User talk:Shadowlynk/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Mtdna haplogroup h

The creator is a sock, I'm sure, of a banned editor. He's just put a 'div' into the copyvio article to expose the article. dougweller (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't surprise me. I had a feeling there was more going on there than I knew about, but just in case I figured a slightly nicer message than the one I made in the edit summary was called for. At least to keep me from angering someone and getting dragged into something ugly. :) -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 04:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Trax Puzzle

An article that you have been involved in editing, Trax Puzzle, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trax Puzzle. Thank you. MuZemike 22:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Neural Lab

I am the author of the article Neural Lab. Neural Lab is free software developed at the University of Guanajuato. I wanted to create an article to provide in detail what Neural Lab is. The university is not looking to promote or advertise the Neural Lab software as it is not for sale, and it will not be for sale in the future either. The university wants to make accessible this software to students and researches. Neural Lab has been in Wikipedia for several months in the Neural Network Software page, however, the university wanted to move the external link on that page to an internal page in Wikipedia if possible. --Sergioledesma (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

For-profit sale or not, Wikipedia articles cannot be used for self-promotional purposes. That said, if you have any third-party sources that establish the software's notability, you may be able to rewrite the article. The article must be written from a neutral point of view, however, which may be difficult to do if you have any sort of conflict of interest with the software or the university. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 22:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me clarify this. You are completely right. I encourage my students to use Wikipedia to search for homeworks and research. I wrote a preview of the article and I´m working on how to make it more neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergioledesma (talk • contribs)

"Religion of Susquehanna"

Hello,

My name is Randy Robertson. I'm a professor of English at Susquehanna University, and I am teaching a course on the history of media. One of my assignments for the class is that we create our own religion. The point of the exercise is to show students how sacred texts can accrue material over time, some of it inconsistent with what was there before.

It is also, however, a serious attempt to define the values of the class. As students will be students, the initial comments in the entry will tend toward the frivolous, but my hope is that over time they will become more serious, and that as a class we will build a page that will stimulate thoughtful discussion. It was originally titled "Religion of Susquehanna," but because Susquehanna's Board of Trustees might get upset about that, I propose to call the entry "A New SU Religion." I hope that you let this page stand. Many academics are hostile to Wikipedia; I like using it as a learning tool in the new media world, where movements can be created online before they exist in the "real world." If you would like to discuss any aspect of this proposal further, please feel free to contact me at robertson@susqu.edu.

Sincerely, Randy Robertson Randy Robertson (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2009

Please understand that Wikipedia is not a free web host. Wikipedia is its own project with its own goal of being an open encyclopedia, and as such all articles in main space have to be about verifiable, encyclopedic subjects. As the person said on your talk page, it would be best to set up your own Wiki or find some other free Wiki host. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 03:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"Gradus Futura"

Hello Shadowlynk

Im not sure how to comment on this talk page. Here I go. I have read and read the guidelines for the articles and the new user forum. i am trying very hard to repost my article to get it correct but I keep getting them Deleted. I copied the same format of a similar article and just used different article content. I would not like you to tell me just what I did wrong but how I can go about correcting it. Hamann motorsport is the article I am trying to fallow as a guide.

Thanks, Angie

gradus futura (talk) 1:28 am, PST, 24 January 2009(UTC)

I now notice it was just deleted. What's going on. This is incorrect. Really. Angie^^^^ [[User:|gradus futura]] (talk) 2:28 am, PST, 24 January 2009(UTC)

I'm afraid it's correct. The article had no statements to assert the company's notability, according to the company notability guidelines. It also didn't have any third-party reliable sources. As for Hamann Motorsport, that article seems to have its own issues. It's been around for a long time, though, so I'm hesitant to put it up for deletion. However, I will tag it for cleanup. Please note that articles are dealt with on a case-by-case basis; just because one article is a certain way, doesn't mean every article gets to be that way. That other article will be handled in due time, I'm sure. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 19:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Shadowlynk, Im not sure i understand. So if my article was correct cant I put it back? Can you? Do I have any suggestions? Thanks angie,

[[User:|gradus futura]] (talk) 12:41 pm, PST, 24 January 2009(UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GradusFutura (talk • contribs)

No, you misunderstood. You said the deletion was incorrect. I said the deletion was correct. It would not be a good idea to put the article back, unless you can provide sources that establish the company's notability. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 22:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The Hypogeum

