User talk:Evb-wiki/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 3

Talk text from August 2007 through December 2007:

Texas article, Education section

...has become the UT and A&M show. I'm surprised that nobody seems to care. Oh well, thanks for your help. Postoak 02:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to draw the line for inclusion or how much info should be provided for each. There is already a link to List of colleges and universities in Texas provided at the top of the section and most of those listed have their own articles anyway. I've added some additional "promenant" universities, but I've probably missed a few, and the scope of what's "promenant" is debatable. --Evb-wiki 13:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

TheFurniture.com

I'm going to remove your speedy-delete tag on this article for now, without prejudice (meaning we can go back and speedy delete it later if it's still not up to snuff). I had already tagged it for speedy very early on, but after the original author asked for help and more time, I removed the speedy and replaced it with an {{underconstruction}} tag, invoking the assume good faith principle. Please respect that under-construction status for now and let me see if I can salvage this thing. I believe this company may may meet notability standards, if only because a six-year-old web-based company is almost ancient by Internet standards. We'll revisit this when we're done, and it may very well be that all the good writing in the world can make a company notable. Realkyhick 17:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This also applies to Thefurniture.com, with the lower-case "f". I didn't realize the article was duplicated there, or else the server lag is playing tricks on me, or maybe I'm just dense. :-) Anyway, I'll move it to TheFurniture.com (with upper-case "F") to eliminate the duplication thing. By the way, just to clarify: As the article sands now, it definitely would qualify for speedy deletion. I'm trying to take the focus away from the site and put it on the company. It may be a futile rescue mission, but we'll see how it goes. Realkyhick 17:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. By the way, it's looking like reliable independent sources are few and far between, so this may be a lost cause after all, but let's let it play out for a bit longer. One of the sources I found was a Washington DC Better Business Bureau report that doesn't cast the company in the best light, but that isn't terribly unusual for web-based retailers. Realkyhick 17:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I added a few more sources (articles that contain the facts I wrote about). Also, if you'd like, I can remove the information about the Better Business Bureau Reliability Program. Dmcnabb5 19:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I have proven the site's notability through its revenue and the fact that it has been in operation for six years, which is almost ancient by online standards. It was written in there, but another admin deleted that fact. Realkyhick said that the article was OK as is. Please do not delete it and PLEASE contact me as soon as possible. Thank you. Dmcnabb5 13:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what Realkyhick said was, "By the way, just to clarify: As the article sands now, it definitely would qualify for speedy deletion." See above. --Evb-wiki 13:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No, what he said was that sources are few and far between, but I went back and added three new sources that verify the facts that I stated. So, please click on the links and you can see for yourself that the sources are independent and reliable. Dmcnabb5 14:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The deletion comment wasn't the last comment he left you, he said that he changed it but that there were too few sources, after which i added more. So, please re-read the article, check the sources, and give it a chance. Thank you. Dmcnabb5 14:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, this is the third unanswered comment that I am leaving regarding my article. I have addressed all of its criticisms (lack of notability proof, lack of sources, and advertising writing style). I have shown that it is notable due to the several sources that have written about it, as well as through the facts that I've provided. I also wrote it in an encyclopedic manner, while referencing several independent, reliable sources. Please remove the speedy deletion tag and PLEASE answer my comments because you cannot expect me to improve if my questions and comments are being ignored. While writing the article, I have asked admins over ten questions on how they would like me to word or fix things, but only a few were answered. Please get back to me at your earliest convenience. Thank you in advance. Dmcnabb5 15:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The subject of the article is simply not notable. Neither checkout.google.com or prweb.com (press release newswire) are independent reliable sources. If I am wrong, an admin will remove the tag. If I am right, an admin will delete the article (again). BTW, I am not an admin and neither is Realkyhick. And neither of us (or anyone else, that I can see) has said or agreed that the article is fine. --Evb-wiki 15:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Why do you not consider them reliable sources? Google checkout simply ran a case study, so why isn't that reliable. Also, I used it for information regarding the company's employment figures, which would not be affected by the case study one way or the other. And the 630% increase came from the owner's quote - and if the owner of the company isn't a reliable source then I don't know what is. Dmcnabb5 16:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the speed delete tag and nominated this article for AfD so a consensus can be reached. Please discuss it there. --Evb-wiki 16:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

My bad...

