User talk:MadeYourReadThis/Archives/2011/February

The Downlink: Issue 2

The Downlink
Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight	Issue 2, February 2011
Project News · News from Orbit · Article News · The Charts · Yuri Gagarin Project News A report on popular pages from December 2010 revealed surprising trends in readers' interests. Boeing X-37 was the most popular article within the project's scope, with SpaceX Dragon in second with Global Positioning System in third place. The top seven articles were all assessed as C-class, with the remainder of the top ten being Good Articles. It was noted with some concern that moon landing conspiracy theories was more popular than moon landing. A discussion regarding whether missiles warranted inclusion within the project scope was conducted, and resulted in the continued inclusion of missiles. The last remaining articles tagged with the banner of the former Human Spaceflight WikiProject were re-tagged with the WikiProject Spaceflight banner. The last banner was removed on 8 January, and the template has since been deleted. The project is thankful to ChiZeroOne for his work in this field. Concerns were raised that the new article reporting system was not working correctly, however it was noted that there is sometimes a delay before articles appear on the list. Discussion regarding the existence of the separate spaceflight and space exploration category structures led to a mass CfD being filed on 10 January to abolish the space exploration categories, merging them into their counterparts in the spaceflight category structure. This was successful, and the exploration categories have been removed. Several other categorisation issues remain unresolved. A proposal was made to standardise some of the infoboxes used by the project, the future of Template:Infobox spacecraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was discussed, and design work began on a replacement. Template:Rocket specifications-all (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was nominated for deletion and subsequently kept due to extant substitutions, however it was noted that the template had been deprecated by WikiProject Rocketry. Concerns were also raised that the existing infoboxes were not well-equipped to handle spacecraft which operated in more than one orbit, or whose orbits changed over the course of their missions (which in practise is most of them). Five members of the project gave interviews for the Wikipedia Signpost, and a report on the project, authored by SMasters (talk · contribs), is expected to be published in the 7 February edition of the Signpost. It is hoped that this will raise interest in and awareness of the project. News from orbit Four orbital launches were conducted in January, beginning on 20 January with the launch of Elektro-L No.1 on the first Zenit-3F rocket. This was followed later the same day by the launch of a Delta IV Heavy with the USA-224 reconnaissance satellite. The articles for USA-224 and the Zenit-3F rocket could use some expansion, whilst the Elektro-L No.1 satellite needs its own article. On 22 January, an H-IIB launched the second H-II Transfer Vehicle, Kounotori 2, to resupply the International Space Station. It arrived at the station on 27 January. Less than a day after its arrival, another cargo mission was launched to the station; Progress M-09M departed Baikonur early in the morning of 28 January, docking on 30 January. In addition to payloads to resupply the station, the Progress spacecraft is carrying a small subsatellite, Kedr, which will be deployed in February. Kedr does not currently have an article. Progress M-08M departed on 24 January to make the Pirs module available for Progress M-09M, and has since reentered the atmosphere. Its article needs to be updated to reflect the successful completion of its mission. The NanoSail-D2 satellite, which failed to deploy from FASTSAT in December, unexpectedly separated from its parent craft and began operations on 18 January, with its solar sail deploying on 21 January. Nine orbital launches are scheduled to occur in February, beginning with the launch of the first Geo-IK-2 satellite; Geo-IK-2 No.11, atop a Rokot/Briz-KM, on the first day of the month. Articles need to be written for the Geo-IK-2 series of satellites, as well as for Geo-IK-2 No.11 itself, and the Briz-KM upper stage that will be used to insert it into orbit. A Minotaur I rocket will launch NRO L-66, a classified payload for the US National Reconnaissance Office, on 5 February. The payload has not yet been identified, however once more details are known, it will need an article. Iran is expected to launch the Rasad 1 and Fajr 1 satellites in February, with 14 February the reported launch date. The satellites will fly aboard a single rocket; either the first Simorgh or the third Safir. Once this launch occurs, the satellites will need articles, and the article on their carrier rocket will require updating. The second Automated Transfer Vehicle, Johannes Kepler, is scheduled to launch on 15 February to resupply the ISS. Docking is expected to occur on 23 February. 