This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
I would say generally yes, as long as others haven't made substantial edits to the article. Of course, other editors would be free to post the same article if they felt it belonged, and it could be then listed for AfD all over again. -- But|seriously|folks 04:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Clarification: Once you have nominated an article for WP:MFD, you should just let the process run its course. My point was that if it's fairly obvious that the page should be removed, as in this case, you can use ((subst:prod|Reason to delete)), just as you can do with articles. When to use "prod" is at your discretion. Shalom Hello 16:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the help on my recent post. I have made the changes you suggested. My intention is not to advertise, I just wanted to inform people about this job site. I'm going to continue to try to make improvements to the article. Thanks for your help. -mharr066- 20:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
You did make sense...I was replying to Zephraud, not you. Sorry if you thought I was >_<--Zxcvbnm 21:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Why would you put merged articles into a category? They're better off on a list, since they're not actually articles. Plus, Pichu was in the main Pokemon category. But for other categories, it would make sense since the rest of the characters have articles.--Zxcvbnm 02:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Hold on, vandalism? I just wished to add the Katakana for Darkrai to match the rest of the Pokemon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yoshi Of A Down (talk • contribs).
This notice is to inform you that because many people have added their names to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon#Participants but do not seem to be active, all names are being deleted in an effort to find out who is still truly interested in the project. All you have to do is re-add your name if you'd still like to be considered a member of WP:POKE. Any questions, you can contact me on my talk page. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 17:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the page should be deleted so I removed the tag. How the heck is that vandalism? I did nothing wrong and you can put the tag back on. Don't do crazy over nothing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.128.226.107 (talk • contribs).
Hello! As I have run into you/worked with you on Wikipedia, I was wondering if you would be willing to comment in my editor review. I know you are probably busy with other contributions to the project, but I would greatly appreciate any comments or criticism that you have that could make me a better editor! Thanks very much for your time and consideration, bwowen talk•contribs•review me please! 13:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I deleted it based on no assertion of notability and the prior AfD. I guess we'll just hvae to watch it until it is appropriately sourceable (if ever). Thanks! -- But|seriously|folks 17:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, WP:AFD says in really tiny text that maybe ought to be bigger: "If the article has been nominated for deletion before, use ((subst:afdx)) instead of ((subst:afd1)). See Template Talk:afdx. This does not include articles that have only had the ((prod)) tag removed." And then on the third step it says to use "PageName (2nd nomination)" instead of just "PageName". I believe this is the proper convention. -- Renesis (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I dunno, people get a little more latitude on their userpages -- tag it for speedy del. if you want and I'll let someone else make the call on that one. NawlinWiki 01:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I like the lists - it can be very useful to have a quick summary. I just don't see why we can't have both lists and articles, especially for the major characters and well-written articles, of which Bulbasaur is one. I do agree that many characters won't merit an article, but Bulbasaur certainly isn't in this group. Kind regards, —Celestianpower háblame 22:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
IrishGuy talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding ((subst:Smile)) to their talk page with a friendly message.
IrishGuy talk 22:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page! Took me a while to figure out who it was that did it before I realized I had reverted one of his edits. Thanks again! Deflagro Contribs/Talk 03:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for agreeing to review me, and for being thorough with your research before responding! I really appreciate it! Best regards, bwowen talk•contribs•review me please! 12:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello WarthogDemon, You placed a notability tag on Onvia 2 minutes after the article was created. I just wanted to remind you that all articles start as stubs, and to have a little patience -- if the article's not improved in a day or three, then tag. In the meantime, the article when you tagged it asserted notability (174 employees and publicly traded!) and you didn't even wait to see if the original author was in the middle of editing (which they were). In other words, patience is a virtue for all editors, including new page patrollers :) For the record, I have nothing to do with this article or this editor; I just noticed it on linking from something else. And yes, I have been involved with Wikipedia for some time, and leaving articles about non-notable companies up too long hasn't been our downfall yet :) best, -- phoebe/(talk) 16:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The deleted article was rescued and moved to Wikia, http://www.wikia.com/wiki/c:Filmguide:Zeitgeist , so can you put out the word to the Zeitgeist warriors, so they can stop trying to slip it into Wikipedia? It has been deemed inappropriate for WP, but it is welcome on Wikia. - Crockspot 19:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
"Google videos hardly reach the requirements of "notable documentaries." -WarthogDemon 19:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)"
I would like to know what I can do to correct the page for Zina Goldrich ? I have added footnotes and changed some words. A Talk Page editor suggested I ask you since you posted to COI tag. Thanks. 209.11.94.2 20:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Good catch! I've blocked the editor indefinitely, since all of his/her edits were copyvios. Cheers. -- Merope 22:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the prod indicdates my uncertainity of the article. It's a special case. Usually I tag and then prod if the admin declines. Sometimes when I've done both at once the admin declines the speedy because of the prod tag. In this case, I was lazy and did both at the same time. hbdragon88 23:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
im sorryGogetit1232123 18:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- - gogetit1232123 just told me the Earthdemon wdhat happened and sence i told him to get people to know me more i apologize for his bhaver and i ask u to help me make that page. i just made this account so i could say this but ya so please help my Youtube address is www.youtube.com/earthdemonEarthdemon 18:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Seemed reasonable to me, the titles and areas were very similar as were the usernames. Good call. LessHeard vanU 21:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
FYI, I've done a complete rewrite of the article at Hindustan Movement and deleted the copyvio version. I still have concerns about notability; it needs a citation to back up the Yahoo Internet Life award for it to meet WP:WEB. —C.Fred (talk) 01:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
didn't realised that had happened, i had followed the link from the user's sig on Talk:Abd-al-Aziz ibn Abd-Allah ibn Baaz [30]. thanks again! ITAQALLAH 01:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Please put back the page I just wrote on Lonely Forest, I noted in their talk page why they are "notable." Matt510 03:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Lilly Arbor Project. I do not think that Lilly Arbor Project fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because this was not in fact a copyvio. While it relied on a single source, i could not find any text actuly copied from that source. Rather all text was rewritten/paraphrased.DES (talk) 05:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Here's my two cents (and it might be worth asking others, as I am not an expert in such matters) it's not original research to say something exists simply because it doesn't have an online cite. For instance, the plots and other details of movies, particularly obscure ones, often can't be online-cited -- but they do exist, and anyone with access to the DVD or whatever can discover them. I know that for many obscure albums, folks have transcribed data directly off the records themselves. That's not original research. Also I've worked on some articles in which the original sources were either books, or in a foreign language. Again, that's kosher. I think original research in the context of a music video would be things like personal interpretations of the video's meaning or guesses as to the reasoning the band might have chosen to make such a video, etc. Also, plenty of things are unsourced on Wikipedia. It only really matters when it is challenged. For instance the article Lampshade provides no sources asserting that lampshades exist, or that they are used as described. If challenged, someone would have to provide sources, but it's highly unlikely that it will be challenged, as these are not controversial assertions. As for your second question, I'm not sure I totally understand. Do you want to create an article about the single and link the video? Or link the video to the article about the album/artist? Dina 18:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)