User talk:TexasAndroid/Archive10

If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.

Archives	2005 First half, 2006 Second half, 2006 First half, 2007 July - Aug, 2007 Sep - Dec, 2007 Jan - May, 2008 May - Dec, 2008 Jan - May, 2009 June - Dec, 2009 Jan - June, 2010 July 2010 - Dec 2011 First half, 2012 Second half, 2012 2013 2014 Current

Question

I noticed you edit deletion sorting very regularly. I was wondering if you are using a bot of some sort or doing it all by hand? If it is a bot, it might be useful to run it on the toolserver to decrease downtime/resource utilization on your end. Regards. MBisanz ^talk 15:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Not quite a bot. It's an extension to Twinkle that I am using. Not sure how that fits in with your comments about the tools server. Basically it's a 2-click process to sort a given debate, beyond any clicks needed to figure out where to sort it. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahh ok, toolserver wouldn't help then. I thought it was some kind of automatic process. Good work on the sorting I must add. MBisanz ^talk 15:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Would like to know

why did you delete the Werner Nekes article? he is a known German director/film maker/artist I am researching his work, and web/instant translation from the German isn't very good. According to the former page, the reason is because:

"An article about a real person, an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people and organizations themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software and so on. The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion."

He won awards and he is recognized for his work in experimental cinema, professor in a respected university, isn't that enough?

[[1]] [[http://wernernekes.de/00_cms/cms/front_content.php?changelang=2 ]] [[2]] [[3]]

Ligria (talk) 11:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It was basically a copy of much of the content of this site. Scan down to the part that starts "Werner Nekes' SPACE CUT consists of two parts...", and you'll see what was on the deleted page. Really not proper Wikipedia material, and really says nothing towards his notability or non-notability, thus the deletion. That all said, if you think that he meets the notability inclusion guidelines, and want to create a new page on him from scratch, please feel free to do so. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Dofar libiration front

Yesterday, you tagged Dofar libiration front with {{rfd}}, but you did not complete the nomination by listing it at WP:RFD. Can you please complete the second step of the nomination? If you do not list it within a reasonable amount of time, I'll assume you no longer wish to see it deleted and will remove the template. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

That was not me. All I did was add a CR/LF between the RFD tag and the redirect in order that the automated toolsserver short pages report could properly identify it (If they are both on the same line, it flags it as RFD, but not redirect.) The person who actually RFDed it was User:A333 in the edit just before mine. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

D'oh! Misread the history. I'll notify the proper person. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Phil Edman

Hi. This page you protected some time ago after repeated re-creations when he was merely a failed election candidate. Last year, however, he was elected to the Western Australian Legislative Council, and thus now qualifies for inclusion under WP:BIO. I wonder if you might unprotect it. Frickeg (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Frickeg (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

(EC) The article's history has been restored, and for the moment userified to User:Frickeg/Phil Edman. This will let you look through the history to see if there is anything there worth building upon, or to start from scratch on a new article. If what you say is true about him now being in the an Austrailia state legislature, and you can provide sourcing to show this, then I suspect you'll soon have a good article on your hands, ready to return to article space. I've taken the userification step in part because there is still an outstanding AFD on the article from a couple of years back. So I'm a little hesitant to just directly unprotect. But if you can get it to show what you say is the case, then I would say that the issues from that old AFD would have been dealt with. - TexasAndroid (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, right. Well, I can provide this link (you just have to find his name alphabetically). I've moved him back to the mainspace for the time being, as I was going through creating stubs for all the new MLCs who were sworn in on 22 May. I'll see if anything from the old article is worth including. Thanks again. Frickeg (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Look through the history carefully. There are at least 4 old versions. The original, AFDed, and 3 later recreations that ended up in the WP:SALTing of the title. - TexasAndroid (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Xylo

Hi, I tried to follow the RFD, but was not able to complete the process for some reason. Maybe you could initiate it? Anyway, regarding the 'Xylo' redirect, there are many commercial products and companies using this name, as well as individuals. It therefore feels like biased advertising promotion to have this word/name/term used exclusively for one product in particular. I am trying to stop Wikipedia being used as a platform to promote selective business interests. Thanks. (Zeteki (talk) 07:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

