User talk:Andyjsmith/Archive 1

Archives

Rule of the Ten Virtues of the Blessed Virgin Mary

Permission was sent in a letter on February 6, and it should be on file. Please do not delete. If you have any suggestions on how to avoid this, please let us know. Thank you.

CongregationOfMarians (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not why I'm proposing deletion. This article is not appropriate for an encyclopedia under the Original Research policy and in any case it's merely a copy of a lengthy piece that's already available on the web for anyone who wants to look it up. It should simply be an external link somewhere. andy (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aisha

Thanks for catching that. Some kind of error resulted in the deletion of all the page history. I've corrected it now (I think).--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome andy (talk) 23:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transtheoretical model

Thanks for moving it for me. Momentary lapse of reason on my part. Keep up the good work: it's great people like you who keep Wikipedia from devolving into a mass of silly changes made by confused people like me. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're too kind :) andy (talk) 07:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Insurance Systemic Risk

Hi Andy, I'm new to wikipedia and am trying to navigate it correctly. Can you provide some additional insights on how to insert the GFDL? I'm trying to post information and give permission but need some guidance.

Thanks so much!

Mmt333 (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I just realized I deleted the previous post by accident! I'm so sorry! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmt333 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Klooga and other trainign area new pages

I takes more than a minute toecreate all these pages with data etc. I need some time :P. Karabinier (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's usual practice to have some content in mind before starting the article! I gave it several minutes expecting at least a couple of lines of text to appear. A lot of users create empty articles as "placeholders" and then never do anything more, so patrollers like myself tend to be pretty quick off the mark about flagging them for deletion. andy (talk) 11:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Energy Movement

The creator contested the prod you placed on this article, so I'm informing you so you can decide whether you want to take it to AFD or not. Regards So Why 13:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will andy (talk) 13:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Andy...doh-doh bird here..coming to my senses. I know I'm going about this the wrong way man, but I really am listening to what you're saying and I get it...OK? Please check out the latest iteration of the article...please note that I have stepped down from the soapbox and started to think like someone who cares "mostly" about the facts. I'm still refining the page so that it fits appropriately with the constraints of Wikipedia. Your nagging has been priceless to that effort. However, I promise next time I will stay out of the primetime section until it is done. So sorry for the rocky start!

PEACE! JohnJohn W. Cornett (talk) 05:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes have not addressed the substantive issues with this article. You should read and follow the wikipedia policies that are cited in the deletion notice. Wikipedia policies are non-negotiable. andy (talk) 11:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the consensus might consider a substantive topic, but I consider a topic that defines the existence and growth of an extremely important mindset as substantive. The so called new energy movement has reached a critical mass and is substantive, if only by the exponential growth and attention given to it in past decades. As I write this, I'm trying to decide which links and references accentuate the true spirit and substantive quality of the article. I need help from the public too. That is why I am sort of pushng the topic back through each time it gets flagged by you. Andy, this is NOT fringe science. Please do your homework, when you get a chance. Conventional thinking (science) is ready for the wake up call and this article is my attempt to bring a grossly overdue concept to the forfront of discussion. I am asking for your help, and the help of others, to bring this very real concept to light. We are living in an extremely important time in human evolution of this planet where certain choices must be made in what direction we will take to expand the reality of our very existence. Please take a lttle time, if you will, to educate yourself and help to get this article right and falling within the constraints of this important neural network that we are developng or, in my case, contributing to. I intend to get this right, hence, my less than dignified attempt to be civil. I believe you do to. I do not want, nor expect to, continually engage in conflict over who is right or wrong about the efficacy of including this article on Wikipedia. My bet is that you are right in spirit about everything you've laid out in this discussion. Please help me to get this article right. I'd prefer that the titled concept "new energy movement" not become "hijacked" then distorted like so many other great ideas. My self-imposed task is to preserve and propogate the substantive reality of the "new energy movement" as a very real and lasting topic that is historical in nature and will endure well into our future. I am asking for your help. This article, though seemingly premature in the perfection of its content, is very timely and deserves immediate recognition, view and searchability within Wikipedia. My degree is in Electronic Engineering and I've enjoyed various careers over my 53 years in technology and music. Needless to say, but I've taken my share of hits for performing stupid human tricks. Please help me to get this article right and preserve the title New Energy Movement. Perhaps we can both agree that there are ideas that "appear" to represent a departure from conventional thinking or wisdom and rarely come mainstream consciousness easily due to dynamic and opposing forces in a free society. However, what the new energy movement says quite effectively is that "this" issue is real and vital by it's very nature. Just because the combination of words "new" "energy" and "movement" singularly are fairly simple does not relagate their combined force to a dark corner of meaningless bunk. There exists countless sources to justify the efforts to bring this concept to light. In my opinion, you have the privilidge of engaging one of many who is actively involved in an idea that is way past due for receiveing the acknowledgement that it deserves in this world. Yes, this issue is substantive, and I am asking for your help to get it rght in Wikipedia. I am also asking that you take a little chunk of time from your busy day to investigate the reality of this so-called new energy movement. Please forgive the long message..

