User talk:Thparkth/Archives/2010/June

Divinely inspired

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		Thanks for suggesting the poem tags at Divine countenance — an elegant solution which is new to me. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment

Thank God there are some people here on Wiki with common sense! I just had article ongoing yesterday for 30 min before some wiseguy removed all my initially job without informing me first about his concern. So its just tag for deletion and quick remove without know whats really going on. There should be moe people like You, Im glad that You take time to remove such tags and defend us writers of articles!

Many thanks for Your efforts to make this place better!

Sincerely, Camdan (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mike_Wilson_%28filmmaker%29 I suggest you read this, oh ye of the unbiased conscience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.85.24 (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Breut Carmen

Forgive me i'm not as savy a user as I would hope. Couple of notes regguarding your thumbs up to JzG on speedy deletion of Breut Carmen article.

• My first reference link does simply go to the Minnesota State High School League baseball page. I admit I was having difficulty finding the page showing the 1973 state champions results I was looking for. Which by itself can be found on wiki.
• Practically the entire book Forest for the Trees is unavailable on google books. Rightfully so, if book content were free we would have no use for wiki.
• The missing "s" in The News Tribune was a typo. As for the news papers name being changed in 1979 you are correct. But that was the year the the M-Sa and su papers were combined from The News Tribune and Sunday Ledger respectively to simply The News Tribune M-Su. As JzG is so fond of internet references this can be found at: http://www.thenewstribune.com/aboutus/company/history.

I admit I should have possible started this in my sandbox, but was under the impression that my references were sufficeint. I also figured I had a few days to get my facts in order when the first Hoax flag appeared. Sadly unsound thinking on my part. I am searching out sound Minor League stats for Breut but am having difficulty when the MiLB site itself only goes back five years. This was sadly a failed endevour, and I will seek out other venues until enough outside source material becomes available. Thank you for your support at first but just wanted to set you straight a bit. Dwalmsong (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

On balance, I, and at least two other editors found it more likely that your story was a hoax than that it was real. Of course we might be wrong, and if so, I apologize - but it's likely someone would have nominated the article for deletion anyway on the grounds that it was completely unverifiable.

I'll be happy to help you prove that the article isn't a hoax, if you're willing. If you have a scanner, or even a digital camera, and you're willing to email me an image of page 149 of that book, then assuming it actually does talk about Mr Carmen, I will apologize for doubting you, vouch for the truth of your article, and see what we can do about getting it recreated. Does that sound of interest? Please let me know.

Thparkth (talk) 02:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom Case Notice

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

Thanks for the note. I'm guessing you sent it to everyone who commented on that thread? I'm pretty sure I'm uninvolved - I don't believe I ever expressed an opinion as to whether you should be blocked or not. Thparkth (talk) 12:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

RE: Speedy deletion nomination of Flame tail tetra

Sorry about that, I'm still learning. --BurtAlert (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank You!

Hi! I'm new to creating/editing articles in Wikipedia and doesn't have any in depth background in doing so. I attempted to start creating an article about Emma Brown since it's still not found in wiki. I was not able to finish it due to lack of resources and my lack of expertise in creating an article. The article that i started was even tagged for speedy deletion but you untagged it and continued it instead. I was so grateful that you considered continuing it and making it way much better than if i had done it myself. now, im spending more time in learning how to create a good and credible article. Thank you! Cherieshed 7 00:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherieshed 7 (talk • contribs)

Re: For the Record

I never said we were edit warring. Maybe you're confused with the section I created for WavePart and I. Thank you for your links and I completely understand what you're saying about the lead and the body. I will make sure to expand those new sources in the body of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torontokid2006 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi again :) I just wanted to thank you for weighing in on my RFE. Wow, have I ever learned a lot in the last 11 days! I think your comment and assessment of my contributions is fair and I appreciate your time in introducing me to this community and system.Torontokid2006 (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you!

Thparkth - Thank for your participation and support in my RfA.

I can honestly say that your comments and your trust in me are greatly appreciated.

Please let me know if you ever have any suggestions for me as an editor, or comments based on my admin actions.

Thank you!  7  23:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for being an effective rescuer!

		The Third Opinion Award
		I really appreciate the third opinion you left on Sisk Observatory and your User page was very helpful in helping clarify what is an appropriate SD and what is not. Cheers! — -- φ OnePt618Talk φ 03:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Anya Bazanova

The article Anya Bazanova has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Only notable for 1 event and only 1 source available doesn't meet WP:GNG

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. Syrthiss (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Andre Botelho

Hi. This page is a fairly obvious spammy advertising article aiming to clickthrough to the website given in the article. I don't doubt that Mr Botelho runs a football training academy, but I strongly doubt it is worthy of notability. Re-requesting Speedy. Captmonkey (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

*sigh* Ho-hum. More spam on wikipedia. One google will tell you all you need to know - http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22andre+botelho%22 - it's all shameless self-promotion. This person is not notable. Captmonkey (talk) 13:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

(After reading your User page) - far be it for me to stop your (somewhat misguided) speedy-reversion crusade. Rock on - and - your message on *my* talk page asked me to write on *your* talk page, so perhaps it should be me questioning *you* why we're having this conversation on two different pages! :) Anyhow, have fun - I'm sure the spammy page will be gone soon. Captmonkey (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that removing inappropriately-placed speedy deletion tags is "misguided". To be honest I feel that the minority of new page patrollers who like to use speedy deletion tags for reasons they were never intended are the "misguided" ones. The article we're discussing here is obviously more of a judgement call, and I don't mean to include you in this group, but a great many articles are clearly mistagged.

In the case of the article we've been discussing, it contains a claim that the subject was a professional soccer player, which would pretty much make him automatically notable per WP:ATHLETE. It also claims that he is a published author. Either of those things, even without proof, even if it's probably not true, would constitute a credible claim of significance and make the A7 tag inappropriate.

Having said that, after taking the time to research it in some depth, the article does seem to be basically spam. The notability claims don't really check out - not that they have to for A7, but it does mean that the article probably can't be fixed to make it less promotional. Hence my nominating it for speedy deletion as spam.

Thparkth (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Fred Phelps

That was not vandilism, Fred was confirmed dead... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.71.139 (talk) 12:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No news agency is reporting that he is dead, and the time of death you gave was (and still is) in the future. Thparkth (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)