• laughs* I actually didn't really read the article, Kili Aqorau, fully. I just noticed that it was one line and about a person. I definitely didn't see the last two sentences. XP Thanks for fixing the delete notice.Silver seren 02:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think it was deleted after you tagged it, and then recreated, adding the attack language. In any case, it has now been deleted twice. --Evb-wiki 02:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh really? That makes me feel better. Its a good thing when your not an idiot. ^_^ Silver seren 03:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hello, Evb-wiki! Thanks for reverting vandalism on my userpage. :) Cheers, --Isis4563(talk) 14:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

'Twas my pleasure. Vand-patrol's got each other's back. Peace. --Evb-wiki 14:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Coalition for the Advancement of Jewish Education

Hi there - even though the subject may not be notable, it at least asserts some importance - the biggest event of its type, has been running for over 30 years, etc. Whilst it may still be deleted at AfD, I didn't think it quite fitted the CSD requirements. Cheers, ELIMINATORJR 14:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For your comment on this AfD, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters award you the barnstar of good humor.Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 18:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Hammer. Just stating the obvious. Cheers. --Evb-wiki 18:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Canary Cliff prod 2

Yegad, I've been misapplying the prod2. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That's the 1st time I've seen it. I couldn't help piling on. :-) --Evb-wiki 03:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Pokemon and notability...

Do you know if articles like Ruby (Pokémon) (and other articles listed in that list - List_of_Pokémon_characters) meet sufficient notability requirements as defined in policy. Thanks. --Emesee 01:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

State Bar of Texas

Dear Evb-wiki: I reverted on the basis of sec. 81.011 of the Texas Gov't Code, reading (in part):

a) The state bar is a public corporation and an administrative agency of the judicial department of government.

[ . . . ]

(c) The Supreme Court of Texas, on behalf of the judicial department, shall exercise administrative control over the state bar under this chapter.

I would agree that the State Bar of Texas not part of the executive branch. But I would argue the State Bar is technically a Texas government agency under the judicial branch. I'm a member of the Texas Bar, and I assume you probably are, too. My argument would be that although most of us, as members, are not government employees -- we are officers of the court. Famspear 16:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. My concern was that the category suggests (or I inferred) that the subject of the article was an executive branch agency, which is generally the meaning of a government agency. Officer ot the court? Yes, of course. Agent of the State of Texas? No. True, the State Bar is a judicial branch agency, so perhaps the category is not really off base. It's just not what is usually thought of as a government agency. Anyway, that's cool. Peace. --Evb-wiki 01:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I notice that they have the Texas House of Representatives and the Texas Supreme Court in the category, too. And I agree that based on the name of the category, you would normally think it refers to executive branch agencies, not to agencies of the judicial branch or to part of the Texas legislature -- so I understand your edit. The name of the category seems a bit misleading, at least in terms of what other editors have included in it. Oh well. Yours, Famspear 01:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I notice a reference on your user page to the Paris Institute at Tulane. Does that mean you got to study in Paris, France? Famspear 01:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I spent 2 months (and my 29th birthday) in Paris, earning law school credit. Bastile Day rocks! --Evb-wiki 01:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow. My wife and I vacationed in France about 13 years ago. Only ten days, but it was great. We stayed in Paris each night and made a few day trips. Once to Giverny to see Monet's garden. Once to Chinon (on the T.G.V., the bullet train, to Tours, and then a bus trip to Chinon). We had a great time, and we did not find France to be unfriendly to Americans at all, contrary to what some people experience. I can speak French sort of conversationally, which helped. We saw most of the things people usually see in Paris. We really liked the Musee d'Orsay. Famspear 02:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't get out of the city much, other than once to Versailles, but I had lots of time to explore Paris on foot and by bike. In a bit of detail. I speak just a little French myself. Musee d'Orsay was also one of my favorite because I love Van Gough. Wow, what a collection. There is a lot of history in that part of the world. I loved it, and I'm hoping to make it back. --Evb-wiki 02:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

My wife and I don't know much about art, but I had always liked Van Gogh, and my wife and I both like Monet. Maybe you saw the Monet murals, the water lilies, at the Orangerie.