I have started the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 June 4, with your comments above as the initial argument for deletion. The debate will take a week or so, and please leave the debated redirect, now properly RFD tagged, in place at least that long so that others who wish to join the debate can evaluate it. - TexasAndroid (talk) 11:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Help desk enquiry

Your redirect of Make Em Say Uhh has been quesioned by someone asking at the help desk. Perhaps you'd like to comment/explain? Just thought you should know. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 16:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have responded there. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion sorting

Hey TA: thanks for your help on deletion sorting of the list (and other) AfD's; just wanted to let you know that I have moved some of the list of people AfDs from the general list AfD sorting page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists of people, which is the more specific page that is watched by a slightly different group of editors, who are more focused on WP:BLP and other policies relevant to people. Probably makes sense to sort AfDs of lists of people to that page instead. Thanks! UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. The semi-automated tool pops up a big list of possible categories, and I had not even noticed the "of people" version until sometime yesterday. So yeah, I'll try to use that going forward. An in general I have zero problem with people cleaning up after me if I mess up. It's a Wiki after all. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Page 66

If you're still around this article is back.. complete with speedy tag. :) t'shael ^mindmeld 03:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

And again...t'shael ^mindmeld 03:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see you zapped it. Good show. :) t'shael ^mindmeld 03:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:SALT has been invoked. - TexasAndroid (talk) 03:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

John Doman Turner

Howdy - I've undeleted this article. The stub was created to help unravel a knot of different cross-linked "John D Turner"s. I'm not at all an art-lover and have to confess I'd never heard of him until a few days ago, although his association with Spencer Gore and membership of the Camden Town Group (whom even a non-arty like myself has heard of) put him easily above the notability bar. Hopefully someone can dig out some more details on him to avoid similar problems in the future. - TB (talk) 21:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Notability is not transferred. Membership in a notable group, or working with another notable person, does not transfer notability. I'll let it sit for a few days, but if notability is not shown soon, an AFD is going to follow fairly soon. - TexasAndroid (talk) 11:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Another user has edited your username

Hello! Please see this in which an account has omitted a letter from your username. Not sure if it was just accidental or what, but anyway, giving you a heads up. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Drawn Some is a familiar name at AFDs, and it was done to a sorting edit, not to any edit of real substance, so I'm inclined to assume it was accidental. - TexasAndroid (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, just thought I would give you a heads up anyway. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest

You might want to check the contrib log this article and many other has been created on small non notable airlines and the user continues to recreate them. If you dstill believe afd is the way to go I defer to your judgmnt but look at the warning for csd on may 28 and the current creation is may 30th. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Seair SeaplanesHell in a Bucket (talk) 03:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Netscribes

The article is still being edited. We are working on writing a neutral perspective about the firm. I would request you to keep the article on hold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitagagwani (talk • contribs) 07:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The AFD debate will run for a full seven days at least, and then another admin will pass judgment. So you have a few days for improvements, but not infinite at this point. - TexasAndroid (talk) 11:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Article deleted

I have been writing the article about Flagship Bank. The first couple tries I did not read the instructions or requirements on how to write an article. The last article I wrote, I believe complied with article requirements. I believe the deletion may have had something to do with the article being repeatedly deleted and/or with the article looking like an advertisement. I tried to write a history of the bank and also give some other factul information about the bank. Could the article be reinstated or what could I change to keep the article from being deleted? rmold524 --Rmold524 (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:SPAM, WP:CORP, and WP:NPOV. You need to have an article that reads like a neutral encyclopedia entry, not like ad copy or like a company web page. The last version had little of encyclopedic use, and really only seemed to exist to hype the bank. Even the history was not IMHO particularly encyclopedic. Take a look through some of the existing articles on similar entities on the project to get an idea of what a good encyclopedia article looks like. If you would like me to place the history from the article at a location in your user space, so that it can be worked on, I can do that. Also please read WP:COI. If you are connected to this bank, then you may really not be the correct person to be creating an article on it. It is very, very difficult to write neutrally about things which one is directly connected with. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll take the history from the article. Just paste it in my user space. Thank you for the help. --Rmold524 (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It, and it's post-copyvio history, are now at User:Rmold524/Flagship Bank. - TexasAndroid (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Sporolides A and B