Not only was The Hypogeum non-notable, it was from a vanity press and the plot was lifted straight from the vanity press web site. I blanked the plot section and included html comments to alert admins should this article ever be ressurrected. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I guess I should've checked for copyvios first, it might've qualified for speedy. Well, either way it's gone now. With any luck the author won't persist. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 06:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Boing Baa Network

this is not far my company has a right to be listed on this website if coke and Pepsi and other company's can be listed why can't mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Commander beef (talk • contribs) 07:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Because your company is not notable according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Coke and Pepsi are. Also because the article you keep reposting is blatant advertising. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 07:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Boom boom magazine - proposed changes to fix issues pointed out earlier today

Thanks for taking your time to review the new Boom Boom Magazine article. I agree with the things you proposed to see fixed to highten the quality. I've now included a secondary source, the Danish Arts Agency, which is a governmental institution under the Danish Arts Council. I hope it suffices as a valid reference? I've checked the notability definitions, and the organisation/institution certainly meets the demands listed in the article on notability

In addition, I've remedied the lack of category problem.

I'm new to wikipedia editing, so I dare not ratify the changes myself. If you have the time, it'd be greatly appreciated if you could give the article a second view.

Thanks in advance! Bergholt (talk) 13:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The reference does back up a statement in the article, but the article still lacks information about how the magazine meets the notability criteria. The organization itself might, but if the magazine itself doesn't it might be better to just make an article about the organization and then mention in that article that the organization publishes a magazine. In any case, make sure the article itself directly states how the magazine is important, and make sure the source backs up that claim. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 00:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm note sure I understand. The source I gave is not the publisher of the magazine, but a secondary source that describes the role and nature of the magazine. The source is governmental and notable, which is what's asked for in the notability requirements as I interpret them (perhaps wrongly). I've been reading a number of articles on similar topics, and they also cite notable secondary sources to meet the primary criterion of notability. If you look af IFPI, e.g., none of the sources state that the organisation is notable per se. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.81.79.233 (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It just needs a little more sourcing, that's all. The source is notable, but it's only a bare overview. I wouldn't worry, I don't think it's in any danger of deletion anytime soon, but if you find any additional sources that discuss the magazine, they would be most helpful. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 06:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Rose Mercury

Thank you very musch for the welcome. Just go ahead and delete this when done reading. I need some help with the Rose Mercury page, uploading an image. Would you please go to her official myspace page http://www.myspace.com/rosemercurymusic and use the profile image there as the photo for the Rose Mercury page? This is actually Rose writing this and I am giving you my permission to upload the picture. I really want it there. Please help! Thank you! Rose (Marie) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marieb987 (talk • contribs)

You can learn all about the image uploading process here, including all the copyright concerns. It's a lot of work, and I'm not particularly interested in wading through it, so I'd suggest checking it out yourself. Also, it's generally not a good idea to create articles about yourself. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 21:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, my article is up for deletion now, could you please personally help me with shaping the page up? I just posted a blog on my myspace page giving you permission to use my picture. That way you know it's really me and you have it. You are much better at this than I am, I can see. You're fast and professional at it. I need some help. I am asking you to please intervene and help me keep my page up and not have it deleted. I need this help and assistance. I would not say unnotable...my page had over 1 million views and i was the number 1 gothic artist on myspace for all of last winter. I deleted the page, and just came back this january and need help with this. I am asking you to look into it and to please help me. Thank you for your time and energy. I am greatful. I know it's a hassle, but I am really hoping you'll be my angel and do this. I know it's not best to write about yourself, but I wanted it accurate. Please, do help. You're really smart.I did not write this myself. Wikipedia already had a page for me, Corinna Fugate. In January I legally changed my name to Rose Mercury. I wanted to updated it so I tried to help. Please help me with this I am overwhelmed. Rose —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marieb987 (talk • contribs)

Well, the page at Corinna Fugate still exists and has been worked on. Really what should have been done is the old article should have been moved to the new title with added information about the name change. Since the old article's gone through all the deletion mess, it would have saved a lot of hassle. At this point, I'm not sure what should be done. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 21:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, what I've done is redirected the Rose Mercury page to the existing Corinna Fugate article. If you want the old page at the new title, you should request it at the old article's talk page or with the requested move process. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 21:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Three faze

keeps getting speedily deleted - [[1]] - only to be recreated. What's the next step with something like this - Afd? pablo_hablo. 20:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It appears it's been protected now as a typo redirect, so it should be taken care of. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 07:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bruce Roselle