On the Musee d'Orsay, it was just stunning to see all those Van Gogh's all together in one place. Also, we just thought that the building itself was so beautiful. The Louvre was great of course as well.

One late Saturday afternoon we were down near the Arc de Triomphe, on the Avenue des Champs Elysees, and we started walking back east toward the Place de la Concorde, which seemed like it must have been miles from the Arc de Triomphe. We were taking video and I was so intent on looking through the view finder, and trying to get it all in, that it took me a while to realize (as the sun went down) that they had closed off the street (the entire Avenue in this part of town) to cars, and the Avenue had completely filled up with thousands of people of all ages. I guess maybe they do this every Saturday night? There were people as far as the eye could see, right in the middle of the Avenue des Champs Elysees, all the way from the Arc de Triomphe to, I guess, the Tuileries or the Place de la Concorde (I'm not sure). It was an impressive sight on a warm late September, Saturday evening (if I recall correctly). Everyone seemed so happy -- thousands of people from all over the world, just walking down the middle of the Avenue looking at each other. It felt like being at the center of the universe. Famspear 02:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

DOROT New York

Well spotted on the copyvio for this page, i had been looking for a way of deleting it without having to PROD or AFD, and had just that second found the site its copied from--Jac16888 15:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's even hard to find on that page. But it's almost word for word. --Evb-wiki 15:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning style of Siddhayoga page

Thanks Evb-wiki for cleaning up the page, looks nice, and Im learning... --Babaji108 02:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Actually, User:IPSOS did most of the real detail work. I removed the tag, but IPSOS restored it. It still needs some work, but it's getting better all the time. --Evb-wiki 02:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Chapter:verse Siddayoga

Thanks, initially I wrote it this way - as per Chicago Style, but someone changed it to page:verse, so I tried to make it clearer with page verse #. Glad you clarified.

Im not sure if this is the right place to comment on your comment, but I could only find your comment in the watchlist. --Babaji108 23:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Bursting at the Seams

Thanks for correcting my mistake! Witchwooder 13:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Not a problem. --Evb-wiki 13:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Darwin's Angel

I did nothing of the kind. What are you talking about?? NBeale 21:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You removed the AfD tag from the article. The discussion is not concluded. --Evb-wiki 21:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The article should be about the book, not a summary of the book's content. --Evb-wiki 21:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ed you have done 4 reverts. Please ur-revert of I will have to have you blocked. NBeale 21:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

PS Sorry I did accidentally remove the AFD tag. What we should have is the current text, with the AfD but without the OR about Dawkins's response and with the facts about (a) the book and (b) the Guardian response. NBeale 21:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the columns!

I'm in a better mood already.--Yeshivish 17:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

A query

Thanks for your generic welcome message, but I really want to get rid of that orange new messages bar. I've been told before to do that by clearing the cache, but that didn't work. Any ideas? If so, add here, not on my page. Thank you. 85.92.173.186 12:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I would think it would go away once you've clicked on it to read the message. That's the way it works for me. --Evb-wiki 13:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

ps - yep, that's what happened when I received your message. --Evb-wiki 13:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That didn't fix it. What a shame. i may have to reinstall my Firefox, which would be a shame. 85.92.173.186 14:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Then how will you know when/if you get another new message? That's wack. --Evb-wiki 14:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Lol true. oh well. It's fine now, strangely enough. 85.92.173.186 14:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Jeff Kunkel

Sir, how do I resolve the dispute over the Jeff Kunkel page? The two sources are cited. I'm not sure where anything I wrote is not neutral pov. I'm also unsure why someone would accuse me of being Jeff Kunkel. Thanks. Oddibe 15:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Language such as "Amazing start", "despite his efforts", and "place firmly back on the bench" is not npov. Also, the tone of the article reads like a sports commentator (or fan) wrote it. The article needs to be sourced better. IMO, WP:BLP requires specific factual claims to have line cites rather than merely a general external link for support. --Evb-wiki 15:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I understand what you are saying, but I'm not sure I agree. Kunkel did have an amazing start by going 3-4 in his first game. Maybe adjectives should never be used on wiki? Also, should I cite retrosheet after each time I mention his stats from a certain year or particular game? Same with the media guide? Oddibe 17:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Western Canada For Us

