User talk:Nancy/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

CSD A7

Why wouldn't CSD A7 apply to a martial art? Can't we look at it as an organization? If not, what is the appropriate CSD category? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not an organisation in the same way that "Hockey" or "Kung Fu" are not organisations. There is not a CSD category that applies as is the case with many things e.g. films, schools, books, buildings.... If you still feel it merits deletion you will need to use WP:PROD or WP:AFD. Best, Nancy ^talk 16:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• It definately merits deletion. Was trying to avoid clogging up AfD with it. Thanks. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion declined?

How is there meaningful content in Elur Pudupatti? If you don't delete it for not having any content, then delete it for lack of notability. A simple Google search does not yield very many results. I apologize if I posted this on the wrong talk page; I am still a relatively new user. -BLM Platinum (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Several things

1. You nominated it as "Nonsense" when in fact it was simply poor English. It was perfectly clear to me that someone was trying to create and article about a settlement in Tamil Nadu
2. When you are more familiar with the speedy deletion criteria you will know that geographical locations are not eligible for speedy deletion on the basis of no credible assertion of notability
3. I have had to decline or alter a large number of your speedy deletion nominations in the last couple of hours. Whilst it is great that you are getting involved, your lack of knowledge/accuracy is just causing more work for other editors. May I suggest again that you study the speedy deletion criteria in depth before you tag any more articles.

Nancy ^talk 17:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright. I'll cool it with the speedy deletions for now. Sorry to have caused any trouble. -BLM Platinum (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that is a good decision. You need to get a handle on the deletion criteria and also approach NPP with the attitude of wanting to improve Wikipedia rather than wanting to find reasons to tag for deletion. Nancy ^talk 18:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Cookham Bridge

On February 25, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cookham Bridge, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Ucucha 18:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nancy. You have new messages at IBen's talk page.
Message added 18:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

iBen (talk) 18:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Nathaniel Bogdanove article.

Dear Nancy, I see on the log that your reason for deleting my (short) bio on Nathaniel Bogdanove was because there was no historical significance. The first or second sentence pointed out that Mr. Bogdanove was the first person to be elected to the post of Mayor of Waldwick, NJ after he died. I respectfully disagree with your opinion that this is not historically significant and ask that you please restore it. Respectfully, Seth J. Bogdanove Bogframe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogframe (talk • contribs) 20:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

17:18, 25 February 2010 Nancy (talk | contribs) deleted "Nathaniel Bogdanove" ‎ (Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject (CSD A7))

There is a mention of this fact in the trivia section of [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogframe (talk • contribs) 20:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing my book: issues. I had it labeled correctly but it gave me an error message and so I followed the error messages steps to correct it...well if just messed it all up. A appreciate you straightening it all out for me! Sabiona (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Charlotte Beazley

Hello, I was going to look up Charlotte Beazley but then I noticed she wasn't on wikipedia. She is an actress/singer/model. I was just wondering if you could make an article Charlotte Beazley and I can send you more information to write in because we know each other. Thanks and please make one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.131.191 (talk) 09:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Monthly events, 2005

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Monthly events, 2005. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monthly events, 2005. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Hassaan19

As you have dealt with him/her before regarding the creation of X Factor articles, could you have a word again? One "problematic" article was Olly Murs; Olly Murs (singer)‎ has been created today. I would like to stand back from this rather than get into an edit war. Many thanks! I42 (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Diffs for previous dealings: [2], [3]. I42 (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I42. I've had a(nother) word with Hassaan on his talk page about ignoring consensus, explained the consequences etc. Will he ever learn? I see that the article has been redirected, quite right too! Nancy ^talk 17:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't know if they'll ever Get It. I hope they do; properly directed, their enthusiasm should be an asset to the project. I42 (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Neolibertarianism

I believe that the page Neolibertarianism should be recreated. There are pages for almost every other libertarian variant, but not this one. If you were to google the word Neolibertarian, you would find a vast amount of talk on the subject. The theory has been synthesized to a much greater extent lately. It is very similar to Libertarian Conservative, but there are enough differences to warrant its own page. There are even wikipedia pages with links to it, a dead page --Estrill5766 (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. As you got my name from the deletion log I am guessing that you also read the AfD and are aware of the reasons why the original article was deleted. The proper way to proceed with this is to create a well-sourced draft in your userspace which addresses the issues raised in the AfD, the most important being uncertain notability, original research and promotion. The replacement can then be reviewed and moved to mainspace if it obviously addresses the issues or posted at WP:DRV if it is borderline. Best of luck, Nancy ^talk 09:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Can I work on my deleted article again?

Hi Nancy, I recently posted an article about Kevin Wenrich the football player on Wikipedia. I believe you needed to delete it because I perhaps was unable to show enough notability for Kevin although he has been mentioned in articles and a podcast interview with LancSports.com. If his college needs to be omitted or if I need some kind of citation anywhere could you please let me know what I need to add or take away in order for my article to be allowed on Wikipedia? I would really appreciate it if I could be allowed to edit the actual text I originally wrote up before. Thank you for being able to help me out! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benbarr11 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing to stop you working on a replacement article, but you need to be able to show how Kevin meets WP:ATHLETE - it would be exceptional for a 17/18 year old school player to meet the bar and there was nothing in the original text even to suggest that he might so it may be a difficult task. Best of luck though, Nancy ^talk 14:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

When you say that there is nothing to suggest that he would meet the pro athlete requirements do you mean it's acceptable if there was a mention of an expectation of him being selected to play in a pro league? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benbarr11 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

'fraid not. He will be notable when he has played for the first team of a team in a fully professional league. Even being on a squad is not enough, he has to have made an appearance. Nancy ^talk 14:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Our Friend Returns

Our friend has returned again, under this guise. Thanks --Sikh-History 09:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ithink he is this IP. Thanks --Sikh-History 09:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Got him. Blocked account and deleted all the nonsense he created. Nancy ^talk 10:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nancy, just read a lot of abuse about you and me here. Our friend? Thanks--Sikh-History 22:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Criteria for speedy deletion - A10

Hi Nancy, you deleted an inclusion on Bournemouth Lifestyle on the grounds that it was a duplicate of an existing inclusion and i wanted to see if there was any way of reversing this decision and for the following reason:

The Wiki Definition of A10 is a recently created article with no relevant page history that duplicates an existing English Wikipedia topic, and that does not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article(s) on the subject, and where the title is not a plausible redirect.

Although this is the case that it would leave two references to 'Bournemouth' the information i am providing gives an alternate view from that of the official line of the 'Bournemouth' article and as such expands upon rather than duplicates an existing article. As Wiki is a free reference-point for users to add content surely restricting a keyword such as Bournemouth to one point-of-view defeats the object of the 'Free' Wiki. Furthermore Bournemouth is not a product where it and it's content is controlled by one brand and as such should be free to write about and any manor someone chooses that isn't defamatory.

I truly hope you would reconsider this decision.