Regards, and PEACE! John

PS: If you have a chance and prefer to see a youtube overview of what it is, I have one here for you:

Please do not add further dross to my talk page. If you have anything sensible to say, say it succintly. Thank you. andy (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: Life, Love and Family

Hi. Just letting you know I removed the speedy delete template from Life, Love and Family. It is about an album, rather than an actual musician, and thus doesn't meet the criteria for WP:CSD#A7. --L. Pistachio (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, A9 andy (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: Kirk Bicycles

Hello Andy, just logged onto Wikipedia and it's told me that my page has been deleted? I understand that there's been a possible violation of G11, but my personal website happens to be the only comprehensive source of information of these bicycles. The manufacturer ceased trading in 1993 and I don't advertise or sell anything.

What I want to do is provide a brief history of these bicycles on Wikipedia, covering History and Development, what I can't do is host all of the images that relate to these bikes on Wikipedia. Hence, the link to my website. If you Google Kirk Bicycles it comes up with an unrelated bicycle framemaker and my own website appears a few hits below. I just want to make it easier for people to find out about these bikes before it's too late. Regards, Simon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonhaydn (talk • contribs) 15:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PRNG in BASIC

Andy, I declined the db-spam, because that's not promoting a person, business, product or web page. (I know G11 says "entity" but I think we generally don't take algorithms to be spam.) But it could certainly use a swift prodding, if you like. (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks andy (talk) 11:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minni magazine

Andy, as an editor and a publisher I appreciate an understanding of the history and development of independent print publications. I also believe that cities need to have access to the history of the development of their artistic and cultural communities of all flavours: high, low, youth, etc. Could you please let me know how this article is not relevant to these histories? Surely if Wikipedia covers some street press, it should cover others. I do not mean to offend; I am merely puzzled. Regards Umasfeet (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The most important policy requirement that such an article should meet is notability - see WP:N. The creator of the article is expected to show that it satisfies the notability criteria. I can't see that your article does and I doubt if it could. But if you supply suitable references then the article will remain. andy (talk) 11:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with you

You said that if I don't stop posting inappropriate pages like Mike Filsaime, that I will be blocked from editing. Listen, just because I had a few sentences in the article that weren't worded EXACTLY the way YOU want them to be, does not make the topic "inappropriate". Just because you might not know anything about the internet marketing realm, doesn't make the major topics within that industry insignificant. People have a right to know about the lives and history of the major people that have shaped the industry we're a part of. Next time, how about just informing me of the changes that would need to be made in order for it be accepted. Thank you for your cooperation in the future.

StephenHenderson (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an administrator, just an editor like you, so all I can do is recommend. Sometimes I recommend deletion, sometimes keeping - it depends on whether the article meets wikipedia's stringent criteria. If you take the trouble to read your Talk page you'll see that absolutely every edit you have ever made on wikipedia has been reverted by someone, not me, because not a single one of them is acceptable. So why not read the rules and stick to them? andy (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gothic plate armour

I was reverting vandalism you numpty! Good grief... Dericate rittre frower (talk) 12:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No you weren't, you were creating it. Do it again and you'll get blocked. andy (talk) 12:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore that user. It's a known troll. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was beginning to wonder. Thanks. andy (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steppingstone School page deletion

Hi Andy! Thanks for the feed-back. I am trying to determine what part of the material I created for the page of Steppingstone School was "blatant advertising". I have used as a guide an existing article (from Roeper School, MI) and tried to scrupulously follow their example. If you could give me some feedback, I'd appreciate it so that I can avoid these difficulties in the future. I appreciate your care and concern for the information posted to Wikipedia.