You keep deleting my page and I still don't understand since I did my own images and I'm citing EVERYTHING. Please, explain without sending links to read. This is part of my Natural Products graduate class... I will appreciate your help and support. Greyesro (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools

Hi, I think that you do a fantastic job on DELSORT. However, I was just wondering if, when you add to Schools, whether you would be good enough to add them to the appropriate section, please? TerriersFan (talk) 17:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I use an automated tool for the sorting. It's a 2/3 click process to sort a page. Given the volume of pages to sort, I'm not particularly keen on the prospect of sorting without it. It was only when I got the tool installed, and saw how easy it was to use, that I started sorting in mass. Before that I did a handful of pages a day, and that was about my max. Even with the tool, there are some pages that are not compatible with it (video games, porn-bio), and I tend to simply not sort to them.

So I guess what I'm saying is that, if more is needed than the tool can provide, my inclination is to skip those sorts and simply let someone else do them. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, thx for the explanation - pl carry on as before :-) TerriersFan (talk) 00:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep up the good work

Thanks for the work you've been doing with deletion sorting of games. You may get a bit of flak from the games' fans, but keeping the wiki tidy does just as much good as adding new content. Well done! Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for spending so much time making Wikipedia the useful source for quality information that it is. Your comments on the New York politicians deletions are appreciated, but I think many of us in New York are confused by your comments. New York is one of the few "home-rule" states in the country, and as such, has a unique political structure, thus making levels of government noteworthy that may not be in other states. I would be happy to author an article about this if it would help. Certainly, your experience with Wiki is valued, and we aim to comply with Wiki guidelines. Thank you --Spydrwomyn (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ram Narayan peer review

Hi! I'm looking for a peer review for Ram Narayan. You've been involved in editing (actually, you deleted the article), perhaps you want to take a look? Thanks :) Hekerui (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Delate Article

Hello, Why do you want delate article of Rodrigo Montt Swett. I don´t understarnd. Because, he is a very important person in Chile. Very know. Sinceraty, Andreehuer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreehuer (talk • contribs) 20:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:BIO, especially the section on politicians. Articles on Wikipedia must minimum levels of notability standards in order to remain. If they do not meet the requirements, they are deleted. The WP:BIO links gives those requirements. IMHO he does not meet the politician requirements at this time, and there is no indication in the article that he meets the general biography requirements. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

ASRock

Could you move the deleted article ASRock (both deleted versions, if possible) to my user space? Their products would most likely pass a test of notability,[4] and the previous deletions were speedies whose issues I can probably address. I'd like to see the old versions in case they contain usable information. Thanks. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It's now at User:Ham Pastrami/ASRock. - TexasAndroid (talk) 11:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD DelSort suggestion

It would probably be less disruptive to ongoing conversations if your AWB added the templates to the top of the discussion sections. Ω (talk) 12:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You likely want to bring that up at the talk page for the sorting project and/or the talk page of the tool's programmer. I'm just a user of the tool, and am far from the righ tperson to talk to about changes in the tool's functionality and/or the sorting process. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

AH, OK, will do. I made an assumption that you were the tool author. My bad! :) Ω (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Total Drama X-Treme AFD and speedy deletion

Ah, I didn't realize that obvious misinformation fit under the G3 vandalism speedy deletion criteria, although I should have. Learn something every day... Thanks for taking care of the article. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

TexasAndroid try to edit and but not delete

Instead of deleting articles submitted by users, try to correct mistakes and try to add more stuff. I saw may articles, with law suites against company and all negative and unnecessary info to public. So try to edit and give correct info to public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Videophone (talk • contribs) 17:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

People work on the parts of the project where their skills and strengths lead them. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for all the efforts with deletion sorting. I've found them very useful! Hobit (talk) 17:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	For an outstanding job with deletion sorting! Hobit (talk) 17:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I came here to say the same thing Hobit did, thanks for all the sorting. Honestly, I thought you were a bot because of Android in your name. Drawn Some (talk) 03:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Just an editor with a vaguely bot-like handle. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 05:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I was convinced you were a bot too, partially because of your username but partially because you show up in almost every AfD with a delsort. Then I saw your comments at an AfD and thought you were the most sophisticated bot ever made! You're such a huge help with what you do. -- Atama^chat 00:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for review

this is regarding my wikipedia entry on i-meet Sorry, this is my first time using this wikpedia and i'm new to navigating it. I didn't know posting article like this would piss so many people off. Our company would like to introduce i-Meet to the world, which is making waves in our meeting industry and has many unique features that are specific only for our industry. We have over 9000 members now in a short 6 months and the largest organization in this industry space is Meeting Planner international with around 30k.