23 February will also see the much-delayed launch of Glory atop a Taurus-XL 3110 rocket. This will be the first Taurus launch since the launch failure in early 2009 which resulted in the loss of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory. In addition to Glory, three CubeSats will be deployed; KySat-1, Hermes and Explorer-1 [PRIME]. KySat and Hermes require articles, whilst the article on Explorer-1 [PRIME] needs to be updated. On 24 February, a Soyuz-2.1b/Fregat rocket will launch the first Glonass-K1 satellite; Glonass-K1 No.11. Articles are needed for the series of spacecraft, as well as for the specific satellite being launched. It is likely that a Kosmos designation will be given to the payload when it reaches orbit. In the evening of 24 February, Space Shuttle Discovery will begin its final mission, STS-133, carrying the Permanent Multipurpose Module, a conversion of the Leonardo MPLM, to the ISS. Other payloads include an ExPRESS Logistics Carrier, and the Robonaut2 experimental robot. The first manned mission of 2011, Discovery's six-man crew will transfer equipment to the station, and two EVAs will be performed. The launch has already been scrubbed five times, before Discovery was rolled back to the Vehicle Assembly Building to inspect and repair cracks on its External Tank. At some point in February, a Long March 3B rocket is expected to launch two navigation satellites; Compass-M2 and Compass-M3, as part of the Compass navigation system. The date of this launch is currently unknown. Both satellites will require articles once more information is available. A PSLV launch, carrying the Resourcesat-2, X-Sat and YouthSat spacecraft, is expected to launch from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre towards the end of the month, probably between 20 and 23 February. Stop press: The Rokot launch was conducted at 14:00 UTC on 1 February, and at the time of writing it appears to have ended in failure, due to a suspected upper stage malfunction. The spacecraft is in orbit, it is not clear at the time of writing whether it will be salvageable. Article news Reaction Engines Skylon is currently undergoing peer review, its discussion page can be found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Reaction Engines Skylon/archive1. A user requested feedback on major changes which had been made to the article, however at the time of writing no responses have been offered. Following up on the issues covered in the last issue, the requested move of Missile Range Instrumentation Ship to Tracking ship was successful, with the article being renamed. The discussion concerning types of launch and landing resulted in a proposal to merge VTVL into VTOL, however this has been met with some opposition. Several other options have been suggested on Talk:VTVL. The large scale deletion of mis-tagged Soviet images on Commons went ahead, with most of the useful ones having already been backed-up locally under fair use criteria. Discussion was held regarding the naming of spaceflight-related articles. Concerns were raised regarding inconsistency in article titles and disambiguators. A project guideline was adopted to standardise titles, with the parenthesised disambiguators "(satellite)" and "(spacecraft)" being adopted as standards for spacecraft, and the exclusion of manufacturers' names from article titles was recommended. Issues regarding Japanese spacecraft with two names, the correct names for early Apollo missions, and dealing with acronyms and abbreviated names remain unresolved. A large number of articles were moved to conform to the standard disambiguation pattern. In addition, several Requested Moves were debated. A proposal to move SpaceX Dragon to Dragon (spacecraft), which began prior to the adoption of the standardised disambiguators, was successful. Atmospheric reentry was subject to two requested moves, firstly one which would have seen it renamed spacecraft atmospheric reentry, which was unsuccessful, however a second proposal shortly afterwards saw it moved to atmospheric entry. A proposal currently under discussion could see Lunar rover (Apollo) renamed Lunar Roving Vehicle Questions surrounding the transliteration of Russian names resurfaced, with a proposal