User talk:CactusWriter/Archive 2013

A kitten for you!

Why did you delete my article about SamiJo Leach? She is one of my favorite actressess and models.KatSmithFan922 (talk) 00:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

KatSmithFan922, the article was tagged and deleted according to Wikipedia's WP:A7 deletion criteria -- that is, it was a biographical article without any credible claim of significance or importance. I see that all the articles you have created recently have been deleted as lacking significance or as blatant hoaxes. I think it would be best if you first read Wikipedia:Your first article before creating any more articles. Regards. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Buenos Aires Metro move

I don't believe the move was appropriate. There had been no renewed discussion for over a year. The most recent comments were that "metro" was probably the best term. All the lines, stations, and linking templates use "metro." I would request the move be undone. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 13:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Jsfousche. I responded to a request to make the move and I read the discussion on the talk page. It showed that all five of the editors who commented in the initial discussion thought that Buenos Aires Underground was the better term (including the most recent comment from September 2011). The 2010 comment by User:Moebiusuibeom-en also confirmed their opinion that it should be named, to the same degree as in the language of William Shakespeare, as the Buenos Aires Underground. You then replied: OK, the Buenos Aires Metro is much more appropriate on the international level! -- which was a strange reply because that actually was at odds with all the previous comments including the one to which you were responding. Given the level of consensus there (5 out of 6 editors), I believed the move was appropriate. And there should be no problem with the links because the redirect was created. Of course, consensus can certainly change over time. So you are always welcome to raise the issue again for more discussion among the editors involved with that subject. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Article Deleted: Swami Satyabhakta

You should have given us sometime before deleting the article on Swami Satyabhakta. He was a renowned personality. His reference is already there in one of wikipedia pages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parwar_(Jain) (see Distinguished Paravāra Jains section, and it was always there from begining, we havent just added him now, check history of page) In a time when articles on any small personality are readily accepted on wikipedia my article has been deleted without giving me proper time to reply. This persons many books are present in online library of Osmania University, Hyderabad, India. http://oudl.osmania.ac.in/browse?value=Satyabhakt+Darabaariilaal&type=author

He once contested for Indian presidential elections too. There is an internet link which i am trying to find. Please give me sometime before deleting my articles. Thanks

123.201.182.99 (talk) 05:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Gyanesh gyanesh.purohit@gmail.com

I am sorry, but copyright violations must be removed immediately per Wikipedia policy. The deletion had nothing to do with whether or not this individual is significant. The article you created was a word-for-word plagiarism of http://www.satyasamaj.com/swami-satyabhakta.html. And the source page clearly states Copyright © 2011 Sarvedshik Satya Samaj, All rights reserved. I suggest you first read WP:Copyright violation -- and, in the future, use only original language when creating articles. Regards. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 05:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your reason for deleting the article taken from a copyrighted source. However I also think that there should be an article on him. I have seen several of his books and articles. He was a major scholar and philosopher in 1930s and 40s; he continued to write well until late 1980s. Osho, Nathuram Premi, Sukhlal Sanghvi have mentioned about his influence. His expriments on creating a world language and a world script are still recalled. I can help create this article using proper published resources. Malaiya (talk)

At the moment, I have no opinion on the notability of this individual, but you are welcome to create a page referenced to proper reliable sources. The WP:Article wizard provides a useful step-by-step process for creating a new article. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 03:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Coat of Arms of Connecticut

The Coat of Arms of Connecticut redirect is still needed, if anyone bookmarked the page or put an link to if from another website when it was at that title, you broke it by deleting the redirect. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Emmette. It was deleted following your CSD request to move the page over the redirect. At which time, I also changed the internal links for you. The possibility of an outside bookmark is a good point -- I've now recreated the redirect. In the future, it's okay with me if you want to recreate the page on your own. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 02:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

About The Tribute Show, an article you deleted

Hi Cactus. The article that you deleted is up and running again, this time citing a predecessor program broadcast on the Australian UHF Community television channel Channel 31. I'm trying to work with the editor who started the article. The claims of a predecessor program appear to be somewhat tenuous, and the main article appears to be overly promotional. My spidey-senses are tingling big time: for example, a userfication request, amongst other things.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Shirt58. I'm not sure what's going on there. (There's no longer a problem with copyvio or promotional language -- and there does not appear to be some evidence of the show exists -- so this doesn't qualify for automatic CSD.) The article is filled with original research, though, and that should be scrubbed. The lack of references or any significant coverage is definitely a problem, and if the article isn't improved, it should be sent to AFD for failure to pass GNG criteria. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 02:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello CW thought this would be of some historical value on List of Whistleblowers Archives

http://articles.latimes.com/1988-11-08/local/me-358_1_test-data Talks about the first Qui Tam Relator case to be won.

https://sites.google.com/site/defenseweek651989/ 31 out of 40 HARM missiles used in 1986 Libyia Bombing Raid had Genisco Altimiters in them.

https://sites.google.com/site/defenseweek511989/ John Gravitts and Company interviewed

Hope you are well and busy, thanks for your ear and patience. Qui Tam Relator — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qui Tam Relator (talk • contribs) 22:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Qui Tam Relator. Those references are cited on the page. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 02:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

user:faster2010

I just wanted to express my gratitude towards you for doing something about this user. I had spent too much time reverting/verifying a lot of his edits. Thank you.OakRunner (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• I also want to thank you as well for doing something about Faster2010. Far too much time was wasted by reverting and verifying a lot of his edits. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome. And I'm sorry that you both had to spend so much time babysitting that account. I see that you received no response from administrators at ANI. But I was aware of this user's history and occasionally ran a check of their edits. This kind of insidious disruption (where there is a mix of seemingly good and bad edits) is difficult to pounce upon quickly -- especially with regards to our requirements to assume good faith, to escalate warnings, to first discuss, etc. -- so blocks come more slowly than obvious vandalism, and much much more slowly than we might prefer. I appreciate that you both stuck with it. If there are any problems in the future, please feel free to ask. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Connect Christian Church

I am writing to see if I would be able to get your assistance with writing a permissible page that was recently deleted . There is an old unpublished page from a website regarding the history of the church that I had pulled information from that you had cited . I was under the impression that if the page was not published any longer online, placing text from that page would not infringe on any copyrights. If I am incorrect, I apologize. I would like to recreate the page and rewrite the text so that it would not be considered a copyright violation by Wikipedia. Is it okay for me to restart that page under that premise? This is my first Wikipedia page, and I apologize if I have started out on an incorrect foot. I'd like to learn how to be a better contributor. Thanks in advance for your assistance!