Best wishes Nigel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigelbywater (talk • contribs) 13:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a free web host. One of the basic tenets of Wikipedia is that all articles should maintain a neutral point of view. If anything which was mentioned in the content fork can be verified by multiple reliable, independent, third-party sources then a balanced discussion of alternate views should be added to Bournemouth however it looks rather fringe and appears to be original research. Nancy ^talk 17:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Why was Wu Yee Child Services deleted?

I found a number of organizations listing Wu Yee - getting on these listings show that it's a valid non-profit child care organization - it's not like being in the Yellow Pages. I was in the midst of entering a newspaper reference to the organization, where SF Mayor Gavin Newsom spent the morning as a promotional effort. They run a number of preschools - which, as an educational organization, should make it significant.

The copying of content was a mistake my friend made - she works for the organization, and I was trying to put up a listing for it; that content should be reworded. As they often get federal grants, I'm sure there's more references, but they tend to be buried by multiple business listing during the search; I didn't know it was going to be deleted so quickly without this.

If further references are needed, please move this article under user:alandbrown so I can refine it to your satisfaction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alandbrown (talk • contribs)

Hello Alandbrown. I don;t think anyone is disputing that the charity exists, what was missing was any indication of how/why it might meet the notability requirements for organisations - the mere fact of existing is alas not enough. Kind regards, Nancy ^talk 17:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Afro-Australians in Australia

Huh? This article is the same just that the editor has not included the list of people, it still has the same lead! Bidgee (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The lead of the article deleted in February was:

Black people in Australia are designations used for people of African descent who reside in Australia. The term "Black people in Australia" does not refer to the Aboriginals, nor does it refer to Australian people of Pacific Island lineage. Although these groups have dark skin complexion, they are not of Sub-Saharan African descent. A minority of the population have recent African origin.

whereas the lead of the current article seems to be more of an attempt to outline the history and in my view not "substantially identical". I of course have the advantage of direct access to the deleted version :) WP:PROD would be the way to go with it. Best, Nancy ^talk 16:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Just because the suspected sock puppet has removed the list from the article doesn't make it substantially different. Infact this is what the CSD states "is substantially identical to the deleted version, and any changes do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted", Afro-Australians in Australia is still substantially identical and it address the concerns that were addressed during the AfD. Bidgee (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree on the identicalness or otherwise. However, in it's current incarnation it does seem to qualify as an A10 fork of African Australian. I'm happy to delete under that criteria so looks like a win-win to me. Nancy ^talk 17:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

p.s. refreshing change to be engaged concerning something I didn't delete rather than something I did. All best, Nancy ^talk 17:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Article Namdhari

Hi Nancy, I am concerned about this users behaviour. He seems determined to add in honorific s to the Namdhari article, and thus making it unencyclopedic. --Sikh-History 07:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I have left her/him a note explaining what was wrong with his edits. For cases like this it is often better to leave a bespoke note rather than a template warning as it is quite probable that s/he didn't really understand the reason her/his edits were problematic. Kind regards, Nancy ^talk 08:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I see. You mean, rather than just leave an edit note like here, put an actual explanation on the talk page? Thanks --Sikh-History 17:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It is always good to put that sort of information in edit summaries but for newer users a quick note on their talk as well is useful as they may not be as used to communicating via edit summary as we old hands are! Best, Nancy ^talk 18:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi I am a Namdhari and it is a religion likae any ohter of the world I find it very disrespectful that you are removing Guru from in front of our Guru's name i am not disrepecting anyone. but I feel like I am the one being Desrespected. We do not believe that Granth sahib is Guru we give it full respect as a Guru's Bani so would that not be considered disrespectfull. Im just trying to say is that by removing Guru from in front of my Guru name is really disrespectful you are thinking from one side what about the Namdharis arent you disrespecting them when Guru is removed. I just want you to think about this. -ronyonly —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronyonly (talk • contribs) 16:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

_{Above comment left in response to this edit explaining our policy on honorificsNancy ^talk 17:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)}

Ken O'Keefe picture deleted

Aloha Nancy, I am Ken O’Keefe, the verifiable founder of the Human Shield Action to Iraq. If you research the action you will see that there is no mention of it previous to the source I cite (The Guardian newspaper Dec. 29, 2002), except for the numerous ‘call to action’ notices I posted all over the Internet earlier in December 2002. It would appear that you removed the picture of me thinking that this was appropriate because I was not mentioned in the article, indeed not associated with the action; I can understand this because people have removed me with the apparent attempt to rewrite history. But the truth is that my removal is politically motivated. I have corrected this, for now, and I would ask that you return the picture that was there; it was the only thing giving any accurate idea of how the action was founded.

I hope that you see this as a communication intended to foster accuracy in historical facts. If you have any doubts or questions please do feel free to ask me as I will probably be able to shed light on matters pertaining to the action. Tjpworldcitizen (talk) 03:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm struggling with how a studio headshot could possible be the only or otherwise "thing giving any accurate idea of how the action was founded". Am I missing something or did you think it was a different picture? Nancy ^talk 17:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Aloha Nancy, I am sorry but re-reading your reason for removing the head shot I see no mention of the picture itself being the problem, this is what I see in the history; '16:44, 15 February 2010 Nancy (talk | contribs) (18,628 bytes) (→Chronology: Rem image of someone not actually mentioned within the article? Seemed odd to have it there.)'

Based on this I contacted you to clarify that if you do not see my name in the article it was because it was removed for political reasons. As you yourself said you removed the image of 'someone not actually mentioned within the article', thus the image was the only thing giving any idea that I had anything to do with it. If you go back and look at the history you will see attempts to do this repeatedly. For all these years I have not bothered to play this game but enough is enough, let the record reflect the facts. The picture that was there was taken in that period, if you do not question this, may I ask you to put the image back as it was. Invariably someone will try to remove me again, whether it be the picture or text, this is an unfortunate fact of wikipedia, there used to be a short bio of me, instigated by people I do not know, and this was removed as well.

I hope you can understand and appreciate that my observations and request are valid. So I ask, please return the image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjpworldcitizen (talk • contribs) 18:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood my query. You stated, and I quote, "I would ask that you return the picture that was there; it was the only thing giving any accurate idea of how the action was founded". You are yet to explain how a studio head-shot portrait of yourself could possibly do any such thing. Not that it matters any more as looking at the edit history I see the question is moot now anyway. Nancy ^talk 11:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I am happy for you to quote me Nancy, I have no problem representing myself nor my role in the Human Shield Action to Iraq, and I will continue to support the facts as required by Wikipedia rules, in this case with the The Guardian article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/dec/29/iraq1) that clearly shows: 1) I am an ex-US Marine who served in the 1991 Gulf War. 2) I acknowledged Saddam Hussein as a 'violent dictator' previous to going to Iraq (which is important for establishing that I and the others who joined the action were not in support of Saddam). 3) I was making a call for thousands of people to migrate to Iraq as a defensive shield. There will be no public records of any such call pre-dating the Guardian article except for what I wrote and posted through independent means. It was only through this effort that The Guardian, BBC, The Independent, etc, picked it up and thus it grew. The fact that I was a guest on BBC's HardTalk and defended the merits of the action and its strategic intelligence is further proof of my role. I am the founder of the action, the small amount of text I contributed to the article is true. These are the facts, nonetheless now we have PaulinSaudi seeing fit to remove my tiny amount of input with the personal insult of this input being nothing more than 'hero-worship for Mr. O'Keef' (sic). This is surely not how the founder of Wikipedia (who has a studio head shot on his Wikipedia page) would want things to be evolving within his creation. Even if I am an egotistical self-promoter, if what I submit is supported with the facts and verified as Wikipedia rules demand, my personal shortcomings are irrelevant. The irony is that I have allowed misrepresentations of the facts and politically motivated agendas to rule the article that purports to shed light on the action I founded. This has often included character assassinations that most would find very unpleasant. I have accepted these indignities as the price one pays for doing what I have done, but enough is enough. I have no problem at all with this article being a collective effort, with some room for opinion, but it is an insult to the purposes of Wikipedia that relevant truths about the action continue to be denied.