Regarding notablity, how do i make my article more notable, Our PR releases contains quotes from large companies in our industry space, such as Starcite and influential people in the industry such as Rod Marymor and even featured in the Philadelphia inquirer, one of the largest newspaper in philadelphia.

I will edit the references to make it more notable and the article to tone down the tone and i hope you will take a second look at it and provide suggestions so i can get off the delete list. Killrek (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2009

The answer most likely is that you can't. But I'll comment at the deletion debate to see if I can help you at all. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for reconsideration

Hi there. You recently deleted the Strength of glass article via the CSD G12 criteria, citing an unambiguous copyright violation from the following links: [5] and [6]. Following up a request for advice from my adoptee logger9, who is the author of these and many other full-length glass-related articles, I asked for and obtained off-wiki the last version of the article before you speedily deleted it. I then reviewed the article, and found, to the extent that I could see, no actual copyright violation. This backs up a statement I received from logger9 over email, which I will selectively quote from: "...I just happened to notice that the article on Strength of glass has been removed in its entirety due to copyright violation. I went to the website they mentioned, and have to say that I have never even seen it before. It is certainly true that I have read and reviewed and relied heavily on the work of Kurkijan (and would be glad to rewrite the article if necessary)..." While the article may have broken some plagiarism guidelines, I would ask that the editor actually be given a chance to work on any possible errors in that regard. Requesting undeletion in good faith that logger9 will work on the article, NW (Talk) 03:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The second and third paragraph from the intro are taken almost directly from here, with a few minor word changes. The second and third paragraph of the "Extrinsic strength" section are taken directly from here. One was taken from the other. It's possible that the linked texts are copies of Wikipedia, not the other way around, but they do not look like any sort of WP mirror I've seen before, so I really doubt it. We can get some additional eyes on this, if you feel we need to, but at this poitn the copying looks pretty blatant to me, at least. - TexasAndroid (talk) 03:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I see; the wording changes must have thrown me, as I was just doing Ctrl+F searches for certain phrases, followed by plagarism searches via automated detectors. I wonder then if it is possible for you to userfy the article/send me an email of the last remaining text; I'll work with logger in either his userspace or on an offline wiki to make sure that the article is copyright compliant. (Email is listed on my userpage) Sincerely, NW (Talk) 03:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite conflicted here. We generally do not restore copyvios. I really want to AGF, but am finding it hard. We have two warring "experts" in a highly technical science field. We have one of those edit warriors finding 4 paragraphs of copyvio in a huge article. There's a lot of the article that has not been identified as copyvio. But it all was added at the same time, in whole cloth. So I feel the stuff not yet identified as copyvio to be tainted. Is it clean, or have we just not found the source? logger9 is denying ever seeing the source site before, but what does that mean? Maybe both the article and the page have a undiscovered common source? Maybe... maybe.... but I don't know. I really feel like I'm seeing just the tip of a gigantic iceberg of a situation. So, as I said, I want to AGF, but am finding it hard at this point. TexasAndroid (talk)

I think there might be a book source behind all of this which is partially reproduced at the above website, and it just wasn't paraphrased well enough. I know that ordinarily you might delete this kind of thing, but I was wondering if you might make an exception in this case. I would be willing to go through both articles and rewrite them to get rid of anything that vaguely looks like plagiarism or copyright violations, and then spend a while investigating both editors' contributions. So, what do you think? NW (Talk) 15:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It's now at User:NuclearWarfare/Strength of glass. I'm not sure this is the right course of action, but then in a case this messy, with so little known of what's actually going on, it's difficult to know what could be the right course. For now, I'll let you dig into it and see what you can find. See also Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Too complicated for another piece of this whole mess. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I'll see what I can do with this mess. I'll dive into this with logger and see what I can come up with. I was wondering, by the way, if you could check out this edit war and possibly resolve it without blocking both the editors? NW (Talk) 19:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE DELETE THE PAGE

Look dude, this page was ALSO just deleted. What makes 2005 so special? Timneu22 (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, it should not have been speedy deleted. The criteria that was used to delete that one specifically says "recently created". While "recently" is a little nebulous, something created over a year ago simply does not fit the definition. Please, use the proper venue and get a deletion discussion going at WP:RFD. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

And, I see now that you restored the CSD again, thus admin-shopping until you found an admin willing to do an (IMHO) invalid speedy deletion. I have contacted that admin to complain. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

@TexasAndroid: Oops. I misread the date - I thought they were created in 2009, not 2008. I'll restore them now, as you're right, that should go to RfD. Thanks for letting me know.