References

Connectcincy (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Connectcincy. Yes, you are welcome to create another page -- using original language and complying with the fundamental criteria for Wikipedia articles, for example, being referenced to proper reliable sources. I suggest you use the WP:Article wizard which provides a useful step-by-step process for creating a new article. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 03:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That Article Wizard is very helpful! Connectcincy (talk) 13:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Would you be able to take a look at the article I've started in my sandbox to make sure it looks okay before I make it an actual article again? I'd really appreciate it!

User:Connectcincy/sandbox

Connectcincy (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Connectcincy, I do appreciate you trying to build the article using the WP guidelines (I realize it isn't easy and there is a steep learning curve -- there's lots of rules -- and it takes time for everyone.) After reading the article, I don't believe it meets encyclopedic standards for a number of reasons.

First, the page still could have some copyright issues -- it is essentially a close paraphrasing of the reference you provide. Note that close paraphrasing can be defined not only by similar wording, but also by similar structure and creative organization of the information. Simply reordering the words within a sentence won't relieve a work of copyright violation if the entire order of the information still closely follows the source text.

Second, future events are not considered appropriate unless there has already been significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Otherwise this is usually seen as promotional. Please see WP:CRYSTALBALL.

Finally, an organization should pass the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). It will pass if it can be demonstrated that it "has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." You have provided only one independent source -- and it's coverage is not significant.

As is, the page would probably be proposed for a deletion discussion. Of course, that is only my opinion. You are welcome to ask for other guidance. For example, an editor involved in Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion might be able to provide better help with your article. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. I really appreciate you taking the time to look at it. For now, I'll keep working on it to see if I can find some more independent sources, etc. I'll also take a look at the WikiProject you mentioned and the other resources. I'm just trying to find a place to "archive" this information on the history of the church so that it's not lost in the future.

Again, thanks very much for your help!!! If nothing else, I'm learning a lot about the ins and outs of Wikipedia articles!

Connectcincy (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Claffaria

I was just declining that speedy. That it wasn't patent nonsense is obvious, but why do you say no context? It described a fictional land, giving the author and the series in which he uses that land. While I suspect it would be deleted at AfD on notability grounds, there seems to be plenty context to understand what was written there. LadyofShalott 00:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, LadyofShalott. After I made a quick google search and found nothing even remotely plausible (even with alternative spellings), I read the editor's userpage and realized this was a prank entry. It could have been CSD'd it as a hoax -- but my kinder alternative was to simply CSD as unable to determine the book series. Essentially, this is IAR vandalism. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, CactusWriter. You have new messages at ChrisHodgesUK's talk page.
Message added 21:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Ory Shihor

Hi, you just speedily deleted this article per G12. The same user recreated the article. It was tagged as a copyright violation. They removed the tag and made some changes to the article at the same time. It's now been CSD-tagged again. You might also want to look at this verison of the user's talk page and this discussion on my talk page. As I write this, I can see you've deleted it again, but I still am going to leave this message to give you some additional background. I haven't decided whether the two editors should be blocked for socking. I'm also concerned that I'm WP:INVOLVED based on the content issues at the Colburn School article. Any thoughts on the socking or anything else? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Bbb23. Sorry that I had logged out before seeing your question -- but it appears there are now plenty of eyes on this due to the SSI investigation. (IMO, the sock case is obvious -- and blocking the alternate account while watching the master is appropriate enough for now. And you correctly assessed that INVOLVED might be a problem for you personally.) I'll watchlist the editor and article -- now that they've been warned, further disruptions along those lines will result in a block. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

keystone international

Hi! I have a question about a page of mine that you deleted? I was trying to set up a page for our school, Keystone International School, a private school in Istanbul, Turkey. But the message I received said it was copyright infringement? I used the materials from our website because this is the info that defines the school? Is there an issue with that? Could you explain how I can set up a page with infringing? I have permission from the school owner to publish info about the school. thanks Jennifer Ozkan Keystone International School Curriculum Coordinator ps you can respond to my school email as well: jennifer@keystoneschools.com.tr Jennifer317 (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Jennifer. Yes, it is a copyright violation to copy text onto Wikipedia unless the copyright holders have granted permission to do so. In your case, this means the Wikimedia Foundation's WP:OTRS office must receive an official e-mail from the Keystone International School's website granting permission to use the text under an CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. Or the Keystone's website must place a Creative Commons CC-BY-SA copyright notice on the page of their website.

The message that was placed on your talk page which explains both these procedures. It asks you to click on this link: Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials#Granting us permission to copy material already online, where there are details on how to grant permission to Wikipedia. On the other hand, the best and fastest method for creating an article is simply use your own original words to write it. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

A Promise Was Made

Hello CactusWriter, its been the first time and several years since I've addressed you on this issue of a promise in writing I made with you regarding the list of whistleblowers a few years ago. I'm requesting to allow putting at the bottom of my page that Genisco Case numbers to Texas Instruments Case numbers was the first "Instant Case" and rare event in the history of 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733 "Mr. Lincolns Law" and site the Publication number and the amendment afterwards within the false claims act itself and the date of the amendment under the false Claims Act of Oct. 27, 1986 introduced and championed - in by Senator Grassley and Senator Bermann. Thank you for your time, consideration and patience. Qui Tam Relator 03:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qui Tam Relator (talk • contribs)

Hi, Qui Tam Relator. I'm afraid that I'm uncertain what you mean by "my page" -- you do not have a page, nor does anyone have ownership of a page on Wikipedia. If you are talking about the List of Whistleblowers, I think the entry concerning Roland Gibeault states the facts sufficiently and has enough sourcing already. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

One question

why you deleted my article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DigiTv1 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

DigiTv1, the article on Octavian David Constantinescu was first deleted for being blatant promotion, the second time it was deleted for failure to make any credible assertion about the individual's significance. (As you are aware, the messages explaining the reasons were placed on your talk page, but were deleted by you [1] and [2]). I see you have once again recreated the page and it is now Prodded because it is a biography of living person without any reliable independent sources. It appears that this individual is not yet notable enough for an encyclopedic article. I suggest that if you wish to create any more pages, you should use the WP:Article wizard -- this may help you avoid the problems you are encountering with failure to include proper references. Regards. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Matthew Bogusz Photo

