, I will try to cure the problems with the article, or at least add a reference. And sometimes an article on someone who isn't individually notable (Nick Sheridan, for example) that has been tagged {{csd-a7}} can be turned into an appropriate redirect. Best wishes, -- Eastmain (talk) 14:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check my edit history: I've been doing a lot more tagging and less speedying since yesterday. :-) MuffledThud (talk) 14:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newbie treatment

Hey there! As you have been editing an article that User:IHaveaSpoon created, I am telling you that you became a participant in WP:NEWT. The meaning of it is to see how more experienced editors deal with newbies that create new articles. I apologise that I have spent your time. You can discuss about this in Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at CSD/Ilyushka88 where I have explained how things were going with the articles I created.

Again, sorry for the misrepresentation. If there's anything I can do to make up for your lost time, please let me know. Ilyushka88 Talk to me 11:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem: this looks like useful research, and it's nice to see that I look so helpful in the results! :-) MuffledThud (talk) 11:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enzowhism

Hi. I have (reluctantly) removed your A2 speedy from this article, because it really is more than a test page, though it certainly fails WP:N and looks very like something made up one day. I wish there was a speedy for this kind of thing, but as it is I'm afraid we have to PROD, and maybe on to AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion contested: Дизајн

Hello MuffledThud, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I contested the speedy deletion of Дизајн - a page you tagged - because: R3 does not apply to redirect in another language. Consider WP:RFD. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Tim Song (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Why did you recommend the page R=Dogg for speedy deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigquas614 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated it for deletion because the person in the article had no claim to notability, as described in WP:BIO. If the subject of the article is you, then you could always write about yourself on your user page at User:Bigquas614. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Jid

You speedied that as an attack page - had you already translated it from Russian? --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 00:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated it before he did, as vandalism. I was about to leave a note myself saying that I used the wrong criteria and was glad he did so correctly. A link on the page provided an immediate translation from the Russian. MajorStovall (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google translate showed it to be a crude racist rant in Russian. MuffledThud (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I said so on the talk page. MajorStovall (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I see now, thanks. MuffledThud (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SexEducation.com

I am a noob - but have info about SexEducation.com

I do NOT WANT to break any rules — Preceding unsigned comment added by OriginalOwnerSE (talk • contribs)

still learning how to navigate this website

everything i post is NOT online right —Preceding unsigned comment added by OriginalOwnerSE (talk • contribs) 07:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, you're not breaking anything. But in order for the article to be included, it needs to show its notability, with reliable sources as described in WP:RS. Have a read of WP:WEB for more info on what Wikipedia means by a notable web site, and ask away if you need any help with this. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 07:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx - this will take some time

But will all be factual. Is anything I am say now going online as I think it should be in my sandbox just for administrators - correct

I just want the community to approve everything before it gets posted

kk —Preceding unsigned comment added by OriginalOwnerSE (talk • contribs) 07:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Let me know if you want any help. MuffledThud (talk) 07:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The truth is - I am the original owner of SexEducation.com - That can NOT BE denied

And I went through lots of pain to try to make it work. And even to this day - it does not work. I have some insight as to why.

I do NOT have encylopedia writing skills ... I am NOT stupid .. but I require help to explain

kk —Preceding unsigned comment added by OriginalOwnerSE (talk • contribs) 07:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will get u a link - stand by

Please delete any comments on SexEducation.com public on Wiki I want private advice from the community before I proceede with this Link coming fast stand by —Preceding unsigned comment added by OriginalOwnerSE (talk • contribs) 07:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting - have not used WayBackEngine for years - Was Owned By Google

Now its not there I will have to brush up on my surfing skills for webpages 10+ years ago

Interesting —Preceding unsigned comment added by OriginalOwnerSE (talk • contribs) 07:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J.E. Beacock

Why can i not sign this page with four tildes or question marks —Preceding unsigned comment added by OriginalOwnerSE (talk • contribs) 07:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just type the four tildes ~~~~ and the rest will be done for you automatically. MuffledThud (talk) 07:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can NOT type tildes - do not know why

I have been trying they keep coming up slashes

Same thing happened when I tried to make the original SexEducation.com website

shut down shut down

delete delete delete

lol

I thought this website was different

I will try again

but not today —Preceding unsigned comment added by OriginalOwnerSE (talk • contribs) 08:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe - Its security and they would be correct if so.

