User talk:Hatch68/Archive 2

re Palaeos

Blogs do count just read the guideline from Notability (Web) "Web content includes, but is not limited to, webcomics, podcasts, blogs, Internet forums, online magazines and other media, web portals and web hosts" DGG 08:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I looked again. As you say, it does not mention them. It says:

"This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.[4] except for the following:" and the following includes several types of obvious illegitimate stuff, but does not mention blogs. One can't interpret "published" to exclude the web, since one of the exclusions does apply to the web. As far as that page is concerned, they remain OK. So is there some other place? DGG 19:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirects

In the future, please don't turn articles into cross-namespace redirects (in this case, a redirect from main articlespace into Wikipedia space). The proper solution is to delete the redirect, which you can accomplish by tagging it with a speedy deletion tag. Thanks. --Cyde Weys 14:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Franco Cangelli

I added the tag hangon on the article from Franco Cangelli. Now, I still wonder why the article has been deleted. A bit annoying that one can not see the history or discussion from that page to see what has happened or if anyone answered my hagon tag. Any thoughts ? R U Bn (Talk • contrib)

Rmaul

I added the tag as instructed, then got 'last warning' for vandalism. I did not intend to violate any policy and thought I was taking the appropriate action as instructed. I have reviewed other Wikipedia pages with near identical content and will do my best to bring this article up to standard within the next day. Any suggestions or recommendations would be greatly appreciated.

Invalid AIV request

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Removing and reporting vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them again to the AIV noticeboard. Thanks. Particularly in this case, I noted that the final warning was not within the last twenty-four hours, which is our usual policy. Thanks :) —Xyrael / 17:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definately; anything more and he gets a block. I'm not meaning to be too picky, but be careful with ban and block - they mean different things. Thanks again. —Xyrael / 17:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golden-Road.net

I still feel you were a bit too hasty with trying to delete the page. I could be you were citing WP:HOLE. The best course of action is to use AFD. Jeff Defender 21:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:V2ja

could you please block User talk:V2ja? he vandalised again after his seconnd warning. in the article about laughter, he changed a caption from 'a young child laughing' to 'a monster laughing'. this kind of juvenile vandalism causes major problems, so could you please block him? thanks. Ilikefood 22:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. Ilikefood 21:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Gogreen11

Im going to add in the corn lauguge as a stub again. I assume it was in best intentions however corn is an actaul programming lauguge and was intended as a stub for future expasion of article. You said it was nonsense however i cannot figure out why nonsense is considered random charecters or things that do not make sense. I said corn is a programming lauguge created in 2005...yes I understand it is also a vegetable but most people are able to figure this out. I read the article carefully and judged it was just a misunderstanding.I am going to recreate it however this time with more information to prevent further confusion .If you have any objections please reach me on my talk page.

The Cartoon song

This song has been released on the WOW CD, a list of the biggest hits of the past year. That is certainly notable, in no case should such an entry be a candidate for speedy deletion sinc it was just created. This song is played on regular rotation on most christian radio stations. --Whatfg 04:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:A7 Notability

Sorry, I disagree with you. You say, "Speedy criteria A7 is not meant to be an exhaustive list of the types of items that can have notability considered for speedy deletion." Yet WP:CSD says "These criteria are worded narrowly", which suggests they should be understood as meaning exactly what they say and not more. And A7 says "Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content." The article in question is about none of these. Certainly, I think it could likely be deleted through AfD, but not through speedy. Heimstern Läufer 06:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I have deleted it now that I know this. Re:A7: I am under the impression that the article was about software, not web content. Software doesn't fall under the speedy criteria. If in fact it was web content and I have misread it, then yes, A7 does apply. In which case it would have been better to inform me that the article was in fact about web content. Heimstern Läufer 06:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They Marched into Sunlight

I replied to your post, please review and let me know. Greyman 18:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

done and done. I know how it is on Wookieepedia, but on Wikipedia is anyone allowed to remove tags on articles?? I've updated the article with the notable requirements and a list of sources and references, do I just go ahead and removed the tag? Or on Wikipedia, does the user who put the tag remove it? Thanks. Greyman 19:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok cool. I was just unsure of how Wikipedia works on this issue...I didn't want to annoy anyone by removing the tag. Thanks for the clarification! Cheers. Greyman 19:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Weller