An article that you have been involved in editing, Bruce Roselle, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Roselle. Thank you. andy (talk) 01:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

58.27.130.143

saraiki wikipedia bhi ban gia hai. saraiki font mein likh kar wp/skr topic paste karen thanks Parvez QAdIR khan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.27.130.143 (talk) 05:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have no idea what language you're speaking. In case you can understand my reply, you may be interested in contributing to a Wikipedia in your language. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 07:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Alex wiseman

So your telling me that because this person did not make a fool of themselves on the big screen or otherwise they are not worthy of being on this site.. i think people are more likely to want to know about "real life" issues such as suicide and depression than they would about some drug fu*cked singe i.e Kurt Cobain who shot himself? how is this different.. You of all people should know that pages need to start somewhere.!! Anna0988 (talk) 07:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Besides the previous things about not being for memorials or personal issues, Wikipedia also has rules about what qualifies as a notable biographical subject. I don't make the rules, nor do I decide for the media that people like Kurt Cobain are worthy of sourced attention, so you'll have to take it up with those editors interested in such back-room politics. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 07:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Clouds4Pilots

I've posted an article justification on the talk page. I propose that we discuss it there.ANHL (talk) 10:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I seem to have missed it. Unfortunately, that likely means it wasn't sufficient to convince the admin that it didn't qualify for speedy deletion. I'd suggest reviewing the notability criteria for websites and determining if the site meets them. If it does, make sure any recreation of the article states how it's notable, preferably with cited sources. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 20:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Cranesville Swamp CSD

Look over my change and see if you think the speedy should be removed. It's only a stub right now (I really should be working right now), but I watchlisted it and will prolly put some work into over the next few weeks.

Vulture19 (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that looks much better. Nice salvage! :) -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 22:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what I love about this place, finding different, interesting stuff. The article as posted was a mess, with copyvio's all over the place. Could turn out to be something pretty cool (and, since I get down there occassionally, a place for me to visit!).Vulture19 (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

A short bid for my page not to be speedy-deleted

Hello I'm user rhs277 and I just made a page for fmylife.com. When I made it, you marked it as a speedy-delete candidate. Here is my bit: I'm not involved with the website at all, I just think it's a really interesting trend. All of my friends and I and everyone we know have been talking about it non-stop for a few weeks now and I just heard that someone's friend in another state has experienced a similar phenomenon where she lives. I put a short explanation of this in the talk page as instructed, but I thought I'd put one here too so that my new page has a better chance of survival. Also, on a separate note, I think your job as a Wikipedia policer is pretty awesome. Keep it up. rhs (talk) 09:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's fine. My fault, I missed the LA Times citation. And cleaning up Wikipedia stuff is completely voluntary; anyone can help out if they want. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 01:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Beaudry RV

First try with Wikipedia. I've bought 4 RV's from them. I didn't realize I was breaking any rules, just giving them "an at a boy". Let me review your policy and add some more news stories over the weekend to give it some more value as they have some amazing events, resort, etc. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nholliday (talk • contribs) 22:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, you already deleted it. Only took an old guy about 3 hours to write. Thanks for that kid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nholliday (talk • contribs) 23:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't delete articles; only an administrator can do that. I only tag articles that I think qualify for speedy deletion, so an administrator reviews it. As for the specific rule you should review, that would be WP:SPAM. "Attaboy"s would generally fall under the purview of promotional material, fun events or not. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 00:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

re: Jordeps

Hi! the edits by Jordeps to gladiator were minor pieces of vandalism - I mean, unconstructive edits. No very big deal, but knowing your policy on such matters, I thought you might want to know. Best regards. Haploidavey (talk) 13:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

On second thoughts, you probably already knew that... but maybe your welcome message achieved the desired effect? Haploidavey (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't keep track of everyone I welcome tag, especially ones who lapse into months of inactivity. It'd be a logistical nightmare to track that many people, and even then it isn't good practice to be hounding people unless they're blatantly vandalizing right then. The welcome template is supposed to be a basic collection of links to give people a good start, pointing them to the policies they should keep in mind, and how to seek help. Requesting adoption is another thing entirely. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 21:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey Shadowlynk

I am new to wikipedia editing... I thought that getting involved would be a cool way to learn, discuss the process of compiling information, and contribute to what i think is one of the most worthwhile causes since the beginning of the internet. To have a place to start from when trying to access most of the world's information.. what could be cooler? Anyway, are you a real person? How many wikipedia-ers are there out there?