Reef1944 (talk) 11:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)reef1944[reply]

To be honest, I don't remember much about it. I think it was because the material was heavily promotional in nature - it read like advertising. The Roeper School article doesn't. An article about a school should be neutral in tone, short, sharp and to the point, mention notable alumni, that sort of thing. andy (talk) 11:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks for the input. I'll fix it. Should I forward it to you first in some way? Best regards, Reef1944 (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)reef1944[reply]

I'm not an administrator, just an editor like you. I suggest you set it up on a page in your own user space (see WP:UP#SUB) then ask the admin who deleted it (Athaenara) to take a look. andy (talk) 14:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jam Nizamuddin II

I saw you removed a lot of the content from this article. I am not sure if that was correct - although it could certainly have used copy editing and compression. The content was taken from "History of Sind - translated from Persian books" by Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg (1853-1929)[1] published in Karachi in 1902 and reproduced on the [Packard Humanities Institute] site, which says the site should be used only for personal study. But according to a note in the article on Jam Feroz, which also lifts a lot of material from the same source, the Fredunbeg translation is now in the public domain - which seems plausible. All copyrightable works published in the United States before 1923 are in the public domain. In India copyright expires sixty years from the beginning of the calendar year following the year in which the author dies, or expired in 1990 in this case. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't able to find the date of Fredunbeg's death. Given the author's shocking record of pirating other people's copyrighted material excision seemed safest. andy (talk) 08:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The source for Fredunbeg's date of death seems reliable enough, no reason to doubt it. I tracked down Pakistani law, the only other jurisdiction that could apply, and it protects copyright until fifty years from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the author dies, or 1980. I am therefore confident enough to restore the material.

As a side note, when I first came across this material it seemed completely inappropriate in tone for Wikipedia, and needing drastic editing to be made neutral. Then it struck me that may be because of unconscious bias. Most of the readers of this article are likely to be Indian or Pakistani. The style used by Fredunbeg is presumably somewhere between the style of the original history and the typical style used in that region today for historical writings. It may be closer to what most of the readers expect and feel comfortable with than a style typical of a modern US historian. Perhaps it is impossible to get a globally neutral style. If a US reader sees "Mahmud was a pious and honorable man who ..." they see a judgmental statement, but if a Sindi reader does not see the customary description, they see an implied judgment: "Mahmud was an [impious and dishonorable man] who ...". Can't win. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Islam and Civil Rights

I am posting here because of your recent tag for speedy deletion of the above mentioned article. At the time of your tag, there was no content, but content has since been added. Please be aware that a number of students will be editing this page over the next several days as part of a university project. Thanks.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article and at least one other does not conform to wikipedia's policies. I suggest you read WP:SUP andy (talk) 08:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. Students are presently learning how to navigate Wikipedia, however, and will be working to bring their articles into allignment with Wiki policies. I think that rather than deleting any article as a whole, it would be better to simply remove the offending material. By deleting inappropriate material instead of just deleting the whole article would provide a better learning experience for would-be editors. Thanks.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is the wrong way to learn! The correct way to go about it, as has been clearly pointed out, is to study wikipedia's policies, then create appropriate articles in user space or the sandbox before moving them to the main space. Articles which appear to break wikipedia policies will always be flagged for deletion. You can provide "a better learning experience" by showing students how to do things right, otherwise all they'll learn is how to come into conflict with the wikipedia community andy (talk) 07:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why there should be any "conflict." Wikipedia states hat editors should be bold in their edits. These students are boldly trying to build articles as they learn the way Wikipedia works. All new users make mistakes as they begin. Making mistakes, and correcting them, is a major factor in learning. You are free to have your opinion of what best constitutes a learning experience, but that is beside the point. The articles presently in question have all been tagged as under construction, a tag which requests that editors refrain from requesting deletions until major revisions are completed. So, why not wait until these edits are completed before trying to delete them? Articles go up, they have problems, the problems are pointed out, and people fix them. That is "construction." An article goes up, an editor or two decide to simply delete it while work is ongoing, people get frustrated because they need to start again, this is "conflict." There is quite simply no need for the latter. If once construction ends there remain significant problems, then I'll be the first to delete them.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Wikipedia has rules. They are very clear. Please follow them. andy (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me, or do the rules increase faster than they can be read? There seems to be a lot of pressure to perfect things before putting them up, which is a bit disconcerting to us guys who are older than Wikipedia, microprocessors, and even Vaxen. Can we not go back to the more tolerant ways, and let articles develop slowly? The Real Walrus (talk) 22:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What?

