This is the 36th page of my talkpage archives, dated late-July 2007 to early-August 2007. Please do not edit this page. If you wish to leave a message, click here! :)
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Wikipedia:WikiProject EnRich!, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 04:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on WP:ER!, by SXT40 (talk·contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because WP:ER! is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting WP:ER!, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 04:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Im the GM of Globol Entertainment and have recently been made aware that a Wikipedia reference to our sport has been deleted. Why this deletion took place is of concern to us as we are quite active in Australia and are in the process of launching a series of events throughout Asia - the comments placed on Wikipedia concerning us and our business are commercially damaging.
I'd be more than happy to disucss this matter with you
Ryan Wright
GM Globol Entertianment
Lv 14, 440 Collins Street
Melbourne Australia
Ryan dot globol dot net ... posted at 08:33, 19 July 2007 by 218.214.23.191
Perhaps you'll find the answers to your questions in the Business FAQ. If a reference was deleted within a certain article, ask about it in the talk page of that article. If you think an article was wrongly deleted, you can ask about that in Deletion review. There should be no comments, good or bad, about you or your business within any article; if there are, bring this matter up in the article's talk page. -- Hoary 09:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 19:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I am an editor at Pearson and would like to use your image of the ERP gantry at Bugis for my book. As the book is due for printing this coming tuesday, could you drop me an email at yenhoon dot Tok at pearsoned dot com dot sg so that we can discuss this matter? Thanks.
Yen Hoon
15:47, 25 May 2007 Fang Aili (Talk | contribs) deleted "Air aroma" (WP:CSD A7 - does not assert notability
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Could you please inform me why this article was deleted? what was wrong with it?
Thank you for participating in My RfA which closed successfully. I am honored and truly more than a little humbled by the support of so many members of the community. It's more than a bit of a lift to see comments on my behalf by so many people that I respect. I'll do my best to not disappoint you or the community. - Philippe | Talk 20:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I was just wondering if in future, with other articles, I could nominate a page such as this for speedy, instead of prodding? The_World_of_Candidus Is there a speedy criteria it could fit? I suppose it could count as nonsense almost. Any ideas?Merkinsmum 15:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Could you be of help in reversing the deletion? I was a founding member of the band and I can fully verify any and all of the information in the article. I firmly believe it meets the requirements laid out in WP:MUSIC.
Thank you and please contact me if you need any more information.
Keith Andrew kickstar1 at hotmail dot com --Kickstar1 04:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Mailer Diablo, I created a stub for the band A Place To Bury Strangers that was nominated for deletion. You ultimately deleted it. As a new user, I am confused about the reason. I believe the stub may have been vandalized, that being the cause of the nominations--because I had received a letter from another editor regarding vandalism he had amended on the stub prior.
The band A Place To Bury Stranger is certainly relevant. The stub contained many references and all facts were easily verifiable using the marked references. Furthermore, there are many other lesser-known bands included in the database that haven't as many official releases (or any for that matter) and articles written about them that cite fewer references (there were six references cited and ten external links). A Place To Bury Strangers plays major venues (as noted in the stub), release verifiable work published by notable record labels (as also noted) and are well-regarded and publicly praised by many other very notable recording artists. It was marked in their stub that bands such as U2 and Wilco have been impressed enough to have the guitarist for APTBS create for them the same effects equipment he uses for them to use themselves. As well, they have been invited by Anton Newcombe to share stages his band Brian Jonestown Massacre and the same with The Jesus And Mary Chain.
It seems the stub wasn't given a chance for the deletion to be openly discussed. The Wikipedia guidelines state that nominations for deletion are to be given at least five days for open discussion. This discussion only existed on the talk pages for a number of hours.
I can only assume that someone vandalized the page, causing it to appear as material for speedy deletion. Do you think I should open the topic up for deletion review or shall I re-create it?
Thank you for your time and consideration. I have found all editors and administrators to be very reasonable and helpful thus far. I look forward to your advice on this matter. Together we can solve this problem and isure that good Wikipedians can continue to build on this grand resource together in harmony.
Hi, Mailer diablo, and thanks for your participation in my RfA. I've withdrawn it, and will be writing up an "analysis" of it, which will soon be available at User:Giggy/RfA/Giggy when it's done. Please come around when you get the chance, and give me feedback on how I can improve. Thanks again, GiggyUCP 04:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I did have a page up called "consupport" - a free convention support service, but it was deleted. Do you have any suggestions as to how I can make it better.