Talk:Bill weller From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

The reason that this should not be deleted is that its factual and will be added to in due course. I think that anyone that is running for election in the third biggest party is significant and he has links to the AMWU, Your rights at work, Democrats , Socialist alliance, Radio rentals action etc.

thank you Mika

But after reading your criteria page i can see it wont get in. I suppose you have to be rich to get recognition.

mika —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikabill (talk • contribs)

be sensible

what are you talking about?? it is a murder case. not a personal attack.please check fact before a personal attack on me

You are so over reacting. to call a guy who has just killed his former girlfriend and then doen her to barbeque cannibal isnt personal attack:hahaha--Matrix17 16:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me the only one who is giving personal attacks here are you. so please chill. and yes those where nonsense since calling a suspected killer isnt personal attack.--Matrix17 16:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I totally disagree with you. But everyone have different opinions--Matrix17 16:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No issue

Really when I logged in editsection 0 showed I could edit it so I did. But it did not do what I was expecting thanks for tagging it, -- Darkest Hour 18:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Robin Murphy

I'm confused. Why have you tagged my little stub? This guy has written some standard reference books in homeopathy and I've cited some refs. Abridged 21:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Abridged 21:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what you deleted: Robin Murphy (born, 1950, Grand Rapids, Michigan) is a Naturopath and homeopath.

Dr. Murphy became interested in homeopathy as an undergraduate. He studied homeopathy at the National College of Naturopathic Medicine (NCNM) where he earned an ND in 1980, and directed the homeopathy program there from 1980-1984. He has also taught at Bastyr University. He directs the Hahnemann Academy of North America.

Dr. Murphy is best known for his publication of reference texts in the field of homeopathy.

[edit] 1 Bibliography Homeopathic Medical Repertory, 1993 (1st edition), 2005 (3rd edition), [1][2] Lotus Materia Medica, 1996 Nature's Materia Medica, 2007

[edit] 2 References ^ SIMILLIMUM, Summer 1993 Volume VI No. 2 ^ The Homoeopath No.55 1993

[edit] 3 External links Biography This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. Abridged 21:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was eligible for speedy deletion due to no assertion of notability. See the references available in the notice on your user talk page. Hatch68 21:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It did have an assertation of notability. He is the author of standard reference texts in the field of homeopathy. Please note that I am a newbie and you have deleted the first page I produced within 5 or so minutes of creation. Nice. Abridged 21:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A page that was previously deleted a few weeks ago as well. Please don't take anything personally. Hatch68 21:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I did not delete the page. I nominated it for deletion then an Admin reviewed that nomination, agreed with it, then deleted it. Hatch68 21:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

name of deleting admin? Abridged 21:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be User:Bobo192. You can check deletion logs for a page to see that yourself, also. Hatch68 21:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how; I've been editing on wikipedia for all of two weeks. Abridged 22:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please review WP:NPP

Your user page says you are a member of WP:NPP. I believe you are behaving overzealously.

In your tagging of Robin Murphy for deletion minutes after it was created by a new user you failed to follow some guidelines there, namely:

WP:NPP#Patrolling new pages "It is advisable to patrol new pages from the bottom of the first page of the log. This should give the creating editor enough time to improve a new page before a patroller attends to it, particularly if the patroller tags the page for speedy deletion".
WP:NPP#New pages that may require deletionWhen leaving messages for new editors, consider using {{firstarticle}} rather than the usual warnings.
Unsuitable pages "What exactly qualifies as encyclopedic is debatable, though, so it's best to err on the side of caution and not delete or nominate for deletion too hastily"..."Be hesitant to list articles on Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion if there's a chance they could be improved and made into a meaningful article. Tag them for cleanup instead. Try not to step on people's toes. Many times, users will start an article as the briefest of stubs, and then expand it over the succeeding hours or days"

You tagged my article for speedy deletion based on no evidnece of notability, however the content I created contained the following:

"Dr. Murphy is best known for his publication of reference texts in the field of homeopathy"
A bibliographic listing of those reference texts
two references to journal articles reviewing those reference texts

If you are going to tag new articles zealously for removal from the encylopedia, you should at least separate clear cases of lack of notability (and I'm sure they are out there) from cases which might merit further reflection and discussion.

