A tag has been placed on The Strategy Paradox, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.
If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Saligron 18:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from The Strategy Paradox. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Saligron 23:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for working to add references to this article. However, the body of the article is still mostly unreferenced. And the link to the Partnership for New York City website is broken. And I am very concerned that you appear to have a link to the persons and companies in the articles you have been creating, which is against Wikipedia policy. LastChanceToBe 23:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Image tagging for Image:MichaelRaynor.jpg
editThanks for uploading Image:MichaelRaynor.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Adoption Offer
editHi Bluestripe,
I am experienced editor who can adopt you if you like - can help out with either technical or procedural issues. Leave a message on my talk page if you are interested. Cheers Lethaniol 15:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Adoption Questions
editHi there Bluestripe,
Adoption confirmed, so straight on with your questions (generally if you could ask questions on my user talk page that would be cool, I will reply on this page)...
Initial reactions - new users often find it difficult getting started with Wikipedia (I certainly did), and long term users eye new users with some suspicion as a lot of vandalism is caused by such users, though they will normally assume good faith wherever possible.
In many respects Wikipedia is anti-elitist with outside "experts" being treated as everyone else, when they may expect differently. With respect to the technical and procedural aspects of Wikipedia, experienced users will often make decisions that seem to be a bit harsh, but they should always explain what they have done and why they have done it to you, as well as how to take the issue elsewhere if you think what they have done is inappropriate. Normally a civil conversation on the user's talk page can clear everything up pretty quick.
All the comments left by other users on your talk page seem appropraite, so you will have to show me where people have been attacking you and calling you an astrosurfer, what ever that may mean. One of the comments that has been made on this talk page, is about editing articles that you are directly involved in. If this is so, you should read up about conflicts of interest in Wikipedia and how we manage it. Often the easiest thing to do in these cases, is if you want to change/add content of a article you may have a conflict of interest in, better to explain what edits you would like to be seen on the talk page.
I hope that answers some of your initial questions. If you want me to have a look at why X said Y, then point me in the right direction and I will do so. Look forward to hearing from you Cheers Lethaniol 13:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I believe this is one of the articles you are involved in. The discussion here seems quite frank but friendly. The issues they have raised are with concern that this page might be an Autobiography - suggest reading up WP:AUTO which explains the problems and solutions to this. Also the main reason for the deletion discussion is that the subject may not be notable (with respect to Wikipedia). Suggest that you need to find some references that show that this person is important and present it to the discussion (read up here - Wikipedia:Notability (people)for the type of info you need).
Also you need to explain to the discussion why you think the article should be kept, i.e. why it is important/notable. Your input would be very welcome. Cheers Lethaniol 13:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Gang Mentality
editConcerning the users Hansonc and LastChanceToBe, yes this is a little bit defensive. They Hansonc thinks that you have been adding inappropriate material, and seem to want to work together with LastChancetobe on this matter. It is not the most civil of things, but then your articles have not been deleted out of hand using something fast like WP:CSD, but have allowed much more discussion with WP:AFD, where the discourse has been fair. So I would not worry about it, maybe even explain to both of these users where you are coming from - so that they understand your contributions better. Also take up any opportunities to discuss and explain and defend your articles.
Cheers Lethaniol 12:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Note you still need to respond at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott R. MacIver - consider this a priority. Cheers Lethaniol 12:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hi there. I noticed this communication via the "what links here" page for my user page. There is no gang mentality going on here. I never heard of Hansonc before he/she left a message on my talk page, and please note that I took no actions as a result of Hansonc's message. Suggesting that there is collusion is failing to assume good faith on Bluestripe's part. And, even if we had decided to work together, working together is the entire purpose of Wikipedia. I have left a copy of this message on Lethianol's talk page, which is what links to my user page. LastChanceToBe 03:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments LastChanceToBe, I should have checked further to see if you had taken any actions, which you have said you have not. My comments above are to do with Hansonc alone then (I have corrected for future reference), but as I was trying to explain to BlueStripe above, nothing has been done that has been unfair in this case, and that BlueStripe should not worry about these comments, and instead concentrate on taking any opportunities to discuss these issues.