I would ask that you take a look at the revisions made to the article and, perhaps in light of those changes, reconsider your position. AnnieHall 04:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

If it violates wiki rules to ask someone to reconsider their vote after changes were made to an article then I have to plead ignorance and appologize. However I can't agree that contacting others with knowledge of Canadian right-wing organizations is canvassing. Since they have an interest in such groups they would understand if inclusion of an article on such a group was significant enough to keep or should be deleted. That's all that I was doing and because I've seen this occur elsewhere anytime a similar discussion arose I believed it to be the correct course of action in this case. If I'm incorrect, could you perhaps point to be the wiki rule that says this is not permitted? I would be genuinely appreciative. AnnieHall 16:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure. See AfD Wikietiquette and Wikipedia:Canvassing. While you were notified by the nominator as a friendly notice, with you having created the article, IMO you were campaigning. Of course, asking me to reconsider (especially in light of changes) is perfectly fine. Though I recognize your improvements, I still do not believe this group is notable. This and similar groups are a dime per dozen. The notoriety of a member does not make the group notable. (Again, IMO.) Notability is not inheirited. --Evb-wiki 17:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. In retrospect I can understand why you would believe I was campaigning. I knew these individuals were also knowledgeable about the Canadian far-right so I thought their input would be helpful, though perhaps the wording of my requests were unfortunate. I think the significance of this group was in part as a result of their rapid growth and their sudden collapse. As one other editor has stated the collapse of the WCFU has had a ripple effect throughout the Canadian far-right and the CHRT decision has become a precedent setting regarding the limits of freedom of speech issues online in Canada. Still, I respect your position. Thank you for the clarification. AnnieHall 03:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Houston

Come to Talk:Houston, Texas if you can, interesting discussion. No nicknames, I promise. Postoak 03:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize the Houston article was in such poor shape. The featured article standards must be set pretty low. --Evb-wiki 03:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This place frustrates me. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in Houston, Texas. I agree that the article/list is very basic and needs work (it's a stub!), but why delete it based on the apparent category vs. list stuff that continues to be mentioned even though it is acceptable. Sorry to vent here :) Postoak 17:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, PostOak. I understand your frustrations. Consensus is sometime hard to swallow, especially some of the generalized consensuses. I'm afraid I'm not much of a list man. You may recall I resisted Nicknames of Houston until commitment to narrative context was established. I'll take a look, but I'm not sure I'll be able to help. --Evb-wiki 02:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar #2

		The Barnstar EATEN BY A BEAR
		For your funny comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 September 22#Obsessed person Phoenix 15 16:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It was difficult to !vote for deletion of an article so obviously written about moi.--Evb-wiki 17:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for cleaning up my article on Kim Weaver. I have contributed to other articles before ,but this was my first attempt at writing article from scratch.Agent204.15 19:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Motorcycle vandalism

I had already give User_talk:198.163.125.141 a final warning 7 minutes before you added another one. These people don't deserve any leeway. I already reported him at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Keep watching. Cheers ww2censor 17:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I felt like piling on. He had gotten a couple of warning-free reverts. Either he's IP jumping or he has some friends now. Of course, I guess it could just be a couple of other idiots. --Evb-wiki 18:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Having reported him, after about 40 mins the entry was removed but no block was ever made. I don't know why. I really don't give these guys much slack nowadays and report them asap. Hopefully you will use the BV warning and do the same. Thanks ww2censor 19:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

{{blp}}

I have pointed out to Lawrence Cohen, the fellow who claims the article violates {{blp}}, that the very first sentence of WP:VER says:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."

I have expressed my skepticism that reporting on allegations, while making clear that they are allegations, while providing references to authoritative, verifiable sources, violates WP:BLP, or any other policy.

Lawrence Cohen has proven unwilling or unable to give a substantive response.