to rename Vladimir Chelomey to Vladimir Chelomei being closed with no consensus, and a proposal to rename Yury Usachov to Yuri Usachev ongoing. Several long-standing merger proposals were closed. A proposal to merge Venera 15 and Venera 16 into Venera 15 and 16 was closed as no consensus, with the combined page being moved to Venera 4V-2 to reduce the overlap in the articles' scopes. Returnable satellite was merged into Fanhui Shi Weixing. Experimental Assembly of Structures in EVA and Assembly Concept for Construction of Erectable Space Structures was nominated for Good Article reassessment due to concerns over the article's quality. Doubts were also expressed over the thoroughness of the original review conducted upon its nomination for GA status. It was also suggested that the article's title may not be the most common name for the experiment, and that it might be necessary to move the page. Concerns were also raised regarding whether Space Interferometry Mission was up-to-date, however these are being addressed. Mission: Earth, Voyage to the Home Planet looks likely to be promoted to GA status. Help was requested for adding citations to List of Mir spacewalks. A request was made that STS-88 be reviewed against the B class criteria, and suggestions for improvements made. Another user requested improvements to the article Yuri Gagarin, with a view to having the article promoted to featured status in time for the fiftieth anniversary of his Vostok 1 mission. As a result of this request, Yuri Gagarin is this month's selected article. Questions were raised as to whether an article or category should be created to cover derelict satellites. The categorisation of spacecraft by the type of rocket used to place them into orbit was also suggested. In another categorisation issue, it was questioned whether Space law should fall under space or spaceflight. Stop press: Mission: Earth, Voyage to the Home Planet has now been promoted to GA status. The Charts There is no editorial this month as no content was submitted for one. Instead, we present the "top ten" most popular articles within the project, based on the number of page views in January. Space Shuttle Challenger disaster was the most popular article of the last month, up fourteen places from 15th in December. Space Shuttle Challenger was the highest climber in the top 40, up 42 places from 50th. December's most popular article. Boeing X-37, dropped 57 places to 58th. On a happier note further down the chart, moon landing is now ahead of moon landing conspiracy theories. № Article Movement 1 Space Shuttle Challenger disaster ↑14 (15) 2 Richard Branson ↑5 (7) 3 Neil Armstrong ↑2 (5) 4 Space Shuttle Columbia disaster ↑16 (20) 5 Global Positioning System ↓2 (3) 6 Apollo 11 ↑2 (8) 7 Satellite ↑4 (11) 8 Space Shuttle Challenger ↑42 (50) 9 Apollo 13 ↓3 (6) 10 NASA ↓1 (9) For the full list of the top 1,500 popular pages within the project, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Popular pages (or the archived record for January). Selected Article: Yuri Gagarin Yuri Gagarin was the first man to fly in space, aboard Vostok 1 in April 1961. He was subsequently awarded the title Hero of the Soviet Union, and was training for a second flight at the time of his death in 1968. His article describes him and his spaceflight experience: “ Yuri Alekseyevich Gagarin (Russian: Ю́рий Алексе́евич Гага́рин, Russian pronunciation: [ˈjurʲɪj ɐlʲɪˈksʲeɪvʲɪtɕ ɡɐˈɡarʲɪn]; 9 March 1934 – 27 March 1968), Hero of the Soviet Union, was a Soviet cosmonaut who on 12 April 1961 became the first human to journey into outer space. On 12 April 1961, Gagarin became the first man to travel into space, launching to orbit aboard the Vostok 3KA-3 (Vostok 1). His call sign in this flight was Kedr (Cedar; Russian: Кедр). During his flight, Gagarin famously whistled the tune "The Motherland Hears, The Motherland Knows" (Russian: "Родина слышит, Родина знает"). The first two lines of the song are: "The Motherland hears, the Motherland knows/Where her son flies in the sky". This patriotic song was written by Dmitri Shostakovich in 1951 (opus 86), with words by Yevgeniy Dolmatovsky. ” The article is currently assessed as C class, and had been assessed as B class prior to the criteria being redefined. Although a full reassessment has not yet been made, it seems close to the B class criteria, however details on his spaceflight experiences are somewhat lacking. It has been requested that the article be developed to Featured status by April, in time for the fiftieth anniversary of his mission. Published by WikiProject Spaceflight, if you have any content you wish to include in future newsletters, please contribute