Maybe its security by Wiki

And if so - they would be correct not to post my IP

I received many NOT SO WELCOME physical threats

when i began SexEducation.com

and guess what

its still a stupid link page and not what I programmed it for for almost two years

fyi —Preceding unsigned comment added by OriginalOwnerSE (talk • contribs) 08:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I haven't got time to chat about this, but please post back if you have a specific request for help with a Wikipedia article. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 08:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will sign off with this - the one sentence understanding of all my research

It is a declaration of human sexual rights that the United Nations has failed to declare after decades of ....

well whatever ... here u go ..

help me write the history of SexEducation.com please my friend please

here u go ...

EVERY person that is reproductively capable has a self evident right to and understanding of such.

Thats what I learned in 10 years of study. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OriginalOwnerSE (talk • contribs) 08:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found it - its there - next

Can u help me make a decent page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by OriginalOwnerSE (talk • contribs) 08:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Crap - they java scripted the pages to return u to porn even from the WayBackEngine

roflmao ---

Brother - help me write a factual history of SexEducation.com

thats are job as Wiki's "is in not" —Preceding unsigned comment added by OriginalOwnerSE (talk • contribs) 08:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

test post signing with four tildes

OriginalOwnerSE (talk) 09:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kewl - I guess you have done some verification

nice J. E. Beacock The original owner of SexEducation.com

I did NOTHING to allow using four tildes to sign this page even though i tried lots

but now it works

OriginalOwnerSE (talk) 09:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a stub article for this as a user subpage, at User:OriginalOwnerSE/SexEducation.com. Since you have a clear personal involvement in this subject, be sure to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest to make sure you understand Wikipedia guidelines about objectivity. Once that article's ready, it can be moved to the article mainspace. But please keep the postings here restricted to requests for help with Wikipedia articles, rather than general chat. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 09:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Evans (Pizzas 4 Patriots)

Thank you for your welcome to Wikipedia. I am confused however on how to edit the article I put up that has been so quickly deleted without any time to make edits. Please advise on how I can modify my content to meet the criteria. As it is now, I am being threatened by one of the Administrators, even though this is the first content I have ever attempted to place on these pages. Is there any way to contest their decisions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by StarJimV (talk • contribs) 15:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take the deletion personally: new articles get fired onto Wikipedia like a firehose, and admins sometimes need to work quickly to avoid a huge backlog building up. The problem was that you kept re-posting without fixing the article.

There are two problems with the article: WP:Notability and WP:Conflict of interest. There's nothing you can do about the second one, so it would be best to wait for someone who's not personally involved to create the article. The first problem is a bit more complicated: Mark Evans appears to be only notable for his involvement in the project, so it might be better if the article created were about the project Pizzas 4 Patriots, and the founder could then be mentioned in the article. But the project itself is also of low notability per WP:GNG: I can find only a few mentions of it in blogs and such, which aren't consider reliable sources. Ask someone you know who's not involved with P4P to create a Wikipedia account. If they like, I can then show them how to create a "sandbox" subpage of their user page, where they can build the draft article up as and when you get the time. They can then get experienced editors and admins to review that draft, and make recommendations for improvement until it's ready to go live. MuffledThud (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. The problem was that the speedy deletion seemed to happen within minutes, and I was unable to respond with any edits. I have been writing web content as well as marketing materials for many years, and I honestly believe that I could write any article with a neutral point of view. As far as the project itself being of low notability, I am surprised. This was a huge venture that was covered by hundreds of news outlets all across the country. It was a massive effort to pull off the World's Largest Pizza Party, and with nothing but volunteers and support from a lot of people.

When I put a message on my talk page, the immediate response surprised me. Sometimes, emotions and attitudes can become apparent in postings!