The article was tagged and deleted within a few minutes of my hitting the "save" button; I went back to add another reference and it was GONE.

I realize you are doing a needed service to Wikipedia by getting rid of junk articles, but I'm asking you to slow down a bit and take a more careful look at what you are tagging. As it says on WP:NPP#Being nice, "the available evidence seems to indicate that newcomers write most of Wikipedia's content.[1]; your actions are at high risk of discouraging new users from participating in the project. Abridged 16:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate false accusations of me not being nice to newcomers. At no point was I ever disparaging to you, and I even asked you not to take anything personally. You seem to be extremely sensitive and like to take certain statements out of context in order to get your own way. I didn't even know you were a newcomer when I tagged the article, so your continued statement that I'm somehow picking on a new person is completely false. The processes were followed correctly, and were continued to be followed correctly in the deletion review. You're on the verge of making a personal attack on me by your continued pursuit of this. Hatch68 17:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm just asking you to consider acting less hastily in the future, OK? I'm kind of afraid to create a new article again because I feel it is just going to get deleted immediately so I'm writing to ask you to give new articles a chance. That's all. I put in links to the policy on that becuase I wanted to cite something to convince you to slow down a bit. I'm honestly sorry if I pissed you off. Abridged 17:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not pissed off. I'm just not understanding why I have to keep going over and over an article that's not really that big of a deal. It got deleted. It's going to be undeleted. Why would you spend so much time and effort over chastising me about such a minor situation? I also don't think I acted "hastily". I put a tag on it. That's not a final decision, and someone else obviously agreed with me at that point. Just because someone is "best known" for something does not mean he's well known enough to be included in an encyclopedia. Hatch68 17:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not meaning to chastize you. YOu are clearly a resonable person, good editor, and a stalwart contributor to Wikipedia. I am just asking you to consider being less hasty in future when patrolling new articles. The article was tagged for deletion 3 minutes after it was created. I understand you personally do not feel it belongs in the encyclopedia, but no one who commented on the request for undeletion thought the particular tag you placed was appropriate. Again, I'm not meaning to chastize; this is just a request to consider giving new articles more of a chance by waiting a bit before you tag them and to maybe use a different tag rather than the speedy one in future similar situaions. Over and out. Abridged 18:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Sarazin Blake Deletion

I am a new user and was attempting to recreate my first botched attempt at an article entitled "Robert Sarazin Blake." I posted on the talk page to that article that I had accidentally not finished the article and hoped that it could simply be deleted so that I could accurately re-create it. Unfortunately, it is now protected from being re-created. I don't understand why this is so. Luckily, I created the article I had earlier hoped to write under Robert Blake (folk singer). However, in order to be more accurate this article should automatically redirect to Robert Sarazin Blake which cannot exist right now. To make a long story short, please delete the Robert Sarazin Blake page entirely so that I can just start over. Thanks. Shiretalk 04:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks man, I found that it was some other guy after I sent you that last message. Sorry for the waste of time. Shiretalk 04:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Words of a Vandal

Innapropriate Comment. Please, be sure to only include appropriate comment and be careful not to delete information too hastily. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trigam41 (talk • contribs)

I'm not an admin, so I cannot delete articles. I tagged the article since it did not meet the criteria stated in WP:BIO. An admin reviewed that tag, agreed with it, and deleted the article. If someone feels a deleted article should be restored, the steps to follow can be found in WP:DRV. Hatch68 16:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Online Harassment

Wow, sorry to see that. Best of luck in getting this resolved.↔NMajdan•talk 18:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another user suggested to me on my talk page that it might be wise to bring this up at WP:ANI. I'll pass this on to you as you appear to be bearing the brunt of this user. I'll gladly chime in as well.↔NMajdan•talk 18:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to post something on there myself. I should have it finished here in several minutes.↔NMajdan•talk 19:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Open Grave Records

Citing the recent adition of an informational page about the record label Open Grave Records. Marking both the informational page for speedy deletion when it is clearly informative as well providing links to the information presented in the article is a matter of debate. As well as accusing me of vandilism of a page that was lacking in credible information. "Random Dictionary of the damned by the band known as Downlord" which is backed up by the information (and thus the need for creation of a Open Grave Records page) is blatently false. Citable facts are as follows

1 The band Downlord DID release there first full length Album on Open Grave Records, As reaffirmed on the labels page in there Bio section. http://www.opengraverecords.com/downlord/ Removing this information off the Albums page is detracting from information presented.