Um I'm not sure what your getting at with tagging my custom userbox for speedy deletion on the account of vandalism considering it's a custom userbox, there is no vandalism involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezekiel 7:19 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You created an article in the main space. Presumably a mistake, not intentional vandalism. andy (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that makes sense, well somebody would have pointed it out eventually, good ol' xeno always looking out for his buds.--Ezekiel 7:19 ^†alk 19:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Buddhism and the body. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. Before making unilateral decisions of such magnitude, please use an article's discussion page to reach Wikipedia:Consensus. Thank you. Vote Cthulhu (talk)

Don't be silly. andy (talk) 11:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should step back and reconsider your "mission" to redirect or delete every article associated with my name. The latest redirect here is even worse than the last.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 12:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing my best. If you had taken any of the offers of help that you have received we wouldn't be having this conversation. andy (talk) 12:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ankit - A query

Hello. I have just one request - can you please tell me how to make an infobox for the 2010 South Asian Games (I created the article). I want it to be like the 2010 Commonwealth Games infobox.

Please help! Reply to me in my talk page. --Ankitbhatt (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you've done looks fine to me. andy (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

False Claims

You told me that I was removing a box on a page marked for deletion and that I could not do it because I created the page. I did not create this page, so please do not assume that I did. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.45.253.122 (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit pattern is identical to User:Missourian1821. You are either the same person or an associate. andy (talk) 08:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could mark the IP's user page as being that of a suspected sockpuppet. Aleta ^Sing 19:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of that but it seems excessive for a very few edits, and anyway most IP addresses are dynamic so it's not likely to be effective. andy (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the person "Andy" placing comments on the "Aging recipe" page: dear Andy the first few times on placing my page could have being including some tips regarding my research. I did not knew the wiki idea of neutrality, so then you have told me, so I did change it in very very neutral way. Thus now I request for you to help me, so the tag is taken off my page, OR I will delete it and wikipedia will lose! Many thanks Professor Whom, ps: also could you email me the results and explain to me how come that person with no education have read my last version of a very professional and neutral and novel article for 3min and have taken decision to tag it in such a manner? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Professorwhom (talk • contribs) 20:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this user is now indef blocked. andy (talk) 09:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answered your qestion

Hello, I am writing you today to let you know that i have answered your question on Wikipedia:Editor_review/Staffwaterboy,Please Feel free to ask any question that you may have,I am glad i am getting feedback from other user such as yourself. .

Take Care, Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me} ^Guestbook ^{Hate Comments} 23:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism and the Body

