User talk:Bfigura/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Help

How can I fix that article you put up for speedy deletion you put on my article? Vatic7

First, is the company notable? It might seem odd, but wikipedia has guidelines for what constitutes notability. If the subject of the article doesn't pass the guideline, it's subject to immediate deletion. As a good rule of thumb, if you can find reputable, independent sources that have written about the company, it'd be best to use them as sources for the article. If the company is notable, then you need to make sure the article is written from a neutral tone/point of view. I hope that helps, and let me know if you have any more questions. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you just delete it? I'll rewrite one under a more general subject like referral trading. I would think that would sound less like advertising. Also would the Wired magazine reference count for anything? Vatic7 02:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It's still up for deletion, so that's certainly possible. And yes, the Wired article would be pretty good I'd imagine. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I had put a Wired article as reference. I'll take the hangon off. Thanks for your POV on this. --Vatic7 03:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'm not hugely clued-d into finance, so I look forward to the trading article. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops!

Thanks for fixing whatever I did. I've impressed even myself with my ability to screw up that quickly. I probably deserve an award. TobiasDark 21:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

3O

Thanks for the 3O! Normally, I would AGF, but this particular editor has been...a bit problematic: check his RfC. Your attention and opinion is much appreciated! Dreadstar † 21:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll let you handle the HH issue over there, my issues were pretty much resolved. I'll be unwatching that page, he's too uncivil and argumentative. Thanks for the assist. Dreadstar † 22:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That one you delisted

...don't worry about it, I blocked him anyway. He was sufficiently incivil that I don't want him playing in our wiki tonight. You don't ALWAYS have to give all warnings, but we like to see a generally full set. You did the right thing, I just happened to get curious about what you delisted and then I decided to deal with it anyway. - Philippe | Talk 04:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Prod tag

My only concern wss that Mary Eisenhower lead to the Mamie Eisenhower article; and nowhere in the latter article was Mary Eisenhower mentioned. Further, this could lead people to believe that they were the same person.

Does this address your point? I don't know what prod tags are. Dogru144 21:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this cleared up the question. Thanks. I like storing helpful dialogues such as these on my Talk Page, for future wikipedia use. This is why I haven't bothered to archive my dialogues. Cheers, Dogru144 13:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay

That's cool I guess. Wait a minute! Hey you copyied me! It's okay really. I copy people all the time.--Angel David 02:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Verify blatant please. Thanks.--Angel David 02:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Uhhhh....?--Angel David 02:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

At first I was focused on agreeing with your message to me about the page. Then I focused on the balloon. But you can keep it!-Angel David (talk • contribs) 02:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Ha! You got me! But, I understand know.--Angel David 02:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

copyvio you caught

Good catch on Acute motor axonal neuropathy. Considering the link he added, I'm wondering if he's a new incarnation of a long-term IP copyviolator; a bit more info on this possibility here. Whatever. Why would people do such things in a world with Google? --CliffC 20:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Your offer to assist

Dear Bfigura, Thanks for riding to my rescue! Very thankful indeed as I have been pulling my hair out trying to figure out whats - what. I started a page on a fella called Christopher Dietler and if you read my effort along with my injections of him on the Kenneth Anger page, you might see why I feel him to be a significant figure in the history of the film titled Lucifer Rising. All I really wanted to do was update the Lucifer Rising page, correct release date, better photo and a bit more info. I decided then to update Anger's page to elaborate a bit more on his troubles with not only Jimmy Page, but his court actions taken against Dietler. I befriended Dietler about this time and assisted him, saving all sorts of memorabelia as well as working closely with him while he was preparing his record album. It really is a neat bit of history and I am really the only person who can tell the story accurately. I prepared a MySpace site with a cute little story and added some neat photos and such. I am also the official archivist for the rock band called THE BABYS and have a few sites dedicated to them as well. My wife thinks I'm nuts, but it's my passion and I am very excited about elevating Mr. Dietler and helping correct history as we know it. I would be grateful if you could take a peek at my Christopher Dietler page and get it firing on all cylinders, external links, Sacramento Bee article, etc. Possibly even do a few tweaks to the Kenneth Anger site by adding the References and External links as well. I can back up all my work with documents and am willing to share my knowledge and credits with you as my mentor. THE BABYS story features many notables, managers, etc that need historical significance as well and if you are remotely interested in Rock and Roll history, perhaps this could a great place to start writing history! Looking Forward - Marvin Cee 23:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Its been there almost a year

