User:Pontificalibus/Archive/01

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Pontificalibus/Archive, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Bath, Somerset. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! — Rod ^talk 09:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Invite to Somerset WikiProject

Hello, this is an invitation to join WikiProject Somerset.

You may be interested in joining WikiProject Somerset. This WikiProject aims to improve the standard of all articles relating to Somerset, which includes all subdivisions of the county, major buildings, roads and other related articles.

You can help by:

Creating new articles.
Expanding stubs.
Adding photographs.
Referencing articles.
Research topics.
Anything else really...

For more information, see the project page, and if you have any questions you can leave them at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Somerset and someone will get back to you.

— Rod ^talk 16:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

To "join" all you have to do is add your name to the list on the project page.— Rod ^talk 18:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Cambridge

Hi. I've undone your additions regarding the wards of Cambridge as there is too much unnecessary detail in there, most of which requires explicit knowledge of Cambridge to be able to interpret. For example,

East Chesterton - Area around Milton Road stretching all the way north east to Cowley Road.

isn't that meaningful unless you already know where Milton Rd and Cowley Rd are - Wikipedia is for a worldwide audience. Dancarney (talk) 13:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know your reasoning. I didn't write that bit but just popped it back in after I noticed it had been deleted. I didn't see any reasoning so thought it might have been removed by accident. Pontificalibus (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

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

James Russell (director)

Greetings! Thank you for reviewing the article James Russell (director) and tagging it for possible speedy deletion. However, there are assertions of notability in the article: his awards and his directing work for the BBC and major recording artists. Accordingly, it is not subject to speedy deletion, although it may be subject to the normal articles for deletion process. —C.Fred (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: The Party Quirks

I have declined your A7 proposal, since the article does contain an assertion of possible importance. However, it needs sources to verify these claims though, so I have tagged it as such. ViperSnake151 21:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Pontificalibus. You have new messages at Dank55's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

More information - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

ANI regarding "List of Exalted comics"

Please comment here. Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Janice Erlbaum

Hi Pontificalibus, hope you don't mind but I've declined your speedy on Janice Erlbaum as in my view phrases such as "awarded several honors" are an assertion of notability. Ϣere SpielChequers 22:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Hi, you might be interested in this AfD proposal which has just been posted. --Orrelly Man (talk) 10:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I am very sorry

I accidentally blocked you when I was trying to block Luemrae. I am sorry about that. Mea culpa. I have reversed your block and an autoblock. Please let me know if you have any trouble editing and I will try to fix it. Chillum 20:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem! Pontificalibus (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Migraine-associated vertigo

I wonder how you knew to leave this message [1] on user:Julcal page at 15:47, 5 April 2009. From Julcal's contributions list it appears that he did not create that page, and indeed, made no contributions before 22:12, 5 April 2009. Just asking because I am curious about Julcal's background, as he may be another puppet of user:Mwalla. Sorry if this is a stupid question. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Julcal's creation of Migraine-associated vertigo or contributions to it will not show on Julcal's contributions list because the page was deleted. Contributions to deleted pages do not appear on contribution lists. Maybe an admin such as SchuminWeb (who deleted the page) will be able to access this info. Pontificalibus (talk) 07:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Campion School

I hope I am doing this right! But I do not understand how the "Scandal" section can be allowed to remain! I have been monitoring vandalism on this site for a number of years as students and others will make inappropriate edits. By allowing this current addition it gives them and anyone else the go ahead to vandalise! Especially as the bbc news report has errors. Please advise. Campionschool (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It remains because it is referenced in a reliable and notable source. If there are errors in the BBC article I suggest you take that up with the BBC legal department. Please start a discussion on the Talk:Campion_School,_Hornchurch page if you have concerns. Pontificalibus (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

MS PDA Business Strategy

Hi. I don't think we're supposed to replace a PROD after anyone has removed it for any reason or none. But in this case it doesn't matter - the article has already been AfD'd here, so (when I could get through the edit conflicts) I tagged it db-g4. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

PS - he's also put it in as MS PDA business strategy, but I've g4-ed that, too. JohnCD (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks, will remember that in future Pontificalibus (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The Campion School

Dear Pontificalibus

The item 'Scandal' on the site for The Campion school is contravening the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and, therefore, must be removed from the site.