I personally own the Matthew Bogusz photo. Please remove your request for speedy deletion. I provided the photo to Northwestern University for them to use. I own the photo.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parkridge87 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Parkridge78. Please note that any permission to use copyrighted materials on Wikipedia must be given through official means -- either written permission to the Wikimedia Foundation or a licensing notice placed on an official website. If you wish to donate a photo to Wikipedia which has already been published, you will need to follow the procedure at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials#Granting us permission to copy material already online. Until official release is given, we cannot allow the image to exist on WP -- or it will be considered a copyright violation. Regards. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

List of Mudras (Yoga)

Hi CactusWriter, I noticed that you recently deleted my article 'List of Mudras (Yoga)'. The article I created, was in fact not a duplicate of 'List of mudras'. As I stated on the 'List of mudras' talk page, the current 'List of mudras' page addresses mudras specifically related to Indian Classical Dance. The page on 'Mudra' indicates that there are different types of mudras - the page I created was about Yoga mudras specifically. I proposed on the talk page of 'List of mudras', that the name of this page be changed, and a disambiguation page be created to address different lists of mudras. Please let me know if this still causes a duplicate issue.SourabhJ (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, SourabhJ. I think requesting a discussion for your proposal on the talk page first is a good idea. You can also discuss this with the Wikiprojects that have tagged the article as being under their watch. (For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Yoga). Also, there doesn't seem to be any impediment to you expanding the scope of the current List of mudras to include all types. Nothing in that title requires that it be only about the dance. Otherwise, it should be moved to List of dance mudras or List of mudras (dance) (and all relevant links altered). In the meantime, I have userfied you original work while you proposal is discussed -- it can be found at User talk:SourabhJ/List of Mudras (Yoga). Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Inadvertant page deletion? (likely stemming from my error)

Hello CactusWriter,

Kevjonesin here. I'm writing regarding some page deletions that may have resulted from my misplacing/misusing a "{{db-user}}" code. I'm fairly new at doing anything beyond basic proofreading edits.

Following is a copy of relevant entries I found today on my watchlist...

(Deletion log); 17:50 . . CactusWriter (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:Hoshen (Israeli LGBT Organization) ‎(G8: Talk page of a deleted page)

(Deletion log); 17:50 . . CactusWriter (talk | contribs) deleted page Hoshen (Israeli LGBT Organization) ‎(U1: User request to delete pages in own userspace)

A little background, when I created the Hoshen (Israeli LGBT Organization) page I did so by first creating a user subpage/sandbox User:Kevjonesin/Hoshen (Israeli LGBT Organization) with the intent to move it to 'mainspace' as an article when I had finished editing.

I was tired by the time I got around to doing the move and fumbled (and, I thought, reverted) the first two attempts. At one point I failed to remove the "Kevjonesin/" prefix in the title when moving the article to mainspace resulting in an article titled "Kevjonesin/Hoshen (Israeli LGBT Organization" in mainspace. At another point I removed the prefix but forgot to change the drop down menu from "user" to "(article)" resulting in an article (and/or ghost-user?) "User:Hoshen (Israeli LGBT Organization".

I then 'got it together' and successfully combined "(artice)" from the drop down menu with "Hoshen (Israeli LGBT Organization" in the title field and completed the desired move from sandbox to mainspace article. Then, if I recall correctly, thinking that a superfluous page had been left at "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hoshen (Israeli LGBT Organization" (as the URL seemed to lead to a copy of the page) I went into the edit field and added "{{db-user}}" at the top. I think perhaps it should have been "{{db-userreq}}". Regardless, I suspect that this resulted in a removal request being flagged on the mainspace article page I had just strived to produce. [ Ah, the ironic joys of a learning curve : } ]

At this point, as the watchlist entry for your page deletion of Hoshen (Israeli LGBT Organization indicated "(U1: User request to delete pages in own userspace)" I suspect that my misplaced/misused "{{db-user}}" may be what prompted you to remove the stub article (and associated 'talk' page) from 'mainspace'.

Is this inference correct? If not, please explain.

Is it possible to recover the article?

Please pardon my clumsy 'baby-steps',

--Kevjonesin (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem, Kevjonesin. I've restored the deleted page with its history and removed the speedy template. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Cool. Thank You. : }

--Kevjonesin (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Artice Writing Problem

Dear Admin When I Am Writing About A Famous Person In wikipedia. Wikipedia Is Not Accepting My Article its saying i am writing about my self Or My Biography but its not true i am not writing about my self i am writing about another famous person whose significance is important and genuine to be included in wikipedia my article page is Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Sourabh_Kumar please verify that page and respond to me writing about a genuine person whose significance is important is the policy of wikipedia and only that i am doing but then also wikipedia is removing my article its worst you should accept it only the thing is i am not able to do citing and reference please give me the tutorial of citing and reference hope you will verify that page --Sourabh242 (talk) 07:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Sourabh242, I find your statement to be disingenuous. The pages that you have written -- relating to a 16-year-old boy with your name -- have been deleted for having no credible notability, being promotional spam, having no reliable sources, etc. You have been notified repeatedly of these problems and provided numerous links to the relevant guidelines in Wikipedia. I see that you are now using the article as your own user page (which contradicts your claim above this is not you.) You are welcome to contribute to Wikipedia in other ways so long as you follow the core policies. However, if you continue to create articles about Sourabh_Kumar or add their name to current articles, it will be considered disruptive editing by a single-purpose account and you may be blocked from further editing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Barbara Richardson (diplomat)

Hi! I guess the AfD didn't reach a consensus as there is still a discussion going on here about the notability guidelines for diplomats! Should it be reinstated?? --Zayeem ^(talk) 08:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Zayeem. Because of a link in the AFD discussion to that RFC, I did read it prior to close. (There was no clear consensus to adopt the change at the time.) Each AFD does run on its own merits and, in this particular one, the preponderant weight of valid arguments was to delete. If the RFC does change notability criteria for diplomats, then I think reinstating the article under new guidelines and opening a new AFD would be fine. Regards. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 14:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Orange County School of the Arts may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Sloper's Terrace is Real!