I submit the above facts and challenge you and PaulinSaudi (and the others who are bound to surface) to rebut the three listed facts as I present them. If you cannot, then return the information I submitted and the picture you deleted. If your interest is in having accurate historical accounts, you will put any personal feelings you have for me aside, you will do as required by Wikipedia rules and respect everyone's submissions if they meet the submission criteria. I sincerely hope that this is what you do. ∼∼∼∼ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjpworldcitizen (talk • contribs) 19:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no personal feelings about you at all and find it very peculiar and slightly arrogant that you should think that I do. I merely asked a question which is yet to be answered. Nancy ^talk 19:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Aloha Nancy, I may be arrogant, I may be hero-worshipping myself, I may be many things, but this has nothing to do with the facts. I have thus far and will continue to refrain from any personal judgements of you and even PaulinSaudi. I answered your question from the beginning, but I will do it once more. Here is your question; 'I think you have misunderstood my query. You stated, and I quote, "I would ask that you return the picture that was there; it was the only thing giving any accurate idea of how the action was founded". You are yet to explain how a studio head-shot portrait of yourself could possibly do any such thing.' My response; the picture was the last remaining clue that I was involved in the action I created because of politically motivated efforts to remove me from the history. You were then able to cite the removal of the picture as appropriate because 'someone not actually mentioned within the article' was pictured. Rest assured there will be ongoing efforts to remove me, as is the case with PaulinSaudi who only in the last couple of days removed accurate information supported with reference.

I ask you, would you be bothered at all if you founded anything of historical significance and had people make deliberate effort to remove you from that history? Assuming you are not personally biased against me I am sure you will acknowledge that anyone would find this unjust at best. The picture remains one way to establish a relevant fact, having that picture is fair and accurate and you will see picture credits countless times throughout Wikipedia, including studio head shots that meet the copyright requirements. I did not submit that picture by the way, and up until the other day I have never submitted anything to this article; nor have I worked with nor directed anyone to write anything in it. Which is a strong part of the reason why the article is inaccurate and lacking, beyond the ridiculousness of repeated attempts to remove me. Now, I really have answered your question, and I ask you again, please return the picture.

I will accept that you have no personal feelings towards me at all, that in fact you will be happy to verify the facts I present and work with me to ensure that accuracy, absent of personal feelings, is what determines content on this and any other Wikipedia article. In that context I ask your assistance in having the information that PaulinSaudi removed, returned to the article as it is factually correct and supported as required by Wikipedia rules.

To repeat, having answered your question; 1) Will you please return the picture you removed as it is indeed a picture of the founder of the action and in the time period of the action in question? 2) Will you assist or direct me as to how the information PaulinSaudi removed can also be returned as it is also accurate and supported?

I thank you in advance for your impartial perspective and genuine desire to see the rules of Wikipedia respected and the truth to be accurately represented. ∼∼∼∼ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjpworldcitizen (talk • contribs) 20:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I see Nancy that you have added to this page with no response to my request. I have answered your question (more than once) and clearly the picture you removed was done so under false pretenses. I ask you now to explain how removing the picture of the founder of the action is supported by Wikipedia policy? If you have any justifiable reason please explain. If you do not please return the picture. Awaiting your response. Tjpworldcitizen (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for not jumping when you snapped your fingers. We're all volunteers here and as such I will prioritise my time as I choose.

I will not be adding the picture to the article. This is because the original was it was uploaded with a conditional use license which means it is not compliant with the CC-BY-SA/GFDL "copyleft" license which Wikipedia operates under and there is not a justifiable fair-use case for the use of a non-free image in the Human Shield article. It is currently in the queue for deletion as an orphaned non-free image. You are of course free to upload one of your own snaps and do with it what you will. Nancy ^talk 19:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a misunderstanding of the requirements. CC-BY-SA/GFDL licences are by definition "conditional" and copyrighted. The image is perfectly compatible with Wikipedia as it states "The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the original image author and image description are credited." That, Nancy, is all that is required. Christiaan (talk) 08:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

For the record Nancy, as a volunteer you have made the time to support a bad decision on your behalf and ignore the quickest and easiest way to remedy the issue. Either you are incapable of admitting a mistake, do not hold yourself to a high standard because you are a 'volunteer', or you have a bias.

Going back to the original act of removing the photo, this is your recorded reason;

16:44, 15 February 2010 Nancy (talk | contribs) (18,628 bytes) (→Chronology: Rem image of someone not actually mentioned within the article? Seemed odd to have it there.)

To be clear, the reason you stated for removing the picture (that I was not mentioned in the article) was both incorrect (I was briefly mentioned in a couple last remaining bits) and untrue, because it is copyright you now cite. If that were your original reason you failed to note it. Over the course of these exchanges with you I have explained how malicious editing (vandalism) has taken place in which people have attempted to remove me from the history of the action. This has never been of interest to you, or at least you have never acknowledged it. Instead you questioned my view that the photo was a valid way of establishing a relevant fact about the history of the action. You also cited concerns about the use of a studio head shot, you have called into question the content I openly added (as myself), content I added as a means of correcting the historical vandalism, and now it is copyright you are concerned about.

I must say Nancy, it sure is good to know that you are completely objective and have no personal biases because you would be a great asset to those who have over the years tried their best to erase me from the article and who have been successful in having the page about me erased.

It is a shame (and unprofessional) that you have not once shown any concerns about the legitimate issues of vandalism that I have brought to your attention and which you (apparently) unwittingly supported by removing the photo. The only thing I must thank you for is for being the catalyst to get these legitimate issues aired. Cheers for that. Tjpworldcitizen (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of the Icarus williams page

please see below the conversation between me and the previous deleter of the page:

This page has been deleted several times now because it supposedly doesn't make its purpose clear but one read of the page makes it very clear. Why is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricerichard (talk • contribs) 04:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

:The article was deleted because its subject is not notable (see Wikipedia:Notability (people)). Evil saltine (talk) 04:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I have read the notability section and i honestly feel that this article fits the critera. How do i go about contesting this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricerichard (talk • contribs) 07:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

:You could take it to deletion review. Evil saltine (talk) 09:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I attempted a deletion review and was ignored.