Krv5024 (talk) 04:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I'm real. At least, last time I checked. ;) As for how many other people are real, there's a statistics page with that info, and a lot of others. As of this post, there are about 9,500,000 accounts, though only 158,000 or so are actually active. Some of those are alternate accounts and sockpuppets, of course, but that's the closest numbers available. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 08:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The Silencers

Hello, I am the one currently working on The Silencers (punk/ska band) page. I know it is currently not up to standards but if you could put a under contruction icon on it I would appreciate it. I will try to get it up to standards in the next couple days, I can only work on it so much at a time. Thanks. --Rapscallion4 (talk) 06:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it could be put up to standards. According to the information you already put into the article, they were a small band with undisclosed members who released one song. That fails the guideline for music notability. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 07:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It is true yest that they only had one OFFICIAL released song. There is a series of unofficially released songs. I feel this band is note worthy as it is mentioned on the contributing artist's pages with out a link however. I feel that by making this article I am simply further adding knowledge about this band and the artists that contributed to it. --Rapscallion4 (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read this guideline for music notability. That's what determines if the band is noteworthy enough for a Wikipedia article. A brief mention by another band doesn't meet those requirements. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 01:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Data-visualization-tools

Hello Shadowlynk, i didn't know that i can't remove the content in the user page to the first article, because i just started using wikipedia, could i put back the content on userpage please? also i am just about to edit more information in regarding to data visualization tools, for example blogs and forum, would that be ok? thank you very much

Thank you - 22/05/2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Data-visualization-tools (talk • contribs)

You would have to ask an administrator to do that, and even in that case I'm not sure they would. The problem with the article was that it was strongly promotional in nature. All articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, not as spam for products or services. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 00:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Reason for possible deletion of OneGlobal News Network article?

The information contained in this article is identical to Yahoo! News. If you choose to delete our page, explain why you will not delete Yahoo! News.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slmosqueda (talk • contribs) 07:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

As I explained on the article talk page, Yahoo! News is a notable website with reliable, third-party sources cited to show that it is reliable. Your article does not assert the website's notability and only has links to the website itself. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 07:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Greetings

Thank you for your welcomes!--120242pp (talk) 08:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Fearless Battle

Hey, i am currently editing a new article about a new Multiplayer game that has been created. The admin of the game asked for it to be created. I know it isn't up to par yet, but i will work on it for a while to make sure it has enough content to fully explain the game. JesusSaves40 (talk) 06:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Explaining the game isn't the problem. You need to explain how it's notable. Check the guidelines for web content notability to see if the game qualifies, and if it does, explain that in the article. Any reliable, third party sources to back up those claims would be helpful as well. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 06:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, i see now. The game is a new game that is finishing it's beta trials. It is advertised on several websites such as BBG site [2] and on the Officers Club site [3]. Is this enough or is the game too new?JesusSaves40 (talk) 06:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably too new. Advertising and self-published articles are generally not sufficient to establish notability. What you'd need is some mainstream media attention, an article or review from a major gaming outlet, something like that. If the game becomes popular enough for that, an article will follow. For now, though, it probably doesn't qualify. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 06:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It will be rather large, it has about 900+ players signed up for now. It was hoped to add it to the page that has Runescape and Twilight Heroes. If it still isn't relevant let me know what needs to be done to add it. JesusSaves40 (talk) 06:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no arbitrary popularity threshold. Verifiable, significant coverage in reliable sources is what determines if something should be mentioned. Wikipedia is not supposed to be used for self-promotion, so everything is supposed to be mentioned in and cited from a reliable source. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 06:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, i see your point. I am sorry for the inconvenience. You may delete it. JesusSaves40 (talk) 06:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Not an inconvenience at all. Everyone messes up their first article. :) And to be specific, I only tag articles I think should be deleted. I can't delete articles; only an administrator can do that, and only if they agree with my reasoning. An admin will review the article soon. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 07:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

David M. Schwartz

Shadowlynk;

I completed the stub from the "Schwartz" page which lists many professionals with that Jewish surname so anyone clicking on the name gets to something other than a blank. Seemed to be what others on the Schwartz list did.

Cheers,

David (talk) 04:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imon 2nd (talk • contribs) 04:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The Schwartz page is supposed to be a list of notable people with the last name Schwartz, not just anyone with that last name. You have to explain on the David M. Schwartz page why he's notable. Check the biographical notability guidelines to see what qualifies as notable. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 04:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, so I wrote why a few of the David M. Schwartzes are notable. Then, I was asked to add categories, which I did. Are two categories enough? Are subcategories really needed? Isn't that too much linkage for a simple article, which only closes a reference from another article?