- I agree good faith should be assumed but from some perspectives the fact that two users may be collaborating to prevent good faith edits (whether they are notable or not) may be seen as slightly uncivil. In this case I can not see any ganging up, and the fact that the discussions have been taken to AFD and CSD is a good sign. Again thankyou for your comments LastChanceToBe.
- I suggest BlueStripe you read up the policy WP:AGF, as we should all to remind ourselves from time to time. The vast majority of editors on Wikipedia all want the same thing - the best encyclopaedia possible, and it is best to think that people are doing their best even if they say something that may seem inappropriate. Do not worry about this case, and do not let it put you off editing Wikipedia. 13:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Adopter support
editHi BlueStripe,
Do not worry about getting me involved that is my job - though I am not here to fight your battles for you, just to advise and help out with how Wikipedia works. Cheers Lethaniol 12:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Concerning battles, how do you think the WP:AFD process is going on your article(s). Do you think is fair, are the notability criteria too strict - am interested to know what a new Wikipedian thinks. Cheers Lethaniol 13:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Encouragement
editBluestripe, I have just voted on the deletion for the Scott R. MacIver article. The article is well-written, but in my mind he's not notable yet. I want to commend you for your writing abilities and want to encourage you not to get down if this article does get deleted. It's not a judgment about you or your editing abilities, simply about the topic. - grubber 16:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Michael E. Raynor
editI have replied to your request here Talk:Michael E. Raynor - good work. Cheers Lethaniol 14:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
The Strategy Paradox
editConcerning [1], I have asked User:Betacommand for an WP:AFD instead of a speedy delete they performed. Note they have not abused their tools here, as they obviously believe the article in non-notable. An Admin can delete as many times as they like an article if it clearly does not meet Wikipedia's standards.
Having said that it may be best for another AFD discussion here. Alternatively you can always take the case to Deletion Review though I would suggest waiting for Betacommand to respond to my request here User talk:Betacommand. Cheers Lethaniol 13:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- As you can see from User talk:Betacommand/20081201#Questions from Lethaniol, the next we will need to take is to take it to Deletion Review and argue for its inclusion in Wikipedia their - basically why the subject is notable enough to be part of wikipedia. Have a looked at the Deletion Review and set up such a review for The Strategy Paradox. Once done or any problems give me a shout. Cheers Lethaniol 19:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- It would be nice if some of the editorial staff read and re-read: WP:AGF. I am dissatisfied with the actions of User:Betacommand. He gets a great many complaints, so he must like what he does. I was contesting this for another Wikipedian User:Math Hue. So, I will direct him to take it to review, if he desires. Bluestripe 00:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I can not find who User:Math Hue is, as I was going to leave a message saying I would help with the Deletion Review. Can you pass the message on. Cheers Lethaniol 11:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- As you can see from the deletion review the deletion is likely to be overturned. I suggest though to make sure of this, that you add any references to the deletion review that show that the book is notable e.g. reviews from other hi-quality publications. Cheers Lethaniol 22:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Offering Help
editThanks for the offer of help Bluestripe - I think I will be fine though - am currently bogged down in developing Catch-22 and two ArbCom cases [3] [4]. As you can see these discussions are hard core in comparison to our recent DRV discussions lol.
I suggest you browse through wikipedia and fine other articles to improve or other activities to get involved in. For a good start see Wikipedia:Community Portal.
I do have one serious piece of advice though - read up at WP:BITE. I found some of your comments about the deleting admin on the verge of uncivil. Always try to WP:AGF, chill and understand that a lot of editors can be a bit stressed at times. I understand your frustrations in this case (I was the same when I started in Wikipedia), but if you remember that whatever is done in Wikipedia can be easily be undone, given patience then this will help.