You'll see in the log that there were a lot of improvements made while it was live, but I obviously missed something.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 00:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
You closed the AFD for this article in December 2006; I did not see that version of the article, so I have no objections to that, but I am curious if the RS I have gathered on the subject differ from what was in that version of the article. Please let me know if there is an objection to recreation at Talk:Bureaucrash. Thanks. THF 12:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Austin Kincaid. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Epbr123 22:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Mailer diablo has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Mailer diablo's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Kua!
An article about Openbravo (an open source ERP project) was deleted some time ago, citing lack of relevance (eg. 490 google results). Today Openbravo has been downloaded almost 300,000 times on SourceForge.net, and google delivers 275,000 results. Is there any rule to propose the re-inclusion of an article when the circumstances have changed like this? Signed by: Jmitja (talk) 22:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
{{helpme}}
Someone just deleted about 7 Academy Awards articles that I am currently working on and have consistently been working on. They were being deleted literally as I was working on them tonight. I was unaware of their consideration for deletion until this very moment, as I started to work on them. What, if anything, can be done about this? Who can I speak to about this? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 03:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC))
What were the names of the articles? You should be able to view a log of actions taken on a page, including deletions (with a rationale), at Special:Log. Don't hesitate to ask again if you still have questions about why the deletions occurred. Iknowyourider (tc) 03:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I was asking so I could better help you. Should have been clearer about that. That AfD discussion seems to hasve quite a bit of consensus behind it; getting the list recreated may very well be an uphill battle. You might want to familiarize yourself with the guide to deletion and also this essay. If you really think the article should be recreated, head over to deletion review. Cheers, Iknowyourider (tc) 04:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. (Joseph A. Spadaro 04:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC))
Got your message, confirming that indeed they are deleted as a result of AfD consensus after the debate has run for 5 days. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 06:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Someone just deleted about 7 Academy Awards articles that I am currently working on and have consistently been working on. They were being deleted literally as I was working on them tonight. I was unaware of their consideration for deletion until this very moment, as I started to work on them. What, if anything, can be done about this? Who can I speak to about this? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 07:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC))
The pages were tagged with {{AfD}} for five days, in accordance to policy, you didn't notice them at all? Please consider the reasons within the AfD for deletion, because if fundamentally the article subject do not justify inclusion policy no matter how good the quality of the article is written it cannot be saved. - Mailer Diablo 15:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I have done so. However, you have replied to -- but not answered -- my questions. My questions, at this point, are: What, if anything, can be done about this? Who can I speak to about this? Please advise. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 21:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC))
Okay, in that case if you have a compelling justification for undeletion, try deletion review. Or if you would like a userified copy of the content so that you can work on it, let me know the list of pages on my talkpage. - Mailer Diablo 11:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I have reviewed these links on deletion review. Thanks. They say that Step 1 is to first attempt to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. So ... is that you or someone else? If it is you, how do we begin this process? If it is not you, who would be the correct person for me to discuss this with? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 20:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC))
Hello. I am still attempting to resolve this issue, as per my last posting to you (immediately above). I have not yet heard back from you. Please reply at my Talk Page. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 23:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC))
Yes it is me. As the AfD is overwhelmingly with a consensus for deletion, I can't overturn it just like that (it isn't a glaring error, either). I can though copy the contents to your userpage sandbox for you to continue working on it ("userified") and put it back when the improved version addresses the concerns raised at AfD, let me know on my talkpage if you wish to take this option. Alternatively, if you have new evidence or a strong case to justify why the article should not delete, appeal to deletion review for the community to have a look again. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 00:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Please accept my apologies in the delay to my reply, real life schedule has been harsh for me in the past few days. - Mailer Diablo 00:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your replies. I wanted to get back to you, and not leave this thread hanging and unresolved. Frankly, I am seeking advice and assistance as to how to proceed in this matter. If interested, you can read this post on my Talk Page: User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro#Seeking Advice and Assistance. In any event, I will be in touch. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 18:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC))
Hello, it's me again. I am back, regarding this (above) issue. In one of your prior posts to me, you stated: "I can though copy the contents to your userpage sandbox for you to continue working on it ("userified") and put it back when the improved version addresses the concerns raised at AfD, let me know on my talkpage if you wish to take this option." Can you please explain to me what this means? I am not sure that I understand. Also, I do not know what the term "userified" means. Please let me know more about this process that you have suggested to me. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 06:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC))