Chelsea04 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelsea04 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

edit summary

While I support this revert I don't think BLP can be used to justify it, given that Joplin has been dead for over 90 years. Cheers, --Stepheng3 (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Miami Beach Convention Center

Before tagging a page for speedy deletion as a copyright violation, please check the edit history to ensure there is not a "clean" version that is not a blatant copyright violation, as there was in the case of this article. I've been in somewhat of an edit war with a SPA/COI user on this page, and have reported that user at WP:UAA. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Pauli Rodriguez

I am proving a valuable point. Also I will take this to the civil courts in order to get my name removed from conflict of interest page. Wikipedia is getting to neutral for me...when are humans only neutral? How can I be neutral in emotion? I am expressing my points as neutrally as I can. I do use notable resources. I rather keep this conflict of interest small don't you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulifan (talk • contribs) 01:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Please relist Pauli Rodriguez wikipedia article. If appeal democrat is notable then why did you accept a wikipedia article about them. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Appeal-Democrat. I was also noted in the Sacramento Bee several times, the capital newspaper of California and several times in the Appeal. I was also noted in several other newspapers in California. Please relist my article. Thank you!

maybe you should take the appeal democrat and sacramento bee articles down along with many others. Please remove me from the conflict of interest page, I want to add to my Pauli Rodriguez article. Pauli Rodriguez is a noteworthy person.

Paulifan (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Good morning

Please explain why this page is not allowed. To me it seems a normal wiki page for an existing and authentic website Linksite.net. For example why is this page accepted: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Starting_Point_Directory and mine not? I don´t see much difference on the page build up neither of the function of the starting point directory website itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamaica1985 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

what is wrong with you?

Please tell me why you have deleted my Echo's of yesterday article? send me a email at ob.rocket69@gmail.com just tell me why! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ob.rocket69 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

See the message left on your talk page before the article was deleted. --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

That message still does not tell me what you found wrong with my article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ob.rocket69 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the part of that message I was refering to:

"This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia."

I suggest reading WP:MUSIC for guidleines on what makes a band sufficiently notable for inclusion. --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organisations, web content). does that mean that i have to indicate on the page why it is important or do you have to find it important? The band has a growing fan base and i think there are 277 registered fans(although not a lot but still important people) that agree that the page is important —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ob.rocket69 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you read WP:MUSIC, specifcally the criterea in WP:BAND? You need to indicate in the article how it meets any of those criterea listed at WP:BAND. An article about a band that doesn't meet those criterea will be deleted. --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

DUDE you clearly dont come from South Africa do you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ob.rocket69 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Why the hell would you delete my article

You deleted my article called 'David Rush (singer)'. What the hell? My username is AAJKP. Answer me back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AAJKP (talk • contribs) 16:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

An admin deleted the article, not me, I just flagged it for deletion because it did not indicate how the subject was eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia. See the message on your own talk page for further information. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Merkwelt

I have problems referencing, but I have enough sources to provide a good claim that it is noteworthy. While it may be a technical concept, it is a highly used one. Google searches prove nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danrules2 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Then I suggest you contribute to the discussion. Please don't remove the deletion template form the article. --Pontificalibus (talk) 09:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

But really, if I can support it with references why add a deletion notice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danrules2 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Nicholas Dubee

Hey I noticed you deleted my page about Nicholas Dubee. One of my friends happened to go in and change some stuff around while on my account making stupid facts or comments. The reason i made the page was because Nick Dubee right now is one of the premier high school athletes in Rhode Island. He is number one in the state for soccer, and he is one of the best runners of the 110m Hurdles in New Enlgand. I have articles to back up the success that Nick Dubee has had including... ([2][3][4] These articles prove every fact made about Nick Dubee minus obviously fake things. So if you could please put the Nicholas Dubee page back up it would be much appreciated cause I put a lot of work into it, and if you absolutely can't put i back up i would like a copy of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeolean (talk • contribs) 00:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Ralph Allen's Town House, Bath

Hi, Well done for starting Ralph Allen's Town House, Bath as you may have spotted I've been working on Grade I listed buildings in Somerset. Can I suggest you look at Template:Infobox Historic building for this (& other) articles? Would you to look for an appropriately licenced photo?— Rod ^talk 19:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Great, will use the box. I had quick look for a photo online but couldn't find a suitable one. I will shortly look through my stack of old hardcopy pics of Bath for one, and any others that might be useful to upload. Pontificalibus (talk)

Thanks - watch out for copyright issues though.— Rod ^talk 19:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You may want to participate in

Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak#Names. Cheers Nil Einne (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Green Man section removal

