User talk:Anderspc

Re: 2007 NBA Draft

My mistake on the reverts - the draft pages get occasional vandalism from people who insert themselves, and since they weren't sourced, I figured it was more of the same. Should've paid better attention. But "...much like the one your parents made when they decided not to use birth control the night you were conceived), it doesn't mean that an idiot such as yourself can go and unmake that decision for them. Get a life." wasn't exactly civil, was it? --Ytny (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. A simple, "Hey, you screwed up, be more careful next time" would have been just fine. Ytny (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sports and Pop Culture Bank

A tag has been placed on Sports and Pop Culture Bank, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because it is an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on Talk:Sports and Pop Culture Bank. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Thanks. Realkyhick 22:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Six seconds? I'm not that fast. But anyway, your site does not meet Wikipedia standards for notability of web sites. You allude to mentions by various blogs and such, but 1) you don't link to them, so there's no way to verify your claims; and 2) that's still not enough to prove notability, even if they can be verified. By your own admission, your ranking is within one state only on an obscure search engine. The only links included are to the site itself, which appears to be an effort to generate link traffic and increase search engine rankings (it doesn't work, as Wikipedia automatically tags all links with "nofollow" to prevent this). The article appears to be nothing more than something to advertise the site, and that is against WP policies. Realkyhick 22:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed free, but it is also an encyclopedia, not an advertising medium. Whether or not I read the blogs doesn't matter. There are so many blogs out there that a mention by a handful does not make a site notable. Do you have any mentions in other media, such as newspapers (even a small-town weekly will do) or a printed magazine (sports fanzines work here, too)? If you can come up with more evidence (for lack of a better term), you stand a better chance. By the way, an admin has to agree with my assessment first before the article goes bye-bye, so you still have a chance. I will also admit that this call wasn't as cut and dried as most - you should see some of the absolute crap that comes through trying to promote web sites here. Realkyhick 23:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, using profanity toward another editor will not be tolerated, and will get you blocked in pretty short order. Now to the point: I didn't actually delete the article. I merely flag it as likely meeting criteria for speedy deletion, but an admin actually does the job. (I'm not an admin, and I don't want to be one.) Evidently, that admin - User:R3m0y, if you care to talk to him (but watch your language if you do) - still didn't think the article met the guidelines. Now since the deletion was a WP:SD, you can actually post it again, with whatever improvements you've added. It may get deleted again, and it may no. There's no guarantee. But at least you can try. Realkyhick 02:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Paul M. Banks

I have nominated an article for deletion that you have contributed to. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_July_1#Paul_M._Banks --KenWalker | Talk 00:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sports and Pop Culture Bank

Thank you for your contribution. However, it appears that no reliable sources have written anything substantial about this webzine.[1] Therefore it is impossible to write a neutral, sourced encyclopedia article about it. (Please see Wikipedia:Notability.)

For this reason, I have tagged the article for proposed deletion. If you object to the deletion, you may remove the tag. However, I or another editor may still ask the Wikipedia community for advice at Articles for deletion. If consensus to delete is reached there, the article will be deleted.

Feel free to ask me any questions about this on my talk page. Pan Dan 18:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Sports and Pop Culture Bank

I've nominated Sports and Pop Culture Bank, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Sports and Pop Culture Bank satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sports and Pop Culture Bank and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Sports and Pop Culture Bank during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Pan Dan 12:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:SoxmanBatboy.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Hi Anderspc!
We thank you for uploading Image:SoxmanBatboy.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Anderspc! 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 170 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

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

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of David Kmiecik

The article David Kmiecik has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
David Kmiecik – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability.

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. Abductive (reasoning) 22:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]