Cheers,

David (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it for now. I've tagged it for the proper cleanup, someone familiar with the cleanup processes will take care of it. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 00:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Since somebody else deleted the page, I give up. There's no point in arguing about something this small. Anybody can Google 'David M. Schwartz' and find the notable ones without Wikipedia.

Cheers,

David (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. The problem is, Wikipedia can't determine someone is notable without references to verify the information. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 20:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Call me stubborn because I tried again, with references, though I'm not sure they are "pretty" enough. The html is a pain in the butt. David (talk) 23:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Those references are not reliable sources, they're just Amazon listings, which now makes it look like spam to sell books. Please read the Wikipedia guidelines I've linked to in this conversation and the links on your talk page under the welcome section (the your first article page, in particular). They'll give you a better idea of what Wikipedia is looking for. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 08:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

24 Seven Talent

I do not understand why this has been deleted. I used a similar format to [4]Aquent LLC's wikipedia page. What steps would you suggest in order to post a page on this subject which will not get deleted? Kriwatson (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The previous message was regarding to the article 24 Seven Talent, posted yesterday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kriwatson (talk • contribs) 15:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The article was deleted because it was blatant advertising. All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with information cited from reliable, third party sources. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 20:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

How is the 24 Seven article blatant advertising and Aquent LLC is not?Kriwatson (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You're free to fix or tag for cleanup Aquent llc if you feel it's not written in a neutral tone. It probably could use some cleanup. Still, it has cited reliable sources and doesn't need a complete rewrite, so it probably doesn't need to be deleted. However, the quality of that article doesn't matter. What matters is if your article contains blatant promotional language and lacks sources. If you rewrite it from a neutral point of view and cite sources, your article will stand a better chance of surviving. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 20:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

[[5]]

Hi Shadowlynk, I'm discussing a number of close speedy deletion calls at WT:CSD these days, this is one you were involved with. Feel free to weigh in. - Dank (push to talk) 22:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Your explanation sounds reasonable, and I don't really have anything to add. I'll keep an eye on the conversation and take everyone's comments into account when I tag articles for speedy in the future. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 00:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 00:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

ICU Global

Hi Shadowlynk

in response to your flag that the article i made wasnt written in a neutral point of view, im a fan and a follower of the video conferencing technologies, and this company is becoming quite a player in the industry and i noticed there wasnt an article already up about them. All of the info was taken from there site, not copy and pasted mind you but, i have no affiliate to the company and would have no reason to advertise for them. Al n Kate (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand, but it's still important to mind the neutral point of view policy. All articles on Wikipedia must be written neutrally, without any promotional language. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 20:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've deleted everything i can see that could be construed as promotional talk, everything on that page is now factual from my point of view, if you dont agree then please tell me in detail exactly what needs to be changed and I will get on it. Its still only points of view though, what you might see as an advert i might not vice versa. I have copied companies like webex, Adobe_Acrobat_Connect, Genesys_Conferencing and other video conferencing companies articles very closely whilst making this because i never wanted it to be viewed as a promotional source, please show me how this article is any different from any of those i have listed. It just seems like unless you buy wikipedia off like all these companies then anything you try to create gets undone, which is monopolisation and aload of crap man!

kind regards Al n Kate (talk) 08:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

To me, it does look somewhat better from a promotional viewpoint, but could still use some formatting cleanup. Other editors may disagree. That said, no one's gonna get angry at you for one article not adhering to the neutral point of view policy. It's a very detailed rule, and there's often debate over it and many other policies, so don't get too worked up if people see something and want to fix it. No single person owns a Wikipedia article, so other editors will work out anything that you miss. That's also the function of the tags editors place at the top of the articles; they inform other editors of areas that an article can be improved in. There's no need to remove them unless the situation is resolved, no reason to insist on being notified personally, and no reason to take them personally. I doubt anyone's bribing Wikimedia for a good article (at least I haven't heard of anything like that), and if you think other articles aren't following policies, you're free to improve them or tag them for improvement yourself. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 09:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

For your work

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		You tag with good accuracy (according to the deleting admins), you're fast, polite to new users, and a valuable asset to new page patrol. Keep up your work :) Kingpin13 (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! :) You're very kind. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 21:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Massive Improv