Thank-you for your help; you were quite right in removing the section since I omitted the cites. But I got them in, and with the help of SiGarb they are all cleaned up. I hope the Modern Images section adds to the article.Dgu56 (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Question

how do you get that horizontal line when you edit and how do you get those boxes with information in it? Parker1297 (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm

I am reverting your swine flu edit - that was a waste of time deleting that part. See you in block court! (joking) Rory (talk) 10:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, DANG! Time for edit war! Rory (talk) 10:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Reverting

Please don't revert too quickly, it just wastes time when I have to undo it and apply the correct reference, which you could have done quite easily instead of removing the data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allan87 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Assuming you're refering to Template:2009 swine flu outbreak table, it would be better to avoid confusion if you updated the reference in the same edit as you update the data. --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it would be, unfortunately my browser had a spasm and submitted the data prematurely, nonetheless only a reference change was needed instead of removing the data.

unsigned comment

Why did you propose the page Darren wills should be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewillsmachine (talk • contribs) 17:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't propse this originally, I just modified the proposal which you can view at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Darren_wills. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Swine flu talkpage

Hi. I notice that you just reverted my archiving of that soppy conspiracy-theory section as "unwarranted" - seconds before deleting the entire section, something that I considered and couldn't be bothered to face the trouble for. However, in future, it's probably worth checking more carefully whether or not someone's archiving is justified, since mine clearly was in this case, as (to your credit) you subsequently noticed. Thanks! ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 16:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread my screen and thought the author archived. Anyway i think it's better such things be deleted --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I guessed, just worth actually reading through stuff first (as it happened, that section was rather a laugh, anyway!). As for deleting the sections, I tend to agree, but it wasn't really a direct violation of WP:FORUM - vaguely mentioning adding stuff to the article, albeit original research. But I doubt anyone'll kick up a fuss about it being removed! Cheers. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 16:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

New Great Depression

Sorry about that I'm still not really sure how to do the redirect thing I wasn't going to keep it identical it kept stalling and reloading so I apologize for the multiple edits that were really one The economy IS Bad enough to earn the name New Great Depression Shtop Shtealing from my Store (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Institute of HeartMath article

Hello:

Can you please provide any suggestions on how you think I should redo the Institute of HeartMath article that was tagged for deletion on May 11 to make it acceptable.

I did not intend for it to come across as promotional and would appreciate any assistance.

I understand that many of the concepts such as "heart intelligence, emotional management" and "test anxiety" among others would not be familiar to many people, but they are familiar to a great number of people internationally and in scientific and medical communities around the world.

The terms Wikipedia volunteer someguy1221 used to characterize the Institute of HeartMath were "db-copyvio, unremarkable organisation, spam, verging on nonsense," which, except for "db-copyvio," appear to critiques of the organization and its ideas, rather than actual causes for deletion.

Assuming "db-copyvio" refers to copyright violation, I couldn't find any violations.

Any help would be appreciated.

Timepasses (talk) 20:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Timepasses

Institute of HeartMath article

Thank you for your response. The notability requirement applies in this case with professional journals, newspapers, magazines, television, radio, etc., so I will see what I can do.

Your reply included the following: "To avoid copyright violations you must not copy and paste text from anywhere else, even your own website, and ensure the writing is in your own words."

The material was all in my own words. Is it possible that the "anywhere else" to which you are referring includes a Word document, which is where I created the article and from which I copied it? I then placed it on the Wikipedia page. Does even that type of copy-and-paste actually leave a record on the Wikipedia page?

Thank you, again.

Timepasses (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Timepasses

FYI

Deletion of Bilateral relation pages despite ongoing merging effort Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 08:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Catafalque (band)

The article should definitely remain. See the talk page for further info.--Snow White Queen (talk) 17:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Anthony Ocana

Hi, hope you don't mind, but I've declined the speedy of Anthony Ocana as I take winning important awards as an assertion of importance. Not sure if it would survive AFD though. Cheers Ϣere SpielChequers 14:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

North adams people

yeah, I know, I know. i was in the middle of fixing it when you tagged it. so now i don't have to tag it myself. EraserGirl (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Great. sorry I didn't check you were doing things with it, I was on a bit of a drive-by mission. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

not a big deal, but i can't figure how i messed that up. I usually have no problems category tagging. EraserGirl (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Bay East Association Of Realtors

