User talk:Segv11/Archive01

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Segv11. 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.

Rouge River (Quebec)

Yes, the article that's up at Rouge River Quebec is definitely a good stub. However, from now on you should wait until you have at least some content before posting anything. It has been decided that articles with no content should be speedily deleted, mainly because if someone goes on the random pages button and sees an article with no content, it is not good. Academic Challenger 20:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

OK. I guess I should use "show preview" more often, and don't actually do "save page" until I'm ready for the world to see it. :-) Jamie 20:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Modern language <- Modern Languages move

I agree, that's what I get for thinking when half asleep. Reverted my changes and put up an afd on the redirect page to get this started. Thanks! Thaagenson 12:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

AfD's on WP:PNT

As per your recommendation, I've been making AfD nominations for some of the older, entries on WP:PNT. I intent do keep going until I catch up to the two-week mark, skipping articles that have at least had some work on them. Since you used to do this maintainance, please let me know if my practice is consitent with yours.

Also, if I find and article on WP:PNT which has been translated, speedied, deleted, or otherwise taken care of -- but that is still in the main list -- should it be deleted? or moved to the "done/needs attention" list for a few days so contributors can see the updated status?

Jamie 04:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

If they are deleted, just kill 'em. If it looks like the article still needs help, but it's not translation help, tag them for cleanup, and remove them from WP:PNT. "Done/needs attention" is for things that are clearly sufficiently translated to be kept, but could still use more attention from a translator.

Letting contributors know why you removed an entry is usually best accomplished through the edit summary at time of removal. If you look through the WP:PNT history you'll see what typically gets written. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Let me know if I'm going the right way will the AfD's, since I'm going to do a whole bunch of them... Jamie 04:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't usually follow AfD unless something I care about gets tagged or someone pings me; feel free to aim me at any page or edit (using URL of diff from history) that you'd like me to check. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

No need to write anything on WP:PNT: just remove it with a comment saying "moved to AfD" (which I did for you just now). See how simple that is?

Also, when you remove from WP:PNT, don't forget to remove the {{notenglish}} tag from the article itself. That says it's in the midst of its 2 weeks. That's no longer true.

This particular one (Sodhe) is an interesting case. I'm not sure it is of encyclopedic importance, but I believe it is in perfectly good English: the Sanskrit terms in it are mostly untranslatable. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedies

Hi Jamie - my speedy deletions haven't come from afd - I've been trawling the new creations page. Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 08:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Jamie - Thanks for the notes. I didn't know the codes for these, and they ought to save me time, since there's only 1 edit required, rather than 3. :-) Lancer Sykera 10:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, I left this where it was on purpose - I feel just awful now, that you felt it necessary to do that *sob* Lancer Sykera 10:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anbeysivam

Hi, while I liked your comment on the above for its humor, pls. don't feed the troll. --Gurubrahma 13:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Deleterious->Mutation

But why should beneficial redirect to mutation? The word beneficial is used in lots of outside contexts that have nothing to do with biology. Deleterious, on the other hand, is used almost exclusively in the biological sciences. Just look up the word on Google - you get a bunch of dictionary definitions and then it's just page after page of genetics articles. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 19:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Replied, see my user talk page. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 02:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Overnight Loss

Question on your disagreement with the {{nonsense}} CSD tag. The text contains the following lines:

"Overnight Loss is a emo band from Winettka, Illinois that was brought together in early 1732."
"After that, there seemed to be no hope for Overnight Loss there still is none - until highschool came along. "
"but was always off by himself soloing and idolizing bands such as Led Zeppelin and the Shitface McGees. "
"The band continues to write new music everyday and hopes that one day they will become the biggest band to come from Chicago, besides Peeny McGlennindorf and the Ugly Ones."
"The band was also damaged when Andrew was severely beaten by his girlfriend, a romainian immigrant named Yolanda."

I mean, if you want to say it's BJAODN, I can see that, but to my eyes, the article is completely silly. The only reason I hadn't speedied it before was the fact that the article isn't that new. | Klaw ¡digame! 05:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

My disagreement was that while it is complete bollocks, and deserves to be deleted, it doesn't seem to meet the definition of patent nonsense. (Quite frankly, this definition for CSD G1 seems overly narrow to me.... but those are the rules - unless we want to change them.)

A closer fit would be to speedy as {{nn-bio}}, CSD A7. Unfortunately, this applies to individual people only. There have been discussions here and here on expanding CSD A7 to include NN bands, as well as other NN groups of people. If this happens, a lot of cruft on AfD could get speedied.