You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 00:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

Orphaned non-free image File:KMSC logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:KMSC logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 06:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Indian Space Research Organisation

Just to explain why I placed it Top. There are ~5500 articles in Wikiproject Spaceflight and growing. Considering I've been the one adding most of these I've had a chance to compare all the different articles we have, I feel that we are large enough to consider that most of the agencies for example that spend at least a $1Billion dollars a year are of Top importance, this still leaves plenty of agencies under High, Mid etc. That's the rational when I created the Spaceflight sidebar. The importance criteria Mlm42 made when we only had 2000 articles may have worked then but it is far too strict now that If I were to follow it rigidly there would be only a handful of Top and High articles and everything else would be Low or Mid, I don't think that is particularly useful. ChiZeroOne (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Top should be reserved for agencies that are the most active and with the longest histories in human spaceflight and exploration rather than based on budget. NASA, ESA, and Roscosmos right now meet that criteria. An argument could be made for including CNSA based on their limited success in human spaceflight. I just dont see ISRO meeting this criteria yet. They have no indigenous human space flight program and a limited unmanned history. Their rocket fleet is notable but critical components come from Roscosmos in many cases. Can ISRO reach top status, certainly, but I dont see them there yet. In short top should be based on the subjects importance to spaceflight rather than the amount of money they spend. After all some of that budget can end up in failed orbit (like the Russians this week) or in the Bay of Bengal (like ISRO over the past few months). That doesn't contribute much.--RadioFan (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Permission Request

Dear RadioFan,

I appreciate your response. We would like to use the image in the Virginia Standards of Learning exam as part of a test question. For this test, we would need to request 350,000 print rights, secure web rights (for test delivery over a secure website) and non-secure web rights (to place the image in an eBook of the released exam.) Please let me know if this is permissible, and whether I may send you a license agreement. Thank you.

Best Regards,

Jim JhallidayETS (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Using that image in the way you describe is okay with me but it was taken in the 'Discover the Real George Washington' traveling exhibit at the North Carolina Museum of History in Raleigh, NC. The exhibit was organized by the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association (http://www.mountvernon.org/mountvernon/about_us/index.cfm/), you should contact them to see if any additional permission is necessary from them or the artist. --RadioFan (talk) 17:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

STS-134

RE: "STS-135 is on the program manifest being planned so labeling 134 as "penultimate planned mission" is appropriate."

It is accurate, but it's also wordy.

Hopefully Congress will cough up the money soon.

Thanks for your contributions. --Utahredrock (talk) 04:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully it will be funded. Congress has been needlessly wishy-washy on NASA 2011 direction and funding. But thats just my opinion. As for the wording of the 134 article, I agree its wordy and wouldn't mind seeing something better but I'd rather have wordy than wrong.

Talkback

Hello, MadeYourReadThis. You have new messages at Dabomb87's talk page.
Message added 05:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TLE

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Two-line_element_set Your edit was not all that good! Regards! Stamcose (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, it was a fine edit. Fortran code doesn't belong in the article. If you've got problems with the code published by the Federal Government, find a reliable source that backs up your claim and add this information to the article, not corrected FORTRAN code. Wikipedia is not a code repository and FORTRAN isn't all that relavent anymore anyway.--RadioFan (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Query

I thought this to be an issue of close paraphrasing, not copyvio. ceranthor 03:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was close enough to be a copyvio. Essentially a copy paste with names replacements with pronouns.--RadioFan (talk) 04:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Intelligent Anycast appliances for UDP based applications

Hi

The topic "Intelligent Anycast appliances for UDP based applications" is specifically designed for DNS and NTP. These two networking protocols use UDP for communication. Bundling Anycast with intelligence on a hardened Linux based appliance is what makes this article unique. Please assist in publishing this article.

Thanks Eric

Wagnereric (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)WagnerEric

I"m sorry but I dont see this subject warranting a dedicated article, subsection dedicated to UDP would cover it sufficiently. Also, please do not copy and paste material from elsewhere. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously this is why the article was removed.--RadioFan (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Intelligent Anycast appliances for UDP based applications

Dear RadioFan,

Please note that I have added references at the bottom of the article titled "Intelligent Anycast appliances for UDP based applications". This topic is not a well known topic because the folks who deal with the Cisco Routing technology don't know about the Platforms and Storage technologies and vice versa. An appliance, which integrates the server intelligence into the routing protocols is what makes this articles unique. UDP is a directionless and stateless protocol, which derives a maximum benefit from a robust design as described in the article. If you feel that I should do more to improve the article, please let me know.