Where is it written that you can't speedy something that's at AFD? I do it all the time and almost never get complaints. If the speedy fits (which it clearly does), shouldn't it stay? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Why are you afraid to let it go now? It's blatant advertising, it obviously fits a speedy criterion, and speedy and AFD can overlap. You'd rather just let this crap sit in AFD for a week or longer when it can very easily be gone now? I swear, everyone's far too cautious with speedies these days. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It's obviosuly badly written, but I was having a go at finding sources, as employees are widely quoted in google news archives. I wanted to finish my work and add the positive or negative results to the discssion before article was removed. AfDs are intended for disputed speedys and PRODs so there was no need to keep reverting my removal of the tag. As it happens I am now confident that there are not sufficent sources to support notability and have added this to the AfD. --Pontificalibus (talk) 21:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

CSD Tagging

I noticed you tagged this as a test page. This is a user's sandbox and not in article mainspace, so test page is exactly what it is and not a reason to delete. Maybe you thought it was in the mainspace? Law_{type! snype?} 10:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It is in mainspace isn't it? Should be at User:Slbarty/Sandbox. --Pontificalibus (talk) 10:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

LMAO. You're right. I'm fired. I noticed you retagged it, so I just went ahead and moved it to the users sandbox. Cool? Law_{type! snype?} 10:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks! --Pontificalibus (talk) 10:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I removed a couple speedy warnings from the user's talk page, seeing as it was an honest mistake. Take care. Law_{type! snype?} 10:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Notability

Hi Pontificalibus,

How can I prove the notability of Goan artists? These are songs that the person on the street knows around here.

Denzil Simoes (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Villages in Worcestershire

Thanks for your edits to Shrawley. I have created dozens of stubs within the Worcester Villages category - there are 54 local government parishes in the Malvern District alone. Perhaps a Worcesterhsire Villages project could be started. --Kudpung (talk) 00:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Removing speedy deletion templates

Hi, I noticed you removed a couple of speedy deletion templates I added to articles, not because you disagreed that the article met the deletion critera, but because the article had "only just been created".

If you check out the new pages patrol, you will see that it is common practice on Wikipedia to review new pages and tag for deletion any that do not meet critera for inclusion.

There is no requirement to leave an article hanging around on the off-chance that the creator will come back and revise it to meet the inclusion critera. Mainspace is not intended as a place to work on articles that do not meet the inclusion criterea. You can always move the article to the user's namespace if you wish, but removing db templates is unhelpful as it doesn't inform the author that their article is not up to standard. Also it means that unsuitable articles get left in mainspace possibly for some considerable time, as reviewing newly created pages is the easiest way to identify them. --Pontificalibus (talk) 08:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right that there is no requirement to leave an article hanging around on the off-chance that the creator will come back and revise it. There is also no requirement to delete it, and no administrator is obligated to speedy delete an article because it meets any or many of the criteria. With that out of the way, I want to give new users a chance to write their articles because speedy deleting an article minutes after it is posted may be discouraging to them. See Wikipedia:Don't bite the newcomers. If you want to tag an article that was created minutes ago and you believe that a user will not return to improve the article, you might consider using {{PROD}} instead. Thanks, --Ryan Delaney ^talk 12:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Dude

Did you read the article? It's rubbish. Speedy delete it, don't tell me off. Dude. Steely Fist (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Fredrick

Hello, I removed your request for speedy deletion on this article, because it doesn't fit a7 criteria. Feel free to prod or afd it instead. ƒingers^on_Roids 22:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually it does, because it doesn't assert importance. However instead of restoring the csd I put a PROD. -- Pontificalibus (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Prayware

It is a new word for its own type of software disttribution, I did not coined it, it is being used for some years. It is coined like "Freeware" coined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.255.103.75 (talk) 06:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Experimental economics/Comments

I have no profound objection to speedy deletion of Experimental economics/Comments. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Experimental economics — Comments. I formally created Experimental economics/Comments exactly and only by placing a deletion notice on it, as part of the process of seeking to have Talk:Experimental economics/Comments deleted. —SlamDiego_←T 08:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see this article:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Domains_by_Proxy

Can you tell me, why the article about: Domains Are Secure is not good (at this moment) ?

