This is an archive of past discussions with User:MadeYourReadThis. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Could you please help me so I can update the AllegroGraph entry for another review.
It appears I need to get some release from the original user that removed the article but there doesn't appear to be any response from my post to their page. Thanks.
I've made a number of references that I believe bring relevancy to light. The product is being used by the DBPedia in Germany, this is the Semantic Web version of the Wikipedia. In addition I'm referencing a paper about its use in the US Intelligence community. Other references as well. I think these are the types of facts that are relevant and interesting.
Not sure if there's something that you need to do to make the magic happen, but just thought I'd leave you a note that Arbitron has rolled over to the Spring 2010 surveys now. I've updated the two templates, but the tool is still looking for the Winter 2010 survey information and, logically, not finding it. Mlaffs (talk) 00:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
You were very quick in marking "Hawke scout hall" for quick deletion.
So fast that I had not had time to put any content on it.
The article is about the building not the group itself.
If you have the time I would be really grateful if you could now look again at the page. It is nowhere near complete but the material should give you an indication of the theme and historical significance of the building's history
As you can see the early history is well researched and referenced.
There are a number of local historians who will provide more material but they will be disinclined to spend time working on it whilst it is marked for speedy deletion.
I still dont see this article meeting notability guidelines but will change the tag from a speedy deletion to a proposed deletion to give you a bit more time to get sources together. At present it does not have sufficient reliable sources to demonstrate significant coverage.--RadioFan (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
AllegroGraph
I'm not sure you understood my comment. The updates I have are referencing third party publications covering the topics I noted - DBPedia, US Intelligence, as well as other publications. How do I make the updates to the page so they are shown to be relevant? Thanks for your help. Cnorvell (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
But it does meet for inclusion they have been on the daily habit on fuel tv performed two songs Your new hobby and love at first sight so their qualifies as a article meeting guidelines. Dom4182* (talk) 04:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
They Have been on interviews with fuel TV they played the daily habit and if you even read the wiki you'd see they did the Etnies Grounded project which was on FuelTV and you'd know that this was broadcast nationally as they performed they music for the whole movie for this Etnies project which is more than an hour and thirty minutes long and they aren't a garage band cause they played the Warped Tours and played multiple highly known shows the even had songs played on video games do all the research like i did they are just not that famous they recorded thier own album thats why they aren't under a label which means they got at least some what famous without the label meaning they dont need it meaning they aren't a garageband as you intentionally acclaimed them as which they obviously aren't please read the wiki and check links and read the information before you add these to pages and yes they have won major awards which is seen as the Myspace Featured Artist Award Seen on the list of their Awards and under the references you can see that they did win it. Please read before you post these.Dom4182* (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I have not labeled them a garage band. If you read the article talk page (where this discussion belongs, not here on my talk page) you'll see that I pointed out that they are not the typical garageband. Please take this discussion to Talk:Sayvinyl so that others may participate as well. --RadioFan (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
She is a protagonist/prominent character in the series. I understand the article needs work, but I think this character can have its own article. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈02:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I reverted your revision to Natalie Kabra because the character is a major character in the novel series The 39 Clues. If you disagree, please discuss it at the article's talk page or at the 39 Clues Task Force General Forum. Thank you, mono18:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
File:The 39 Clues Set.jpg