Either an expansion of CSD G1 or CSD A7 would allow this lousy article to get speedied. But to my eye, as things stand, we're stuck waiting for the WP:AFD process. But of course you're welcome to disagree -- IANARL (I am not a WP:RULES lawyer) :)

Jamie 05:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. CSD A7 clearly doesn't apply, although I would support the creation of {{nn-band}} in a sort of A7(a) class. I figured it was CSD G1; while it's intelligible, it's also pretty clearly a load of crap. Either way I don't see it surviving AfD. Thanks for the reply. | Klaw ¡digame! 05:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

re: Brian Doherty (journalist)

Hi Jmason. FYI I took the liberty of removing the speedy from Brian Doherty (journalist), and sent it to regular VfD. I didn't think it was a speedy because as the article states he's an editor at Reason (which if you're not familiar with it is kind of the kingpin of libertarian journals) and has published at least one book. I thought it was pretty far from a speedy -- I don't think it should be deleted at all, let alone speedied -- so I was kind of suprised to see a speedy on it. Herostratus 17:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't do the speedy tag, User:Spearhead did. I just moved the tag from the bottom to the top of the article while I was walking through Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Jamie 22:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, OK, sorry. I didn't look like something you'd do. Herostratus 22:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Whoa -- Spearhead is on a rampage. Whats that about I wonder. Herostratus 22:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Massachusetts compromise

Thought you would like to know that the article has been rewritten based on a link provided by User:Billbrock. Please revisit the article and reconsider your vote. Thanks. howcheng [ t  c  w  e ] 22:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

our toes on Wikipedia:Neglected articles

Oh! Sorry 'bout that; the best way to fix such overlaps is to put a little notice at the top of the section you'r working on like this: "I'll be working from the top of this section for the next 30 min or so. ~~~~". I'm not doing any more right now, so feel free to go where you like. Thanks for pointing me to WP:CORP on the AfD; I can't believe I accidentally put the AfD onto the wrong page... JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Re VfD

I did. Check again. If I missed one, that's because of the number of VfD's I add, a few might slip. - Eagle^a^mⁿ 11:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

AfD for baby-actor twins?

NOTE TO SELF: The following twins were contributed in late 2004 by User:62.16.202.204. Let's edit this list to find out which are AfD-worthy. Remove entries which are notable; I'll submit the rest to AfD if Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony & Brian Toro passes.

List of questionable twins:

Reply All of the above are not notable with the exception of Blake and Dylan Tuomy-Wilhoit, Eric & Brandon Billings, and Shawn and Taylor Carpenter, all of whom held onto their roles until they were well into speaking age, and thus could genuinely be said to have "acted" and be "actors". I wish to note that Madison & Brooke Dinsmore is one of the most ludicrous articles I've ever seen (in fact I'm tempted to speedy it)... that set of babies is a backup and never even appeared on-screen! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 06:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

AfD correction when using subst

Thanks for fixing after me! I haven't used "subst" before; should have checked what it rendered. - Introvert ^talk 01:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio mistake

I was working very quickly (I'm referring to Paco Ibáñez) and I was having trouble editing, so I forgot to blank the content. My focus lately has been on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GH avisualagency™ - we've had a meatpuppet invasion - and when it closes tomorrow night I can get back to the regular stuff. Anyway, thanks for the catch. | Klaw ¡digame! 04:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Deleted pages

Thanks for the note about {{deletedpage}}. I actually didn't know that you should always protect an article after adding this notice. Harro5 10:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Afd

Please don't mangle the AfD template so much. The "cluttered formatting" includes the code for the [show]/[hide] box; this is comonly use by editors to see some shortcuts they can use to aid in their AfD work. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 12:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Mangle?? Perhaps you should add a note to the template explaining that. Dan100 (Talk) 12:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

CSD

already answered on that page. R adiant _>|< 14:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's actually the original reason, but in my understanding Wikipedia mirrors do not qualify as commercial websites (because of the GFDL). R adiant _>|< 14:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

CSD A7

I was actually going to close the poll and do a formal proposal later this week, but User:Radiant closed it for me and User:Nandesuka incorporated the changes to the CSD page. Thanks for checking up on it. howcheng [ t  c  w  e ] 22:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Kudos, Segv11, for making the tag. Cheers. PJM 14:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Auguste Toubeau

Thanks for the note. I know more about French geography than that of Belgium, so I didn't catch that. Unfortunately, the subject is old enough that there's not much in the way of online sources available. I didn't realize there was a completed section, but admittedly, I didn't look either :) I'll make sure to move them on down when I complete one from now on. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 21:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