If you share his view that the article should trigger a {{blp}} concern can I ask you to explain to me which passages you think violate the policy?

I have taken the other concern you mentioned, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information seriously. I went and checked that section. This is the first time I have participated in a discussion of this particular clause. Are you willing to explain why you regard this list as an indiscriminate collection?

Yours for a civil wikipedia Geo Swan 18:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You must be referring to this discussion. If so, my WP:NOT#INFO concern and my WP:BLP both arise from the "necessarily loosely defined standard" of inclusion which I elluded to vis-á-vis the inflamatory nature of the term "terrorist". In addition, my WP:BLP concerns arise from credibility issues involving the source. --Evb-wiki 18:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"And more, much more than this, . . ." it's is either a list with only one source (see my blp concern) or an article about a non-notable list (a list without multiple 3-party coverage). --Evb-wiki 18:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

:)

Nice one, that editor thinks they can !vote as many times as they want ;) Phgao 15:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I mean, where does he think he is, Florida? --Evb-wiki 15:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Maltipoo puppies

Don't worry, I can handle this myself, but thanks for trying to help. ViperSnake151 13:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If you look, you may notice that I started it with a prod. So, thank you for your help. :-) Btw, the warnings you are giving the editor are for removal of AfD notices, not speedy deletion notice. --Evb-wiki 13:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Beebole

I saw Beebole go by when I was doing some db tagging myself, and it caught my interest. I'm going to try to expand the article over the next couple of days - it's one of those topics that seems (somewhat) expandable in a DYK sense, and there are a fair number of ghits. If I can't make it any better in a week, I agree that it should be transwikified over to Wiktionary. I may ask Warofdreams if he has anything useful, since he actually lives in a place that has beeboles. Acroterion _(talk) 14:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Without context it is just a definition. Why were they putting beehives in walls anyway? In door or out door? (Is that a stupid question?) Cheers. --Evb-wiki 14:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

A mystery to me as well - I'd want them somewhere else, but I think it's usually freestanding walls, not houses. In any case, see Bee bole - I'm about to redirect our little stub there. Acroterion _(talk) 14:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Good call. And, yeah, a freestanding wall makes more sense. duh. :-0 --Evb-wiki 14:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

CASA of Maryland

Hi, I have done significant work on CASA of Maryland and I hope you will drop by and consider removing the "notability" tag. If you think it needs more notability I suppose I can dig some up and will be looking to do that in any case. Regards, Thardman22 18:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Joey Shabadoo

This article has been relisted; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joey Shabadoo (2nd nomination). I am notifying all participants in the first AfD. Chick Bowen 20:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Care to join our WikiProject?

Hello! As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Houston, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the University of Houston. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! Brianreading 20:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Sinner

If you revert the edit again, I will personally set a place for you in Hell. Don't fuck with me, buddy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattjblythe (talk • contribs) 22:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"Hell has no power over pagans." -- Rimbaud

Battle of Disarm (2nd nomination)

Thank you for correcting that for me. I never can get 2nd noms right. --Endless Dan 19:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving

Hey Evb-wiki, I just wanted to wish you a belated happy Thanksgiving! Take care, Postoak (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope you had a good one. --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Peggy Kamuf

What about "she is one of the major English translators of the works of Jacques Derrida" does not sound like an assertion of notability to you? The Audient Void (talk) 03:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it does not. What is notable about a translator? Also the article needs reliable sources to support any factual claim made. --Evb-wiki (talk) 03:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

What's notable about a translator? Many academics have translations as one of their major scholarly activities. Do you actually know anything about the subjects you nominate for deletion? The Audient Void (talk) 03:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

As for sources, would it kill you to punch "Peggy Kamuf" into Google before you toss a speedy tag on the article? She translated dozens of works by one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century. Academics have gotten tenure on the basis of one translation of the sort she's done. Seriously - this is beyond baffling. The Audient Void (talk) 03:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you've got quite a crush on your teacher. Please see WP:PROF for the relevant notability guidelines. --Evb-wiki (talk) 03:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