Thanks again for your comments. I will consider having someone else write the article, and I agree, that it should be about the project more so than the person. The only thing I would say though, is that the project is only interesting because of the backstory about someone that is seemingly a "nobody" that does something that has such a huge impact. Please go to: www.OperationPizza.com to get more information about this program and how others see it.

StarJimV (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could I take you up on that offer to learn how to do the sandbox process? Thanks StarJimV (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, have a read of Wikipedia:User page#Creating user subpages, and if it's not working the way you want then come on back and ask. MuffledThud (talk) 17:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Digital dollhouse

I might be an idiot for I really don't understand why my first article, which I spent half an hour to write up, got deleted. When I wanted info on that subject, I couldn't find anything useful anywhere on the web, so that's why I decided to create an account and write up the article because I didn't know how to put up a reqeust for it. This kind of thing happens to me a lot in Yahoo answers, so no big deal. That's all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dollhouser (talk • contribs) 19:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you've done nothing wrong, and I'm sorry for so rudely interrupting your first article here. If you like, I can show you how to create a draft page about that subject in your user area, and help you develop the article before it goes live. Just ask if you're interested. MuffledThud (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Self-Medication

Hi Muffled thud. I've declined this speedy deletion nomination, as by use of "What links here" I was able to establish context for this article and categorise it. Ϣere SpielChequers 08:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for that. Next time I'll remember to check the links. By the way I've just found two other articles with nearly-identical titles, and dabbed all three. MuffledThud (talk) 09:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ϣere SpielChequers is offering you a Wiki Beer! Liquid refreshment promotes WikiHarmony and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the harmony by offering a beer to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Best served refrigerated (not applicable in England). Temperature and Alcoholic strength varies according to age, religion and geographic location of recipient, US residents below the age of 21 are best advised to keep this beerstar until travelling in a country with less ageist drinking laws. NB This Beerstar is compatible with all known fake IDs

Thanks, and good point about the other articles, I think I'll turn one into a dab page. BTW I'm beginning to come to the view that No-context should be treated as prods rather than speedies. What do you think of that and would you mind if I quoted this as an example if I formally proposed that? Ϣere SpielChequers 10:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beer, why thank you.... slurpity gulp. That's an interesting idea you've got, but tricky. I would say that prod rather than speedy should be strongly encouraged, and that I should have tried harder in this case. However, to abolish db-context altogether would open the door to a flood of single-article accounts posting in-jokes about their friends etc., knowing that their joke would stay up (with a prod on it) for 7 days before it got flushed. By removing the prod on day 6, it would stay up a little while longer, until the AFD discussion was complete. I'm not a rabid deletionist (I've rescued many articles from prod and AFD), but there has to be some minimal amount of picket fencing as a deterrent to casual abuse and gaming the system. How can WP balance this risk against the risk of mistaken speedying? MuffledThud (talk) 11:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well some of those could be reclassified as vandalism, or A3 chat. My experience of salvaging quite a few no contexts is that some do turn into other categories of speedy deletion, but many like this are salvageable. If we are concerned about them being up on the pedia longer we could I believe put something into the no context template to make Google ignore them (No Index?). Ϣere SpielChequers 11:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some could be A3 chat, but not many: I guess I could be persuaded by some informed estimates. Maybe we could do a small study on this, with a bot grabbing the contents of db-contexted articles on their way out, for interested parties (you know, like you and me) to pore over later. I don't know much about the internals of the WP implementation of MediaWiki, so there might be an existing, easier method than combing through bot-poop.

Db-vandalism definitely wouldn't be a good replacement, as it carries an insinuation of minor malice, while db-nocontext is more of a polite "huh?". That accusation of vandalism also sticks in the edit history of a user's talk page, and shouldn't be used lightly. Still open to suggestions on fixes for the problem though, as it is a problem. MuffledThud (talk) 11:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting db-vandalism a general replacement, more that what one editor might see as no context another editor might understand as vandalism. I like your idea of a small study and think this would benefit from wider discussion. Would you be OK if we moved this thread to WT:CSD (minus the beer of course). Ϣere SpielChequers 11:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without the beer? Well... OK. :-) MuffledThud (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CSD removal