I am reposting the article with appropriate referencing and assure you that it does meet with notoriety guidelines.

Read the article, i have even e-mailed the artist in question to get his approval. There is no reason to re-delete this piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricerichard (talk • contribs) 06:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricerichard (talk • contribs)

Hi Ricerichard. The article was deleted for two reasons, firstly it gave not indication of how Icarus Williams might meet our notability requirements for inclusion and secondly, and far more importantly it made several unreferenced claims about Williams' private life which were a gross violation of our policy on biographies of living people. Any such material will be removed on sight and if you persist in replacing it your editing privileges will be revoked. I cannot see a place for williams on Wikipedia, I would suggest MySpace as an alternative venue for your output. Nancy ^talk 18:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Michael Roach (musician)

Nancy Why did you delete the Michael Roach (musician) article? Did you read the discussion tab? I am the subject of the article, own the copywrite, and was in the process of adding the relevant reverences to the article. I added the {hang on} tab, but you still deleted the article?

What do I do know?

Kind regards,

Michael Roach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EurobluesUK (talk • contribs) 13:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed! Hello EuroBluesUK. I'm afraid it is not quite that simple...... (it never is).... in order for copyright material to be used on Wikipedia it has to be released under very particular sorts of copyrights. You will also need to prove your identity as obviously anyone could log on to this site, paste a load of copyvio material and claim to be the copyright holder.

One simple way to grant permission to copy material already on line is to put that permission explicitly on the site where that material is posted. This is commonly known as a "copyleft" notice. This notice must state that your site (or portions of your site) are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts) or that it is in the public domain. For text, a good statement of release might read, "The text of this website (or page, if you are specifically releasing one section) is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)."

If you would like to allow Wikipedia to use your content, but don't want to put a license statement on the site (note that you still must release it under those free licenses), you can contact permissions-en@wikimedia.org. See here for an example permissions granting email. For text, after sending the email, place {{OTRS pending}} on the article's discussion page. Someone will reply to your email, indicating whether the content and your license is acceptable and update the page to indicate that the confirmation of the license has been received.

However, there are three things that you should consider first:

1. Are you happy to release your copyright in such a manner?
2. Is the released material actually suitable for use on Wikipedia?
3. Does Michael Roach meet the general notability requirements for musicians?

Further,as a general rule of thumb editors are usually discouraged from writing articles about themselves. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability - all edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. If your achievements are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about it sooner or later. Kind regards, Nancy ^talk 14:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

But I altered text so that it no longer reflected the web site, so no longer breaches copywrite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EurobluesUK (talk • contribs) 14:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It was quite closely paraphrased. What I will do is restore the most recent version of the article so that the blatant copyvio is no longer in history. BUT the autobiography/conflict of interest problems are still there as is the question of notability. The very first thing you must do is to show how you meet the the notability requirement for musicians by reference to multiple, independent reliable sources. Best, Nancy ^talk 14:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I have added muliple reliable sources to the article. Please can you review these, and let me know your views. Thanks in advance. Kind regards, Michael Roach —Preceding unsigned comment added by EurobluesUK (talk • contribs) 14:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EurobluesUK (talk • contribs)

OK, I have added the in-line citations as requested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EurobluesUK (talk • contribs) 16:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll try and find time to check them out this afternoon. Kind regards, Nancy ^talk 08:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments left at Talk:Michael Roach (musician) Nancy ^talk 15:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nancy, I have made some modifications hopefully dealing with the points you've raised. Wih regard to the notability criteria, doesn't the fact the I am mentioned in the Piedmont Blues page by whoever wrote this article, suggest that I am a notable musician in this genre? After all this is what prompted me to submit the article. Kind regards, Michael Roach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EurobluesUK (talk • contribs) 13:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.21.152 (talk) Hi Nancy, Yes I would like inclusion under section 1 of WP:MUSICBIO. Also please can you advise me on what I need to do to have the other two warnings removed from the artice i.e. Quality and neutral viewpoit? Thanks in advance. Michael. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EurobluesUK (talk • contribs) 11:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.214.241.106 (talk)

AfD nomination of Martin Dudziak

An article that you have been involved in editing, Martin Dudziak, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Dudziak. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Troublesome User

Hi Nancy, This user I have a suspicion has been blocked under several guises. He seems to have a particular attention to Philosophy in Sikhism, where he deletes refrenced sections. I have no intention of getting into an edit war with him. Could you look into it? Thanks --Sikh-History 14:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Clifton Hampden Bridge

On March 4, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Clifton Hampden Bridge, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nancy - another nice one. You may note I have been doing quite alot of work on the Thames project. Interestingly, most of the more important stub articles relate to bridges so I think I'll let you get on with developing them! Best regards Motmit (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Replied chez Motmit Nancy ^talk 15:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nancy - Thanks again - as for bridges - Wallingford, Shillingford, Whitchurch, Henley and Godstow for a start!! You can click on the matrix on the project page which gives importance/class. I have been trying to identify the riparian boroughs and districts on the Thames which it turns out are woefully sparsely filled - amazingly the Oxford article didnt even discuss the river. Not being helped by interference here though - one editor didnt like the category name I used and referred it to CFD whereupon two other editors with no interest in the Thames decided the category was trivial and should be deleted. Categories are a bugbear at the moment - the same editor has rendered the River Thames categories virtually unusable by nesting them so deeply within each other that it's almost impossible to jump around. Hey Ho. All the best Motmit (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

We are certainly getting are Shilling's worth - good stuff, but have you decided to dispense with the infobox? Best Motmit (talk) 08:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Very clever! On info boxes I find them really problematic when there is a long history of different structures as they only allow for information about one incarnation e.g. Shillingford, should date opened be 1301, 1767 or 1827?, all three are equally correct and equally incorrect. Why should the structural information be about only one of the at least three different bridges on that site. Look at Cookham Bridge, if you glanced at the info-box without reading the article you'd leave thinking that there had only been a bridge there since 1867 (I chickened out of removing it when I rewrote the article). The answer would be to have fields for previous structures within the infobox but that would also have the effect of making them even longer and more disruptive to the layout. Nancy ^talk 10:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I imagine the overarching focus of interest is always going to be the bridge that is actually there at the moment and that is the information which I presume the Infobox should carry. However I dont see infoboxes as cast in stone and have found it possible to be quite creative with box fields to use them to span a wider spread of material using breaks, brackets, notes etc. Walton deals with it by having a separate article for the oldest bridge, though the last incarnation doesnt deserve one. Anyway that's my bob's worth. Hope the ice has melted by now Rgds Motmit (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right about being creative but again it just makes the damn things so big. I guess the bottom line is that I find them aesthetically displeasing otherwise I'd probably make more of an effort to accomodate. Even though they are not mandatory for GA and FA I still expect that mine is a minority view and I'll bet you a pint that someone adds one to Shillingford Bridge before the summer (which I'd leave be - I think it is OK to remove them in a massive rewrite but reverting the addition afterwards would not be cool). Oh and yes, I should change the picture now the ice has gone but it all looks so lovely covered in snow. Best, Nancy ^talk 12:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Joe Anderson (politician)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Joe Anderson (politician), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Anderson (politician). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Shillingford Bridge