CSD templates

After your reversions of Mark's changes, none of the csd templates puts the tagged page into Category:Candidates for speedy deletion anymore. So you might think of reverting your own changes. - Bobet 09:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The page I noticed that on was Stephanie Anne Roberts, which isn't placed in the correct category. And here: Is this page in the csd category? (I'll remove that later, just making a point :) ) But I guess {{db-copyvio}} does work, the ones i tested didn't. - Bobet 09:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, db-copyvio works because it has the notes-field put in at the end. The others don't have that, so they don't. I have no idea why db-reason was changed in the first place so I can't really help more, sorry. - Bobet 09:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. Basically, Mark's version wasn't quite right, and neither was Pathoschild's... after some work I've fixed the categorization on all the CSD templates, and null-edited all the main-namespace articles that use them in order to propagate the category. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 11:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. - Bobet 11:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

speedy delete no-category option

Hello, since you've edited the templates, your comments are welcome at Template_talk:Db-reason#Tweaked_template. Shawnc 12:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

One Of Us or One Of Them

Hi Jamie. Since you voted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Of Us or One Of Them, the original editor has worked on the article a lot and brought it up to scratch. Just thought I'd let you know in case you wanted to revisit the article and review your vote. Regards, CLW 23:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deletion categories

Hi Jamie. Thanks for fixing up those templates. I only edited them as such as a band-aid solution to stop speedy deletion grinding to a halt, pending the fixing of Pathoschild's edit to the parent template. :) - Mark 01:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Pages needing translation

Thanks for listing the page for translation. Sorry about that, I didn't know. What do I have to do to retract the nomination?-- Vary 06:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

All done, and thanks again! -- Vary 06:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for welcomming,

my interests in participating in the maintenance so soon origin in sheer egoistic motives - you would not believe how much nonsense my students keep copy-pasting from wikipedia... (also there is lots of plagiarism - if people are not using their own brain, they should at least learn something while using other peoples brains ...)

anyway thanks for saying hello & the tips, this is most helpful as wikipedia is a bit confusing, sometimes ...

--Enfiladissa 09:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Charmed and Dangerous (Charmed Episode)

Rewritten, in English, as a stub. Perhaps you'll change your vote in the AfD. Ifnord 19:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Howcheng's RfA

Thank you for your support in my recent request for adminship. I was successfully promoted with a final tally of 74/0/0. I will endeavour not to let you down. Thanks again. howch e ng {chat} 07:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

An article about my books

Hi,

My name is Angelo Stagnaro. A friend set up a Wikipedia article about me and directed me to it. I subsequently found out that it was deleted as advertizing.

I've never been one for self-promotion but my publisher thought it would be a good way to get the word out about my books.

How can the article be adjusted to make it less "commercial?"

Thanks,

Angelo Stagnaro (stagnaroangelo@hotmail.com)

I'm going to answer here in public on Wikipedia rather than in email. Hopefully, you or your friend will check my talk page, since you did log in to leave this message.

According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angelo Stagnaro, the article in question was indeed nominated for deletion by as advertisment. Two other wikipedians, including me, agreed with the nomination, and none disagreed. The article was then deleted by a administrator. You may also want to ask the other participants in the deletion discussion, (between the nominator, the voters and the deleting admin there were 4 of us), all signed our comments in the discussion which is linked above. See Wikipedia:Deletion to see how the deletion process works, and what the criteria for deletion are. My comments follow:

Articles such as this one tend to be listed for deleteion either as "advertising" or as "non-notable biography". According to policy, Wikipeida is not a soapbox... articles promoting a particular product tend to be deleted. This is a consequnce of the requirements that Wikipedia articles be verifiable and written in a neutral point of view. Also many wikipedians believe that the subject of articles should be notable and not merely of interest to those who know them. (I recentely voted for deletion of a page about a colleague of mine from university on this basis...)

Getting your artcile to be kept on Wikipedia is going to be difficult for these reasons. Wikipedia is not a "good way to get the word out" about something... according to most Wikipedians, the "word" should already be "out" on a subject before it warrants an article. Certainly any such article would have to be written in a neutral point of view, with no bias in favour of the books. It would also have to be verifiable based on respected third-party sources. Even so, it would probably not last long on Wikipedia because if you are still trying to "get the word out" about your books, then they will not yet be considered "notable" by most people.

Best of luck in promoting your books. If they become very popular, you may come back in a year and find that someone else has written a fine article about them.

Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 04:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your RFA support

Hi Segv11/Archive01! I have been on a refreshing wikibreak for the last week, so this is a belated thank-you for supporting my adminship nomination. If you need assistance, let me know. Ooh and do I get to be the last msg before archiving? Happy New Year (if that's your kind of thing)! jnothman ^talk 18:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)