Its been there almost a year and is pointless - the disputes have been resolved. --Street Scholar 08:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Basless Claims

Could I ask you to stop making baseless claims against me or to prove your claims. --Street Scholar 10:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

After looking into the matter, you're right: RfC's can be deleted after 48 hours if no other user has endorsed them. (See WP:RFC#Request_comment_on_users). That was the case here. I'm not sure that a db-attack tag was the right way to do this, but since the policy in question isn't clear, I don't know what the right thing to do would have been. So, to resolve it, I'm going to prod it (since I don't think speedy applies). Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

New to Wiki

I'm new to Wiki, so I believe this is how I am supposed to communicate with you. Yes, I am a founder of the group of the page I started. I did not thoroughly read the policy on article submission, and did not realize it's frowned upon to be affiliated with an article you're submitting. Will I have the green light if someone else does this for me?

Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WIKICESSL (talk • contribs) 22:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi There. That depends on whether on or not your organization is notable. It sounds somewhat mean, but we have pretty strict guidelines on what criteria need to be met for an article to survive. For your case, I think the guideline in question is WP:ORG. If everything there is fulfilled, there probably wouldn't be any problem. Feel free to reply on my talk page. (Oh, and please sign your posts on talk pages by typing ~~~~~, it'll sign with your name and time/date). Of course, since no one welcomed you yet, I don't think you could have known :-). Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Bi-2

You requested for someone to find English language articles regarding the group in the Bi-2 article deletion discussion, I found 4 and posted citations and summaries into the discussion page. User: Olegious 15:25 Pacific September 4, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olegious (talk • contribs) 22:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look, and then see if I need to change my AfD comments. --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hee hee

Shall we dance? lol, I was going to put the {{fact}} tags in and you did. I took your refs tag out, because the refs weren't cited, so I moved them as external links instead, and tagged it with a questionable bio notability tag. Hope that's okay! ^Ariel♥Gold 00:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, fine by me. PS: I love you talk page setup :) --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and I loved your header title! ^Ariel♥Gold 00:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The "V" word

Is there a reason why "vanity" is The Word That Shall Not Be Mentioned in AfD's? Did I miss a memo? Just curious. Realkyhick 01:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps. Have you seen WP:AFD#How_to_discuss_an_AfD. Someone probably saw it in an AfD once and sued Jimbo or something. --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, missed that Memo From Jimbo. In this case, though, the subject obviously wrote it. But I'll avoid the "V" word anyway. Realkyhick 01:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Chemistrey Vocabulary AfD

"Thanks, vandals, for causing us to have an edit-conflict war over who gets to nominate this thing for deletion!" :) DMacks 02:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Grin*. "Oooh, me first!". Ohwaitwhoops. --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Vani... uh, narcis... um, self-referential self-based self-portraits

Hi Chris, just a note to remind you to avoid using vanity when nominating or discussing AfD's. (See WP:AFD#How_to_discuss_an_AfD). That said, it probably was applicable in this case :) Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Man, I guess I missed the memo from Jimbo as well. Sorry. How long has that been there? Can we rename the policy, then? Too bad, because it really nails it as it is. Do I need to remove it from my nom? Pity we can all not just call things what they are, thanks for bringing it to my attention. Chris 03:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Great heading title btw. Eh, I don't think it's that big of a deal. (Although I'm surprised that I turned myself into the V-Word Police.) Maybe I should go make a userbox or something :) --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion on this