I noticed you placed a disputed fair use rationale tag on this image. I looked it over and see that it has the book license which isn't entirely accurate (since as you pointed out, it isn't just books), and a non-free media rationale which appears to apply to all parts of the image. Are you saying that the image actually isn't fair use for some reason or that it isn't explained well enough (e.g., explanation of the product packaging as well as the book covers)? Any feedback would be appreciated. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Even with further explanation, I do not beleive that fair use applies here. Fair use applies only to book covers for purposes of demonstrating a single book. While it could be argued that an image of multiple books could be considered fair use in an article about that book series, the inclusion of the cards is troubling here. They are not book covers nor are the packaging shown in the image discussed in the article. For this reason I do not believe this image can be considered free use.--RadioFan ([[User --RadioFan (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)talk:RadioFan#top|talk]]) 01:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation. As I don't often deal with image copyright questions, I hope you won't take it amiss if I ask for a further opinion at WP:IMAGEHELP. Thanks again! VernoWhitney (talk) 02:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
You're funny. You're telling me you have enough time in THREE MINUTES to review the topic I just posted on? I appreciate folks looking for spam, but three minutes?! Did you follow the ref? Maybe someone can help put a proper stub tag on this? I will continue working on this post but I'm not going to delve into the byzantine peer review hierarchies involved. Put a Speedy on it if you so desire. Wikipedia has changed A LOT since I started posting. jk (talk) 03:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC) (late and grumpy)
3 minutes or 3 days, I dont see how this topic will meet notability guidelines. The article does not meet speedy deletion guidelines. Please read the tag, if you disagree with it, instructions are there.--RadioFan (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
You obviously provide a great service to the community by sifting through reams of drek as it splatters. But I would urge you to back off the AFD notices for a tiny bit after the stub is first posted for civility's sake. I, in turn, endeavor to write more fully formed stubs. My apologies. It was late and I wanted to get something up before turning in. Cheers. jk (talk)
File:The 39 Clues Set.jpg
Ok, so I asked over at WP:IMAGEHELP and the one response was that it's not a good picture, but probably ok as fair use. Do you have any objection to it staying around if I improve on the free-use rationale and find a better non-free license to use? VernoWhitney (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'll fix it up and comment on the file's talk page and I guess we'll see what the admin decides to do this weekend. Thanks for the reply! VernoWhitney (talk) 02:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Essays on Building Wikipedia
Some dude just added 5 essays, so if you're really interested in some sort of a quality screen, you better get back to the template talk page and help the discussion move from "brainstorming" to "consensus." ɳorɑfʈ Talk!12:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
committee for melbourne
If you google committee for Melbourne you will see over 43,000 entries.
Look objectively at the organisation and you will see that for over 25 years it has made a huge difference to a major city which is enough to warrant an article.
Its junior baby organisation, Committee for Geelong has an article..
A count of Google hits doesn't demonstrate notability, references to reliable sources does. That's why I searched news articles on the title and came up with only 2 hits. That's not a good sign. Also, the existence of similar articles really doesnt enter into the discussion of this article. If more reliable sources can be found, an encyclopedic article might be possible but you should not write it. As CEO of the organization you have a conflict of interest and should avoid editing this article at all.--RadioFan (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Can you take a little more care while prodding articles. You prodded Grand Army Plaza (Manhattan) within a minute of its creation. And that too when the creator had added a book as a reference. why such haste? Taking a minute or two to search for sources would reduce errors like this --Sodabottle (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I still do not see this article as meeting notability guidelines but that's why it was prod'd rather than AFD'd or speedy deletion requested. The least disruptive method for requesting deletion. I will respect your opinion on it's notability and leave it be however.--RadioFan (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I disagree, again I dont plan to nominate it for deletion again but I wanted you to understand that it was not a mistake. I do not believe it to be notable enough for a dedicated article.--RadioFan (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
O.K., I figured it was not a mistake. It is notable, but is sadly a virtually unknown place. But we have four images, several good cites, and links to famous places on the Plaza. Bearian (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
The article is very incomplete now and lacks references to 3rd party sources, any issue with moving it under your user space so that you may have more time to complete it before introducing it in to the main article space?--RadioFan (talk) 11:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
But I losted my Article?
Hello Sir
But I can't get my article because it is deleted, so please let me know the article!!