Oh, just means that you receive a copy of the deleted article on your user-subpage for the purpose of working on it to address the concerns raised at the AfD. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 14:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, great -- thanks. Can you please send me the copy? I'd appreciate that. Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro 00:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC))
Kindly check your email. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 08:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you. I checked my email, nothing there. Which email address are you referring to? Did I even give you my email address? I don't recall doing so. Or -- perhaps (?) -- does my Wiki account come with some type of email function that I am not aware of? Please advise. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 16:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC))
The email address that you have entered in your Preferences section. - Mailer Diablo 16:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
As I said, I checked my email -- but nothing there. Please resend and let me know when you have done so, so that I can keep an eye out for it. What is your email address / from which I will receive your email? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 19:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC))
(undent) Please check your mailbox again. Caution : Huge size, which might explain why you may not be receiving it. Take note that these articles have been deleted due to concerns that the standards of inclusion in the list is arbitrary. This means it is very difficult for these articles to return "as such". However, you might find the contents in the email useful enough for other purposes outside Wikipedia, or to be merged into existing articles. If you do not receive the email, reply to kua a-t planetkh d-o-t c-o-m instead. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 16:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I did indeed get the email -- thank you for sending that to me. I am still a bit confused. Can you tell me what exactly is wrong with all of these articles ... and how can they be "fixed" in order for them to survive any future deletion proposal? Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro 02:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC))
In other words, Wikipedians do not find it acceptable for lists to simply have a numerical criteria/border to justify inclusion of items in an awards list - they just find it too arbitrary to be used a yardstick. It is a fundamental problem on whether the article should exist in the first place that is very difficult to fix; there is nothing wrong with the quality of the content per se. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 16:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi again. I am still very confused about this whole issue, and I wonder if I can ask some questions about all of this? Should I ask these questions of you, or do you suggest another person? Please let me know. I really don't understand this issue, and would like to understand it -- in order to improve / edit / revise the articles, etc. Thanks. Please let me know who is the best person to ask my questions of. Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro 23:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC))
In that case, please go ahead and ask me the questions. I'll try to answer and clarify them. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 00:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
(undent) Hello. I have finally found some free time to get back to you on this issue and to ask my questions of you. I am really very confused here -- so perhaps you can help me. The following seven articles were deleted and, according to the deletion consensus, the primary reason was essentially "arbitrary cut off points." (Is my understanding correct on that issue?) That being the case, here are my questions.
(A) If we have a direct, primary source -- such as the official Academy Awards database and its website -- and that primary, direct source has a cut-off point ... then that is not an arbitrary cut-off point ... or is it? In other words, let's look at Deleted Article #3 above (hypothetically, for example). If the direct, primary source has information entitled "The following films received ten or more Academy Award nominations" ... then, how would/could we report that info in Wikipedia? Perhaps the number of "ten or more" is indeed arbitrary, but that arbitrary figure is what the official, direct, primary source gives us. In reporting that, we (Wikipedia) cannot change that cut off point, even if it is arbitrary -- because the arbitrariness stems from the original direct primary source. So, how does a scenario like this get resolved? My personal interpretation is that it is not an arbitrary cut off point at all -- but, rather, that Wikipedia is simply "parroting" or reporting the information from the Official Academy Awards databse / website. I believe that this argument would be ditto for Deleted Articles # 1, 4, etc. etc. etc. above. So -- as a related example -- if the American Film Institute (AFI) lists its "Top 100 Greatest Films of All Time" -- how can Wikipedia report that info, since the 100 is an arbitrary number? Or, if the American Literature Society or the American Librarian's Association lists the Top 100 Greatest Novels (or Authors) of All Time -- how can Wikipedia report that info, since the 100 is an arbitrary number?
(B) Regarding articles that detail "two or more" (things). How is that arbitrary? Indicating "two or more" is simply another semantic way of saying "multiple" or "more than one". That is not arbitrary. For example, there are people who have won only ONE Oscar ... and there are people who have won MORE THAN ONE (multiple) Oscars. I do not see how that is an arbitrary cut off point. Perhaps the first group of people is not notable ("only" winning one Oscar), but the second group of people is indeed notable (winning more than one Oscar). No? Or is this simply a semantic issue ... as to whether the article is semantically entitled two or more versus multiple or more than one? That would seem like a distinction without a difference to me. Is it the actual title / wording that is the problem ... or the (supposedly arbitrary) cut off point of two that is the problem?