Please don't take this message as canvasing for your vote. I write to u in hopes that u can clarify this problem, since some claims are surfacing that a particular organization isn't notable enough, i, as an orthodox Jew, am not familiar with its issue, and thus could not testify to this regards, Please be so kind to shed your knowledge on this [1]. Thanks.--יודל 12:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

As the above user note, please refrain from trying to spam for votes. It's disruptive. (And unless I'm misinterpreting timestamps, you've continued to do so after being warned.) Thanks, --Bfigura ^(talk) 12:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Its the same message u got from a selective 5 users who i put in my category as users who understand messianic articles, that's why the time stamp is the same. i don't think sending a message to 5 users i identified as of this interest is spamming or i may be mistaken please clarify for me this point, i clearly was not selecting u from a yes or no vote, so its not votesocking section of canvassing which section on the canvasing policy is this excluded as something not good to do? I do agree that its disruptive but while i see that deletion gaining unbalanced support because it was posted to one group and not to another i feel that the disruption is balanced here, therefore not called disruption anymore, i could be mistaken but i am hoping u clarify it to me.--יודל 13:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If your goal is to change the outcome of an AfD, by WP:CANVAS, it is canvassing for votes. Since you ONLY messaged people with Keep votes in this AfD, which happens to be your position in the current debate, it certainly looks like votestacking. Please stop immediately. --Bfigura ^(talk) 13:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all i sent it to only 5 people out of a list of 12 Keeps so its not the case u r arguing. If i would be votesocking i would have sent this plea to the entire keep list. So i am not guilty of this paragraph of canvasing, i do understand that maybe it is spamming with intent and therefore disruptive, but please consider my motives of influencing some particular vote not just as wining the vote, i have taken interest in all the messianic articles and i have comprised a list of 5 users who are familiar to them, did i comprise that list from a keep vote? yes but it was only one factor in my collecting the users intrest, this doesnt narrow my motives to influence votes it just says that i would like to hear the opinion of people who r close to those issues. Evidently i have mistaken u as somebody who is interested in this issue, so i apologize and i will not contect u in the future. Thanks for clarifying and pease answer if u understand my motive and why its still disruptive in your eyes?--יודל 13:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it blatant votestacking? No, not really. But it does smell kind of COI-y (what selecting Keep-ers and all). I'll assume that you meant to do the right thing, but next time, when you invite people, try to do so more evenly. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 14:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Believe me i tried my best, i have stoped doing it all together it was initaly done, and i think i have now 4 users who i identified as balanced and thinking the same way i do, and you can already see that they voted mostly against me. so this was a think that i will not do anymore.--יודל 14:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, no one's perfect. Don't take it too hard. --Bfigura ^(talk) 15:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Listen i don't know if i am imperfect, but i lack the normal strive to become perfect here ass well, the reason is simple English is not my mother thong, and in that regards i am not considered the typical English wikipedia user, i was just appalled by some very frightening facts that i must be active here, i see articles being deleted simply because one group wants to silence an other, i really don't know yet how to handle this, i would greatly appreciate if u can guide me through my pain. I tried notifying the interested authors to help save it from deletion but apparently this is unallowed, what can i do to halt those deleters on a clearly POV mission they also do canavansing and if i am silent how can i halt them? I came to realize that whoever is more pushy in their POV will win, i may be blocked but if the circumstances need me sacrificed so be it, i gotta do the right think.--יודל 15:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Oops, et al

Looks like a possible troll to me, or maybe an intoxicated vandal. There's always WP:AIV for disruptive users like this... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 14:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

My "silly" little article

The Shinobi Legends article is a serious article, but I don't know what page to review to make it acceptable. Please tell me what to do to make it acceptable. Thank you. Klaymank 01:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

What you need to do is make the article meet wikipedia's notability inclusion criteria (see WP:N). If you read through that, and the subject seems to qualify, then you need to dig up independent & reliable sources that you can quote to talk about the game. (Ie, something like a magazine article or reliable website, not a fan site or strategy/clan site). Basically, the premise for Wikipedia is that every article must be notable, verifiable, and written from a neutral point of view. Hope that helps. --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Your .JS file

You might want to remove everything below the importation of my deluxe script. Everything else is redundant and might mess things up. The older versions of twinkle are already included in the deluxe file. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. (I had them commented out before, so if that was the issue or not. My knowledge of .js could fit in a teaspoon). --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

What is acceptable?