Good Morning to you, i see you intervent on my article, and there are the refences, sorry my bad english, and please help this article♥, in the next future iput him photo dof the Fair, can help me to improve the article? Sorry my Bad English♥--Lodewijk Vadacchino (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
with irresponsible wikipedian like you who judge article with prjudice and without rational is detrimental not only to other wikipedians but wikipedia itself. such an important article you would propose a delete is a waste of other wikipedians times spent improving wikipedia articles. i hope you stop doing this. i request the bot and wikipedia administrtors to immediately take action against your irresponsible acts. i will rather go for a vote rather than see you do whatever you like. i will advise you to think and atleast do some research to establish the notabity of the article. thank you. Sisiluncai (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
In 2007 you started Leon Kromer. It turns out that he is also Major General Leon B. Kromer (1876-1966, retired 1938) [3]. He was the penultimate Chief of U.S. Cavalry, succeeded by John K. Herr who drove the service into oblivion (I'm writing a piece on him now). Would you mind if I (eventually) remove football infobox from Leon Kromer, as football is clearly distant second to his military service? More on Kromer in:
as long as his college football coaching career is mentioned, I have no problem refocussing this article. The table with the one year of coaching can likely be removed as well. Thanks for asking.--RadioFan (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi RadioFan. I'm just dropping you a line to let you know that I have declined the speedy deletion of Lawrence Children's Choir, a page you tagged for speedy deletion as an article about a company, corporation, organization, or group that did not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject, as it made the credible assertation that the subject is a world class choir that has toured internationally, which is an indication of significance. I also very easily found significant coverage in reliable sources that indicates that the subject meets primary inclusion criterion. Kind regards, --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, please read the notices on your talk page. You must not remove speedy deletion tags on articles you have created.--RadioFan (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The claim of Billboard charting is not referenced in reliable sources. I could find no mention of the band on Billboard's website.--RadioFan (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I just added the reference to the ISAF site on the Windglider page. You were just a little quicker than me:-) Can I take the reference tag away?NED33 (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
You certainly may, thanks for adding that. It would be nice to have a few more references there to solidify the notability of this topic though.--RadioFan (talk) 11:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. If I find more I will absolutely add. This one is to the world wide governing body of sailing. The body that makes most sailing decisions for the IOC. Therefor the most reliable at this moment.NED33 (talk) 12:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi , I am crerating article Firstsource, along with proper citations that's why placed underconstruction & you nominated it for speedy deletion. Please assist( Abu Torsam 18:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC))
looked like a mistake. There was no content, just the underconstruction tag. This is why it was nominated for speedy deletion. Can I help by moving the article under your user space so that you may complete it there at your own pace without worrying about it being deleted?--RadioFan (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello RadioFan, Abu Torsam has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thankyou for support, Yes i was planning to add the content as i need to upload logo of organisation, but it showed to create article first that's why created article. Please move it, to appropriate place so that i can work on it, & help so that it will not be deleted.( Abu Torsam 18:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC))
Sounds good, you can continue editing at User:Abutorsam007/Firstsource. I've tagged the original location for deletion so that you may move it back when you are done without any problem. If you need a hand just drop me a note here.--RadioFan (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
Been offline for a while and only just managed to get back on now, my article about Irish band, Distributor, was deleted on the 16th of April. I am aware of the past reasons for the deletion of the page, but since then they have received more reviews of their album "depth of perception" and have also appeared on Ireland's national tv station RTE 1 on a programme called "An Cór". As i understood it, this give the needed notability for the creation of the page.
Thanks,
Stroopy
Stroopy (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Distributor (band) has been deleted several times, both speedily because of a lack of references and lack of any claims of notability and through the AFD process where the references you talk about above were discussed and several editors felt they did not meet guidelines for reliable sources, I'm not seeing much change from then. Until this band receives significant, widespread coverage in multiple reliable sources, I'd avoid recreating the article.--RadioFan (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Distributor
Hi,
Been offline for a while and only just managed to get back on now, my article about Irish band, Distributor, was deleted on the 16th of April. I am aware of the past reasons for the deletion of the page, but since then they have received more reviews of their album "depth of perception" and have also appeared on Ireland's national tv station RTE 1 on a programme called "An Cór". As i understood it, this give the needed notability for the creation of the page.
