User talk:Kim Dent-Brown/Archive Nov 2007

Crash Band Page

My article on the band Crash from collegeville PA was speedy-deleted claiming it had no significance, but I fail to see how an article about a band people would want to look up with their biography, discography, and an image could be useless information. Regardless, how can I go about getting the information I wrote about them back to me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Echoes4258 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello there, it wasn't me who deleted it but an administrator - they will be able to retrieve the text for you if you ask them. You need to type in the search box EXACTLY the title of the page that has disappeared. Then when you get there, you will see a message telling you that you are recreating a deleted page, and showing you a link to the deletion log. Follow the link and you will see the administrator who deleted the page. Click on their name and write a note on their talk page asking for the text you submitted.

However I should point out that this band almost certainly fails the test of notability. If you try and recreate a page about them, first look here and check that the band meet the notability criteria for ensembles. If they do, you will have to be able to cite some sources that can affirm this. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 21:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Guitarmageddon

I can't find a previous AfD discussion for Guitarmageddon, so I removed your speedy tag. (The article was previously deleted, but it was a speedy.) If you can point me to the closed AfD that resulted in a delete, I'll happily delete the article. Thanks!--Fabrictramp 21:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it was a Speedy not an AfD. However the CSD template that I put on does allow that articles recreated after a speedy may be eligible for a second speedy template. I think the article as it stands is probably asking for a speedy tag anyway - but I won't replace the G4 template. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 21:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It is hovering right on the border of blatant ad. :) I've got a watch on the article, so if it gets recreated after the prod it might be time for AfD and salt.--Fabrictramp 21:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Leslie Swan

I WON'T LET YOU ERASE MY PAGE OF LESLIE SWAN! NO WAY! THAT PAGW IS THE MOST COMPLETED PAGE THAT I DID EVER! Damicroquete 23:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Xilp (community)

Hi... please see my note on the discussion page Xilp (community). I think it's important enough. Thank you. --WikiNickEN 12:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately you haven't made the case for notability. For web-based entities you need to meet the criteria laid down here. You cite four references, only one of which is independent. This article doesn't actually mention Xilp anywhere. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 13:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you talk about the report from the TV channel Viva? They report about Tanzfix, that's the part for dancing partners. As i wrote in the article, Xilp contains more than one entry page and consists of more than one community surface. As i don't want to make advertising, i just wrote, that Xilp contains entry pages for different people, but don't mention or link their names.

I also remember a report in a german PC magazine about the entry page for singles some time ago, but i don't know how to find it in the web!?! I just can mention the printed magazine, if i can get the correct issue.

Unfortunately the article was deleted in the meantime, so no one could improve it now... :-(

Could you salvage it?

--WikiNickEN 14:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

To add this: The german PC magazine PC Welt reports in their printed issue 8/2004 (July/August) on page 141 about the community for singles. And the german PC magazine Computer Bild link to the singles portal in issue 9/2003 (22.04.2003) on page 126 and to the portal for Hamburg in issue 16/2004 (26.07.2004) on page 101.

In the web i found a small one: http://www.monetenfuchs.de/WebKatalog/index.php - but i don't know, if's enough for a reference.

And i know, that datechecker.de reports about the single community of XILP... but they have relaunched their website and i can't find it right now.

--WikiNickEN 15:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Royal wiltshire yeomanry.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Royal wiltshire yeomanry.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Licensing and fair use rationale improved. Speedy delete tag removed from image. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 21:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Plunge

Kim, I am just learning how to create a page on wikipedia and don't really understand how to cite. I do have articles to cite and am working on the history of the event, but I also think the description of the future event is crucial. I have only entered facts about the 2008 event that are known to be true and should remain unchanged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Somdplunge (talk • contribs) 18:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, just cooking tea and will reply later! For now, have a look here and follow the links to get some info on how to cite. PS: typing ~~~~ after your name will leave your signature, like this: Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 18:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuna fish sandwich