Just wanted to clarify with you: what in your opinion is still OR about the topic? There is very little left of the original article except for referenced passages, except for the suicide section, which, as I mentioned, I think should be reduced. Most of what is left is the subject headings and the introduction that I created, which can be referenced to the MacMillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism article on 'Buddhist Perspectives on the Body'. Do you feel that the entire topic is original synthesis? Because I'd have to say, this specific topic of 'Buddhism and the Body' gets a great deal of discussion in academic publications. There is no question in my mind that an article of this type should exist, my concern with the earlier AfD was the specific content of that article. Very little of that remains, except for some referenced material that could find its way into a proper article. --Clay Collier (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Debate has now moved to DRV andy (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to get a little more specific input from you; my aim is not to preserve the article as-is, but to create an article that conforms to the guidelines. If you think that part of the article is still OR, I'd like to know what it is so it can be addressed. --Clay Collier (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simple: if the original article was rubbish (which it was) but there's a good idea there for a new article (which there is) then why should we preserve any links to the original article? Why not simply start with a blank sheet of paper, including the title? Call it something different, don't acknowledge the ghastly mess that gave rise to the idea, and move on. Moreover, retaining the history will only encourage people who thought the original article was OK. andy (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to change the title at this point; it's perfectly valid as a title for the topic we're proposing discussing. My reason for attempting some measure of preservation is solely that there were a small number of sourced references that are appropriate for inclusion. If that's the case, why delete those elements? If we're going to use anything that was contributed by a user previously- for instance, the paraphrased or quoted passages that were added to the previous versions of the article- than our licensing requirements mean that we need the old history to identify the authors of those contributions. The new version of the article essentially just recycles a small number of quoted passages. Do you object to something about the use of those passages, or do you feel that the entire topic is invalid? --Clay Collier (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Encourage people to do what?? Edit Wikipedia? You seriously need to get over whatever bee got into your bonnet over this article and others. As has already been pointed out to you by numerous other editors, though the article in question here required substantial re-writing, there is nothing fatally flawed in the topic itself nor in the fact that some (SOME) good work was accomplished by some of the original editors. Vote Cthulhu (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil. andy (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonnie Bishop

Hi Andy JS. Just to let you know, I added another reference here, which might address your concerns about this article. Best, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my !vote to a weak keep. andy (talk) 12:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Company Articles

What is the best way to setup a company article like they did here? http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Frontier_Airlines —Preceding unsigned comment added by Staylor3 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nominations of ETA index in QSAR and Validation of QSAR models

Hi. Concering the above AfDs, the original editor has agreed to the mergers here. I will try to complete the merger over the next several days. I am not sure what the proper protocol is concerning resolution of an AfD, but it may be appropriate at this time to with draw the AfD. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure we need his agreement! Anyway, thanks for the offer and I'll withdraw the nom straight away. :-) andy (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hasiklidika

I'm exhausted, being quite ill, and so on, a bit of a drag, but not your problem, so sorry for mentioning it, but I see your name apparently associated with a demand to make what I wrote perfect really fast, or it will vanish. It appeared within seconds, so I will assume it was something automatic rather than somebody being incredibly rude.

I don't edit a lot on here, as I get increasingly put off by the pompous officialism and complex jargon many of the people who seem to feel they are in charge on here use. I am just this guy, after all, and when I am dead nobody will miss one person who knew a fairly large amount about the Greek music about drugs. Sure it's obscure. Sure the Americans want all trace of drug culture destroyed, for whatever their reasons are. But I'm writing about something in the past, so it's history, and I put a reference to an excellent book about it.

Be so kind as to help me without jargonning me into the ground or shooting my stuff down with automata, παρακαλώ. The Real Walrus (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an American, couldn't care less about drug culture and don't use robots to do my own work. Nor is there anything pompous or official about pointing out that your article had no adequate references and giving a link to wikipedia policy on this matter. You're a bit too ready to take offence. andy (talk) 10:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hasiklidika

Thanks for helping with this closure. However, you used the wrong closure templates; see WP:DPR#Process for the correct details. Also, for AFDs, the templates should be at the very top and very bottom of the page (above the section header). Stifle (talk) 08:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. andy (talk) 08:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gustaf Hammarsten

Don't delete a new article if you don't understand it. That is a famous Swedish actor who has starred in many films and now makes his international debute in the 2009 film Brüno (film)... ! Put it back!

I didn't delete it. The deletion notice here explains why it was deleted and who did it - if you want to restore the article you should correct the problems. Please be polite. andy (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

abstract managment

I've removed a link on this page and referenced that "the link is spam, please visit it and you will find 'feedback from our partners' and an ad: http://www.elsevier.com/framework_societies/pdf/elsevierconferenceservices.pdf".

If you are willing to allow advertisements to be linked from this page as such, please provide a specification that indicates how I might post an identically formatted advertisement for our organization. I tried previously and it was removed.

For competitive fairness you cannot allow a single vendor to represent a concept as broad as abstract management. If this ref is simply re-posted and reverted I will have to appeal beyond this section.