Hello, you recently deleted an article that I wrote. This is one of the comments made "Please do not add commercial material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for advertising or promotion." The article in question was deleted and marked as spam. The article was "verifiable" information on a company. How is it that Microsoft, Pizza Hut, Barnes and Noble, McDonald's, and many many more all have content in Wikipedia, but this entry was deleted? All of the forementioned companies have external links to their respective homepages. All of these companies explain what they do. All of these companies describe their location and when and how they began. Why is it then that providing the exact same format for a company I was writing about was deleted instantly? I did not include a shred of "fluff" in the article; strictly "neutral," objective history and details of the company's services. An explanation would be much appreciated. Thank you.--Bravofx 02:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The difference is the company you were writing about did not appear to be notable by Wikipedia's standards. Also, in order to be verifiable, the information has to be from an independent source, not from the subject of the article. (Ie, you can cite a New York Times article about McDonalds, but not a McDonalds press release or website. Hope that clears things up, and doesn't discourage you from participating in Wikipedia. If you have further questions, feel free to ask, or type {{helpme}} --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Third party opinion

First of all i would like to thank u for your honest opinion on the suspicion u raise around my heave investment, although i beg to differ with your opinion on my status, but do appreciate your concern of the balance in wikipedia. If i may ask u also to say your opinion on this discussion[2], regarding me and that other user u side with. Thanks in advance.--יודל 22:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow what you mean by 'heave investment', but I'll do my best to take a look at the discussion, and see if I can stick in a neutral work. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

i meant "heavy" it was a typo mistake, thanks--יודל 22:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha, thought as much (although I was a little confused by the context.) Anyway, I'm not sure if my opinion was what you were looking for, but as you said, I do try and look out for wikipedia's best interest. --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Acute Motor axonal neuropathy

Hi I have replaced the content with copyright free content. What is next? Also, I was the author of the original article and the part in question was the introduction of the research paper which should fall under fair use. Thanks.

T. W. Ho. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weihsiuho (talk • contribs) 19:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm not sure about the fair use bit: usually copyright is owned by the journal upon publication, and I'm not sure how much you can copy under fair use. Plus, it also becomes difficult to prove that you are in fact the copyright owner (not that I necessarily don't believe you), but I'm sure you can see how it could be problematic. Anyway, the last I checked, it was still on the review list for the copyright ppl, but it seems that there's quite the backlog. So I guess I don't really know what the next step should be. I'll try and look and find out. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleting RefStop article

Can you just delete it? I'll rewrite one under a more general subject like referral trading. I would think that would sound less like advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vatic7 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Columbia Help

Hello. I am not very familiar with wikipedia but I wanted to plead my case for maintaining the Engineering Student Council page. The organization is a branch of Columbia University NY that has been responsibile for several NYC related events, including a taxi-sharing service during the transit strike, various mini-marathon events, fund-raising, etc ... It has been in existance since 1953 and, while the article certainly needs more information to justify its existance, the information is out there ... someone just needs to spend the time to put it into wikipedia. Which is why, the article should be left a stub. For more information about the group, please search through www.columbiaspectator.com or www.nytimes.com. And please bring it back! Thanks, have an nice day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.27.55.186 (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It would appear that the article was already deleted (not by me though) under the speedy deletion policy. Basically any article that doesn't assert the notability of it's subject is subject to deletion at any time. (And at the time, it met the criteria). If you'd like to have the article undeleted, I would suggest taking the case to Wikipedia:Deletion_review, or start a new article with the sources you mentioned. (Or you can check the deletion log for the page to see who the deleting admin was, then ask them about it on their talk page). I'm not an admin, so I can't really do anything at this point. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD you commented on - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of portable software (2nd nomination)