Just like the term "Greenwood Heights" in Brooklyn or "La Lengua" in SF, "Sloper's Terrace" is the new term being used by locals to describe the tiny micro-hood as mentioned in my entry. Your deleting the article is preventing the new neighborhood name from being easily found and is keeping this part of Brooklyn in the dark. Please retract your deletion! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seaf01 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles must abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars. In particular, please read the Wikipedia policy on verifiability. If the term "Sloper's Terrace" is used, you will need to provide independent reliable sources which describe it. (Such as those used for Park Slope, Brooklyn or Greenwood Heights, Brooklyn.) Until those sources can be demonstrated, the entry is not a valid encyclopedic article. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 03:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I was deleted

Hi,

I'm trying to do a wikipedia entry for my husband, Alberto Isaac (actor/director) I made a website for him, and maybe that's why you took it off. I tried to rewrite the content but I guess it was still an infringement because his history, awards and plays/tv/movies done are the same.

I went back and put some references in, too... from other sites (IMDB, Eastwestplayers.org,) and I was going to note some reviews he got in various newspapers in the last few decades but I found out you deleted it!

I don't want to be blocked, and I'm trying as best I can to do this right.

Help me please!Tobytoby2000 (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

emily

Hi, Emily. Yes, the article was deleted as a copyright violation because it closely paraphrased the source. To grant permission to use text you've already published online, the Wikimedia Foundation's WP:OTRS office must receive an official e-mail from the website granting permission to use the text under an CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. Or the website must place a Creative Commons CC-BY-SA copyright notice on the page of their website. A message that was placed on your talk page explains both these procedures. Just click on this link: Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials#Granting us permission to copy material already online for details on how to grant permission to Wikipedia. On the other hand, the best and fastest method for creating an article is to write it with completely original wording. Before rewriting the article, though, I is important that you read our guideline on Conflict Of Interest -- we strongly discourage editors from writing about themselves or their family. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 14:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Submissions/TruthThroughAction.org

I consider it well enough sourced for mainspace, tho it would require editing for promotionalism. Please restore it . I'm aware that I don't actually need to ask you,but I prefer to, even for G13 DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem. It's restored. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it's inevitable we will get 1 or 2 % of the G13s wrong--but we inevitable miss out of usable articles to at least that extent & probably much more at more every step of every procedure. I'm happy for what we can catch, and as for the rest, there's no way we can be perfect--it's not a realistic goal, here or in the RW. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC) .

Talkback

Hello, CactusWriter. You have new messages at Davey2010's talk page.
Message added 02:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

– →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Ryan Banks

What is going on with you editing guys? I used the information from the www.ryanbanks.net website as a reference and you state its copyrighted. Giving credit to the source of where the information comes from makes sense and this is not for profit so there's no infringement. They're is definitely no excuse as to why you are blocking this from being made a page. its for information purposes only. Please learn more about copyright infringement before using that reason. everything has been sourced and proven without a shadow of a doubt. So leave the freaking www.wikipedia.org/Ryan_Banks page alone — Preceding unsigned comment added by KeithHenning (talk • contribs) 01:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

KeithHenning, I'm sorry but in your case where a page was created in almost its entirety from copy-pasted text, attribution is irrelevant. All text on Wikipedia is licensed for free redistribution and commercial reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). Therefore, copying the text without the permission of the copyright holder from a source that is not public domain or compatibly licensed is copyright infringement. Please read WP:Copyright Violations for a fuller explanation. However, please note that the pages you created about Ryan Banks were deleted because there was no credible claim of significance or importance for this individual. This is typical of pages which are entirely sourced to the individual's own website, rather than to independent reliable sources -- a core requirement for an encyclopedic article. Using the Article Wizard to create new pages can help guide you through these fundamental Wikipedia policies. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 14:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Contested Deletions

Hiya, Thanks for warning me regarding contested deletions!
I was trying to help, not disrupt, but in hindsight it's probably perceived as disruptive,
Anyway thanks again :) - →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem. It's understood that there is a learning curve to Wikipedia guidelines -- we've all been there. Good luck with your continued editing. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 06:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Sir Syed College

I did not know about Move article. I did my best to create a disambiguation page. Delljvc (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Delljvc, I understand -- and I do appreciate that you were trying to improve the topic. If you are unsure about other procedures, please feel free to ask, or you can ask a question at the WP:Help desk. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Military history of the North-West Frontier

The North West Frontier Province, Pakistan has been renamed as Khyber Pakhtunkhwa few years ago, Can you Move and rename Military history of the North-West Frontier as Military history of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Thanks. Delljvc (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Delljvc. I am not familiar with the subject and cannot offer an opinion at this time. However, before making a renaming move which might be controversial (and it was during previous discussions at Talk:Khyber Pakhtunkhwa), it is best to obtain a consensus of opinion from your fellow editors on the subject. You should post your above proposal using the procedure found at the WP:Requested move page at both Talk:Military history of the North-West Frontier and Talk:Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. If the proposal is closed as successful, an administrator will then help move the page. Good luck. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Questions on Copyright

Hello CactusWriter,

I recently had an article deleted by you for reasons of Copyright Infringement

05:17, 22 May 2013 CactusWriter (talk | contribs) deleted page John E. Phillips (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.amazon.com/John-E.-Phillips/e/B001HP7K6O/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1344638757&sr=1-2-ent)

If you could elaborate on why this is a copyright infringement and how I might go about making not that.

Thank you very much,

Brooks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blmacbeth (talk • contribs) 19:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Blmacbeth. You created the article John E. Phillips as a word-for-word plagiarism of the copyrighted text already published on the Amazon website here (marked ©1996-2013, Amazon.com, Inc at the bottom of the page). This was an absolute violation of copyright policy and required immediate deletion per Wikipedia's copyright violation policy. A message was placed on your talk page with links to Wikipedia essays on how to use text already published on-line. However, the easiest solution is never to create an article by copying text, but rather to use only one's own original words and structure. I suggest you use the WP:Article Wizard when creating a page -- it can help new editors avoid a myriad problems when attempting to make a proper encyclopedic article. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of "Dvorak's Law"

The Dvorak's Law page was not a Hoax. It was presented by John C. Dvorak on his podcast, "The No Agenda Show" on 6/13/2013.

You may disagree with the content, but it certainly was not a hoax. Please reverse the deletion.

EDIT by gqdawg:

Dvorak's Law was referenced on the No Agenda Show multiple times over the past year -- especially in light of the recent reports of increased prostitution in Europe. John C. Dvorak was the first to realize the connection between worsening economic conditions and the increase in prostitution. He formally realized this law on No Agenda Show episode 521 on 6/13/20013. Evidence of the existence of Dvorak's Law can be found at the following location:

http://static.curry.com/nashownotes/521/index.html

Gqdawg (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

ADDITIONAL EDIT by gqdawg:

Dvorak's Law is referenced on Urban Dictionary as the following:

"The worse the economy, not only do the hookers get better looking, but they get cheaper."