On March 15, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Shillingford Bridge, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedly delete

Hello, I've created the page on CILAS that you have deleted speedly. I've really understand that Wikipedia doesn't accept any advertisement and any violation of copyright. However, I'm working in Cilas company and there is no problem for utilizing our website content (no copyright violation). By creating this Wiki, I did not have the feeling of doing advertisement. I just want to inform about the existence, the history and the activities of my company, like many other companies... Can you tell me how can I do this without being accused of spamming ? Best regards. Thepage (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello thepage. I'm afraid that the copyright situation is somewhat more complicated that that. In order for copyright material to be used on Wikipedia it has to be released under very particular sorts of copyrights. You will also need to prove your identity as obviously anyone could log on to this site, paste a load of copyvio material and claim to be the copyright holder.

One simple way to grant permission to copy material already on line is to put that permission explicitly on the site where that material is posted. This is commonly known as a "copyleft" notice. This notice must state that your site (or portions of your site) are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts) or that it is in the public domain. For text, a good statement of release might read, "The text of this website (or page, if you are specifically releasing one section) is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)."

If you would like to allow Wikipedia to use your content, but don't want to put a license statement on the site (note that you still must release it under those free licenses), you can contact permissions-en@wikimedia.org. See here for an example permissions granting email. For text, after sending the email, place {{OTRS pending}} on the article's discussion page. Someone will reply to your email, indicating whether the content and your license is acceptable and update the page to indicate that the confirmation of the license has been received.

However, there are three things that you should consider first:

1. Are you happy to release your copyright in such a manner?
2. Is the released material actually suitable for use on Wikipedia?
3. Does Cilas meet the general notability requirements for companies?

With regard to point 2 I would suggest the answer is "no" as you might surmise yourself from the fact that it has twice been deleted as advertising. The language and approach that a company may use to promote itself on its own website is clearly very different from the language and tone of a serious encyclopaedic article. I also think that Cilas will struggle with point 3.

Further,as a general rule of thumb editors are usually discouraged from writing articles about things they are closely associated with. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability - all edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. If your company is genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about it sooner or later. Kind regards, Nancy ^talk 17:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Exploretrip Deletion!

Hi Nancy,

This is Shreepal from Exploretrip. I am the marketing director for the company. I created an article for Exploretrip on Wikipedia, so that visitors coming to Wikipedia should have an idea of the kind of business Exploretrip is involved in. I did kept a message on discussion as well with my exploretrip email id and contact number, so that if you have any disputes for the article, you may reach me anytime.

I am new to wikipedia and was not aware that giving link to keywords is not permisable and considered as promotion. So, i did tried to delete the links, but unfortunately bot again reverted back to the previous version of my draft.

May i know the reason for deletion. I don't think so, that the articles was in line with Promotions rather it was just an information to the public for the business overview of Exploretrip.

Please suggest, where i was wrong, so that i will be careful next time.

thanks,

Shreepal shreepals@exploretrip.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Contactshreepal (talk • contribs) 14:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Shreepal and welcome to Wikipedia. As per the deletion log there were two reasons why the article was deleted.

1. there was no indication that the company met Wikipedia's notability requirements for companies
2. it read like an advertisement. Whilst the external links were not the only problem the facts that in a eight sentence article there were ten insertions of the exploretrip URL and that the final sentence was an exhortation to visit said website were a major contributing factor.

A general rule of thumb is that you should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability - all edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. If the achievements, etc. of your company, are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about it sooner or later. Kind regards, Nancy ^talk 12:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Please check our project page?

Hi Nancy! I'm sure you recall the headache myself & my classmates caused you back in November with Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia Saves Public Art. The class is now over but myself and my former professors are continuing to spread the word on WSPA and will be encouraging teachers, students and museums to contribute articles. It is my main task to fix up our project page so that it is as easy as possible for a newbie to edit and create new articles (and hopefully will reduce the number of headaches caused to yourself & others). Since you were so helpful in the past, I thought I'd pass along the work I've done so far and let you review it. If there is any pertinent information I should add, or if I've gotten anything wrong, certainly let me know. I created a {{subst:}} article template for our project members which should alleviate a good bit of the layout issues. You can see our how-to here. And I also put a bit of work into our Style Guide which is essentially a beginner's how-to. Thank you again for your help! HstryQT (talk) 11:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, nice to see you! I'll happily give it the once over. Might not have the time to do it properly for a few days though. Best, Nancy ^talk 12:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem! Thanks again for your patience & help. HstryQT (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Edward Chastain

If someone unfamiliar with the article was reading it, they wouldn't know about him aside from the fact he won a bunch of championships. When I tagged it, it had no intro, nothing about his career (still doesn't, so how am I or any other reader to know anything about this guy's career?), no "In wrestling section" (that includes no finishers/signature moves, any managers/valets/bodyguards he had, whatever themes he had, etc..)(still doesn't), no external links, no references (still doesn't), and no infobox. It wasn't stylized in the guide set forth for professional wrestling related biographies. When the article was created it was just a list of championship and accomplishments and they weren't even formatted properly. Last, but not least, Edward Chastain isn't notable. If someone can assert notability, then keep the article, otherwise it should be deleted. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 16:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

That's all very well but none of those are valid speedy deletion reasons. You nominated as "insufficient context to identify subject of the article" when it was perfectly clear that it was about a wrestler. If you think it should be deleted on grounds of failing WP:BIO then the appropriate mechanisms are WP:PROD or WP:AFD. Nancy ^talk 16:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Lawrence talk page

Hi, you moved Thomas Lawrence (painter) to Thomas Lawrence. Would you please move Talk:Thomas Lawrence (painter) to Talk:Thomas Lawrence also? Thanks. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Ooops, fixed now. Not sure why it didn't move with the article. Nancy ^talk 19:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Rolling Hills Prep School

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Rolling Hills Prep School. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rolling Hills Prep School. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey nancy...

my new page gareth peter dicks... has gone! Is all ok? I tried hard to make it work with your site, can you please advise what is wrong with the page and what i need to do to make it work. Thanks for your help. How can I make it better and get it back. I did cut and past from my own documents and website. Tar G Broadwayschool (talk) 09:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC) G :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Broadwayschool (talk • contribs) 09:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright issues are somewhat of a side issue here as even if they were fixed there is no indication that you meet Wikipedia's notability requirements for musicians and specifically those for composers.