Please take another look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of portable software (2nd nomination) when you can? You previously left a comment there. I have vastly edited the article in question, and left comments there on the AfD--you may wish to review the situation again in light of this. Thank you. • Lawrence Cohen 16:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw your comment about the guy who ran unopposed and got 100.0% of the vote. That is actually unusual. Usually, there are write-in votes so that the winner only gets 98% or similar. Archtrain 16:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxford International Forum

Hi there. I just wanted to make a minor point, and mention that it'd be better to avoid the use of 'vanity' when nom-ing, or discussing AfDs. (See WP:AFD#How_to_discuss_an_AfD). I guess some people have gotten upset in the past. --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message on my talk page. Good idea. I have removed the words "possible vanity". I usually avoid such kind of comment. In that case I had just compiled Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Myth1727 (Oxford International Forum was created by this user) and was quite amazed by the number of suspected sock puppets... No one has commented yet. I am surprised. Did I miss something or did I present the matter in a wrong manner or with the wrong tone? Is it too aggressive? Thanks for your opinion. --Edcolins 18:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ed. The vanity thing isn't a big deal (at least I don't think it is), but I just thought I'd point it out. And I'll take a look at the sock thing later tonight and get back to you. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 19:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC filed against User:Epbr123

I noticed your discussions regarding the etiquette of User:Epbr123. Due to events that have occurred since then, an RFC has been filed and you are invited to participate in determining the course of action that should be taken regarding resolving the issues that surround the user and his contested actions. --Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 19:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandal fighting

Thanks for helping with Newpage patrolling; I've been doing it all night! I've gotta go for a couple minutes, but I'll be back to do more soon. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 03:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Something about the repetitive whack-a-mole nature is relaxing, so I usually do it wind-down in the evenings :)

Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm back, got a pizza and a beer, let's do some vandal fighting. :) GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 05:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

As much as I adore the new version of twinkle, I might have to leave you to it. Gotta get some rest. Enjoy :) --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Michelle DiBenedetto page

I feel that if her twin sister, who's only real claim to fame is the man she is engaged to, can have a Wikipedia page, she should be allowed to as well. She runs a clothing line as well as is dating a man in the same band. Many people in the fandom of Avenged Sevenfold want to learn more about the DiBenedetto twins and there are no other websites to learn from. Wikipedia is a great one for that, it lets people add and edit for correct information. I feel it is only fair if one girl can have it, why should the other not as well?

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fakereflection (talk • contribs) 03:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The arguement WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is generally not considered to be valid. People must be notable on their own merits. See WP:BIO for pointers. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

SPAs

Deary me, they are coming out thick and fast at AfD at the moment. I must admit, normally there is one or two, but it seems that every "keep" is one at the moment....disappointing really, they are just abusing the process :-( Shot info 05:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You would think they'd realize that this is somewhat counter-productive. Bleh. --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad Comment

Wikipedia Is Retarded & Blocked. Go Away —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudolphs Back (talk • contribs) 03:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. Please feel free to not contribute then. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

One long Back and Forth that ended well

Article for speedy deletion:The REAL Rudy

On what authority are you deleting this article?

It was just uploaded???

Your move is blatant POV. You have done nothing to justify it. You simply sent a form message, with no explanation on my talk page. Dogru144 23:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This article was marked for deletion per WP:CSD. There is no assertion of notability, nor any proof of it. However, you're free to contest the deletion if you think there are independent reliable sources that confirm the subject's notability. Also, please remember to assume good faith rather than asserting that I have a 'POV'. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note, that per WP:CSD, you may not remove speedy templates from articles you have authored. If you wish to contest deletion, you may place the {{hangon}} tag on the page. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

So after doing some googling, I did come across some ref's to support your case. (In the HuffPost). I'll be adding it to the article. (Again, note that this was not some sort of POV-hatchet job CSD -- probably just too much time playing whack-a-mole at new articles). --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You keylogged my keystrokes

How dare you take umbrage at my reporting you.