Disambig

I am/was halfway through cleaning up that situation - it was a mess before. I am still working on Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary and should be done in an hour. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I think I have it cleaned up now. Needs more content, but the gang was separated from the book. History2007 (talk) 22:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Two Brothers Brewing

Hi Pontificalibus. I semi-protected the Two Brothers Brewing due to disruptive edits by an IP. You then requested the article was unprotected, so it was. The IP has again deleted large sections of the article, so I have again protected it. I do feel that giving the article semi-protection for a week is appropriate in the circumstances as the IP is not responding to negotiations and warnings. Without protection of the article the likely outcome is that the IP will get blocked. Semi-protection at least allows the IP to continue discussion on the article talkpage and on the talkpage of WikiProject Beer. If you feel my action is inappropriate let me know, and we can perhaps decide on an alternative approach. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 10:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your semi-protection of this page does not conform to policy. As only 1 IP is involved, they can be blocked and discussion about their contributions can continue on their talk page, which they would still be able to edit. Preventing every IP from editing the page is not a proportional or necessary outcome. --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow your interpretation of the Semi-protection policy, though I do understand that the alternative to semi-protecting the article for seven days is to wait until the disruption has reached a point where the IP is blocked. Given that all the IP edits of the article since it was created have been vandalism, it appears more reasonable and appropriate and causes less drama and conflict to protect the article against IP edits for a short while, and allow the person who feels that the article is inappropriate to make comments where they will be viewed. The IP's own talkpage is out of sight and out of mind, and so is not, to my mind, a reasonable and appropriate forum to discuss the article. My thinking here is to be as reasonable as possible, and not create a situation where a person is blocked, nor where an article is continually disrupted. SilkTork *^YES! 16:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Monochrome Bitmap

I was researching more information on it, and was letting more people see it in case they new more before I did. Please do not be so quick to link a page to another. How can I revert it? IceBlade710 (talk) 14:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)IceBlade710

I suggest waiting until you have done a bit more research and creating the page with sufficient content first, and then it can be put in place. We can't have loads of pages without any useful information. Please see WP:Your first article for more info. --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Well just look at the third paragraph of the "Removing speedy deletion templates" on your talk page. I do believe that "There is no requirement to leave an article hanging around on the off-chance that the creator will come back and revise it to meet the inclusion critera." was mentioned, by you.IceBlade710 (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed there is no requirement to do so. I believe Monochrome Bitmap is not justified as a seperate article with it's current content, and should instead be mentioned in e.g. Bitmap --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

How could I get people's attention so they know that they can edit it?IceBlade710 (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Stubs

How would you make a stub banner?IceBlade710 (talk) 15:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

{{stub}} or more specifically something like {{Compu-stub}} -- Pontificalibus (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Where do you find out all this stuff, like banners and things?IceBlade710 (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Windsor Castle in Smithfield, Virginia

Pontificalibus, I understand your reasons for moving Windsor Castle Park to Windsor Castle Manor House. I struggled over this myself as it is easy to understand the confusion that could exist with the "real" Windsor Castle. I don't consider Windsor Castle Manor House to be appropriate because a park is being built there that will include many features beyond the manor house. I have moved the page to Windsor Castle in Smithfield, Virginia. I would like to keep a redirect from Windsor Castle Park as that is how the park is known locally and that is how it is identified in the Smithfield, Virginia article. Thank you, Greg_Christine —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg christine (talk • contribs) 19:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Knock'sville

I'm sorry I wrote "test" on the article about the upcoming album by Knock-Turn'al by mistake. My intention is to write information about this album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutkiller (talk • contribs) 21:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Meetup

FYI, the fourth Cambridge meetup will occur on the afternoon of Saturday 1 August. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Timewave_zero#Redirect proposal

Notice: You commented in an Article for deletion for Timewave zero , an RfC has been opened on whether this article should be replaced with Redirect. Please comment on the above link. Lumos3 (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Venkatraman Ramakrishnan's wiki page

You sent me a message asking me to refrain from making "unconstructive" edits and "edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted". Do explain how and why contesting speedy deletion of an article amounts to all that you said. Also, why is that article marked for speedy deletion ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.18.204 (talk) 22:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The page was not marked for speedy deletion. You added a hangon template for some reason? --Pontificalibus (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, have a look at this . http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/2827/17983135.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.18.204 (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

That is not the article but his picture only which is due to be deleted for copyright reasons. See the image page for the reasons why. I see now why you added the hangon template, as you thought the whole article was going to be deleted - an easy mistake for a newcomer to make and sorry for accusing you of being deliberatley disruptive! --Pontificalibus (talk) 22:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem.. I thought the article was going to deleted so I added the hangon template. Still learning! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.18.204 (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Ellis Jones

