Jump to content

User talk:UtherSRG: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Jrice25 (talk | contribs)
21 edits
Line 170: Line 170:


:Ignoring rant. If you want your article undeleted, go to [[WP:DRV]]. - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] [[User_talk:UtherSRG|(talk)]] 09:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:Ignoring rant. If you want your article undeleted, go to [[WP:DRV]]. - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] [[User_talk:UtherSRG|(talk)]] 09:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


after that i dont know whether to call you an asshole or thank you for the tip.....but instead of deleting my article, why dont you help me make it better? youd sleep better ill have my article we both win.


== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Hall Kart Racing School]] ==
== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Hall Kart Racing School]] ==

Revision as of 09:46, 2 June 2010

zOMG

zOMG
I, Hojimachong, hereby award UtherSRG A completely gratuitous zOMG barnstar, for being 110% awesome. Plus 1. --Hojimachongtalk

collaboration -to start the ball rolling

Merry Christmas

JoJan is wishing you a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

WikiProject Mammals Notice Board

Internet rockstar

Hello. I saw you deleted Internet Rockstar, but this version (with the lower-case r) still exists. Could you delete it, too? Thanks! 81.152.72.174 (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. thanks! - UtherSRG (talk) 03:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Close To Torah

I believe that Close To Torah should have a page on Wikipedia so that people may find information of its origin, goal, and intentions. We receive hits from several hundred people a day and growing. Like anyone when first going anywhere I'd like to know its credibility, so I would search Wikipedia to help me. I am new to Wikipedia but I believe that Close To Torah among other websites should be referenced to in another article discussing the different Torah Content websites available for Jewish users, then have a page about each of them and what they are geared towards. This should be under the category of Judaism...I just didn't have the chance to research how to do that. These Torah Content websites allow people from around the world who may not have too much exposure to Judaism to have insights on words of wisdom. More than 'just a website' we aim to teach people and enlighten them with the wisdom of the Torah.Dovidkopel (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Denied. Please read WP:WEB, and WP:CSD, particularly A7 and G11, and the other links in the speedy notice on your talk page. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

InTopSens

Hi UtherSRG,

This page was recently speedily deleted multiple times (largely at my request) for copyright violation and other criteria, and you eventually protected the page from creation. I've now worked on the article with its original author and I believe that it has been greatly improved and is easily well-sourced enough to be worthy of an article. I do not believe it is a copyright violation any longer, either. The article itself is still a bit messy, but as a newpage patroller I've seen much worse in mainspace so I'd like to move the draft back into mainspace to allow it to be improved by the wikipedian community.

The draft can be found at User:Dannyhill/InTopSens. Thanks in advance. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing anything that addresses the lack of notability. So it's a project to do "X". What is notable about that? Look at WP:GNG for some guidelines on addressing notability. The only references are primary source papers submitted to a single journal. There's nothing in the wider literature that this is anything more than a science project that is going no where. Sorry, I can't place a non-notable subject into the main space. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it seems I pre-empted this. The user provided about 5 or 6 reliable secondary sources on his talk page, but apparently didn't insert them into the draft. I'll put in the references and let you know when that's done. You might like to take a quick look at a couple of them though, I looked at the first 3 or 4 and was satisfied that the article could meet the notability criteria once they're added:
I'm pretty familiar with the guidelines, so I think with the addition of these, the guidelines will be met by a wide margin. I'll make sure I add these myself this time. Sorry to have wasted your time without confirming they had been listed. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, they had been listed; I assume you have already seen these then. They seemed like reliable secondary sources to me; I didn't see any indication that they were primary sources, and each one seemed to be reliable and give a non-trivial mention of the "InTopSens" organisation. Could you explain your reasons for thinking these are primary sources please? Thanks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At least the first three which I've looked at myself, appear to be scientific news articles by third parties to me, so I'm slightly confused why this doesn't meet WP:GNG. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you mean the external links. If you think they can support the article, then use them as references. Do they show notability? Since the article is userfied, there's no reason to not get it right before moving it into main space. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I got a bit muddled while replying here, and realised that the creator had listed them as external links rather than references. They appear to show notability; I will try to better format the references before this enters mainspace though, I suspect that the list of current references all being given as inline citations in one place is erroneous, and formatting some of the more reliable sources as inline citations would be a good idea. If you could unprotect the InTopSens page while I'm cleaning it up a bit more than would be helpful though; then I can move it myself once it's a bit tidier. If you have a look at some of the sources which were previously listed as external links, I'm sure you'll agree that this now meets WP:GNG. Thanks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly looks like it's nearly ready. I've unprotected the space. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA nominations