What the hell is your problem? All I tried to do was start an article on an important figure in literary theory who was redlinked at List of deconstructionists, and you accuse me of wanting to sleep with her? Where the fuck do you get off? The Audient Void (talk) 03:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Please also see WP:CIVIL. --Evb-wiki (talk) 03:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose there's no policy about not treating new contributors like shit? The Audient Void (talk) 04:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure. It's do not bite the newcomers. But I voiced a legitimate concern, and you answer with four letter words. You need to grow up. --Evb-wiki (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Voicing a concern would have been leaving me a note saying you weren't sure the article was notable. You tried to delete the article entirely. There's a pretty big difference there. The Audient Void (talk) 04:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

That's part of the process. I proposed deletion. An admin declined to delete it. Life goes on. Learn to source your contributions or get use to it. --Evb-wiki (talk) 04:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like there are a whole lot of unsourced articles: [1]. Why aren't they being deleted too? The Audient Void (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there are a variety of reasons. Feel free to nominate any article you feel fails to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. --Evb-wiki (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

But clearly being unsourced is not grounds for deletion. The Audient Void (talk) 04:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Not alone. --Evb-wiki (talk) 04:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Reminding someone else to be civil after accusing them of having a crush on their teacher is not the most sensible or consistent thing to do, Evb-wiki, and TAV's anger is entirely understandable. If you spit in someone's face, and they punch you in return, quoting a law against assault at them is not the right solution - something else is, however. Could you please try to treat newcomers with courtesy in the future, even when you disagree with them? I'm sure they'll do the same, if you set the lead. Picaroon (t) 04:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It was his reaction to the deletion nom, which was uncivil. Nevertheless, I may have stepped over the line. --Evb-wiki (talk) 04:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

If I may so interject. I went ahead and nominated a couple of the articles for deletion. Hopefully this can alleviate the whole issue. :) Jmlk17 04:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, Evb-wiki (or may I call you Evb?). I think it would be a good idea for you to read and take note of the advice at WP:NPP#Patrolling new pages, and to hold off slapping templates on articles only a few minutes after their creation. That would avoid arguments like this this one. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

D'Antonio David

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article D'Antonio David, because another editor is suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. Drojem (talk) 03:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Revision of Houston, Texas Article

I noticed that you reverted/revised my recent modifications to the Houston, Texas article, stating that it was outside the scope of the article. I would appreciate your explaining this further. Many thanks Ajisekanla (talk) 14:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

While I left it in Culture of Texas because it is arguably relevant to the topic, text about racism in the whole of Texas (be it systematic, institutionalized or pervasive) does not fit within the narrower scope of Houston, Texas, or any other specific city, town or region of the whole. Also, pasting the exact same (arguably pov) text in several articles without changing a word might be considered spamming. Please make sure your contributions are relevant and meet the requirements of WP:NPOV. Thanks. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW - The Jena Six incident and backlash has nothing to do with Texas. Jena is in Louisiana. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, Houston is in three counties, albeit almost all of Houston is in Harris County. There are small portions of Houston in Fort Bend and Montgomery Counties. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Support linux

Hi - I wonder if you could explain why you tagged this page as a test page? It appears to be an article about a movie - I could see a tag for it as non-notable, but I don't see it as a test page. At this point, I'm declining the speedy. I'm open to being convinced though.  :-) Thanks for watching new pages! - Philippe | Talk 19:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I tagged it because, although the name of the article is "Support linux," the text and the external link concerns a movie entitled City Streets, which already has an article. It is either a test or vandalism. --Evb-wiki 20:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

ps - It has now been prod'ed by another editor, with the comment "Content and title don't match, appears to be a test gone wrong." The speedy tag was proper, and the page should have been deleted. --Evb-wiki 20:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, I've deleted the page. :-) - Philippe | Talk 21:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I placed a comment on the talk page. You may want to delete that too. Cheers. --Evb-wiki 21:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Got that one too. Thanks for calling it to my attention. - Philippe | Talk 21:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Joanne King

hi im a bit confused about the page i made. Is it going to be deleted or not? It says in new messages: This article is not currently tagged for deletion. The process for deletion will tell you more about the possibility of it being deleted sorry just not sure. And if it is what can i do to stop it? Angieharad 22:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It is NOT currently in danger of being deleted. It can be tagged for deletion pursuant to Wikipedia's deletion policy by any editor at anytime if one does not believe it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Any deletion must follow one of the 3 deletion methods. --Evb-wiki 22:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

wha?

how come everyone votes per you here where I quote the exact same policy? ;-) Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Linden Acres

Hi Evb-wiki - you wrote: I am the one that prod'ed Linden Acres. There is no way to know if the Red Hook mentioned is any of the ones listed in the disamb page, as I am also the one who wiki-linked Red Hook. If you know for sure, please expand the article to add the appropriate context. Thanks.