Thanks,
Stroopy
Stroopy (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Distributor (band) has been deleted several times, both speedily because of a lack of references and lack of any claims of notability and through the AFD process where the references you talk about above were discussed and several editors felt they did not meet guidelines for reliable sources, I'm not seeing much change from then. Until this band receives significant, widespread coverage in multiple reliable sources, I'd avoid recreating the article.--RadioFan (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Um... one of the major goals of wikipedia is to encompass all the subjects found in specialized encyclopedias like The Canadian Encyclopedia. Your concerns about notability are frankly ridiculous in this case. If a subject has an entry in an encyclopedia its notable, period, end of story. No other sources are needed to prove notability in circumstances like these. Obviously multiple sources are better in terms of coverage. However, this article is just a stub and I am therefore not really concerned about multiple sources at the moment. The only reason I created the stub in the first place was to avoid possible confusion with the article on Waterloo Records.4meter4 (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Again, I ask the question, is this the only reference available for this topic? If so, then frankly, it may not survive an AFD. --RadioFan (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Elevator-magazine.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
can you tell me in depth why you marked this for deletion? i have been adding some more details and facts but am not sure what to do else. our company will release the new version of the existing oktopus system under a new name (yeager) within the next month...
The reason is listed in the deletion discussion (there is a link at the top of the article), you may read and respond there. Since you have a close connection with this product, you should avoid editing this article as you have a conflict of interest. If it can meet notability guidelines, someone else will create an article for it. Your editing it could be viewed as a form of spam.--RadioFan (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
DaMon Cromartie-Smith
Sorry to be of inconvenience to you,
I was trying to create a page for this football player. I don't really understand what I have done wrong. Could you give me some pointers please (this is my first article).
Thankyou, Iamjemappelle
dont delete of the bradley lott page becuase its a real star and a real person and he his talking to you now
That's up to the admin that reviews it (please see the top of this page, I'm not an admin and I cant delete pages, I just make admins aware of those that may meet criteria to delete immediately). I've left some additional information on your talk page about autobiographical articles, you should avoid them.--RadioFan (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Alternative Media Access Center (AMAC). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Alternative Media Access Center. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Alternative Media Access Center - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. RadioFan (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Just a quick note to let you know that I've removed the prod from this article as the creator had added a hangon tag so the prod is obviously contested. Dpmuk (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Just a heads up that I've declined your request for speedy deletion of UKK Bosna, based on the assertion that they won a 2003 European championship. I've asked, on Talk:UKK Bosna, for better references (in English wherever possible) for the club. IMO, the article should get a couple of weeks incubation time, and if there's still weak sourcing then, nominate it for AfD. I am watching the article to see how it develops. —C.Fred (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello RadioFan, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Dance, Dance Chicago has been removed. It was removed by 207.237.55.137 with the following edit summary '(Undid revision 358441977 by RadioFan (talk))'. Please consider discussing your concerns with 207.237.55.137 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 08:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 08:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Адіш Агарвала. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Adish Agarwal. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Adish Agarwal - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
For [[Walter Chappell] .But you simultaneously added a unsourced BLP tag and a close paraphrase tag.-- and you listed the source for the paraphrase on the talk p. Don;t you see that the two tags are incompatible? How can an article for which you found a source--albeit a source that gives copyright problems, also be an unsourced BLP.? The paraphrase is indeed a problem that will have to be dealt with DGG ( talk ) 20:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I dont see a problem with the tags and think it is tagged appropriately. The article isn't sourced, that's the responsibility of the editor who added the material, not mine. Since its a BLP and it's unsourced, it' gets the BLP Prod tag. While checking for possible COPYVIO, I found some text that is very very close to this article, that's also a problem as you note.--RadioFan (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, mono 18:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Template:Better source has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. - sorry, but I just don't think this is a good idea.