Hello Shadowlynk. Thank you for fixing the Massive Improv page for me! I really appreciate the help. Since you've last seen the page I have added several references. Do you think that the references I added are good enough to take off the warnings? Thanks again for the help! Hubie HappyHubie415 (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. Most of those references are just short announcements of "these people are here at this time". An article that gives longer, more in-depth coverage is what is really needed. Citation 5 is close, but if you can find anything longer, especially something that shows how it meets the notability guidelines, it would be helpful. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 20:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Holly Tucker

You really did reccomend Holly Tucker for speedy deletion rather, speedily. But as you may have read, the page was still under construction and therefore was not properly developed. I have since further developed the page and contested it's deletion. I really would apreciate if you could reconsider your decision and give the page a chance. It would also be helpful, since i am a new user, if you could provide any insight on how to further develop the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akjgo94 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll admit I probably jumped a bit fast on this, but from what I searched I saw no way this person could meet the notability guidelines for bands. Nothing has been released by a notable label, and what you say is a review is merely a page of uploads. Please review those guidelines, and add any references that would show she meets them. With the hangon and construction tags, admins will give you plenty of time to find them. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 08:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I see your point but once again I do believe that she is a notable source. Try this link. http://hollytucker.com/reviews.html Akjgo94 (talk) 08:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources need to be independent of the subject. The award information is enough to asset notability, which means it doesn't qualify for speedy, but it might not be enough to establish it, which means it could still be deleted in the future without better citations. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 08:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I have revised the references and external links on the said page. I have also added a reliable third party source. What do you think now?Akjgo94 (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Getting better. I'm still not so sure about it passing WP:BAND, though, mainly because of the local scope and "not there yet" tone of everything. Just keep improving it, and other editors will take interest and help. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 02:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:BAND number seven, "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." I think i meet this criteria. Akjgo94 (talk) 03:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

That has to be verified in a reliable source; namely, someone must declare Holly THE most prominent country singer in her region. And while I'm at it, if Holly is you, you might want to review the conflict of interest guidelines. Wikipedia is not for self-promotion. The article shows no signs of self-promotion currently, but it's something to keep in mind as you continue to improve it. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 03:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

No man. Im not Holly. Although i do attend classes with and I am a personal friend of Holly Tucker. I just thought that the is prominant in the waco area. Mabye i should list several better references but her name and face are known around Waco and the surrounding areas. Akjgo94 (talk) 03:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh hey, I found this on another orticle in the Waco Trib. Holly Tucker and Kaley Caperton are familiar faces and voices to Waco audiences, having sung, acted and performed on local stages, sporting events and community gatherings. They’ve written songs, recorded CDs and spent time with Nashville music professionals — all before their 16th birthdays. Waco’s no stranger to young talent and here are the two latest climbing the beginning rungs of music careers.Akjgo94 (talk) 04:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:COI does still apply to close friends. Again, I don't say this to accuse you of promoting her or discourage you from editing the article, it's just something to keep in mind and help guide your editing. Anyway, more sources is a good idea. A short blub still isn't much for passing the guidelines, but it won't hurt. Make sure to cite it, though, with a link to the web version of the article or the bibliographical information about the paper it appeared in. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 04:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Even though I am a close friend, I do beleive that i am using a very neutral point of view. And even though the guidlines are barely met, they are met. It has third party sources, both the article and the sources explain why she is notable now and possibly in the future, and even you added the bit about the local award. Once again, all of the guidlines are met and therefore this problem should be resolved. Akjgo94 (talk) 06:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, i hove no clue about the inline citations, you couldent help me could you? And what do you mean by orphan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akjgo94 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Those maintenance templates are to alert other editors to help improve the article. The inline citations are just a style to clean up the citation links so they aren't just sitting at the end of the article. I'm not too good with them myself, but others will know how to do it. The orphan tag just means that other articles don't mention this person yet. I'm still a bit leery about the notability thing, but if other editors find that the notability thing isn't a problem, they'll add the links to appropriate articles. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 07:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

TrueCookPlus Help

Hi, I recently created the TrueCookPlus Wikipedia page it's my first page I don't understand what I did wrong I would appreciate your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samzam2060 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It's written in a highly promotional tone. Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue to advertise your product. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 07:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok so what do I have to erase or change to fix that? Samzam2060 (talk) 08:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You'll need to review the guidelines on spam and NPOV, then rewrite the article from a neutral point of view. No subjective praise for what it does, and no unnecessary link spam. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 08:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Where is the link spam? Also where is the praise? I'm sorry I just don't see it. Samzam2060 (talk) 08:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, apparently no one else did, either. :\ Sorry. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 20:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for peer review

