User talk:TigerShark/Talk Archive 15th December 2011

WP:OP

Greetings, I'm just trying to get a current feel for who is still active in the project and if anybody would object to cleaning out inactive users of the verified user list. Thank you for your time. Q ^{T C} 03:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

== Dr Hermann Erben ==

Would you mind explaining your reasoning for declining A7? Paragraph one is the only one which actually refers to the man himself. The latter two paragraphs refer to a letter he received an the significance of that letter (or presumably didn't, if it was intercepted) and the man who sent it. That would leave an Austrian who served with German military intelligence, which isn't a very good way of asserting notability. Maybe you saw something in it that I missed? - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 15:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... It's a tough one. There's certainly no question that he did exist (though apparently the title "Doctor" was self-styled) and he was a German spy - "US intelligence officials identified Christian Zinsser, Dr. Hermann Erben and

Hilda K rugger as three of the most dangerous Nazi agents in Mexico." Does that make him notable? He honestly seems more happy to know other notable people than be notable himself. Borderline, I guess. I'll mention the above, referenced, and then see what happens. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 15:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete for UFDEX

Now that piece of tripe will stay in the Wikipedia forever. The AFD process is needlessly complex. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Egyptian Liberal

Would you mind explaining your reasoning for declining A7? I have a permission from Mr. Essam Al Mojalid to write this article about him. you can ask him yourself. I can send you his e-mail. all the information that I have used is provided by him. please explain to me what I did wrong. Maybe you saw something in it that I missed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Egyptian Liberal (talk • contribs) 15:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Felipe Solis

I have nominated Felipe Solis, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Felipe Solis. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. MacMed^talk _stalk 03:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:14299162D0546.jpg

You tagged this image as being in the public domain by way of being a work of the United States federal government. This is false. The image is property of the State of California, which is not the federal government. I've removed the inappropriate PD tag and tagged the image as missing a license, placing it for deletion in seven days unless the issue is solved. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Ann Emerson Obscene Letter Controversy

Following up on our April, 2006 discussion regarding the "obscene letter controversy involving Jo Ann Emerson, I came across the article again today, and found that in the ensuing three years, no further action has been taken since to resolve the controversy. As noted in my comments on the article's Talk page, I think its time to either update the information, or decide whether to remove it from the article. --TommyBoy (talk) 03:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your question on my Talk page, I re-state my opinion that "its time to either update the information, or decide whether to remove it from the article". --TommyBoy (talk) 02:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on your most recent question, the information should be kept in the article if sourced information updating the situation can be found. If not, than the information should be removed from the article. --TommyBoy (talk) 06:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3

Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 19:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Esrati

Greetings! In January 2008, you deleted an article about David Esrati, a local political candidate in Ohio, as a result of AfD. I'm doing some updates to other articles related to Ohio politics; Could you restore the article to my userspace (User:Ssbohio/David Esrati) so I can go over it? Thanks! --SSBohio 11:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Amy Black

I have nominated Amy Black, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Black. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Pookeo9 ^{Talk If you need anything} 22:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello TigerShark! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 317 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Raymond Menmuir - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For blocking that IP, kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 23:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. TigerShark (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, TigerShark. You have new messages at Ronhjones's talk page.
Message added 00:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, TigerShark. You have new messages at Ronhjones's talk page.
Message added 00:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP

Hey Shark, can you block 165.228.55.216 from using their talk page as some sort of illiterate one-person social networking site? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:AliBrochure small.jpg

Hi. I saw you are not the author of the image. Could you provide evidence of permission (OTRS of the email allowing the GNU License or weblink to permission)? Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the email states that this image was released by the copyright holder under the GNU license then it should be fine and you should forward it to permissions-en

wikimedia.org. Does it say that? Hekerui (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could contact the copyright holder again and explain the situation. Is that possible? Hekerui (talk) 23:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, check Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. (You could use the "Informal (images)" version, which is quite formal actually, and tweak it to explain that you got the image earlier. And you could use it to ask for the cc-by-sa-3.0, which, as you know, is the main license now.) Best Hekerui (talk) 23:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the first part the answer? You should ask them to send the Declaration of consent for all enquiries to permissions-en

wikimedia.org - with this there is no ambiguity. The ticket will only be visible to an OTRS volunteer and will be treated confidentially (that was my experience as well). Hekerui (talk) 08:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've done a full search of the OTRS system for this permission e-mail, and I'm afraid that I have not been able to locate it. :/ I've tagged it {{npd}} since we can't keep it hanging out forever, but as you know that tag can be removed (and for that matter) that image restored just as soon as permission is processed. Can you please resend your permission letter? Let me know as soon as you've done so, and I'll intercept it so that the image is not prematurely deleted. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]

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

ITN

On 2 June 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2010 Cumbria shootings, which you created. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Charles Robinson (referee)

I saw from the history log that you previously edited the article, Charles Robinson (referee) in one capacity or another. I am only, for the record, contacting registered users who have edited the page as editors possessing an IP are subject to change at any point. This is a small notification to inform you that it has been nominated for deletion and a discussion is presently taking place on whether or not it should remain. If you wish to, please feel free to contribute any opinions you may have to the discussion. Thank you. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 22:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ITN for 2010 Stockholm bombings

On 12 December 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2010 Stockholm bombings, which you created. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

--Nice work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

[1]. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but as the article has now appeared on ITN, it is ineligible for DYK. Looking on the bright side, ITNs are much harder to get than DYKs are. Mjroots (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sohaib Athar

Are you sure an early WP:SNOW close of Sohaib Athar's afd after 2 days isn't premature? The person has been the subject of coverage himself, and outside of his few tweets of the event, he has received coverage for having his website hacked. There are also a number of interviews being conducted with him. Would you consider re-listing the afd?Smallman12q (talk) 12:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Personally I don't see anything that is likely to change what I think is a fairly substantial consensus that the guy falls under WP:BLP1E. To quote from BLP1E:

"Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them."

I think the vast majority of the people in the discussion were saying that the guy fits almost perfectly with the above quote. He is definitely getting some coverage now, but they seem to find it very hard to see how he can become anything other than a low profile individual, albeit with some short-term interest. It seems that there is nothing remarkable about him that would interest people beyond the fact that he happened to tweet during the raid.

I appreciate that it was a very early close, but it seems that nothing is going to change in terms of his significance, and I can't see that anybody has put an argument forward that could change the consensus. I would personally leave it closed, and leave his article as a redirect, with a small mention of him in the main article, although even that might arguably be giving his role too much significance for some. I'm happy for this to be re-opened, but I don't personally feel that it should be, and so I would decline to re-open it myself. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough...best to wait a while to see if he fades away or capitalizes on the fame to become more notable.Smallman12q (talk) 13:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]