Regards Wagnereric (talk) 04:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Eric

Intelligent Anycast appliances for UDP based applications

Dear RadioFan,

No portion of this article has any line copied from any website. This is my typed work.

Regards Eric. Wagnereric (talk) 04:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Eric

understood and removing the copyrighted material is appreciated. However concerns about the suitability of the topic for a dedicated article still persist and the article lacks any references to help demonstrate its notability.--RadioFan (talk) 04:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Intelligent Anycast appliances for UDP based applications

Dear RadioFan,

The existing article about Anycast gives a high level concept of Anycast.

The article "Intelligent Anycast appliances for UDP based applications" discusses how the appliances use intelligence in determining the health of the stateless protocol and make a timely decision and auto-recover from a network outage or an attack.

I feel that these two articles do not have a significant overlap.

Regards Eric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wagnereric (talk • contribs) 04:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC) I and other editors disagree and feel that a dedicated article is not warranted here. If you would like to improve the anycast article, that would be great. Be sure to footnote your references to reliable sources however.--RadioFan (talk) 05:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Intelligent Anycast appliances for UDP based applications

Dear RadioFan,

You will not find many articles/references which go into the details that are mentioned in "Intelligent Anycast appliances for UDP based applications". Reason: The Cisco/Juniper experts and the Linux Experts are the masters in their respective domains. Overlapping these two is not a well known technology to many. Extensive searches on RedHat/Centos sites or Oracle sites or Cisco/Juniper sites does not cover on how to build a smart appliance leveraging BGP/OSPF routing protocols.

Regards Eric Wagnereric (talk) 05:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)WagnerEric

Please add this level of detail in the anycast article. Please stop creating a dedicated one. it is not necessary. Also please remember to WP:CITE your sources. Simply listing URLs at the end of the article does not provide the level of detail needed to see where you obtained the information from. It's hard to see it as anything other than your own thoughts which is not something that can be accepted by Wikipedia.--RadioFan (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Intelligent Anycast appliances for UDP based applications

Dear RadioFan,

I will try my best to improve the quality of my article. I appreciate your comments and I'm feeling challenged to do a better job. I will be improving the content shortly.

This is my first article. If you can point me towards a good Wikipedia reference, I can get an idea about the gaps in my article and I can work on fixing it.

Regards Eric Wagnereric (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)WagnerEric.

There is excellent information on creating your first article in the welcome message on the top of your talk page. Please start there. Also please slow down. Do a bit of editing in the sandbox first and learn how to properly cite your sources. You'll have much more success that way.--RadioFan (talk) 05:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed your PROD notice for Paul P. Enns

I just wanted to clarify my reasons for removing your proposal to delete this article. It is my estimation that each member of the translation team for the New American Standard Bible is notable for that very reason. For instance, on page 90 of The Complete Guide to Bible Translations, it states "These theological conservative translators are now acknowledged, and a small sampling includes such well-known biblical scholars as Gleason Archer, Kenneth Barker, Charles Feinberg, E. F. Harrison, J. Barton Payne, Merrill Tenney, Bruce Waltke, Kenneth Wuest, Paul Enns, and Harold Hoehner." It is my goal to see to it that each of these contributors have at least a basic biographical sketch on Wikipedia that would include their academic qualifications for a project of this magnitude and importance, as well as some other work for which they may be notable. If you do a quick search on Enns' major other publication, you'll note that it is extremely widely cited, which is another qualification for notability on Wikipedia. I hope this helps dissuade you from considering him "unremarkable". Ἀλήθεια 05:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: UK Border Force

Hello RadioFan, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of UK Border Force, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Contains sufficient content to be a stub. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Honestly, I disagree. I've now tagged it for sources and context, but if I had seen it before you declined the speedy I would have likely deleted it. Syrthiss (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Raj Musix logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Raj Musix logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Your deletion notice, Kristian Østby

How is an article about someone dead for 30 years a BLP? Don't pay any attention to the cat:1981 deaths and dod in the first sentence at all... Paaln (talk) 04:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Please check your PROD on this article. FWiW, the article is not about a living person, is a notable subject, and has references... Bzuk (talk) 05:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it was an oversight. Thanks for removing the prod notice. Everybody makes mistakes and I made this one. The sarcasm is not necessary.--RadioFan (talk) 13:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Gamaeshastra

Why are you deleting the gameshastra page repeatedly. If there is a content violation, then let us know we will take care. Repeatedly deleting something without any valid reason is preposterous and not in the spirit of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldruff (talk • contribs) 06:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of List of call centre companies in Pakistan for deletion debate.