2 The band Downlord is currently signed to Open Grave Records. Two sites agree on this information one of them being the Wikipedia site built for the band. http://www.opengraverecords.com/ourbands/default.asp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downlord

3 As far as my comment and usage of the nickname Wraithe I have had both contact with the lead singer Dave Ingram, and the Label Open Grave Records. The name was left to let future editors of the information Namely the label itself, to understand it was written as an informative article as well as by somone with knowledge of both the band and its Label.

4 In correspondance with the information on the band, thus i created the a page in regards to information on the bands label. Open Grave records is cited in a few articles with no information on the label itself hence the creation of the Labels own informational page. The created open Grave records page had cited information on it off the labels own website with also information taken directly from the website itself which is cited.

As i understand I am a rather new contributer to Wikipedia I do not take this personal but I was under the impression that Wikipedia's policy was first off not to threaten new comers and contributers as well as providing factual basis for why the information was REMOVED. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arcanos (talk • contribs) 20:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The House Harkonnen (the band) page

This page should not be deleted, because this is an actual band/musical group. The band currently has records for sale in major stores and online through many major sites (such as iTunes). Therefore is a part of American music history. The singer of the band has also been involved with renowned independent movies and artists.

Your edits to Celebrancy

Instead of proposing speedy deletion to an obvious newbie attempt at a redirect, as you did here [2], why not just correct the broken redirect? The scary speedy deletion warning may scare off the newbie, besides. Regards, ➪HiDrNick! 16:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dry riding

Dry riding is more specific than frottage - it refers to clothed outercourse and, due to recent political events, it is part of the 21st century Irish zeitgeist. This is just a stub but I intend to include more background to this, so I think it deserves to have its own page.

Hey

If what your saying is true I should not create fire department articles. What do you want me to do? Merge fire department articles with the police department articles for each town? Wikipedia wants articles and I'm going to write some no matter what you think. What is wrong with writing fire department articles? If you give me more trouble I'm going to contact an administrator and see what he thinks.

Wait

I DID NOT make any trouble for you. I can find these websites, get info, get references, and write FD articles. So don't mark my articles for deletion again. Period. By the way. In two weeks I'm getting VandalProof and I already have contact with an administrator. If I create these articles the way they should be created and you delete them, I'm going to have the administrator contact you. Please don't make me do that.Harebag 00:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have adopted Harebag, who is a new user (info on wikipedia adopt-a-user [[3]]). Please be understanding. I am working with Harebag and giving tips on creating good articles and possibly doing one at time rather than starting with too many stubs. Harebag has good intentions!VK35 01:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What?

I was not "threatining" you. You are taking it to personnaly. I just want to have my rights to write articles as much as anybody else. If you do not tag my articles for deletion again I will not bother you anymore. If you leave me alone I'll leave you alone. I want this to be our last argument. OK? Harebag 01:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Sig replacement"

I didn't "replace" anything per se--we both went in to tag the article and notify the user at the same time, so I think it was simply an edit conflict issue. --Finngall ^talk 19:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Bombing Division Speedy

Sorry for not responding to your talk page message in a timely fashion. That "last change" thing occasionally screws me over, as there had been several changes to my talk, some misplaced, and I do apologize for missing yours. I supported your deletion in the WP:AFD, but we'll have to agree to disagree about whether or not the nonsense tag applies. Generally speaking I don't feel like a lot of extra research should be necessary to determine nonsense -- then it's more of a hoax. Nonsense should jump out clearly, to any reader, as nonsense. But I do highly respect when speedy taggers follow the progress of their article's deletion and follow up on it -- no one is infaliable and we all need to double check on each other. So I do appreciate you bringing it to my attention and I hope my slow response won't prevent you from doing so again in the future if necessary. Cheers. Dina 17:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]