Hi MuffledThud. I removed your CSD tag from The Threeep - Part I - Starting since the existence of an article on the band, Matt Pond PA, seems to make A9 non-applicable. Let me know if I've missed something. Cheers, Olaf Davis (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting the new linked article. MuffledThud (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kissaki Kai Karate

I submitted a permission email from the owner of the copywright info that was part of the deleted submission. How can I find out the status? Tdantonio (talk) 09:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an administrator, so unfortunately I'm not able to check the OTRS queue for info on the status of your request. I only flagged the copyright violation on that article: the admin who deleted it was User:Secret, so you could ask at their talk page. Good luck, and thanks for sticking with this. But why wait for the copyright to be sorted out? Let's re-create it without any copyrighted text. I'll start it now. MuffledThud (talk) 10:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kissaki Kai Karate has had messages on it for several days even after all corrections/deletions were made. I will be editing the page and adding the reference sources shortly but is there some reason why it still shows those messages? This is definitely a process! Tdantonio (talk) 11:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some slight changes and removed the "hatnote" messages from the top of the article. MuffledThud (talk) 14:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please dont delete my pages!!!!

Hey what's the big idea? I was up at 10pm last night writting that page, and i also had a major science test coming up. Ur user name should be 'munted thug' what'd you do that for? im warning you mate, dont come crawling around my pages! or theres going to be trouble...Tiffany Rafter (talk) 11:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use threatening and abusive language. I nominated the article for deletion because it gave no indication of the subject's notability. If you want help writing a good article, please try the Wikipedia:Article wizard. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 11:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Well excuse me you're not the only person here with feelings you know. So Sorry for hurting you, but come on, really. Get a Life!!! Dont be a munted thug. Tiffany Rafter (talk) 11:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense speedies

Hi. The definition of WP:CSD#G1 is actually very tightly drawn: "Pages consisting entirely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history." - it is intended only for a*Sx^55D&#!h and the like. Things that are not incoherent or gibberish but are "nonsense" as generally understood can often be tagged as WP:CSD#G3 "blatant misinformation", like Codlapper just now; but Exocious doesn't really qualify for any speedy, though it clearly needs to go per WP:NEO and WP:NFT, so I have converted it to a PROD. I wish we had a speedy for "blatantly made up one day," and I have suggested it more than once, but it never gets much support. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I had trouble making any sense out of it, but it wasn't completely incoherent. It'll be prodded WP:MADEUP next time, thanks. MuffledThud (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They come up so often that I keep "{{subst:prod|this is an [[WP:V|unsourced]] [[WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms|neologism]] and Wikipedia is [[WP:NAD|not a dictionary]] or guide to slang.}}" setup ready in a text file. JohnCD (talk) 14:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John I'll nick that code myself. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, actually that's an excellent idea. I have a few other prod texts I find myself using endlessly, e.g. "{{subst:prod|Non-notable per [[WP:BIO]], [[WP:BAND]], unreferenced, no significant coverage online from [[WP:Reliable sources]]" that could go in there too. Better still, maybe we should collaborate on some new (or forked) templates? We can't be the only NPP folks with this problem. MuffledThud (talk) 14:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I suspect the key would be adding them to automated tools like friendly. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pio Colonnello

Hello Muffled, hope you are doing great! can you do me a little favor and look into Pio Colonnello, I think it matches CSD unremarkable person, but I want to be sure before I tag it.Taqi Haider (talk) 16:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you. That is a tricky one, so I've tagged it for notability (academic) and unreferenced for now, and give the creator a chance to fix the problems before prodding it. I'll also hunt around for some references later when I have time, so it's on my watchlist for workiing on later. But the article definitely makes claims for notability, so it should not be speedy-deleted. MuffledThud (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mufflethud, apologies for posting redundant tags after yours on Pio Colonnello, in my defence, it often takes me three or four minutes to work out how to place the tag, in which time you have managed to place a more apt tag ;-) Darigan (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Thanks for the help. MuffledThud (talk) 17:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your help!

