If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~
Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist and topic subscriptions to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.
The Aeron page does nothing but promote it. Look all im doing is adding content, which bits do you want me to remove. I have a few chairs i want to add (such as the enjoy, the brant, the nefil, the liberty, freedom, contessa and mirra). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.119.7 (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not considering other articles, I'm looking at this one. The fact that other poor articles exist isn't a reason for yet another. Wikipedia reflects notability, it doesn't confer it, and this article doesn't demonstrate any notability. It is also seriously unbalanced. It isn't an impartial account of the chair, it is a puff piece, talking it up. Mayalld (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Barbara Allen (singer)
I'm sorry, my friend! I did not mean to attack you in person. I'm sure you are a very friendly and gentle individual. I meant to attack the notability tagging which I thought was unfair. I still think that the article met the notability guidelines.
The sources did address the subject directly in detail and no original research was needed to extract the content.
The sources was reliable since I appended two references from at least one online encyclopedia.
Notability tagging means that I am not satisfied that article has proved by means of the references provided that the subject is notable. It makes no value judgement as to whether the subject is, or is not notable. It just says there is more work to be done here. In cases where I am convinced that the subject is not notable, I would immediately tag for deletion.
As things stand now,the article has been deleted, not on the grounds of notability, but because you, as the only substantial author, blanked it. If you believe that notability can be established, then we can ask the deleting admin to restore it. Mayalld (talk) 09:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I posted a new article. It had five links to daily newspapers. HYou obviously deleted it without even looking at it.Elan26 (talk) 12:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]
or, you could just take down the PROD. the error, as I have written, was that I typed reference where I ought to have typed reflist. So the references did not appear. Therefore , you auto-deleted it. Simple mistake, easy to correct without making a lot of other people spend time reading the article.Elan26 (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]
I don't know what a bot is, authorized or un-. What I do know is taht I posted a simple article about a ntoable blog, I posted the footnotes wrong, and it got a delete message pasted on it instantly. If you had read it, you would have seen that there were many footnotes and, perhaps, corrected my mistyping that made the many footnotes fail to appear under References. I assume that your posting of this delete tag was in some way automatic, becaue nobody can read that fast. I was not using automatic as a term of art, merely as an assumption by a non-technical person that things that hapen instantly are done by automotons of some sort not by persons.Elan26 (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Elan[reply]
Stop being a bully
I wrote you a note. I admit that I was annoyed to see a DELETE tag posted atop an article the instant I posted it. Okay. You didn't DELETE it you proposed it for instant deletion. I speak English, not Wikiese. So I wrote delete, not , well whatever the Wiki-speak work is, because the notice that appeared instantly read Delete. Then I wrote you a note asking you to take down the PROD. There, I'm learning to speak Wiki. Now you are threatening me with blocking? Are you serious? Is this the way Wikipedia works?Elan26 (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]
Perhaps
You could simply merge the little article I wrote into the Education Week page instead of writing angry messages on my talk page.Elan26 (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]
That is a matter for the Wikipedia Community over the next 5 days. I note, however that you are continuing to make accusations about my behaviour on the AfD page. Please accept that you broke the rules by making unfounded allegations. You have two ways forward from here;
Continue to make a fuss about it, and accuse me of bullying on account of my having legitimately warned you that your personal attacks were not allowed, and risk a block.
Move on. Leave the AfD to run its course, cut it out with the accusations and assumptions of bad faith, and delete the warnings from your talk page, and nobody will care about it by next week.
Hi. Just wondering if it may not be best to keep the "gentleman"'s comments on the AfD so the record is maintained of their actions for future people in case the whole thing pops up again. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You where wrong when you deleted my article HOWEVER i was wrong when i edited your page with a threat, well i am sorry for editing with a threat but you should not have binned by valid article Jamez21 (talk) 11:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SO COLD
what give you the right to decide when my article is good enough to go on or not i read through ur stupid guidelines and then read them again. i didnt violate anything... so go get a life...
I was thinking that, instead of updating every SI unit article, we could put apart, as in, the SI System table wouldn't be updated and the extended system table would not include the original table. please tell me what you think.Caleb Levi Burns (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mayalld,
Nice article. Just two minor problems, you've given two references by name and date only (and page no), e.g. Owen (1984); but what is "Owen"?.Pyrotec (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, a fair bit is ported from the MSC article, and I still need to do some reference cleaning. I'll fix it this week. Mayalld (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SMS College Brahmavara
Please dont delete SMS College Brahmavara, article, i'm the one who got permission from Our collage to put the info from the website to wikipedia. ThanksNAvin Shetty Brahmavar 08:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Ma timi bina Marihaalchhu
Please donot delete it i have got permission from the director of this movie to make a wiki for it so please donot delete it. Thanks (NepaliBoy7 (talk) 09:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)).[reply]
It is still only sourced from primary sources, and still does nothing more than regurgitate the claims of its creators as to how wonderful it is. Totally unencyclopedic. Mayalld (talk) 12:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed your speedy deletion tag, the speedy deletion is not entirely justified. "Chair throwing" gets 116,000 hits on Google, and there are well-known chair throwing incidents (performed by Steve Ballmer, Bob Knight, among other people as well). This article also contains a history section, and still I'm not entirely sure how this article meets the critera for speedy deletion. You also reverted 4 of my edits and identified them as vandalism, obviously this is not a clear case of vandalism and shouldn't have been reverted with such a vague edit summary. Thank you. Officeworld (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would apreciate your revisiting Mahaul Theek Hai. Using informations and sources brought forward at the Afd, I corrected the article format and added sources to show its notability. While it still needs work, I am hoping you might advise what else I may do. Thank you, Schmidt (talk) 03:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IPEXL Search.