How come you've removed copyvio of http://www.wellingtontheplay.com/Biographies.html What's wrong with this info? Please answer on User_Talk:Zaikovskis Thanks

Please see Wikipedia:Copyright violations - you can't copy in chuncks of text from other websites. --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to let you know I appreciate it. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies and Question

Howdy, Sorry to see that my account has had vandalisms filed against it, that will teach me to leave my Macbook logged in. However, as a concerned parent I would like to know why the letter has been removed from the article? As a member of the school parents group, I have had several requests to upload it to the Wikipedia article as it is deemed to be a piece of knowledge that should be viewable by all as some parents do not have parental responsibilities for their children and were not issued with a letter as only one letter was sent home with their child. However, several fathers have asked to view the letter as they are worried about what this could mean for the son or daughter at the school. Thanks for your time and consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CubertForTheTruth (talk • contribs) 16:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Information on Wikipedia needs to be referenced. You can't simply add statements, especially controversial ones, without giving a reference. Otherwise no one will be able to tell if the statement is true or not. Please read Citing Sources for more information. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Not to sound rude or anything, but if an establishment will not publicly make a statement on an issue like this on their website then how am I to cite a source for it? The only source for it I have is http://clc2.uniservity.com/GroupNewsItem.asp?GroupID=21330&NewsID=51402 and that just merely tells of an important letter being sent home? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CubertForTheTruth (talk • contribs) 16:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newswire service. When the known facts are published in a reliable source, then the information can be added to the article. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

So the establishment's own website is not a reliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.216.231 (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

That website merely says a letter has been sent, it does not say what the letter is about. If anything notable has happened, it won't be long before it's published in the local paper for example, and then it can be added to Wikipedia. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Dyed Purple

Yeah, sorry about that. As a glance, it looked like vandalism.

THANK YOU!!! :) Foregonelong (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding PROD

When I edited the article, the PROD tag was, for some reason, removed already, though it did not show in the history. This was probably a problem with my computer, and I understand my mistake. It's my understanding now that the article is in the process of a speedy deletion, and I believe that this is the right course.

I'm on kind of a speedy delete spree right now, while going through the new pages, so I'm suprised at myself for this. Thanks for catching the mistake. --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 21:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: The Smith Westerns

Hello Pontificalibus, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of The Smith Westerns - a page you tagged - because: Article claims coverage in reliable sources. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. So Why 11:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

LiberalJames

This user is back at EDL forcing his will on others... despite the unusual name. I'm wondering if it's a sock of anyone. Any ideas? Verbal chat 16:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

REM (Real Estate Magazine)

Pontificalibus, try to add constructive criticism like Milowent did on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/REM (Real Estate Magazine) page. I respect your concerns, but a simple claim of the subject being non-notable isn't enough of an argument, as per WP:JNN. You need to give more of a reason why.

Given some of the reactions I see on this talk page, I'm apparently not the first user to feel this way. I'm sure you feel justified in your actions (and in many cases are), but that might not be clear to other editors. It would be a lot more polite to explain why you nominate articles for deletion beyond WP:JNN, and maybe offer some advice on how to save it. It would make for a lot less hard feelings and possibly heated talk page discussions. Just something to consider. No worries.

I would appreciate any help or suggestions you can offer on saving this article, if you have the time. Thanks! --Willmolls (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Willmolls. I suggest reading Your first article for guidleines on creating your first article. Specifically I'd refer you to point 4: Gather references both to use as source(s) of your information and also to demonstrate notability of your article's subject matter. A suitable source to establish notability (which is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject) here might be an article about REM from CBC News for example. --Pontificalibus (talk) 21:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Pontificalibus! See, was that so hard? :-) I've found an article citing REM in the Toronto Star, which I'll add currently. Thanks for your help! --Willmolls (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks! for your valuable Suggestions.=B.S.Gautam (talk) 14:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)=

Embratur

This article keeps being created and speedied (at least three times before this one). The current creator is suspected of being a sock of the creator of the first two instances. Taiane.bonini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Would you care to rethink your speedy decline? --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 18:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be a notable entity worthy of an article. Perhaps creating a stub without all the copy and paste content will resolve the issue of the article being repeatedly recreated. --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Good luck - keep a look out for the COI editors that seem hell-bent on having the official copy represented here. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 18:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll keep an eye on it --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

See what I mean [5] ? --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 20:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but that's no reason not to have the article. They'll get banned/bored eventually. --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)