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

GilHecht (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion

Hi there, i've edited the article 'Spin Out Records'... could you take a look at it and tell me if you think it's suitable. We've avoided advertising, simply listed the facts about our releases and where we got the information from.

Spin Out RecordsSpinoutrecords (talk) 11:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's better than it was, but please read WP:COI: you shouldn't be creating an article on Wikipedia about your own company. If there's any other topic you'd like to write about, please don't hesitate to ask me for help. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 11:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Burks

Re: Michael Burks. The information posted at Reverb Nation is from his official biography written and provided courtesy of Alligator Records. We are not infringing on any content —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshGator (talk • contribs) 17:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied at your talk page. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just sent an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with the details that we hold the copyrights for all text included in this article, which was originally posted at Alligator Records' website at www.alligator.com and was subsequently reposted at http://www.reverbnation.com/michaelburks —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshGator (talk • contribs) 17:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thanks. But please also note the WP:COI issue that I pointed out on your talk page. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of the information contained within the article has been released publicly. There is no opinion content included and the quotes I have included are cited properly.

We were very careful when composing the article to ensure that it was entirely factual.—Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshGator (talk • contribs) 17:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you did your best, but the language of the article was highly promotional and subjective, which is understandable given your professional interest in the subject. MuffledThud (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've printed out the information about the material I'd like to donate. I will provide that info as soon as I can.

--JoshGator (talk) 17:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. MuffledThud (talk) 17:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still confused as to why this cannot be donated. We stripped out any subjective adjectives and opinions. We were careful to only include factual historical information and properly cited quotations

It seems that not having an article on Michael Burks does not serve the Wikipedia community. We want to ensure that if press or the general public are searching for information on Michael Burks that they only get the facts.

Could you indicate what content is seen as objectionable or subjective? We will do whatever is required to conform to Wikipedia standards.

--JoshGator (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The material can be donated. If you've already sent the email through to sort out the copyright problem, then just sit tight until the administrators confirm it. But here are some examples of subjective language used:

"Burks is a modern blues hero"
"With the release of his new CD, Iron Man, Burks is set to take his place beside the biggest names in the blues"
"The fledgling guitarist took the stage with his cousin’s band and thrilled an unsuspecting audience"
etc.

Can you see the subjectivity there? It doesn't matter if you and I both think it's true: an encylopedia needs to deal in verifiable facts. So even if the copyright gets sorted out, any content from the article at http://www.reverbnation.com/michaelburks will get chopped out very quickly, because it reads like an ad. MuffledThud (talk) 17:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UserTalk: sspind, Dr. Richard page

You gave me a speedy deletion mark because of copyright violation. Gray Line Austria gives full copyright to the contributed text about Gray Line Austria —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sspind (talk • contribs) 15:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:IOWN for information on how copyright owners can grant permission to Wikipedia for use of copyright material. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 15:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed CSD. Madhuvanti Arun

I removed the csd tag you placed as I found a few sources for this person. Please take a look and nom for AFD or Prod if you still feel it should be deleted. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done for finding those, I only took a quick look. I won't prod - maybe even more sources can be found. MuffledThud (talk)

I have found a whole bunch, apparently she is quite notable. So far I've found quite a bit of coverage including being a woman of the year. It was rather spammy and without a rewrite you were correct, rather unencyclopeadic but I'm taking care of that. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm done. I found 8 sources in English. There are possibly more in Indian but I only see english article. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding! This is barnstar stuff. Rummaging for one now... MuffledThud (talk) 16:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Minimum principle (Mathematics)

Conflict with article Minimum principle (Mathematics) was resolved. Henry Delforn (talk) 09:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. MuffledThud (talk) 09:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Эрнест Вуд

My mistake on opening that AfD, I didn't look closely enough at possible speedies. You've taught me something today, thanks. RaseaC (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help, and thanks for catching that new page. MuffledThud (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thank you for patrolling new pages and marking the bad ones for speedy deletion! fetchcomms☛ 21:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! (scrunch, scrunch...) MuffledThud (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.onedotzero.com/programme.php?id=167&event=31057

[1] ttp://www.onedotzero.com/programme.php?id=167&event=31057

[1]