@Timneu22: Texas is correct here, and your actions were quite inappropriate. The only reason I deleted these redirects is that I only took a quick glance at the history and read "2009" instead of "2008", and didn't even check the rest of the history. I'll admit that my treatment of this wasn't proper either, but when an administrator declines a speedy deletion, it is not proper to continue to tag the page for deletion. You should have gone to RfD to begin with as instructed. Please do not do this again. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, there were other pages that were deleted a few days ago. So you guys are right and the other one was wrong? Why is the 2005 redirect still around if the 2002 redirect was recently deleted? What is the point to keeping around a useless redirect? And for the record, I never, ever, went "admin shopping." I simply cleaned up other pages and then requested the delete. This type of accusation — should you presume to make it again — should seriously call your admin-ship into question. Timneu22 (talk) 03:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for the actions of other administrators, however Texas is correct in that criteria R3 is specifically and exclusively for recent redirects. A month-old redirect is somewhat stretching it perhaps; a year, however, it well out of the range of that criteria. Continuing to tag the redirects as such is disruptive. You are correct in that these redirects are likely to be deleted, however, so just bring it to RfD and let's stop wasting our time here. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Question

Why did you delete my article about the Valley Athletic Social League? Couldn't you just edit it if you thought it needed something extra? What can I do to make it right so you will let me keep it? Do you work for Wikipedia? I don't understand what is going on? - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilligan13910 (talk • contribs)

I cannot see how I was previously involved with the deletion of the article, sorry. As for the latest incarnation, I do not see that it meets the project's notability requirements, and have thus begun a deletion discussion on it. - TexasAndroid (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Paradyne

Hi TexasAndroid, Why a group of people are erasing all the information posted in Wikipedia about Paradyne and Zhone Technologies? This a public company with a history to share. trs80 (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:CORP for notability requirements for articles on companies. Unless you can show that the company meets Wikipedia's requirements for inclusion, then an article on the company does not belong on the project. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Socionics article

What was your motivation for holding the deletion debate? Tcaudilllg (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

My only action on that debate was to sort the debate, so I'm not really sure why you are asking me this question. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I'm sorry. Then who is the "consensus declarer"? Tcaudilllg (talk) 19:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That will be an admin who, after the time period is up, decides to process the AFD. There's no way to know in advance who that will turn out to be. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Alexis Jordan

I have undone your reinstatement of Alexis Jordan redirecting to the "America's Got Talent (season 1)" page and the listing of the swimmer that actually has the name. My intention in listing the "red linked" entry was to show that it, Alexis Jordan (swimmer), was needed. Some people who clicked on an "Alexis Jordan" link, actually might want to find out about someone named Alexis Jordan rather than going to an article about a TV show that is not of that name. If the contestant of said show is notable, perhaps a page should be created for her.... Hooperswim (talk) 02:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Email

I sent you an email a couple days back; do you think you could get back to me when you have the time? Thanks, NW (Talk) 04:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll look at it when I get a chance, but for now, if the copyvios are gone, then that's what was my main concern. So I have no problem for now with it returning to article space. - TexasAndroid (talk) 05:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

IMDB

Hi, is Internet Movie Database a reliable source for articles? If so, would this be classed as a reliable and crediting source http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3495512/ Thanks Oliva-pj (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

IMDB is generally not considered a reliable source. For lengthy discussions on the subject, check out the talk page of Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. It was not a successful policy push, but it'll give you an idea of the general attitudes around here about IMDB, even if it failed to reach an actual consensous. - TexasAndroid (talk) 23:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Living people deletion sorting