You immediately flagged my article for deletion.

The note came to me that I got a message that the file would be speedily deleted.

This shows that you were key-logging.

What a creep you are to key-log me, and then to boast on your user page that you have encription.

I am going to pursue this with administrators, you knave.'

I WILL PURSUE YOUR KEY-LOGGING WITH ADMINISTRATORS --HOW DARE YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT ME, WHEN YOU KEY-LOGGED ME. YOU'RE READING THIS RIGHT NOW, ANYWAY. Dogru144 02:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Explain your flagging decision!

I noted that that there are over 20 viral videos listed on the viral videos article, including a porn-sharing site. Yet, curiously, you only flagged The REAL Rudy for speedy deletion. Dogru144 02:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Why will you not pursue User:Nleobold

OK, if you are the wikipedia page police, and you're going to delete the REAL Rudy article, why are you mum on Nleobold's commercial spam on the Liberty Dollar page? You have a lot of explaining to do, before you complain about me. You'd better lie low with your self-righteousness, given that you key-logged while I composed The REAL Rudy. Dogru144 02:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note the existence of this page: [3]. It lists new pages as they are created. (See this Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol.) Many people, myself included perform the task of new-page patrolling, where inappropriate articles are flagged for deletion. In this case, I made a mistake, and have admitted as much. I suggest you educate yourself before continuing to make unfounded personal attacks. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense

I will not believe what you claim as your alibi.

I again restate:

Immediately after I uploaded my article,

I received the message that I have a new message;

It was from you, stating that the article was due for deletion.

You have given no sound excuse for how INSTANANEOUSLY' I got the message from you immediately after the uploading. I'm not gullible. Just cool-it with your key-logging.

• Secondly, even if you were telling the truth, how could you claim that the article was insignificant??? --Particularly in light of 20 other viral videos, plus the porn-site. You can bet that I will add this comment. to the pertinent site talk pages. Dogru144 03:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Two seconds

Because, the page registers the creation of new pages 'instantly', and using twinkle (a tool developed to help with New page Patrolling / Counter Vandalism), it takes all of 2 seconds to mark a page for deletion and notify the creator. I will warn you though, cross-posting is a violation of WP:CANVASS. If you feel my actions have been that inappropriate, I'd suggest you take it up at the admin noticeboard rather than persist in a behavior that violates policy. --Bfigura (talk) 03:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Two seconds still does not explain the instantaneous note to me.

• Secondly, how could you know that the article warranted deletion --in two seconds? How can you interpret anything as worthy or not worthy in two seconds? Why don't you dialogue on talk pages, or at least engage in an editwar, instead of pursuing articles to delete with your wikipedia time?

I know it's getting tiresome for you, but how did you miss the mostly inconsequential, and more worthy of deletion --including the prurient porn sharing site? --but you flagged REAL Rudy for deletion?

• I still can't think that there's hijinx going on with you. I keep getting beeps of traffice on my various prophilactic software programs when I'm instant messaging you here. Dogru144 03:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If you don't want to believe me about twinkle and Special:newpages, then fine - you can think whatever makes you happy. As far as other pages go, I honestly haven't seen the page you're referring to before. It's hardly as if you were singled out in some way though: I probably flagged 20-30 other pages for speedy deletion tonight, if not more. (Ie, pages that basically consisted of the words "(insert name) is stupid crackhead, and I hate him", or pages that were about non-notable people/places/websites). But that doesn't mean I see every page that's created, nor do I care to. There's plenty of other people doing the same thing, and most of the bad pages don't last too long. In your case "Real Rudy" looked like some non-notable attack video floating around on youtube, so I marked it for deletion. I made a mistake -- I'm human, it happens. Now if you have any more questions, I'd be happy to answer them. If not, fine too (and good editing to you). --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Liberty Dollar