I would not call what happened to your nomination as a "defeat," but rather that it had a result, i.e., to force an improvement to the article, so it can be kept or the content merged into another one. Thanks for pushing us to do our work. Bearian 16:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I wasn't sore: 'defeat' was just a figure of speech! It was an amusing discussion, and proof that the Wikipedia process can really work given goodwill on all sides. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 17:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I just closed the discussion as Keep. I wanted to say that I thought your choice of withdrawing the nomination but leaving the discussion open was the correct one. In cases like this where other people have opined "Delete" or "Merge" letting the discussion continue is probably the best course. However, if the chorus of Keeps is unanimous, feel free to close it when you withdraw. Non-admins are welcome to close unanimous Keep (or otherwise obvious) AfD's. Eluchil404 22:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, glad I did the right thing: I assumed the situation to be as you describe. I've never yet closed an obvious 'Keep' discussion that I've come across, but will remember that it's an option next time I do. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 12:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:50 years of Wicca.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:50 years of Wicca.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Robot articles

Now look! This comment is from Joeycircusjojo. I spent a lot of time putting Evil Weevil and Killertron up, and you shouldn't go round deleting other people's work!!!!!! Joeycircusjojo, 30 October 2007

Hello there, I'm sorry your articles were deleted but they weren't in fact deleted by me. I placed an Article for deletion template on both, meaning that I didn't feel the articles were about subjects that were notable enough for Wikpedia. Other editors (including you) had the opportunity to comment and several did, all agreeing that the articles should be deleted. In due course administrators closed the discussion and deleted the articles. While the discussions were open you could have contributed to them, or tried to improve the articles, but you didn't do this. Under the circumstances I think we did everything right here, and in honesty I still believe the articles were not about sufficiently important subjects. Maybe you could write a section about them in the Robot Wars article? But whatever you do, you need to find some sources you can quote to show your subjects' notability. PS: If you want to talk to someone, use their User talk: page, not their User: page, and if you sign your posts with ~~~~ it signs your name automatically, like this: Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 09:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

Hi. I don't think you know what you're doing exactly on Wikipedia, deleting other people's work (like more folks complained) and adding speedy deletion tags with no reason on some articles. Your notice was placed in error on one of my articles, it did not disrespect 'speedy deletion criterion A7' because it clearly indicated the subject's importance/significance, and many other articles linked to it. Now the article got deleted for no reason. Oh well... Visibilia 21:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello there, you're mistaken I'm afraid. I am not an administrator, so cannot and did not delete your article. I did place a tag on it for speedy deletion, and this was not a mistake. In my opinion, and that of the administrator who saw it, your article was not about a sufficiently notable subject. So two independent people felt you had not made the case for importance. Whether or not I was right to place the tag, you were wrong to delete it. As the tag itself says, the correct procedure is to place a {{hangon}} tag on the article, and then argue your case on the article talk page, which you did not do. In future, you can protect your articles by checking carefully the notability criteria for individuals and companies, and citing appropriate sources to back this up. Please also read the policies from the blue links here, as well as the instructions and links that appear on any tags. These will tell you what is and is not appropriate in editing here. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 22:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 14:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

i'm sorry

im sorry for adding video game central and i wont do it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FrosticeBlade (talk • contribs) 21:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:NZ fern.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:NZ fern.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

why?

hi i can see on your edits that you place deletion tags and notices on many pages. my advice to you is not to place as many tags as you do its alot of work for other editors to go around and decide if to deleteor not. im not saying that oyu ant palc ethem but please be more carefull with your decisions.--Zingostar 14:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I only place deletion tags on pages that, in my opinion, detract from Wikipedia's mission. Sadly, there are a lot of these. It is indeed a lot of work for other editors to go round and decide whether to delete - however I regard the original authors of rubbish articles to be at fault here, not myself for highlighting them. Please point out to me any articles I have mistakenly tagged and I will try to learn from the experience. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 14:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Zeitgeist (video)

• A draft userspace article has been created. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 8. Pdelongchamp 21:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

Your recent peer review request (Philip Heselton) is incomplete. If you wish to get feedback you should complete the nomination procedure (see WP:PR). Thanks. DrKiernan 11:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - as you correctly inferred, I had missed this part of the instructions! Have now finished the nomination process... Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 12:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)