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Dvorak%27s%20law

Dvorak's Law is further displayed on John C. Dvorak's Wikipedia page. See link below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Dvorak#Economic_laws_and_predictions

Dvorak's Law is also slated for as a topic of an upcoming article on the financial website Marketwatch.com

Will the writer challenging the validity of Dvorak's Law put into writing what he/she expects to see as a legitimate "source"?

The stipulation as referenced on Wikipedia is not for things made up one day "Wikipedia content is required to be verifiable." has been met as requested by the author.

Gqdawg (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The law is supported by this article in the Economist: http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21578434-old-industry-deep-recession-sex-doesnt-sell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.95.195.228 (talk) 14:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts to provide some "source" for an article, but they fail to meet the necessary criteria for an encyclopedic article. Please read the guidelines at Wikipedia is not for things made up one day and Wikipedia is not a dictionary -- the encyclopedic value of any concept or phrase uttered by you, your friend or anyone else into public space is determined by its significant use in discussions in independent reliable sources. (The Economist article which you have cited above might be a reliable source -- but only for an article concerning the current economy of prostitution in Britain. It does not make any mention of Dvorak or a Dvorak's Law.) — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Gianluca Iacono

None ever misspelled Iacono's last name, except the user Eeekster that wrongly moved the page thinking that "I" was a small "l", so I see no point in keeping a page misspelling Gianluca's last name. --Newblackwhite (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Newblackwhite. Redirects of plausible misspellings are commonly used. One of Wikipedia's essays concerning WP:REDIRECT elucidates the point that "Redirects are cheap. They take up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. Thus, it doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around. In fact, a redirect page may even avoid the creation of duplicate articles on the same subject, and thereby actually save data space. On the contrary, deleting a redirect actually adds very slightly to the size of the database (since deleted pages are not really purged from the database, just hidden from public view). Unless a redirect is actively misleading or gets in the way of a page move, there is little point in deleting it." — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I get your point, but the problem is that I have never seen anyone misspelling Iacono's last name except one Wiki user who thought a capital "I" was a lower "l"; this is far from being a common misspelling. Following the same logic, I could create pages with every possible misspelling of every possible name, and then say "You can't delete it because it's a plausible misspelling". The history of the page Gianluca Iacono makes it clear that this wasn't an already existing mistake but just one accidentaly created by Wikipedia itself. Well, that's just my opinion, but I would like to point out that no other wiki has the redirect page with the wrong name. --Newblackwhite (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Newblackwhite, I appreciate your clarification -- but there is no problem. You have stated that there is at least one person who benefits from the redirect. That's good enough. The creation of "every possible misspelling of every possible name" is, of course, an illogical Reductio ad absurdum argument and would certainly be considered WP:POINTY. Anyway... good luck with your further editing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Dragonfly Lingo

Hi, in relation to the page you deleted, "Dragonfly Lingo," the content that you said was copied from MTV was actually from LastFM which allows the text to published anywhere else. MTV got it from this site. Therefore I believe the page should be allowed to stay up. Thanks. http://www.last.fm/music/Dragonfly+Lingo/+wiki LumCel (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the CC-By-SA 3.0 licensing on that source. The article has been restored now -- however, I do note that it does not appear to meet notability criteria for WP:BAND. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Chaitanya Rai Vashishth (R.V.)

you have deleted my article named Chaitanya Rai Vashishth (R.V.)....It would be kind of you to please give me a copy of the text of my article. I had spent a lot of time to collect the facts and write it. So please provide me a copy of the text...Thanx! Laddi Vashishth (talk) 18:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Laddi Vashishth. I have temporarily restored a copy of the article under your username for you to make improvements. It can be found at User:Laddi Vashishth/Chaitanya Rai Vashishth (R.V.). I would suggest that you read WP:BLP and WP:BIO to understand the failings of the current article -- in particular, the lack of reliable sources and assertion of notability. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

José Luis Casanova

Was speedy recreated. Just an FYI. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 07:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Sigh... and it's still the same pasted copyvio (and obviously promotional) text. Deleted again. Thanks for the notice. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Rangeblock

Do you think we could do a rangeblock on the IP editor that continues to vandalize Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (film) and some other articles? I filed a report here listing the three IP addresses that have part of their address in common. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Probably a good idea, Erik, but I'm not really knowledgeable on how to range block these new IP addresses. (Something I should figure out at some point.) And I tend to avoid range blocks for fear of all the collateral damage. So I think it's a good idea to let the more experienced admins at AIV answer that one. In the meantime, I semi-protected the page for a month -- maybe the vandal will get bored by then. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Alright, we'll see if the page protection works. The IP editor may move on to focus on Airplane! or other articles, though. We'll keep on the lookout. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

KellyMoney35 user page

Regarding the User:KellyMoney35 user page that you just deleted: Here is her new user page: User:Kelly Money. I think it is very similar. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 21:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay... I think I'll edit out the promo stuff and leave a message on their talk page about that. Then wait and see if this is just another abandoned account. Thanks, Uncle Milty. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of "Bangladesh Aquarists‎"

Hi, CactusWriter you didn't mention why did you deleted my article Bangladesh Aquarists . I ‎wrote that this society already has significant notability to have an Wikipedia presence. The problem is I cannot provide references from well known media because most Bangladeshi media remove their past pages from their archive. Thanks in advance.

I'v found an article on similar organization en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Aquarium_Society‎ . This article also don't have reliable sources though it has notability. Bangladesh Aquarists has adequate notability. The what's wrong with Bangladesh Aquarists article? Thanks in advance. rijans (talk) 07:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

rijans (talk) 07:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC) rijans (talk) 07:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Rijans007. The article about the Bangladesh Aquarists organization was deleted per WP:A7 speedy deletion criteria because there was no assertion of significance. Significance is generally established by significant coverage about the org in independent reliable sources. Please note that the mere existence of an organization is not enough to establish this significance. (Also note that the existence of other articles on Wikipedia is not considered a valid argument for inclusion. You may wish to read WP:OTHER.) More importantly, Rijans007, please be aware that it was necessary for me to mark all of the images which you uploaded for deletion , because they were blatant copyright violations copied from various on-line sources -- yet you had marked them as your own work. I suggest you familiarize with Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright policy before uploading anymore images to Wikipedia or Commons. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I admit the wrongs and odds I have done. But many images are my own work - although you mentioned all. CactusWriter , my last question is what will be the reason if you approve my article. Thanks. rijans 17:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC) 17:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rijans007 (talk • contribs)

Hi, Rijans007. I do note that many images you uploaded last May were properly licensed on Flickr -- but I referred to the pictures on this article. And please note that even if you have cropped the picture, it is still not your "own work", but remains a derivative of the original author and copyrighted to them. If you wish to try and recreate the article again, I suggest you read WP:FIRSTARTICLE and then use WP:ARTICLES FOR CREATION so that experienced editors can advise you through the process. Good luck. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Simona Williams article.