On top of that, whilst creating autobiographies is not outright barred it is strongly discouraged. A general rule of thumb is that you should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability - all edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. If your achievements are verifiable and genuinely notable (by Wikipedia's definition), and thus suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably create an article about it sooner or later. Kind regards Nancy ^talk 09:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind reply. I have since had this page delated now. So I would very much like your help in making sure that I can post a page up, sir. I have been composing for many years and two of my professional albums are selling in four countries around the world - Escape and Bluebird. The latter has an amazing UK West End cast including people from BBC TV programmes and Ramin Karimloo who is in the New Andrew Lloyd Webber Musical - he is big news. It is sold on Amazon and Itunes. I have also had songs played on national BBC radio and performed in conerts in London. I have also had my works performed around the country and won am Award 'cheshire Theatre Guild Award' for a production with musical content. I also have a fab page on Facebook and had 36,000 people view my website when it lauched last year. Bluebird was also a best seller at the Dress Cricle shop in london, which is the biggest Musical Theatre shop in the world. Reviews have appear in publications around the globe (such as Musical Stage and The Stage). I hope this qualifys for a wiki page about myself. Do you agree???? I was asked to complie it by fans who wanted to know some more about me, and it's something they can update also. So please, please help me set up a page so i make sure I can keep it from getting deleted. ANY help is greatly appriciated. Best wishes, Gareth Broadwayschool (talk) 12:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

uppp me again, sorry. Am I also able to get my data back also??? hear from you soon, G Broadwayschool (talk) 12:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gareth. Did you read WP:COMPOSER/WP:MUSIC? I'm struggling to see which element(s) of the notability criteria you meet or where the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources is to be found. With regard to your fans wanting to know something about you isn't that what your website is for? - especially as much of the text in the Wikipedia article was lifted from there anyway....... One of the most common mistakes for newcomers is creating an encyclopaedia article about themselves. Your user page however is a perfect place to write about yourself; just click your user name at the top of the screen and edit to your heart's content, but please, no copyright violations.

Normally I am happy to allow editors to have copies of deleted articles, however there are some exceptions and one of those is where the original was a copyright violation so I'm afraid the text cannot be restored, even to your userspace but no harm as you've got most of it on your website anyway. Nancy ^talk 15:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Chronicle of Higher Education story

Hi Nancy, I'm writing a story about the WikiProject "Wikipedia Saves Public Art," and I'm told that you've edited some of the public art pages from Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis students.

I wanted to know: How do you decide what stays and what goes? How prominent does an artist have to be to warrant a Wikipedia entry? Or does the piece just need to have some significance to the people in its community? Do temporary installations get to stay on Wikipedia forever? Millermh (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Replied Nancy ^talk 10:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Nancy, thanks for your willingness to help with this story! Jgmikulay (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

help me publish a musician information

Please help me publish a musician information. "Sheryar Nizar" —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShawnAiminsight (talk • contribs) 03:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Please help publish musician article

please help publish musician article after review. Thanks

Sheryar Nizar (born April 13, 1984) is a Pakistani blues music artist who gained fame after 2008, where he gained the attention of Karachi audience through a show name Live Chords on Radio FM 105 where he was called Shery The Strawberry. Sheryar made his debut release of "Ek Umeed (one hope)" the first single from his 2006 album Manzil (Destination) . He has also composed songs for an international non government organizations RESULTS in coordination with his closest jazz musical collaborator Kara Stewart who lives in Los Angeles, California. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.119.177.253 (talk) 03:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Personal Attack

Hi Nancy, can you please mediate, between me and this, user. He seems to be under the impression that because I am from the same race as him, that I shold forgo the WP:NPOV policy we have here. Also see the conversation on my page. I really can't believe in the 21st Century people have such views. Thanks--Sikh-History 07:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Harmandir Sahib

Hi Nancy, can you intervene here. This user keeps deleting refrences and reverting esits on Harmandir Sahib. Thanks--Sikh-History 09:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

He was blocked last night for 31 hours. Hopefully he will edit more constructively when the block expires. Nancy ^talk 11:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Wood's Monument (West Point) DYK

Thanks for your feedback. It's been a while for me at DYK. I expanded the article (with the help of Rvelse) to meet the 1500 standard now.  Ahodges7   ^talk 00:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thames

Hi Nancy - nice to see some work on the ratings. I am finding it now quite useful to dip in and pick up on something that needs attention. I was wondering about importance ratings. We have been adding quite a lot of fairly peripheral stuff into low from ??? which makes it now quite a large group, whereas our high group has only around thirty articles. Given we are stuck, I presume, with three levels, I can see a case for moving everything that is Thames specific up a notch so that there is a more even spread, and so that small islands, footbridges and trib streams are distinguished from pubs, docks adjacent public parks etc. One for the proj page perhaps but I though i'd bouce it off you? Happy cruising Motmit (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Replied Nancy ^talk 16:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Ramzi

Hello Nancy,

I was wondering if you could let me start the Ramzi disambig page.

I doubt the previous incarnations of the article could be considered encyclopedic, but

of course my prepared page is more than noteworthy.

Sevgi Remzi (talk) 22:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I have looked through your contributions and on the basis of the quality of your other new name disambiguation pages I have unprotected Ramzi for you. Kind regards, Nancy ^talk 08:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The Quigley

Why was this article sent to redirect without the chance for expansion as a separate article or opportunity for discussion? It looks very out of place in the OCS article as a separate piece. Just a quick note in the Officer Candidates School (United States Marine Corps)#training section (as currently written) is all the Quigley should have with further detail in a separate article. Thanks FieldMarine (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It has no independent notability and makes no sense outside of the wider OCS/training context. I guess the options are keep as a redirect or send to AFD on the grounds of failing to meet the WP:GNG. Nancy ^talk 13:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

My point is there could have been discussion on this topic before simply cut & pasted into the main article where it looks awkward. There are other choices then the two options you metioned above, such as broadening the scope of the article to detail the various leadership training mechanisms of OCS, which in sum are unique & notable. Again, my point is the discussion part to gain different ideas, which strenthens wikipedia in the end. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 13:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I formally request returning The Quigley article back to its original form & allowing the chance for discussion prior to the move. I believe there is good opportunity for dialogue here with potential for improvement of the subject. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you've just proved my point - the article you propose is not about a drainpipe full of muddy water (which is hardly unique as there is one on pretty much every obstacle/assault course worth its salt) but rather the wider training program. Nancy ^talk 16:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, that is why I request the article to be reinstated to its original form so that there could be discussion about how to improve the treatment of the subject. One course could be to move (change name) of The Quigley article to a new name that captures broader coverage of leadership development programs or just the series of ones used at OCS. Perhaps in the end, this could all be captured in the OCS article…I’m not sure, but there should be an opportunity for the community to discuss the issue & gain consensus before going forward. So again, I request that “The Quigley” article be reinstated to allow the opportunity for this discussion. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the best way to approach this would be to expand the training section in the OCS article. It should be obvious if/when it gets to a point where a split off to a separate "training program" article is necessary. Nancy ^talk 16:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Now we’re getting into possible options to improve treatment of the subject, which should be on the discussion page in advance with consensus by the community & that is why I request for it to be reinstated. I saw this done effectively on a different occasion here with another admin on this discussion page. Consensus was achieved & good progress was made. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk)