(C) Also, it would seem that nearly any list in the world will have to have some cut off point. If I looked on Wikipedia, I could probably find something like "Famous People Who Have Lived to Be 100" or something like that. Or "The 100 Highest Rated TV Shows". Are not those arbitrary cut off points? The author could easily have had the first article titled "Famous People Who Have Lived to Be 82 (... or 79 ... or any number)." Thus, is 100 just as arbitrary -- and deletable -- as these seven Academy Award articles? The second article (100 Top Rated TV Shows) is arbitrary in that it could have been called "The Top 78 TV Shows" -- but for whatever reason (arbitrary decision by the Wiki editor or arbitrary decision by the original, primary, direct source) -- the value 100 was chosen and not the value 78. So, my point: is not any list whatsoever always, by definition, going to have an arbitrary cut off point -- whether that cut off is from the primary or secondary or tertiary source / decision maker? Otherwise, if not, Wikipedia would have to list every single TV Show, all 7 million of them, from highest to lowest rating ... as opposed to just the Top 100. Or Wikipedia would have to list the age of every single human being on the earth (all 6 billion people) and not just "The Top 100 Oldest". That is the only way to avoid a cut off point -- and, of course, that defeats the purpose of the article. That is, a list a every living human defeats the point of information contained in a list of the Top _____ (100 or 78 or whatever number) Oldest Living Humans. Etc. Etc. Etc. So, what's the practical solution? Delete all these articles? Like we did with the 7 Academy Award articles?
So, please help clarify these issues for me -- so that I can understand why the Academy Award articles are considered "arbitrary in cut off", why they were deleted, and how to fix them up to get them un-deleted. Please reply at my Talk Page: User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 18:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC))
Ah, now things are clearer now. Yes that is correct, the articles were deleted because Wikipedians consider the lists to be arbitrarily defined. (A) If it is defined by the official organization, you have some form of argument here to address the "arbitrary list" concern. You should have participated in the AfD, pointed this out and referred to links of the official website. Better if (B) there are third-party, independentsources (i.e. secondary sources, very important!) to convince other editors in the AfD that it is widely used as a form of standard rather than an arbitrary gauge that everyone else though so - This is particularly true if you need to use an rather "odd" number (like 79) as the yardstick. Editors in the AfD might probably made the conclusion/assumption that the person who created the article had defined the numbers because this argument and its relevant sources were not brought up in front of them to address during the AfD. Sources is gold, because merely arguing point (C) will only result in editors throwing the response/objection of "then you're right, we should delete the rest as well" towards this argument.
At this point you might want to search the Internet to find some reputable sources (news report, etc.) that will help you back the above. You mentioned that Two Oscars or more for a person is noteworthy, then I'm sure at least one news/entertainment source will sure point out this fact (or/and the rarity of Two Oscars). Gather all your research of links (hopefully several!) to prove that this set of lists are noteworthy and non-arbitrary, and start a deletion review (DRV) with your arguments, sources, and noting that you have new evidence to disprove the concerns in the original AfD to begin the undeletion process. DRV discussions take about two weeks, and if successful will result in undeletion of all the abovementioned articles. Because this AfD is a multi-nomination, you may choose to argue for each article seperately if you wish to. If you do managed to get the articles undeleted, don't forget to add all the sources you have put forth in the DRV discussion to these articles as well.
For your last point, some topics have a generally defined guideline by Wikipedians on the cut-off point based on AfD precedents. (They don't have one for academy awards or list, though) However, at the end of the day it is just a rough guideline, and editors on AfDs ultimately judge based on verifiability (i.e. secondary sources) on a case-to-case basis. :) - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 04:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply and for all of the above input and information. I will collect some sources and I will begin the deletion review process once I have gathered the necessary information. Thanks again for your help. (Joseph A. Spadaro 01:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC))
If possible, I would like to see the article "Camp Mendocino" undeleted.
Excerpt from deletion notice:
22:22, 15 January 2007 Mailer diablo (Talk | contribs) deleted "Camp Mendocino"
(Proposed deletion expiring after 5 days, 9/1/2007)
I'm not sure why it was deleted. Camp Mendocino belongs to a non profit organization, is very traditional, and has existed since the 1930s. If the article requires changes, please let me know.
Thanks for uploading Image:AEticket.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. effeietsanders 20:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "User:Mailer diablo/Archive κ" page.