Holy crap & Congratulations!
You just manged to re-write the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simona_Williams, adding most or all the factual information I've got on file for it.
Considering that you just wrote up pretty much exactly what I in April.2013 had intended, then: it really truly pains me to point out that there (in my eyes) is good reason for the article to be deleted.
The deletion discussion is at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Simona_Williams

However, in case the outcome of the deletion process is to keep the article, then:
The infobox needs correction: She was born "Simona Anastasia Fleur Levin" as is correctly written in the article, but the infobox says "Simone Levin".
The name she's been using while living in Denmark, and is in Denmark also known by, thru all her life (or at least since her teenage years) is "Simone Levin".
The name "Simona Williams" came by marrige to Chad Williams, whom she divorced. (ref. http://www.bt.dk/kendte/klassebilledet-afsloerer-dig-simone which states: "Heller ikke i ægteskabet med den amerikanske læge Chad Williams, som hun var gift med i ti år, var der nogen åbenhed om Simones sande alder.")

BTW: In case the age issue (yet again) gets disputed, then another school photo from 1984 also exists! (but the already referenced model photo from 31.Dec.1980, at age 16, is as solid evidence as it gets ... well, only short of a photocopy of her birth-certificate)

off-topic, from the top of your userpage: >> ... in the lovely land of herring Popsicles.<<
a hva' ?!? Sildeispinde?!? Er det en særegen (og for mig absolut ukendt) specialitet i Thyborøn, Esbjerg, eller ... det må være noget Jydsk! ... ja, sig det bare: "Du må være Køvenhavner". Korrekt! ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Something20130828 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Something20130828. I added sources and copyedited the article for my own benefit -- it always helps me decide whether to keep or to delete an article listed at AFD. I disagree with your delete !vote at the AFD because we do not assess an individual based upon the quality of the work. Whether we personally like or dislike a tv show or a celebrity is irrelevant to the discussion. All that matters is whether or not there has been significant coverage of them in independent reliable sources. Thus passing Wikipedia's WP:GNG guideline for notability. In this case there was. However, I added a "weak delete" !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simona Williams based upon the concept of WP:ONEEVENT.

Sild ispind er en joke, selvfølgelig. Og vi bor i nærheden til København - der ejede et lille hus på Amager siden 2000. Ha' det godt. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi/Hej

I've never seen Gordon Willey referred to with his full middle name, either without it or with just the initial. So I think you should move it back where it was located, and start a move discussion./Jeg har aldrig set Gordon Willey betegnet med sit fulde mellemnavn (kun som Gordon R. Willey) saa jeg synes du skal flytte hans artikel tilbage hvor den var.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Maunus. So you mean you've never seen it listed as Gordon Randolph Willey on title pages like at Harvard University, or the JAR, or the Encyclopedia Brittanica or the National Academy of Sciences or The life of Gordon Randolph Willey, 1913–2002, etc.? I don't really have any affiliation with the page -- I ran across it today after spotting redlinks to Gordon Randolph Willey and found there was already an article. It had been poorly written and outside of our MOS for several years -- so I only edited it to a more presentable standard; and then moved it to the title commonly used on most formal bio presentations about him. Frankly, I find most arguments about page titles to be of rather silly and of very little import (redirect serves their purpose) -- but if you wish to revert the move, then suit yourself. Just please make sure that a redirect does remain so that no redlinks will return. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Not being an admin I cant revert the move. Google gives <"Gordon R. Willey" archeology> 173,000 hits, and <"Gordon Randolph Willey"> 32,900. You do know that we have a move discussion proces so that we can discuss moves before they happen, which if you had used it would mean that I don't have to bother you by asking you to revert it nor in doing so subject myself to your snark? By the way it is a convention to always use the full name spelled out in obituaries, so they are generally not very good for establishing the most common usage.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't realize your administrator tools had been removed -- otherwise I wouldn't have suggested you to revert, but rather done it myself. And you do know that WP:REQUESTED MOVES operates on the initial statement: If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page. -- rather than starting another move discussion. As I stated already, I have no dog in this hunt other than to attempt to clean up the text. I'll revert and leave it to project members to care for the article and any redlinks to it. Good luck. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Richard Hopkins hoax

Hi Cactus, good job on the Richard Hopkins hoax. (I'm curious to learn/know, how did that article get on your radar? Also curious, it seems to me reasonable the editor-author s/b banned from WP on the basis of creating a hoax article, do you know how that is typically implemented or even if it is implemented at all in similar cases?) Thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Ihardlythinkso. Thanks for your input at the AFD. I ran across the article after tracking the edit history of an IP account -- the IP had commented recently at the WP:List of hoaxes page and their history indicated mostly vandalism edits. Their single edit on the Richard Hopkins talk page led me to investigate it. Yes, you are correct that blatant hoaxers are typically blocked indefinitely -- over the years I have blocked far too many of those types of vandalism accounts, unfortunately. However, I do first wait for comments on any deletion discussion just in case my analysis is faulty. Afterwards, I'll take the appropriate action. (WP:HOAX may provide you with more answers.)