Have fun. Cheers Lethaniol 00:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
This article is up for deletion can you kindly share your opinion on it [5] .Thanks in advance Atulsnischal 22:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Two things. First, I would feel more comfortable if you maintained a user page. The idea of the red link to nowhere is disconcerting. Second, it is the Natural History of South Asia that is encyclopedic; not the mailing list addressing same. The mailing list might be included in a broader article that deals with the Natural History of South Asia. So, I posted this "comment" on your user page to create that destination. Bluestripe 22:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Like you suggested, I wrote a few lines on my user page, instead of leaving it blank or as a redlink, when you get time can you kindly help me Archive my talk page, please do it anytime you get time. Thanks. As for the mailing list I firmly think it is a pioneering example from the region and is hugely notable and hence Encyclopedic :-) Atulsnischal 23:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I've fixed your attempt to list Ms. Hazell on WP:AFD. Please read the instructions more carefully. In total, three pages must be edited and all three must have templates added to them. Dismas|(talk) 14:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Don't worry about it. If I came off a little terse, it's only because I'm up way past my bed time after a long day at work... Dismas|(talk) 14:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Voted a strong keep. I stand corrected. Bluestripe 22:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Sandbox Revert
editSorry... thought it was an article. At least it looked it one... BeanoJosh 01:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for following up. I am working with different techniques and styles. Trial and error. Better in the Sandbox, then in the live Wikipedia. Thanks again. User:Bluestripe 01:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Special:Watchlist and +/- numbers
editAh an easy question good. The + numbers (in green) and the - numbers (in red), indicate the number of bytes of info (I think that is the right technical term) that is either added or removed during that edit. Therefore a minor edit will normally will below 100 either way, above 1000+ is a big addition (pretty normal, especially on talk pages), and generally -1000 is a big loss of content (often vandalism or archiving). Also see Help:Watching_pages#What_do_the_colored_numbers_mean.3F. Cheers Lethaniol 21:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Unspecified source for Image:MichaelRaynor.jpg
editThanks for uploading Image:MichaelRaynor.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 12:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. It is now sourced. Bluestripe 00:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, you changed the license tag to fair use and removed the no source template. However you still have not provided any source information (who created the image or hold the copyright to it). So I have re-added the no source tag. --Sherool (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- I hope that is the right way to source it. The photo is one taken by staff of Deloitte. It is meant to be used in the public domain. And there is no individual associated with the image; just the firm: Deloitte.
- Well the source should be visible on the page, not commented out. I fleshed it out a bit based on what you said here. Also please note that in the context of copyright public domain pretty much means "no copyright", not that's it's released to the public, a rater significant difference. Since the image is now used under a fair use claim there is a couple of additional things that need to be taken care of though (never ends does it ;) ?). Please see Wikipedia:Fair use. Notably you need to add a fair use rationale for the use of the image on that article. Also note that one of the criteria to include non-free licensed images in Wikipedia is that a free licensed work that provide the same information can not be created. That generaly means that photos of people who are still alive rarely qualify (unless they show a historicaly significant situation) since it would still be possible to create or obtain a free licensed photo of them. I'll cut you some slack and not list it for deletion a 3. time right now, but it probably will become an issue one of these days. You may want to consider contacting Deloitte and asking them to release this photo under a free license. If they agree things will become a lot less complicated, and the image can be moved to Wikimedia Commons where it can be used by other Wikimedia projects (Wikipedia in other languages for example) and others who do not permit "fair use" material. Thanks. --Sherool (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- I hope that is the right way to source it. The photo is one taken by staff of Deloitte. It is meant to be used in the public domain. And there is no individual associated with the image; just the firm: Deloitte.
- No, it never ends. The Wikipedia is one crazy place. The image is the same one that Mr. Raynor uses on his website: http://www.michaelraynor.com/about.html]. Does this help in any way? If not, then I will contact someone at Deloitte and get the correct release information. Bluestripe 21:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Image:Wslogo.png listed for deletion
editAn image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Wslogo.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 12:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- You may delete this file. Thank you. Bluestripe 00:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Image:Scott_MacIver.jpg listed for deletion
editAn image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Scott_MacIver.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Bluestripe. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Sigmataudelta 40.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Bluestripe. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 08:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