Hello, I'm afraid I've failed gorilla and Jane Goodall at GAN. Neither meet the criteria at this time and still need a bit of work on them. If it's reviews you're looking for (per your comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Primates) then you might want to try peer review instead. Apart from anything, you might get people with more of a biology background rather than just looking at the GA criteria. Regards, --BelovedFreak 16:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this doesn't come across wrong, but I also quick-failed Common Chimpanzee, Lucy (Australopithecus), and Orangutan. The pages were improperly assessed as B-class, and had a combination of clean-up tags, missing information, missing citations. Please clean up the articles before submitting to GAC rather than working out such serious flaws during the review. I have also temporarily removed the Golden-crowned Sifaka nomination (rather than failing it) due to the need for a rapid overhaul. With that article, it was very close to B-class, mostly due to some missing citations. I am currently cleaning the page up and adding content, and I plan to re-submit for GA sometime this afternoon. Red-bellied Lemur was reassessed to C-class and has numerous problems. Depending on how long the Golden-crowned Sifaka article takes me, I may try to clean-up that article as well this evening. Other lemur articles I've reassessed (downward) are Aye-aye, Diademed Sifaka, and Coquerel's Sifaka. I left Silky Sifaka at B-class, but please do not nominate it. After I finish the Subfossil lemur article I'm trying to find time to write, I plan to use material Erik Patel has given me to revamp the article so that I can make a blitz run at both GAC and FAC. As it stands, that article technically doesn't merit B-class due to the use of "personal communication" references. Anyway, I appreciate your eagerness to improve the status of our articles. I'll help you in any way that I can. Again, I hope I haven't ruffled your feathers any with the quick fails. At the very least, though, WP:PRIMATES should have another GA or two soon due to the attention to called to Golden-crowned Sifaka, and possibly Red-bellied Lemur. Best wishes, – VisionHolder « talk » 18:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No prob... PR at WP:PRIM is mostly broken... not enough folks look at the assessment or peer review sections of the project. So I grabbed the best of our B-class articles and sent them up the flagpole. I have no problem with them being failed. It gives me a better idea of where the boundaries are. And now I have a nice big plate of work for the next couple of nights before I go cold for a few days while I'm on a boat starting my travels home. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool. It's partly my fault for not being responsive at PR on WP:PRIM. There are probably about 4 or 5 active members of the project, and most aren't actively involved in content creation or assessments. I've been trying to recruit new editors, with the hopes of finding a few people who could compliment my work on lemurs by writing articles about monkeys, apes, and other prosimians... but no luck yet. I apologize, though, if I come across as possessive over the lemur articles. It's not intended. I've accumulated a lot of sources, and I have specific plans for many pages. I'm also better at re-writing then integrating into existing text. I also feel badly that the other primate groups are falling behind, thus my push for more monkey and ape content creators. Anyway, I'll try to be more mindful of your requests for peer reviews in the future. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No sweat, man. I'm 2 days from going home for a month or so. After our Fossa success, I think I can improve more articles once I'm back to work in early-mid July. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished revising the Golden-crowned Sifaka article and encouraged Ucucha to resume the GAC review. I still need to add information about its vocalizations, but I'm too burnt out to do it tonight. I may add it tomorrow or before going FAC. This article goes to show that my days of one-day article re-writes are over. This article might also suggest at just how much information is out there on some of these lemur species. If it took me nearly two days to re-write this article, I suspect Red-bellied Lemur is going to take much longer. (It's been known and studied for many more years, and I'm sure it's taxonomic history is a beast.) I'll add it to my list, but Subfossil lemur has been put on the back-burner for far too long. I'll try to make Red-bellied Lemur and the Silky Sifaka my next projects after I finish my existing project.
I also went through and re-assessed all the B-class WP:PRIM articles. Most got demoted. One really worried me... Silver Spring monkeys. The article is so non-neutral that it reeks of WP:Animal rights. I have sources that would contradict it, but I'm not getting into a fight with that group again... at least not until I have more time to accumulate material and have more people to support me. Anyway.... in short, we've got a long ways to go on WP:PRIM. I'm glad I'm only interested (at this point) in writing about lemurs.... – VisionHolder « talk » 01:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to spend some bucks while I'm home for the next six weeks on some good books we could use. Any suggestions? - UtherSRG (talk) 04:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acrecebus fraileyi

I have created an article on the prehistoric cebid Acrecebus fraileyi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elspooky (talk • contribs) 08:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! I'll take a look at it shortly. - UtherSRG (talk) 08:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Bureau of Education

I apologize for having created the first version of the article by copy-pasting from the UNESCO web page. I thought that that material would be in the public domain. My mistake. I've now created a new version using my own words. I hope that this is OK.--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should be. We'll see. ;) - UtherSRG (talk) 08:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure you understand an edit before considering it a test edit

My edit was not a test edit! I would like you to reconsider your revert and apologize. 128.232.240.137 (talk) 08:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I looked only at your edit and not the destination of the link. Sorry. The revert stands, though, as I've made the better fix by changing the redirect. Please consider creating an account. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're still screwing up! First off, your redirect does not work (I think you need a capital D). Also, "dental formula" remains unlinked in the article that I edited... 128.232.240.137 (talk) 09:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

deleted article

Hi Uther. You deleted an article I created on a German actress (Antje Thiele) within nine hours of its creation with the tag A7. I checked A7 and it reads:

A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content).
An article about a real person, individual animal(s), 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, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works. This criterion does not apply to species of animals, only to individual animal(s). 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. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.
  • {{db-a7}}, {{db-person}} – for people, {{db-band}} – for bands, {{db-club}} – for clubs, societies, groups, and organizations, {{db-inc}} – for companies and corporations, {{db-web}} – for websites, {{db-animal}} – for individual animals

Note that the guidelines say this is a lower standard than notability. The article did say why she is important: She has appeared in documentaries, television series, and films (not to mention a worldwide theatrical tour), and is appearing as a major character in a major film directed by a major Hollywood director and starring Vanessa Redgrave. This plus her CV of past and upcoming credits (theatrical, film, and television), plus IMDB page were linked. As credible importance was therefore specifically stated in the article, I would like to reinstate it because it met the A7 guidelines and thus seemingly did not merit speedy deletion. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said on your talk page, she fails WP:ENT. Denied. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're quoting notability. To repeat and refer you again to the A7 criteria above you used as reason for deletion, judgment for speedy deletion is not notability, it's credible statement of importance. If you like, you could perhaps nominate the article for AfD after it was fully fleshed out (it was only 9 hours old and had hardly even begun) and see if at that point the notability requirements of AfD were met or not in the eyes of an assortment of WP editors over the course of a week or so. However, it must be noted that in terms of speedy deletion, the article was deleted even though it met the requirements for a speedy keep. See A7 above. Softlavender (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOWBALL. Take it to WP:DRV. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Antje Thiele

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Antje Thiele. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Softlavender (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alien vs Ninja

I do fully understand why you would send THIS to AFD. However, I'd ask that you now revist and review the improvements made to Alien vs Ninja to see if perhaps per WP:GNG it might even merit a "keep" or "incubate". Of course, you need not do so... I just thought to notify you of the improvements. Best regards, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I always watchlist the AFDs I make, and in this case I even reversed myself without your prompting. I totally agree with you on this, and it's why I try to put anything marginal on AFD instead of accepting the CSD nom. I really liked it when AfD stood for Articles for Discussion. Those were the good old days. ;) - UtherSRG (talk) 07:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like that old name to come back one day, as it better reflects the building of an encyclopedia. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Immortal Corruptor

the reason: it doesnt implicate significance? how is that possible? thats a bullshit reasin that has no foundation in logic. how can i implicate significance? do i say that they are the next GREATEST BAND EVER! or something like that? do or do they have to be a nice religious band praising the god of your choice? they are significant in their scene, they are significant in their views. i saw that even someone else was defending us. what gives YOU the power to say what can be on and not on here. eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrice25 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:GNG, WP:CSD#A7, and WP:BAND. The band you want to write an article about does not have the notability we require for it to be an article. Once you can show that the band passes our notability guidelines, then it can be an article. UtherSRG (talk) 08:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]



we? our? ok so are you on the wikipedia staff too? along with every single member that has an account.....thats funny youre saying "we" and "our" like youre part of them. and ok, what are your bullshit guidelines....they need an emmy, a grammy, a tony or what ever the fuck musicians get? alot of great musicians didnt get those, such as the Dead Kennedys and theyre on here. you know how much easier it would be for Immoral Corruptor to GET more notoriety if they could just say, "look us up on wikipedia, then you could link to all our other stuff". this is a public encyclopedia and as a member i have just as much right as you do, so what if they arent famous, thats pretty dickish of you to deny me the right to put a band i like on here just because YOU have never heard of them; do you have some kind of wikipedia seniority i dont know about? is there a hierarchy of membership im not aware of. membership....HA!.....should be more like membershit if as a member my ability to post articles depends on the compliance of assholes.08:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


Lets see if the dead kennedys a GREAT band and one featured on wikipedia is has any of these requirements

1.Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.-no

2.Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.-no

3.Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.[note 4]-not heavy coverage

4.Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).- they were completely indipendent

5.Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.- yes

6.Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.-NO

7.Has won or placed in a major music competition.-no

8.Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article.)-No

9.Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.- not on any station ive ever heard

10.Has been the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network.-no —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrice25 (talk • contribs) 08:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring rant. If you want your article undeleted, go to WP:DRV. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


after that i dont know whether to call you an asshole or thank you for the tip.....but instead of deleting my article, why dont you help me make it better? youd sleep better ill have my article we both win.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Hall Kart Racing School

Hi,

Just want to say, please don't mis-understand my comments on this AfD, I understand, and accept your reasoning for declining the CSD (whilst at the same time not completable agreeing with the promotional aspect). My point was aimed at addressing the issue of inherited notability.

I don't see anything yet that indicated the 'school' meets WP:GNG and/or WP:ORG

Thanks Codf1977 (talk) 08:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 08:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:UtherSRG&oldid=365609960"