By the way, it appears that you have access to the ECO C volume. Could you please check the C77 listings and read whether or not Hopkins name is listed in any footnotes there? I would like to know what, if anything, is written there. I'd appreciate your help. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I responded re ECOs on the AfD page. Thanks for explaining how you achieved detection. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Themos Mexis Page

Hi CactusWriter. Thank you for your info on how to avoid being biased. Before I was able to action changes to the profile, it was speed deleted. I am rewriting the profile so that it isn't biased. Though I wouldn't have thought that a paragraph stating that someone has certain qualifications, lives somewhere and a brief outline of what they have done be construed as biased. If I was to send you a copy of the new script before it went live would you be able to give it the once over? Last thing I want is for the page and my account to be blacklisted. Thanks Mexisdesign (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Mexisdesign. I may not be readily available, so I suggest that you use Wikipedia:Articles for creation -- editors there can review your article and address any concerns before it is moved into the Wikipedia mainspace. Please note that any article, especially a biographical one, requires significant coverage of the subject by independent reliable sources (for example, newspaper, magazines or journals.) And these must be cited. Facebook pages or the subject's own website are not independent and are invalid as secondary sources for text. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

vandalism in Lurs and Luristan page

Hi CactusWriter

"HistoryofIran" user vandalism in Lurs and Luristan page. He remove All Historical images and "Lur people of iran" map no valid reason. I ask you to stop doing this "HistoryofIran" user.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HistoryofIran

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorestan_Province

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lurs

Thank youSetenlyacc (talk) 05:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I was considering taking both of them to ANI. The articles they are edit-warring on are a mess. However, I discovered that Setenlyacc ignored my warnings about copyvio and, as I did earlier with HistoryofIran, I have blocked him indefinitely which means he is blocked until we can be sure he understands our copyvio policy and can edit it without breaking it. Dougweller (talk) 07:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of this, Doug. It's much appreciated. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 14:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem. This has led me to raise the issue of images of BLPs in articles such as Lurs at Wikipedia talk:BLP - people just add images to articles without reliable sources, even when the subject's artcle doesn't make the claim. Dougweller (talk) 18:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, CactusWriter. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 08:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dougweller (talk) 08:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Chip Chocolate

Hello, CactusWriter. I see you deleted Chip Chocolate; could you please restore it to User:Launchballer/Chip Chocolate because he has just had a #68 hit on the UK Singles Chart thus passing WP:MUSICBIO criterion #2? Thank you.--Launchballer 21:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

--Prograce (talk) 05:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing up my Edits

Hi CactusWriter, Thanks for giving me a hand with the Mandukasana page, i was hoping the poem would generally be presumed to be mine but howandever :) --Prograce (talk) 05:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Prograce. To edit the close paraphrasing was no problem -- I was happy to help your effort. And Rabindranath Tagore's beautiful poem on your user page deserved proper attribution... but, yeah, for a second there, I presumed your brilliance. Hope that was enough. ;) — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Ditto. For all your work on the Gerald May article which I created. I'd give you a BarnStar but I don't remember how and I'm sure you are too wise to care about such things. Happy editing! SmokeyTheCat 08:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Smokey! Glad we could keep the article. And "too wise" has never been a common descriptor for me -- so I'll try to keep that in my mind. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey

Why did you delete my film page? it was completely legit, and it WASN'T FAKE, i was developing it, which is the reason why THERE WAS NO INFOBOX OR POSTER, you better listen to me, or else i'll never come here again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hug0905 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Please read both WP:MOVIE and WP:PROMOTION. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects which you have created, but Wikipedia is not for self-promotion. You should examine the reasons each of the pages you have created have been deleted. If you wish to contribute to Wikipedia, then it is best to first focus on improving pages which have already been created so that you can learn the necessary criteria for an encyclopedic article. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi CactusWriter, I saw that my page for A Couple of Boys Have the Best Week Ever was deleted. I understand why, I just did not mean to save that article as a page. I thought I was in my sandbox and logged out before double checking. I was hoping you could take the flag off of the page so I can continue it. Thanks, Wanderlustjourney — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanderlustjourney (talk • contribs) 04:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Wanderlustjourney. I understand. No problem -- there is a definite learning curve on Wikipedia. To avoid that kind of mistake in the future, create a subpage in your userspace for articles on which you are working. For example, I have created the page User:Wanderlustjourney/A Couple of Boys Have the Best Week Ever for you. You can build the article there at your own pace. When it is ready, use WP:MOVE to rename it without the "User:Wanderlustjourney/" prefix and it will be active for reviewing in the mainspace. The previous deletion message that you currently see for the article will no longer be seen -- it does not affect the recreation of an article -- nor does a tag about an empty page created by a new user reflect on that user. It is not uncommon; happens to all of us on occasion. By the way, I suggest first reviewing WP:NBOOK to understand the criteria for book titles that are considered notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Larry Santos albums

Hi. I'm surprised by your comment on turning down my speedy request for Larry Santos albums, to the effect that the PROD was sufficient. I'm trying to understand the merit, if an article meets the criteria for speedy deletion, in leaving it in place for a week (and giving its creator a chance to remove the tag in the meantime), solely because an editor who didn't see what I saw happened to get there first and tagged it PROD. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I've endorsed the proposed deletion, which would bypass the seven day wait.--Launchballer 10:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Launchballer. Thanks for endorsing the PROD. It helps the deleting editor but, AFAIK, it doesn't change the waiting period. If there is some guideline that states that, please let me know because I have entirely missed it. (Wouldn't be the first time.) — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Largo Plazo. There was nothing wrong with your CSD tag and I'm sorry if my decline message implied that. My reasons for declining here were: 1.) Time was not of the essence -- that is, the article didn't qualify as immediately detrimental and therefore other previous considerations could be made. 2.) The article had been visited by a couple of other editors who did see the same thing as you (a duplication of information) -- the first tagged it for improvement, the other prodded it for that reason. Since we do allow discography splits from articles (when properly expanded, of course), it's okay to give the editor a little time to prove the merit of it. 3.) IMO, when an inexperienced editor is trying to make genuine contributions but failing to communicate, PRODs and AFDs will draw an editor into discussion better than CSDs and warning templates. And this new editor does appear to need some advice.

I see now that they has been creating some articles of borderline quality. And there has been a complete lack of response from them towards your CSD tags and warnings on their articles. That is understandably very frustrating for you. I can write them a more personal note to see if they can understand the current problems with their submissions. And if they are still unwilling to talk, then AFD discussions are excellent for establishing consensus for future actions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, CactusWriter, I appreciate your thoughtful response! FYI, in case you didn't come across my mentions of it, there also seems to be a bit of a conflict of interest in at least some of the articles (mentions of "Laurie Maitland" versus the user's name, Maitlandplace; I found signs of Laurie Maitland's involvement with a couple of the other topics even when she wasn't mentioned in the article). —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Motor Stories Deleted

Hello,

I am inquiring about my Motor Stories page that was recently flagged and deleted for content copyright issues. The copyright infringement was flagged from my own blog on the same subject. Since I am the original author of both the blog and the wikipedia site I would like to get the Wikipedia site back up and running. I sent an email from both my univeristy email (with which the blog is associated) and with my regular gmail account (which is associated with my wikipedia account). I have yet to hear back on either email accounts and was curious as to the situation.