Wouldn't the right place for this be Talk:Officer Candidates School (United States Marine Corps)? Nancy ^talk 16:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Until the community decides that it should be merged, the info should stay with the original article. At least that is my understanding of how merging is usually done. At this point, we’re not sure if it will be merged, expanded or renamed. That should be decided after the community discussion and consensus. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the best way to approach this would be to expand the training section in the OCS article. It should be obvious if/when it gets to a point where a split off to a separate "training program" article is necessary. Nancy ^talk 06:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

RE:Altered speedy deletion rationale: Smitherday

Thank you for the notice, sorry my tag was really wrong MaenK.A._Talk 14:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Saves Public Art

Hi Nancy! As you know from being included in the Chronicle of Higher Education article, (very exciting), WSPA is getting a lot more press coverage and attention lately, with page views on my Process, Template, and Style Guide going up continually. Jenny & Richard will be presenting our project page at WikiMedia@MW2010 next week and we will be having our own conference locally the following Monday April 19th. I want to make sure there are no major snafus before the Wikipedian and museum elite of the world (quite literally) see it in all its glory. Your help is greatly appreciated! HstryQT (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm so sorry I completely forgot to follow up on your last post (been mired in a copyvio case which has consumed way too much of my energy lately]]. Anyway, thanks for the gentle prod...... I have looked through you your pages and do have some comments, all from a very Wikipedia perspective as you'd expect. Please don't see this as too negative - I am aware that it might seem that way as for expediency I have only listed the things I think you should change but be assured I am also aware of the huge amount of time and effort you have put in to all this

• Process

1. I have big concerns that so much of this is actually nothing to do with Wikipedia. There is a strong case to be made that WSPA is using Wikipedia as a webhost to co-ordinate/promote a lot of off-Wiki activity including encouraging the uploading images of artwork to Flickr. To quote from the policy "If you are interested in using the wiki technology for a collaborative effort on something else, even if it is just a single page, there are many free and commercial sites that provide wiki hosting. You can also install wiki software on your server. See the Wiki Science wikibook for information on doing this. Scratchpad Wiki Labs also allows personal wikis. See also Wikipedia:Alternative outlets."
2. This is Wikipedia. The preferred image repository should be either Commons for PD images or en-Wikipedia for fair use. Not Flickr.
3. With regard to the above the final section makes no mention of the copyright issues surrounding Freedom of Panorama legislation in the US (which equally applies to images uploaded to Flickr) and the attendant fair use implications on Wikipedia. This is an serious omission.
4. There is no mention of the subject needing to meet the general notability guideline
5. Interviewing the artist is original research. It needs to be made clear that such material cannot be used on Wikipedia. Feeds in also to point 1 - it can't be used on-Wiki so one has to question why a Wiki page is suggesting that people do it

• Template & Style Guide

1. As with the process page there is no mention of freedom of panorama limitations on photographs
2. When discussing disambiguation it would be helpful to mention the use of hatnotes.
3. The Wikiproject Visual Arts style guide has been accepted by the community as part of Wikipedia's manual of style. You should make sure that nothing in your template conflicts with it, e.g. naming and disambiguation conventions. In fact I am not sure why WSPA needs a separate style guide at all.... have you considered just transcluding WP:VAMOS in to your page? - seems like a practical & maintenance-free option which would ensure that new WSPA articles will always comply with the current MOS. All the WSPA specific stuff about infoboxes, co-ords etc would better sit on the template page anyway
4. Naming convention. I'd probably not encourage the use of (sculpture) as a DAB. Much better to go straight to the artist name as this will promote more consistency, particularly where several works share a name e.g. more helpful in category listings to have Plump Lady (ArtistA) and Plump Lady (ArtistB) than Plump Lady (sculpture) and Plump Lady (ArtistB)

Please don't see this as too negative - I am aware that it might seem that way as for expediency I have only listed the things I think you should change but be assured I am also aware of the huge amount of time and effort you have put in to all this. Best, Nancy ^talk 10:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to look through everything. Your comments are especially helpful so that we're not caught off guard if these issues were to arise at the conference. We're going to begin working through each of your points and addressing the issues. We want to continue to work within the parameters and expectations of Wikipedia and make this as collaborative as possible, so your feedback is extremely helpful as we pursue that goal. Thank you again for your time, Nancy! HstryQT (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

for keeping vandals off my talk page :-) Anna Lincoln 11:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello Nancy

Dear Nancy,

Hello I am Joshua, I like to continue Jeanilyn Murcia to be one of the Wikipedia... And not to be deleted.. I like to restore her please.. Please Accept Jeanilyn Murcia to be one of the Wikipedia. Thank You for your cooperation.

I hope your Kindly Consideration..

The User: Joshua Murcia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuamurcia (talk • contribs) 11:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Joshua. Unfortunately I can see no evidence at all that your sister has got anywhere near meeting our notability requirements yet and I am quite sure that any new article would be speedily deleted. Kind regards, Nancy ^talk 12:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Hassaan19

Could you remind Hassaan19 again of the comittments they made when you unblocked them for creating articles about non-notable contestants on reality tv shows? They have just created an article for Chloe Hickinbottom - who has not even appeared on Britain's Got Talent yet - and are contesting speedy deletion with the rationale "I understand she isn't notable yet since we know little about her, but she has been appearing in the news a lot and the news reporters have been describing how her audition went. If she becomes a sensation after her audition aires tomorrow night, then yes, we can keep it, and I created this article beforehand in case". Thanks! I42 (talk) 17:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi I42, sorry for delay, I've been away for a few days. I left a final warning. I suspect that with the start of a new series of BGT starting last night the temptation will be too great but let's hope he keeps a lid on it otherwise he will be blocked, at least until BGT 2010 is but a distant memory. Nancy ^talk 04:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks! I don't want to see this user blocked and I am a bit more hopeful that your well-placed word will have the right effect. I42 (talk) 07:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I was wrong. Sigh. Please see this. I42 (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks! I42 (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes I take no pleasure in being proved right. This is one of those times. I have blocked him for two months. :( Nancy ^talk 07:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Nancy. You have new messages at Talk:List of canals in France.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ITCompanies.com.au

Hi Nancy

i note that the ITCompanies.com.au was deleted some time ago (quite reasonably I suspect due to blatant advertising). My problem is that in researching the history of the internet in Australia the references would be quite handy to access, for instance the names of Australian dot com startups (all of which have now pretty much evaporated) and the sites which embraced hi speed internet and went bankrupt as a consequence (most people were on 33.6 modems at the time and couldn't log into the purchase page without a 1/2 hr download wait (a lot like boo.com) ).

My question: is there a record of that original page ITCompanies.com.au ? Perhaps there needs to be a history of Australian web companies page... Certainly for an examination of the sociological impact of the the internet on Australian culture this would be a handy thing.