Thanks for your guidance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jj4375 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are illustrative links such as are found in very many articles. Please read the policy on external links at WP:EL and the spam policy at WP:SPAM. andy (talk) 21:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to post a link for illustration then. It is a fact basis and WP:EL indicates that you may have multiple examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jj4375 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add spam links. Discuss this on the article's Talk page, if you must. andy (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protest of AfD

I protested your speedy delete of Richard Radecki. He is a major figure in Navy Diving and his career is studied in every Navy diving course currently taught by the U.S. Navy. He also trained Carl Brashear. In my view, he warrants his own article much like Basil Plumley. You might want to remove the notice and give me a chance to expand the article before trying to delete it. Thank you! -OberRanks (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can show notability the article won't be deleted.andy (talk) 22:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Journals

Thanks for your hard work reverting the nonsense from the IP editor who is adding zillions of tags. I thought I would try to find out what he is on about on JPC A talk page. I am too busy to do too much right now. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's impossible to talk to because his IPs usually only last for one editing session, and even during that session he won't talk. I've been tracking him by checking for similar IPs in the history of an article or talk page and then looking to see if that IP has a similar editing history. He often returns to the same article a couple of times over a few days, so you can follow his trail. He has some sort of obsession with citations, believing that anything that isn't directly referenced is a probable fraud. The most ludicrous example is Academic journal where he keeps adding and then removing "the journal locators" which he claims are an anti-fraud measure. I got blocked for 3RR over this article! andy (talk) 12:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IPs used

222.67.216.110
222.64.23.236
222.67.217.50
222.67.210.32
222.64.22.104

times usually around 1700 - 2300. As shanghai

I've little experience at range blocks, but enough to know this will be difficult or impossible: 222.64 & 222.67 are Chinanet Shanghai dynamic

times usually around 1700 - 2300. As shanghai = UTC +8 and I am UTC -4 , UTC 2300 = 7 PM here, & 7 AM there.

The first were systematically in the A's, but now skipping all over. Any ideas? I will try to catch one tomorrow. Adam, if you see one, ping me. I & we all are very grateful for the catching you've been doing. DGG (talk) 02:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a job for a bot. Smackbot is usually along pretty quickly, tidying up. I notice that it has some pretty specific tags such as "Possible Michael Jackson vandalism"(!). How about getting it to tag anything that's in a scientific journal category where an anon IP has added {{fact}} or {{unreferenced}} tags? I don't know how to go about this, but if you could organise it I'm up for a regular patrol. The other thing of course is to find some way of instantly blocking any anon IP editor who adds those tags to a journal article and is within the ranges of 222.64 and 222.67, but a bot couldn't do that because he often only appears for a few minutes. Worth discussing at ANI? andy (talk) 11:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the new feature of abuse filters. The abuse filter can make a list, and it can be monitored as a RSS. I can think of logic for the filter, but there are run-time consideration in setting up special purpose filters, so if it continues, I will ask advice there on how to do it. I'll look first to see if there's already one that might be modified. (i.p. adding fact tag to anything with our journal tag or infobox, maybe) DGG ( talk ) 23:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Arquila INSIGHT

Andy, you reverted the addition of Arquila INSIGHT from the proprietory list as spam, I cannot see how this software should not be included into the list. Many of the software packages that are in the list are being replaced by this software? Daemonk (talk) 07:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no views about other items on the list, but since there seems to be agreement that INSIGHT does not satisfy wikipedia's notability criteria then it shouldn't be there. Moreover the purpose in adding the article and this link seems to have been to promote the product. andy (talk) 09:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One of the reasons given for the deletion discussion was the mentioning of the comparison of accountancy products on the article but that the product was not part of the comparison. So I was attempting to put it in correctly and not just under the retail section. I think this is a valid product for inclusion as I use more than one of the products on the list and see this as a definite product to compare with, the notability is being disputed as many of the bigger companies have easy access to notable references and the notability clause specifically mentions that smaller businesses should be taken into extra consideration, which is exactly the case for Arquila Insight.Daemonk (talk) 10:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is also supported by the Accountancy task force. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daemonk (talk • contribs) 10:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You should make these points on the deletion discussion page. andy (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]