Please visit this article. This article is mainly commercial spam for gold speculators. Dogru144 04:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm about to take a break for a bit, so I'll come back to it in a bit. But should I take this to mean that you no longer think I'm some sort of right-wing evil-hacker intent on purging wikipedia of all anti-guiliani literature :-) ? --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yea my last post was nonsensical since I was falling asleep on the keyboard : ) Dogru144 04:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Stellar. It drives me nuts when I make a mess by mistakenly deleting something important. (Seriously, don't patrol new pages for too long, you start to get really trigger-happy after a while :) Must be something to do with seeing 20 articles an hour dedicated to the words 'penis' or 'poo'. --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Yeah, I guess I'm having my second thoughts on your bona fides as a hack. :) I must say, you added a nice, constructive edit to the Real Rudy footnotes. CheersDogru144 04:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably not without reason. I don't think hackers are allowed to own macs and read the HuffingtonPost or Talking Points Memo. And thanks. When I'm not bone-headedly deleting things, I like to try and be constructive :) --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which, since my OCD seems to be acting up, I'm going to consolidate this whole discussion into one big section on my talk page, then head to bed. Happy editing. --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

CHAD

Thanks. I think there was an edit conflict. Please note this is how it should be: CHAD -> Chad country or disambiguation pages CHADS -> CHADS CHAD Score -> CHADS CHADS Score -> CHADS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laportechicago (talk • contribs) 17:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. Sorry about that. PS, please sign your posts with ~~~~ next time. Thanks, --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

carspin

Wait a moment here. Placing my business on Wiki is not a promotion. There are no prices, specifcations, logo, ads, taglines, business address, phone numbers - none of that! It simply list the business and what is does, when it founded, etc. Very basic ionformative stuff. No difference whatsover from the 10,000's of business, restaurant, etc. listing I've seen.

alternative contact: alanbkahn@comcast.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanbkahn (talk • contribs) 18:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. Actually, there are several good reasons why your pages have been deleted.

• They don't appear to be notable. In order for a company to be listed in wikipedia, it needs to meet the following guideline: WP:CORP. The articles you created didn't meet this bar. This means they qualified for immediate deletion without warning under the speedy deletion policy. However, even if your company was found to be notable:
• Creating an article about yourself or any organization with which you are involved violates the conflict of interest policy. Basically, the argument is that since it is your company, you are likely to be biased. And wikipedia articles must be written from an unbiased, neutral point of view (this is a non-negotiable rule). So, if your company is truly notable, then you should wait until someone eventually creates a page for you.

• This is not a minor point -- there is a strong consensus supporting this view.

• And lastly, creating a non-notable article about your own company is pretty much the definition of using wikipedia as a soapbox (which is prohibited under WP:SOAP).

Now, if you think that your company has received sufficient (non-trivial) coverage from independent reliable sources (as defined by WP:RS), then I'd be glad to help you create an article here. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 20:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Rosen Inspection Technologies

<why do you want to dlete th epage which i created with lot of hard work and time> Block quote

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomaananwar (talk • contribs)

For the following reasons:

• They don't appear to be about a notable company, as defined by WP:CORP. And things that fail that test are subject to immediate deletion per the speedy deletion policy
• Even if they were, the articles look like they violate WP:SOAP
• Lastly, this: WP:EFFORT isn't a good reason for something to not be deleted.