I was unaware that there was any discussion over it's future, the deletion sorting page just implies that it is temporarily unavailable due to bot error and that it will be returning shortly. There is no mention that people should stop tagging though, indeed the links imply that the tagged AfDs can be viewed by clicking them. Now I know I shouldn't be tagging as Living People I'll stop. Thryduulf (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Listing is the key action. Tagging is to show that the AFD has been listed. Listing cannot happen currently, so the tag points readers to a non-existent listing. Without the listing, the tagging is mostly meaningless. - TexasAndroid (talk) 02:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Request to remove recreation block on page

Hello, I understand that the Adventures In Missions(Georgia) was flagged as a blatant advertising page and was blocked by you to be recreated (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adventures_In_Missions_(Georgia)). I am requesting that you remove it. When the page is recreated, it will adhere to the standards.

Jeff.goins (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Jeff Goins

I suggest that you start the page in your userspace first (see Wikipedia:Subpages), and then ask again so that it can be verified whether the page does adhere to the standards. If you ask at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard then any admin can take a look whenever you are ready, rather than having to wait for one specific person to be online. Thryduulf (talk) 23:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with any other admin undoing the protection if they feel that an article has been created that meets the requirements of the project. The comment above about making it first in user space is right on, though I would suggest you go to WP:RFPP once you think you have it read, rather than the admin noticeboard. RFPP is specifically for requesting page protections/unprotections.

There is another issue that will be a problem bigger than the advertising issue. Advert deletions can be dealt with by writing in a strict WP:NPOV manner. But beyond that is the issue of notability. The article in question was deleted twice for failure to meet the project's notability inclusion requirements. And even a NPOV written article would still be deleted again if notability is not shown as is required on the project. See WP:ORG for the notability requirements fro organizations. - TexasAndroid (talk) 02:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Total Drama Dance

I agree wholeheartedly with your CSD G3 rationale for deleting this article, however, I had started an AfD discussion for it. It would not surprise me in the slightest if someone removed the template before you came across it but since the article has been deleted could you also perhaps formally close the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Total Drama Dance? Thank you. --BlueSquadronRaven 02:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone will come along and do so. Closing AFDs in not something I've done very often, so I'm not geneally familiar with the proper technical steps to do so. Sorry. - TexasAndroid (talk) 02:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Glottometrics

I just found this page using the random article link, and i had never seen this kind of page before. i see there are a lot on your subpage. i dont know what this is called, and had not read about it on WP. what is this kind of link called, and should i ever create one for words with no article here, but with a dictionary def in wiktionary?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Check out WP:Soft Redirect. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

As for the sub-page, I use it to generate this report, which I check every few days to see what has been happening to the pages referenced on the list. - TexasAndroid (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

thanks, good info for me. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Football Manager 2010 AfD

Hiya. I see you listed the AfD for Football Manager 2010 under American football. I removed it, as this is the other football (i.e. soccer). :) Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 14:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Slam Dunk characters

I have nominated Category:Slam Dunk characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. TTN (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Nausicaa characters

I have nominated Category:Nausicaa characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. TTN (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Minister for Men

TexasAndroid, I need your help. I have spend along time writing up and rectifying the article Minister for Men and it has been deleted a 2nd time. I am sick and tired of myself spending along time on this such article only for individuals who do not agree it should be on Wikipedia (even when it has ample amount of references) and a popularity in connection to the sources provided. please could you reply on my talk page. Thank you so much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trippleact (talk • contribs) 18:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you are wanting of me. In your comments on my talk page you never ask a question or give any hint of what kind of help you are wanting from me. Sorry. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

David James

In regards to David James (actor), this is protected from recreation. I wanted to move David James (English actor) there, do you think it would be possible to do this? IT would also serve to protect against this 'David James Millar' in the edit history, in the meanwhile it would shorten the parentheses needed to list for disambiguation. Tyciol (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Done - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Can't be arsed

The article Can't be arsed has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced nonsense.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Cmichael (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Brett Cohen

Necessary reasoning was not given for the deletion of Brett Cohen. The article was being disputed, but the dispute was not settled at the time of deletion. It needed some work and editing, but should remain up until a contributor works with the given sources and references in order to complete the page. (173.3.168.75 (talk) 04:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC))

If you disagree with the outcome of a deletion debate, the proper place to protest is, first, on the talk page of the deleting admin, and secondly at Deletion Review. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thia Megia