Hmm, not sure that I'm actually asking a question (as such), but I'd like your thoughts on what I've written.

Regards

Lawrence

Hi Lawrence, I'm sure that there is an excellent encyclopaedic article to be written on the history of internet companies in Australia. Unfortunately the deleted text is unlikely to be much use in that endeavour..... there was only one version, here it is in all its spammy glory:

AustralianIT Companies Directory

SEO Friendly ITCompanies.com.au is a human editedpremier spam free Australian IT Companies Directory.

Feature links are useful, If you have new site and want toadd in search engine within 24 hours, this might be the perfect deal for you Google bot is hitting us every day, over 200times a day. Same with other crawl robots from search engines like Yahoo, MSN,Altavista, Ask, Search and many more. If you purchase a featured link, you willappear on our first page, leaving enough time for all of these, on top withGoogle, to index your pages in less then 24 hours. Alexa will snap your site,so will others. You will get known on web in less then a day.

ITCompanies.com.au is a great resource for onlineentrepreneurs that are in search of a quality IT Company Directory in Australia

Sorry I couldn't be more helpful, kindest regards, Nancy ^talk 07:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Page Deletion

Dear Nancy

You deleted my page under the following explanation: G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Monaco-International-Clubbing-Show/101943472565?v=info

Copyright infringment from a Facebook page that I created? The Monaco International Clubbing Show is an event and am therefore obviously using the exact same description.

Please restore my page as soon as possible.

Regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanmcnamara (talk • contribs) 13:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Alanmcnamara. Two problems here, firstly we only have your word that you wrote the text (which on a web-page with a clear copyright notice) and secondly, even if it were not a copy of another page the text would still be deleted as promotional. Think about it, it's copied from a Facebook group designed to promote the event so is about as far from being encyclopaedic as it could be. Nancy ^talk 13:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh, I see you decided to take matters into your own hands. Nancy ^talk 13:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

For future reference, we have a inclusion guideline based on notability, you can find it at WP:GNG. Regardless of whether the article was rewritten in an encyclopaedic tone it is clear that the event does not meet our notability standards - hardly surprising for something which hasn't even happened yet. Nancy ^talk 13:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Further, a general rule of thumb is that you should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability - all edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. If the achievements, etc. of your event, are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about it sooner or later. Kind regards, Nancy ^talk 13:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

How can you distinguish promotion to information in the case of a article describing an event? Promoting an event would underline incentives, which clearly wasn't the case. The article was very far from done. I was currently re-writing it but you don't seem as the patient type of person. Instead of helping, which you should be doing, you're simply repeatedly clicking on the delete button. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanmcnamara (talk • contribs) 13:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You've now blocked the page. Can you please restore access to it? I find this behavior a bit extreme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanmcnamara (talk • contribs) 14:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Alan, the best way to proceed from here is for you to create a draft of the proposed article in your user space - e.g. at User:Alanmcnamara/Sandbox. When you have finished and are confident that the article meets the inclusion criteria you can ask me (or another admin) to review it and if it is compliant then I (or another admin) will move it back in to mainspace. I should point out again though that it is pretty unlikely that the event will meet our notability requirements at this moment & perhaps you should consider directing your marketing effort elsewhere. Kind regards, Nancy ^talk 14:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Occlupanid

Hi Nancy, I added occlupanid as another term for bread clip for the following reasons: the word and its definition were featured on NPR's Says You! during the "guess the correct definition from these 3 choices" segment this week (unfortunately no link to prove that yet), wikipedia was already linking occlupanid to breadclip, and the inventor's wikipedia page was already citing the same link. I'll leave it to you to determine whether to add it back or to purge the other instances of the word from wikipedia. I re-added the link to the inventor's page that you deleted. I see no reason why his name should not be linked.

ECOLIG

Dear Nancy, I do not understand the reasons for the ECOLIG page has been deleted. It is a great contribution and by the way recognized by IEEE, for example. Please let me know what steps to follow to get it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.77.120.161 (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what article you are talking about. ECOLIG has never existed and there is nothing in your deleted contributions to give me a clue either. Sorry, you'll need to be more specific if you want me to be able to help you. Nancy ^talk 16:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecolig —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.77.120.161 (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, you need to be careful with capitalisation as article titles are case sensitive. With regard to your original query, the answer is in the link you provided - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecolig Nancy ^talk 06:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Nancy, sincerely I am very disappointed with the Wikipedia in this matter. The efforts to keep it updated with a high quality free contribution can not be done due a confused content management, in my opinion. Anyway thanks for your attention and support. I will not keep working with Wikipedia from now on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.77.120.161 (talk) 06:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.77.75.34 (talk)

Why did you delete Nasty Party

I do not understand why Nasty Party was deleted it had sources to support the article .[4],[5],[6] Dwanyewest (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no time for the Tories IRL but source or no source it was an attack page and was not neutral, accentuated by the timing. In addition we already have a page on the Conservative Party and if this monicker is notable it should be noted there. Nancy ^talk 06:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

HMNZS Hawea

Hi Nancy, I saw the page move for HMNZS Hawea (2007) to HMNZS Hawea (P3571), and normally you're right, dab by pennant number. However in this case, the pennant numbers have been reused between different vessels, and WP:NC-SHIP says:

"It should be noted that European navies reuse pennant numbers, so ships of the same name may have the same pennant numbers; the second and third Sir Galahad, for example. So you may need to use the launch date to disambiguate these."

So the article title was following the naming convention, but got moved to an ambiguous title. I'd like to ask this move and the others (HMNZS Rotoiti, HMNZS Pukaki, HMNZS Taupo) to be reversed please. XLerate (talk) 22:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Really sorry about this - the moves were requested by User:Saberwyn who asserted that they were "non-controversial" [7], it appears that this was not the case..... I will reverse the moves. Kind regards, Nancy ^talk 07:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

On investigation, I was in error, and apologise for the troubles. -- saberwyn 11:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem, everyone was acting in good faith and it was easy to undo - no harm done. Nancy ^talk 11:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Personal Attacks

Hi Nancy. Please could you speak to this editor. I am trying to get him to fully reference and make encyclopedic the article Jatt Sikh. Quite frankly, the article was junk until me and a couple of editors made it fairly encyclopaedic, so I am concerned that it may revert to a nonsense article again. Intervention would be much appreciated as he seems to be pretty hostile to whetever is proposed. He is already nearing a final warning on Personal attacks. I have overlooked his personal attacks in the past. Thanks--Sikh-History 19:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nancy, please can you intervene as I have issued a final warning here Thanks --Sikh-History 14:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review

Hi, Nancy. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 7, where I have started a deletion review for Nasty Party, because User:Dwanyewest seemed to be requesting review and in need of technical help to do it.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Nancy/Archive 15, You left a message on my talk page:

(briefly) not deleting Annette Lewis Phinazee

My reply:

ok, it did match it when I flagged it so it must of been improved, but thanks for letting me know.

_{If you can not see your message anymore, I have probally archived it.}