If you'd like to contribute constructively, I suggest reading some of the following links below. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

<cut out welcome template> --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

carspin

Ah,"if you think that your company has received sufficient (non-trivial) coverage from independent reliable sources":

http://www.renewmagazine.com/article/top+of+the+line?PHPSESSID=3186d41ee9aae9816850a7d280b0e425

http://www.mrfixit.net/new_products.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanbkahn (talk • contribs) 02:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, that doesn't really sound like significant, independent coverage. You really need an article or two from a reliable source devoted to the company. Maybe something from a business mag? --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Liberty Dollar

Yeah, it's not the highest priority for me, either. Actually, you saw the less POV'd version (unless someone rv'd my changes), as I took out the Ron Paul Dollar references. On the other hand, maybe you were referring to the general POV-ed-ness of the whole article. The whole thing is kind of informercialish, like the tchotckies that you see in Sunday newspaper inserts, like those ceramic things that sit on shelves or commerative coins by the Franklin Mint. Cheers Dogru144 12:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Tianna

She done it again, care to block her? Tyler Warren 20:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I just reported her to AIV. But if you can block her, feel free. Cheers, --Bfigura ^(talk) 20:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I just went to report and TWINKLE already found one, so yeah, but I'm not a Sysop. I have 0 blocking powers =P I'm just a very helpful user. Tyler Warren 20:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Advertisement

Hey Bfigura, thanks for your continued efforts in marking inappropriate new pages for deletion. I noticed that you tagged this as an advertisement, but I don't really feel it is one; yes, the article did not establish the notability of its subject and it did not cite any sources, but advertisements are more like "We are the leading manufacturer of X and the cheapest in the world, buy our products now!". This article was only factual. I removed the tag; feel free to re-add it if you disagree. Melsaran (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No, fair enough. The templates you added should be more helpful to whoever is interested in the page. Cheers, --Bfigura ^(talk) 20:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Do Not Deleted This Page

This page "Edmund kayyuen Lo" is now protacted by the "Wikimedia Foundation". If you deleted this page, It will be vandalism this page. So please note that this page been re-enter by the actor (Me/Edmund K Lo) & will not let anyone deleted this page without the order from "Wikimedia Foundation". Thank You! Sign your username: Edmund Kayyuen Lo 21:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)EdmundKLo

Do Not Deleted This Page

This page "Edmund kayyuen Lo" is now protacted by the "Wikimedia Foundation". If you deleted this page, It will be vandalism this page. So please note that this page been re-enter by the actor (Me/Edmund K Lo) & will not let anyone deleted this page without the order from "Wikimedia Foundation". Thank You! Sign your username: Edmund Kayyuen Lo 21:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)EdmundKLo

Hi

This page know as the Edmund Kayyuen Lo page can not be deleted by the order of the "Wikimedia Foundation".

You should know the "Wikimedia Foundation" are getting a Award of $3,000.00 by the end of the month & they don't want this "Edmund Kayyuen Lo" page deleted at all cost.

Think about it!

Edmund kayyuen Lo Actor Sign your username: Edmund Kayyuen Lo 21:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)EdmundKLo

NB: Page has been deleted and user indefblocked. --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

New Comment Break

Hmm. Well, I think what I supplied was independent and reliable. It seems a little subjective for you to decide how significant the my source needs to be. Really, what's the difference from a "independent" article and one placed via PR sources. At least what I supplied you (which were the only articles I could find with a http address still available) was truly independent - both these sources found my product and wrote about it on their own...as a matter of fact, one of them had me do an interview on his radio show. By the way, I read some of the comments by other people you edited...geeze, some of these guys are pretty nasty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanbkahn (talk • contribs) 03:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I can't really comment on the sources, since I don't remember off the top of my head (and the pages are now deleted). But I can say that I don't think they proved the notability of the company. (Generally you need a few significant writeups in reliable media, ie magazines, newspapers, reputable online sites (ie, not blogs, or anything that is primarily user-generated content). If you want to take another stab at it, I'd create a test drive in your userspace first (ie, someplace like 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alanbkahn/Draft1') so that it doesn't get deleted again, and then that way you can get some feedback.

Also, as a note, creating a bunch of different pages with only different spellings is generally a bad idea. (It looks very spammy, plus it makes it hard to keep them all up to date. We generally use redirects for this sort of thing).

And by people being nasty, you mean the people writing on my talk page? Eh, I'm sure other people get worse :) Anyway, let me know if this was at all helpful, or if you have any other questions. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)