I am currently in the process of expanding upon George Washington's Farewell Address and would like to ask you to review the changes I have made in the spirit of a peer review to insure a lack of bias and fair representation and descriptions of the work. --Epignosis (talk) 08:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not the best person to ask for that. In general, I focus on cleaning up vandalism and inappropriate articles, so I'm much more familiar with deletion criteria than good article criteria. However, you can request a peer review here and someone who dedicates their time to peer reviews will take a look at the article. You'll get a much better quality review from them. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 08:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Please recheck

I have updated Shinosuke Tatekawa which you labelled as unsourced and with questionable notability. The link is to a Japanese government agency website. If you feel the article is sufficiently improved, please remove the templates. ImizuCIR (talk) 06:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a fairly minor mention, with the bulk of the page devoted to rakugo itself. Coverage in reliable sources must be significant to be notable. If you can, feel free to import any information or references from the Japanese Wikipedia article, as that likely could help meet the guidelines. Just be sure to mention where the information is from in the edit summary. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 09:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I've re-edited the article to include a reference to the primetime TV show he's presented for 14 years. I hope this is considered reasonable evidence that he's extremely well-known in Japan, and thus notable.ImizuCIR (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Claims of notability aren't the problem; the article needs reliable references to verify those claims. I added an award and citation to the article to help remove any notability concerns, but more references for the article's facts will be needed as the article is expanded. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 01:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your improvements to the article and (slightly more grudgingly!) making me improve the article. I have now added a link to the profile on his official homepage which confirms most of the given information. However, any other information, such as his exact birthday, or the information about the TV programme is in Japanese Wikipedia, and given the rather basic nature of the information, I would think Japanese Wikipedia could be trusted.

I hope this is now considered sufficiently verified, but even if not, it is a better cited article than many of the articles I have seen related to Japan. Of course, that is a good thing. ImizuCIR (talk) 03:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, excuse me, the TV programme information is actually on the external link. ImizuCIR (talk) 03:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's doing nicely now. And it's not so much a matter of whether or not the Japanese Wikipedia information is trustworthy, but a matter of what's in the English Wikipedia. The other article's existence is a good sign that this article should exist, but the notability still needs to be stated and cited here. Articles without that information can end up getting lost in the shuffle or deleted outright, which is why I tagged it to draw attention to the needed information. That's all. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 04:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

CSD

You are fast. Beat me to CSDing and notfying the user :) --Scythre^Talk_Contribs 19:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Nimansoft

Amandabinis (talk) 12:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Hello Shadowlynk, my name is Amanda. I thank-you for putting the tag on the page about Nimansoft. I just wonder how else I can accuracy fix it as you have probably made so many pages and edited a lot yourself! I have tried sourcing out all the information that I can, which you can see on the webpage.....Just found out it was deleted.... Thank-you so much again for your tag and hopefully future help, Amanda [:)]

Please review the notability criteria for organizations to see what criteria the company needs to meet. The article should state how they meet those criteria and contain citations of reliable, third party sources that confirm those claims. If the company does not meet the notability criteria, they don't qualify for an article. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 19:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Happy 10 Years!

partyhat.gif -- Tinister (talk) 02:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Miss you dearly, lynky.-- deco —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.188.107.15 (talk) 08:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy khakainversary to you, too. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 22:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from The Lost Heir

Hello Shadowlynk, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to The Lost Heir has been removed. It was removed by Bckaleman with the following edit summary '(←Blanked the page)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Bckaleman before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

ICU Global

Hello Shadowlynk, I was scrolling through the history of this page and noticed that you cited its material as an advert. Would it be possible for you to remove this page as to me it seems like an advert for the companys products. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.48.16 (talk) 08:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

As I've posted on my user page, I am not an administrator, and therefore do not have the ability to delete articles. I will tag articles for deletion if I think they should be removed, but only an admin can act on those tags. In this case, I'm not sure it qualifies. While the article does still retain some advertising language and lacks third-party sources, they aren't significant and blatant enough to require deletion. The article issues tag at the top of the article exists to alert readers and editors to possible problems in the article so they can be fixed in the future. You're more then welcome to edit the article yourself to fix any of these problems; however, please be mindful of the conflict of interest guideline. No single Wikipedia editor owns an article, especially one affiliated with the article's subject. If, after reviewing the policies and guidelines I've linked to here and considering improving the article yourself, you still believe it should be deleted, read and follow the procedures at articles for deletion to nominate the page for deletion discussion. Review the notability criteria for corporations for acceptable reasons to argue for deletion. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 09:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Double redirects