I don't know Linden Acres from a hole in the ground, so expanding the article is out for me. BUT the article did say the village of Red Hook and only one of the Red Hooks listed was named as a village. What's more, the village is part of Red Hook, New York, and the article for that lists Linden Acres in its list of communities and locations.

{{Prod}} is a great tool, but I often feel that prodding something for having no context isn't as good as Wikisearching to see whether context can be easily found. The article might still be an AfD candidate (especially if it is simply "a housing development" as it says at Red Hook, New York#Communities and locations in the Town of Red Hook) - but with just prodding it, the possibility of it growing into a reasonable article is lost. Grutness...wha? 07:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion too fast

Oops, sorry. I'll just delete the other page. Deb (talk) 12:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Evb-wiki (talk) 12:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Encounter (urban street game)

Good Day to You !

you wrote: "his article is written like an advertisement. It has no reliable sources and no indication that it is notable. Evb-wiki (talk) 14:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)"

Why deletion ??? Please wait for some days, we just start reedit this acticle.

WBG, AirEvgeny

Please see the discussion here. This is generally a 5-day process. If the article is improved, it may survive the AfD. Feel free to join the discussion and express your opinions. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Imperfect self defense Speedy Deletion request.

Hi Evb-wiki. Just a note, but rather than deleting that page I've truned it into a redirect, which seems a better way of doing things. [2] Pedro :  Chat  15:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought about that. I'm trying to research the "doctrine," as the court opinions cited in Imperfect self-defense are incorrect. They both point to the same case, in which the defense did not work (i.e., the murder conviction was affirmed). I think it's a bogus soapbox article. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No probs, if it is then WP:AFD the main article and the redirect will get deleted by the closing admin at the same time. (hopefully!) Pedro :  Chat  15:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've sent Imperfect self-defense to AfD. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You might care to look at Make My Day State. Uncle G (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• The same editor who created Imperfect self-defense added it wholesale to Make My Day State. It should probably be deleted. Also, I think Self-defense and Make My Day State should probably be merged. Opinion? --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, the same editor created both. As Make My Day State is unreferenced, I'm not sure about merging it into Self-defense, which itself needs improvement. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Read pages 131–132 of ISBN 0028644735. It comes under the umbrella of self-defence there. Uncle G (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Al Walser speedy

I thought at first that it was speedy material, but on a Google search, I found what looked like reliable sources going back over three years, so I removed the tag pending a more thorough investigation.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 17:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Imperfect_self-defense

I've found more cites, like thousands. I seem to recall this doctrine is fairly limited to homicide and RICO crimes, and only in the USA, and not for lesser felonies such as mayhem. It's not a soap dish. Bearian (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

As originally written, it was a soapbox and a mess. The cite links are still flawed, as the two original ones link to an Iowa case, which disregards the defense (while citing Jones (from Kansas) and the MD case). The defense is not recognized in Texas where I learned what little crim-law I know. Also, it is not a true defense, but merely a mitigating factor, which the article now makes clearer. I still think it should be merged with Self-defense (theory), but I'm resigned to it remaining on Wikipedia, as that is the way consensus is looking. BTW - good work, so far. --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

speedy notification

Please remember to notify the author of the material when you place a speedy; it is not absolutely required, but it is courteous--and, as I see it, it is only fair. DGG (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right; it's not required, but merely a courtesy. As the creating editor was aware of it, it was unnecessary. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Awesome

I have not heard True Parents called "awesome" or "sweet". Maybe I need to hang around with teenagers more? ;-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)