Thank you,

Rachel Yerger RachelLee04 (talk) 14:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Rachel Yerger. I appreciate your efforts to comply with our copyright procedure. Because of the volume of mail at the OTRS office, it can take a week or two before there is a response. Someone will reply to your email, indicating whether the content and your license is acceptable. If it is, then an administrator will restore the page and indicate that the confirmation of the license has been received. Please note, though, that acceptance of the copyright does not necessarily mean that the text is acceptable. All text must still meet the standard Wikipedia guidelines for verifiability, neutral point-of-view and Notability. It's a good idea to review those pages and to edit accordingly. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Baden Colin Beaumont

Hi CatusWriter you deleted my family work and research on Mary Elizabeth Lawson Actress yes your write having problems with ref as new and wiki not easy of use so can you replace my work on Mary Lawson aka my Grandmother if you would like to help with ref to all the evidence I have that is fine. as you know there was a newspaper national sensation with the camera man and ten Fred Perry well I have the reason why this being Baden Colin Beaumont Ie my father. so apart from adding ref in all is true. am looking forward to your response from mark grandson of Mary Elizabeth Lawson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.241.89 (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. The biographical article that you created did not have any references and therefore fails our guidelines at verifiability. In addition, even if true -- there was no assertion as to the significance of the individual. Simple heritage or familial background is not a case for notability. (See WP:NOTINHERITED.) I also suggest that you familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia policy on Conflict of Interest. At this time, I do not see any sufficient reason to include the alleged family information into Wikipedia. And I strongly advise against creating biographical articles about your family. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

CactusWriter: I don't know if you watch Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, but Pendragon007 started a thread there. I've replied to it, but you may want to take a look at it. The thread is titled #Mary Elizabeth Lawson (actress). —C.Fred (talk) 17:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

C.Fred, thanks for notifying me about this. I've now read the noticeboard as well as the conversation on your talk page. And I think I should refrain from commenting there -- Pendragon007 appears to be rather upset at me. If I have parsed their comments correctly, their statement that as for family accounts they will not be in written form as Mary Lawson son was kept a secret, then I doubt their family claims could ever be added to Wikipedia. Given their idiosyncratic language skills, any further editing by them may came down to a matter of competency. Anyway, your responses to P007 have been fair and well-reasoned. If you wish for my comments at anytime, please let me know. I'm sorry that this matter got dumped on your doorstep. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of "Voice to Skull"

Hi, CactusWriter, I just registered for my account and are new to editing and creating articles to Wikipedia. Any clarification regarding why the article in question is deleted would be appreciated and if necessary I will explain or provide more sources to prove my case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Synsepalum2013 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Synsepalum2013. Thanks for registering and welcome to Wikipedia. I think the deletion of your article was a mistake and I have restored it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Voice to Skull. The problem was the absence of reliable references which makes any "fringe" topic seem to be made-up. But, after a little research, I did some copy-editing and added a couple of refs. Please note that we already have an article about psychotronics and your V2K article might be more properly merged into that one. In the meantime, you can continue to expand your Article For Creation and the editors there will help you with any problems and with moving the article into mainspace. If you have further questions, please feel free to ask. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response and for rescuing my article. Your rewriting is very well done and since I can't provide any more information in this subject with reliable sources, I'll just go ahead and submit the article and hopefully it will be moved to the mainspace and others will chime in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Synsepalum2013 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Cactuswriter. I have made a lot of improvement to the article in question but it has been declined by another editor. Could you please take a look at the article and give me some advice on further improvement? TIA for your help. — Synsepalum2013 (talk) 05:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Synsepalum2013. I suggest that you discuss this with User:Bellerophon and seek their advice on ways to improve the article. The topic is not one with which I am familiar and I'm afraid that I don't have the time to investigate the subject right now. However, when creating an article, it is necessary to use only those reliable sources which actually cover the topic (such as [3], [4], [5]) -- and not to add, infer or combine information in the article which is not specifically discussed by a reliable source. You can read through WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. These explain some core policies on writing for an encyclopedia -- and will help you in further discussions on building an article. (By the way, at a glance, it seems you are trying to expand the topic to include MK-ULTRA but Wikipedia already has an article on that subject.) Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice CactusWriter and I really appreciate the reliable sources you provided. Have a wonderful day :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Synsepalum2013 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

MusicBlvd.com Links Whitelisted on Wikipedia

Hi Mayast,

We would like to advocate for MusicBlvd.com, a competitor to MetroLyrics, both licensed lyrics providers. We are trying to get Wikipedia to verify that MusicBlvd.com is indeed compliant with copyright and and lyric licensing laws.

You can see MusicBlvd's response here - Dear Wikipedia, We Love Musicians More than Lawyers.

This is in response to this Wikipedia thread by other editors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs#Music_Blvd_lyrics_Links

MusicBlvd.com should be added under the "Lyrics and Video" section in the Wikipedia page Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs

Can you please help us in setting the record straight?

Thanks

Trystanburke (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Trystanburke. I see that User:Moonriddengirl already informed you that letters scanned and posted online do not satisfy Wikipedia's requirements for reliability. In short: ...If MusiXmatch wants to publish something on their website clarifying the terms of any license [or that they] have extended their license to you, that may be helpful. Alternatively, they may be able to email info@wikimedia.org from an email address clearly associated with their domain clarifying the terms of their license. But please note that even if the copyright question is cleared up, that doesn't guarantee that MusicBlvd.com will be added to that section. That's an editorial matter... Any "official" communications with Wikipedia must be made through our WP:OTRS office.

My other concerns are issues with Advocacy, Advertising and Conflict of Interest and Meatpuppetry -- but these can be discussed with you at the discussion page. I suggest you familiarize yourself with those policies. They are considered a fundamental part of building a neutral encyclopedia.

I think if those issues are satisfied, there would not be any problem with your making constructive edits to some Wikipedia articles. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Tico Rico

Hello CactusWriter. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Tico Rico, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to records. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Malik Shabazz. Obviously that db-music speedy tag should have been a Db-A9 tag. (There is no assertion of significance to the music recording.) I'm not sure why we have db-music still tagging as A7 rather than A9. Anyway, I've replaced with the correct tag. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Oops. Then again, the artist does have a page -- so A9 doesn't apply either. Looks like it might be a future PROD/AFD candidate. But for the time being... — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)