Don't even think about fixing double redirects, eg. Stefan salvatore. The Xqbot seems highly efficient at following me around and fixing my double redirects. I had a brief brain storm and took three moves to get List of resisters to the war in Afghanistan (2001-present) on to a sensible title. Watch it and see how the Xqbot gets on. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 07:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I see. Most impressive. :P -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 10:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

How to address/respond to way out-of-line Wikipedian "editor"

Shadowlynk - hello, you helped me in my first posting last year. (Thank you.) So I think you are a mentor? “Hall monitor?” On a article I primarily researched and contributed journalistic information to, another editor/contributor (ConicalJohnson) posted snide, angry commentary next to his multiple deletions — which is his choice, but moreover the same individual posted a surprisingly rude and bullish inflammatory "talk" page as well, in a non-Wikipedian manner. I believe the Wiki concept is for open editing, sharing of research and information, helpful deletions and guideline commentary designed to help to newcomers and all contributors become braver and more polished in their contributions, however those anointed with helping contributors are themselves supposed to have a neutral point of view as well...not a bitter, mean, angry and accusatory approach of personal attacks. To use COI allegations on an open page is harassing and threatening to me, Boolalah, that as well as an ugly deterrent to other contributors as well, and more; but moreover since this editor actually goes so far at to address his tirade to the personal name of person whom the article is about, instead of me, Boolalah pseudonym — this type of personal-attack behavior, to gain an upper hand in making deletions and edits (including deletions of media references – even deletions of (Photo) Howdy Doody(!), then after those deletions, to then add a "question of notability" tag) would especially seem to violate Wikipedia protocol guidelines for the neutrality of articles and the ability of editors to feel comfortable. He also added, "I'm watching this page." Pardon me? I believe what is most troubling about this entire matter is this editor exposing/posting personal nonobjective information about himself, opening saying "he lives in New Orleans" and "his opinion" and expressing his bias. Making personal comments about “personally” knowing other individuals that deletes. Even going so far at to say HE has not heard of the subject-matter New Orleans person of the article!? This is very disappointing behavior. We all have bad days…but… Wikipedia is not a New Orleans-based media, it is an international medium. At any rate, what it the appropriate step to take? Post on the talk page of Conical Johnson? Boolalah (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I may not be the best person to ask about this; in general, I enjoy watching the angry flailings of people taking Wikipedia far too seriously. Still, if you want to pursue the matter further, I think you have the right next step: discuss the issue with the editor on his talk page. Read over relevant behavior policies, such as civility and assuming good faith, and keep those policies in mind to steer the discussion toward a friendly tone. Angry name-calling will only escalate the situation. Politely ask him why he thinks you have a conflict of interest, and what information needs citations to prove its notability. Listen to those answers, and work with him to resolve the situation in a way you both can live with. I see he also mentioned neutral point of view concerns; check that policy as well to make sure the article meets its guidelines. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 21:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for being a helpful wikipedian!

I appreciate the speedy reply.

Boolalah (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Journal

Thanks for your note about Confluence: Academic Journal needing primary source. It is in fact registered at Library of Congress. I am not sure how to cite this as I am not as proficient w/ wiki as you are: http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&BBID=14511695&v3=1 http://lccn.loc.gov/2006214368

Seymour99999 (talk) 23:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you've got it covered just fine. Something with a bit more in-depth coverage than a simple registry entry will probably be necessary at some point, but that information is helpful. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 09:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

?????=

My article that I made is not about a person(biography). It's about a program that gives away beads. Did you even read my article? I don't know how it could look like it's about a person. Please don't delete it, it's not about a person. - BennyK95 - Talk 00:26, October 8 2009(UTC)

Organizations are also covered by the notability speedy deletion criteria. The message on your talk page mentions organizations, as does the deletion message on the article. Please see the notability criteria for organizations. If this charity program meets those criteria, edit the article to say how it does so, and include any reliable, third-party sources you can that will confirm that fact. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 04:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Posting Pictures From Wikimedia Commons

I have a picture uploaded on Wikimedia Commmons and I want to know step-by-step on how to post it onto my Wikipedia user page. (Jesuzfreak777 (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC))

Check here for the information. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 22:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)