Dear Brother,

I highly appreciate your comments regarding my article List of call centre companies in Pakistan my apologies as I am very much new in Wikipedia therefore I did not regarding that policy however you can view my article now the problem has been solve and kindly do not delete it the reason is The Information Given on article is truly correct and one can verify the source from Pakistan Software Export Board who is license issuer of Call Centers in Pakistan on their website which is already mentioned in the references of article as I am in call center industry it self for past 6 Years therefore I know what I wrote however quality can be major concern and I can certainly assure you that I will improve the quality of article and help me in that as my dream is to be the Wikipedia administrator one day therefore I love Wikipedia and do respect the polices from heart and soul.

I really appreciate the message and comment on my article I would love keep in touch with you in order to make Wikipedia more informative.

Yours Truly, --Faizanalivarya (talk) 06:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I dont think anyone doubts that the information is correct, the concern is that it may not be appropriate for Wikipedia. While articles consisting entirely of lists are common, directories of companies or similarly broadly defined lists are difficult to maintain with any completeness and are generally deleted as a result. A discussion has begun on the article and you are welcome to share your thoughts there by following the link at the top of the page. Please review the WP:AFD process before adding comments there.--RadioFan (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback regards my article however if you think this article is a type of directory so i think you all your due respect you should read this article List of call centre companies which is completely based on directory it has not deleted yet or ask for deleting because this is a list of call centers and same thing goes here as this is a list of call centers based in Pakistan, I can assure you that I will certainly keep an eye on this article and update and maintain with full responsibility as I do respect policy and standard of Wikipedia therefore I will request you to approve this article and kindly settle the issue, I highly appreciate your help quite thankful to you to guide me. :) --Faizanalivarya (talk) 05:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

B96 Pepsi SummerBash

Hi! I just wanted to strike up a discussion in regard to the B96 Pepsi SummerBash article which you redirected into the WBBM-FM article. While I might typically agree that the proper move would be to redirect, I believe that this event - like others such as 102.7 KIIS-FM's Jingle Ball and Wango Tango - have been around long enough and have run for enough years in succession that it is notable enough to have its own article. While I understand that this may be OR, SummerBash is very highly regarded in the industry as one of the premier events in the U.S., in terms of radio station events. I do recognize that the article as it currently exists is short and very stub-like, but it could be expanded with additional time and more eyes than my own taking a look at it. Strikerforce (talk) 05:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be moved under your user area so that you may have time to expand it to the point where notability will be apparent.?--RadioFan (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

If you take a look at my contributions, you'll see that the article was created in my user space first, then brought to the main. I would contend that notability is established in the lead paragraph, namely "The B96 Pepsi SummerBash is an annual concert, typically held on the second Saturday in June, in the Chicago area" and "The event is considered to be one of the premier annual radio station concerts in the U.S. by many in the radio industry, along with events such as the KIIS-FM Jingle Ball, Wango Tango, Z100 Jingle Ball, and rock station 105.7 The Point - St. Louis' Point Fest". The issue that I have had, thus far, has been in finding reliable sources with information about the event prior to 2006, its first year at Toyota Park. I have noted this on the article's talk page and asked for the assistance of other editors. As I mentioned above, the article is probably best described currently as a stub, but I believe that it is sourced well enough to this point that it can - and should - stand on its own. (FYI - I am watching this page, so you don't need to leave a TB on mine unless you're just aching to do so! :) ) Strikerforce (talk) 05:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