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll start another AfD. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of new article concerning Houseplant Picture Studio

As I am a new participant in Wikipedia, I perhaps know very little about how things are really run. However I would like to know more about why you (and only you, it seems...) deleted my brand new article about the website "Houseplant Picture Studio" - I had visited the "John Townley" Wikipedia page and noticed a reference to Houseplant Picture Studio. I made the effort to start an entire page and was given the go ahead (Wikipedia style) - this is frustrating to me. Houseplant Picture Studio is a long time member of the internet artistic community and very well known on the Web - and it seems as if I am unable to start a Wikipedia page devoted to it. What exactly is the problem? Please reply in real English, not technical Wikipedia jargon (as I already suffer from chronic migraines) - Thank you for your time - Dorothy —Preceding unsigned comment added by DorothyHaskin (talk • contribs) 06:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:CORP. Wikipedia has minimum notability requirements for articles. The link spells out the requirements for companies. - TexasAndroid (talk) 11:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

As groaningly expected, you have replied to my earnest question with Wikipedia technical jargon (ie; "please read WP:CORP") - are you not able to reply to my queries in plain English in your own unique human way(s)? After all, it seems as if you (and you alone) have made the very quick decision NOT to allow me to continue to edit and develop my article about Houseplant Picture Studio. Honestly, if all you can do is refer me to Wikipedia red tape text then your "job" (even if done on a volunteer basis) is very limited. In other words, why not substitute a Wikipedia internet robot for you? BTW I have read WP:CORP and find it to be completely confusing and intentionally puzzling. I would like to read what YOU (apparently a human being) have to think (specifically) about my attempt to begin and nourish an article about Houseplant Picture Studio - - Houseplant Picture Studio is notable, much more notable than many other subjects featured within Wikipedia. - thanks again - DH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.13.12 (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles on Wikipedia must meet Wikipedia's definition of notability. Not your definition, but ours. The link I give defines those requirements far better than I could explain them. If you cannot understand what is laid out there, I doubt I can make you understand. That page is written be people far more eloquent than me. But I'll give it a try.

At it's most basic, notability on Wikipedia is defined by the level of attention that an organization has gotten. It is most basically shown by providing links to references about the company. References to establish notability must reliable, independent, and non-trivial. Each of those three word is crucial, and they each cover different things. Blogs, other wikis, etc are not Reliable. Your organization's web site, press releases, or reporting of press releases are not Independent. A name in a list, or a a one sentence mention is a Trival reference.

If you can provide multiple references that meet those three requirements, then the organization is likely notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. If you cannot, then you are likely fighting a losing battle here. Sorry.

As for me acting alone, my position as an Admin here means that I have been entrusted to use my judgment to make exactly these types of decisions. If you can provide the required references, I can be persuaded to change my mind. Or, if you want to contest my actions, the proper forum for such is to begin a Deletion Review debate. Such a debate will bring together input from many Wikipedia editors, admins and non-admins alike. I've been overturned before. I'm human, my judgment is not perfect. But in the current case, given the total lack of references and lack of any indication that the organization is likely to meet the project's notability guidelines, I stand by my decision. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I understand a little better now. Although I still wonder why I was given the go ahead to write and develop an article about Houseplant Picture Studio by Wikipedia itself (if it was only going to be deleted within mere hours by you and you alone) - the original "John Townley" article where Houseplant Picture Studio is first mentioned was obviously important and "notable" or "non-trivial" enough to get on to the Wikipedia website - therefore (in my mind) Houseplant Picture Studio is ipso facto important and "non-trivial" enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. If you refuse Houseplant Picture Studio then the John Townley article must also be refused. The Wikipedia laws and voluminous red tape text is too much for me or anyone to practically read...therefore please consider this a formal complaint against you as an Administrator and against Wikipedia as an internet organization. I will also lodge a complaint via official Wikipedia ways and means - thanks - DH - - - PS - the fact that one person (you) can make or break an article is obscene and plain wrong. Wikipedia is obviously not a democratic or fair entity as it is advertised in the media...it's nothing but another stuffy bureacracy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.13.12 (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Democracies have people empowered to enforce the rules/laws just like the admins are empowered here. Democracies have checks and balances on those people in authority. So does Wikipedia. I've pointed you to the proper check on my actions, Deletion Review.