considered to be one of the premier annual radio station concerts in the U.S. by many in the radio industry is a very big claim and it's not sourced. This kind of language raises some red flags with new page patroller like me which is why the article is receiving scrutiny. I'm still not seeing why this cant be adequately covered on the stations article.--RadioFan (talk) 12:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Using that theory, why would we not redirect KIIS-FM Jingle Ball into the KIIS-FM article? Both are major events attended by 20,000+ people each year, held in major metropolitan areas by notable radio stations in those metropolitan areas (and, in the case of both 102.7 KIISFM and B96, notable radio stations throughout the entire industry), typically covered in alternate forms of media (print news, television, and - in recent years - online), and are continuously-running events of 15+ years. If it were a once-off concert held in a small market, yes, I would say redirect it to the radio station's article or merge the content into a section of that article. But, this is a signature event of one of the heritage signals in the third-largest radio market in the United States... to me, that's enough for notability. Strikerforce (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's focus on this article and not worry about WP:OTHERSTUFF. I would think that an event this large would receive some print or TV coverage. Hasn't there been anything in the local newspapers?--RadioFan (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Chicago Sun-Times and Chicago Tribune are both used as references in the article. Strikerforce (talk) 00:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, I am not trying to use OTHER. My comment is in regard to the fact that this event, like the example I gave, draws over 20,000 people each year, is an annual event, etc, which would qualify it as notable, the rest of my previous statement notwithstanding. Strikerforce (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

75.83.239.83 (talk) 03:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC) Minx (band)

Hi, I am a major contributor to this article What can I do to make this article acceptable for Wikipedia. I am quite sure it does have enough credibility-

I'm sorry, I really cant tell from the above post what you are referring to.--RadioFan (talk) 04:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minx_(band) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.239.83 (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, 75! Just glancing at the article, I would suggest references from reliable sources. Also, it appears that the creator of the article may have a close connection to the article's subject, which is typically frowned upon because a situation like that has a tendency to lead to original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Strikerforce (talk) 05:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

About article "RSDUY"

A lot of information about RSDUY contains in Russian-language web-sites. If this is enough - no problem, I'll add links on Russian. Yes, on English not many information about RSDUY.

What can I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skilpaddle (talk • contribs) 15:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You can start with signing your posts, it helps me know who I'm responding to. I'm certainly no expert in Russian politics but those references look problematic. The 2nd one definately does not meet the requirement of reliable sources, it's a self published blog. The first one has a broken URL so it's hard to judge either way.--RadioFan (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I prescribed one actually reference. Pages on this site was move to another link. We have problem - information about Russian politics not published on English - only about officials. --Flyge Skilpadde - Flying Turtle (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

When this article was brought up for deletion discussion, that deletion was withdrawn based on references in [ru:Российский социал-демократический союз молодёжи|the version of the article in the russian version of Wikipedia]]. Could you use some of those references to improve this article.--RadioFan (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Amy Harris (English athlete) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Amy Harris (English athlete). Since you had some involvement with the Amy Harris (English athlete) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Hobit (talk) 04:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Philadelphia Science Fiction Society

The PSFS, as clearly stated in the article, is one of the oldest such organizations in the United States if not the world; it was not an appropriate subject for an A7 nomination.

It has been suggested in a recent article in File 770 that you are part of some kind of vendetta against science-fiction-fandom-related articles. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)--Orange Mike | Talk 16:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a very serious accusation and all involved must assume good faith. Such an accusation would be appropriate against a flurry of deletion requests on well sourced articles, but that's not the case here. This particular claim is not referenced at all. This isn't a case of a simple boastful claim in an article, the entire article is completely unreferenced and reads like a fan page, thus the deletion request. Each of the articles mentioned in this "vendetta" are very poorly referenced, often with the club website if at all. My only problem is with articles that do not meet notability guidelines, nothing else. Many of the editors involved are either new or very infrequent contributors who have proven to be very territorial here. They are taking any suggestion that the article not meeting guidelines very personally. The focus needs to be on Wikipedia notability guidelines and either providing the reliable sources necessary to meet those guidelines or delting the articles, not on individual editors. While I appreciate that these are new editors, and we must be careful not to attack the newbies, that's got to be balanced with notability guidelines.--RadioFan (talk) 16:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)