Glancing at the page for John Townley, I'm not sure that page would survive a full deletion debate, though there are hints that he *might* be notable between his organization presidencies and his published books. If any of those books were from major publishing organs, that would likely be enough for notability right there.

But looking at that page, the mention of your organization appears to amount to you having done a Q&A/interview of him. I'm sorry, but interviewing a notable person does not confer notability on the interviewer. The interviewer need to show how it is separately notable. One of the frequently quoted notability rules around here is that "Notability is not inherited". Being the son/daughter/parent of a notable person does not make one notable. But it extends in many other ways. An organization is not notable simply because one of it's members in notable. A high-school coach is not notable if one of his players goes on to professional sports. And so on and so on. Notability needs to be established separately for separate people/organizations/companies/etc.

And along these lines it's very common for articles on notable subjects to have links to things that are important in the context of the subject, but are not notable enough for their own articles. Sorry. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

AGT Quarterfinals

Hi TexasAndroid, about the edits for AGT, i organized them into a table because it looks neater that way, if you want, i could include all the performance info within the table. If you check the page for Britain's Got Talent, the information is all organized, for AGT since Season 2 it is just text. Cpudude91 (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see seasons 2 and 3 of AGT for how the current form develops. It ends up nicely with all the performance data for each performer collected nicely in one place for that performer, as opposed to ending up with a bit here, a bit there, etc. The acts that continue migrate down and down until they reach their point of elimination/win. I personally think that the tables tend to look rather ugly, but that's just my opinion, and I fully realize that others like them. So Last year I decided to pretty much ignore the various forms of elimination charts/tables, and let others deal with them. It's similar with your tables. I don't really like them, but I'm not going to raise a stink about their inclusion. But when you revert the progress that others have made, and try to replace that progress with a totally different way of doing things, you are going to get opposition. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

i get it- thanks for all your help Cpudude91 (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

AGT S4 Split

i have created the reference section for America's Got Talent (Season 4 Auditions) it includes all the references for the auditions. Cpudude91 (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep. That's the easy part. The harder part is figuring out a proper home for the ten missing episode base reference tags from the main page. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just gone ahead and dropped the base episode refs into the remaining prelim paragraph for now. Not an idea place for them, with the bulk of the data on each episode removed, but they need to be somewhere on the main page, as they are referred to over and over below that point. Without them, all the references directly to the episodes break down in the reference section. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, i relisted my vote for the afd of Agt S4 Auditions because of the relisted debate, as Gage also did with his merge vote. I changed my vote on the relisted debate to a comment after you posted. Cpudude91 (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Paragon Wiki stuff

If you're still alive and kicking, Matt Fitzpatrick is still requesting that there be a link to Paragon Wiki on the City of Heroes article. It appears you replied to him late last month and he's still revisiting it, with my opinions not seeming to matter to him.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Err...:)

Given this & the fact that you protected it this seems odd?

Looking at the history I'd go for the fact that Lynn & Vickychen are puppets. They are on Commons. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. The new instance has been deleted and SALTed as well. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem, thanks. Images deleted on Commons (& I'll watch them) and accounts blocked. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert

I apologize for not responding on this sooner, but thanks for the revert of Colin Shaw. Greatly appreciated. Chris (talk) 13:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Evidence regarding Bigfoot

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Evidence regarding Bigfoot. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evidence regarding Bigfoot. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You are becoming a little tyrant with that delete button of yours

Why did you delete the page for the calorie restricted society, which is linked from the calorie restricted diet. I am a user of wikipedia and i find this most annoying, when information is removed like this. I have contributed to wikipedia in the past, sometimers we get a little dictator, a overzealous guy (useually a teenager) who fancies himself an editor, are you one of these you dumbkoph Please retore the article with immediate effect or I will complain to your peers and betters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.158.83 (talk) 07:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The article was deleted, over a year ago, because it did not meet the project's inclusion rules. Articles on organizations must show how the organization meets at least a minimum level of notability. Please read WP:ORG for the criteria for organizations. Until/unless it can be shown how the organization meets these criteria, I'm afraid that I must decline your request. If you wish to protest my deletion, the proper venue in which to lodge such a complaint is Deletion Review, where you can start a debate on whether or not my deletion was proper. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)