I don't feel that page meets the criteria for speedy deletion, and I also intend to fix it. And since I didn't create the page, I'm perfectly entitled to remove the speedy. Have a nice day. 203.194.16.90 (talk) 12:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I am perfectly within my rights to remove the speedy tag. If you insist on reverting it, I shall have to complain to an administrator. 203.194.16.90 (talk) 12:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you appear to be indulging in drive-by !votes to keep on several AfDs that I have been involved in implies that you have an agenda here, and are voting on AfDs to make a WP:POINT. No matter, I won't revert again. Off to AfD it goes.
You created the AFD for Willard C. Butcher? This is not my first time as editor, I am not sure why you cannot see my previous edits. I shall have to recreate "IPEXL Search" later. 203.194.16.90 (talk) 12:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I found it interesting that you decided to !vote on another random AfD after !voting on two that I had created. I shall await the recreation of IPEXL Search with interest. Mayalld (talk) 12:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A perusal of your edits seems to indicate that almost of them are related to Afds, speedy deletions or warnings to users about deletions. Therefore, I find your statement that you are not keen on deletions to be rather dubious. 203.194.16.90 (talk) 12:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I commented on this AfD earlier, and I saw your discussion on the AfD with another editor. I have to be honest, and I've tried to assume good faith, but it looks like we are being trolled by a few editors. The claims of racism and the "holier-than-thou" attitude, plus the rather clever names leads me to think this is simply a bit of trolling. Just thought I'd advise you on it. Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied on the AfD page but I suggest you read WP:ATHLETE and WP:CRIN. This man played two first-class cricket matches which means he is a notable sportsman. The fact that the article is currently a stub, pending further information, is entirely within the terms of WP:STUB. I would add that the article does not quote "one single source" but two and they are both impeccable. In future, if you have any doubts about a cricket article, write to WT:CRIC first. We in WP:CRIC have had to deal with numerous attempts like this one to delete our articles and we have never lost one yet because first-class players meet the terms of WP:Notability. BlackJack | talk page15:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, the impecable sources contain absolutely zero information about the person, and it is far from clear that this was a "first class" match. As far as I can determine, both sources are merely reporting the fact that the name "Page" appears on a scorecard. They both regurgitate the same original source. Mayalld (talk) 16:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CricketArchive lists the two games as major matches and that is the equivalent of the later first-class classification. There is another source Stumpsite which classifies both of Page's games as first-class, though it doesn't discuss individual players. Page is named on this ACS page which is a summary of Samuel Britcher's work (I suppose that source should be in the article). It is true that little is known of Page but this is the case with many early players because they didn't receive the same media attention as the current lot do. But it doesn't matter. The fact is that he played in two first-class matches and therefore he passes WP:CRIN and WP:Athlete. As such, any reader interested in early cricket should be able to look him up and see what is known about him. Besides, there is always the possibility that new data will come to light. BlackJack | talk page16:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. That impressed me. I think you have adminlike qualities and think you're not far off being ready to be nominated for adminship. Are you interested? I'd suggest as a first step that you list yourself at WP:ER, if you haven't already. If you are interested, my first glance at your contrib history suggests I'd be prepared to nominate you in the not too distant future. --Dweller (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! For the next couple of months, I am going to be rather busy (getting married), but after that, I would be interested in running for Adminship. Mayalld (talk) 06:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, since it's a title, the c should be capital, but in the intro, it is generalized and should be small. There, now I have made a decision. I hope you're fine with that :) ~ Troy (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you have added a NPOV tag to the Dollar Sweets dispute article I have just published, without outlining which parts you consider do not conform to the NPOV guideline. I assure you that I considered both the employer and union viewpoints and the general ramifications for industrial relations in the article and tried to write the article from a NPOV. Can you please outline your concerns either on my talk page or the article's talk page? Thanks. --Takver (talk) 06:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I just got a message saying you requested my user subpage be speedily deleted. I was told in order to create the article eventually I could create a subpage and edit it as necessary until it was ready to be proposed as an article on Wikipedia. Would please explain to me why you have requested a speedy deletion? Ahf1286 (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is that in a user subpage, you are free from the threat of deletion for such things as not having sources. That doesn't mean that you can simply recreate the blatant advert. Start with a blank page, and add content, without creating an advert. Better still, leave it to somebody without a conflict of interest to write about the company. Mayalld (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you should not just assume that someone has a conflict of interest and automatically request that what they write should have a speedy deletion. And how can I fix the article so that it will not qualify for your speedy deletion. I think instead of just tagging it, you can suggest how it can be changed, which is what I'm trying to do. I added it as a subpage so that I could make the proper edits that I needed on wikipedia. This was the suggestion I was given. There are also other pages on wikipedia wih the same type information that do not have any problems. I just feel like I would like to have someone explain what is wrong with that I have written. Ahf1286 (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I withdraw the assumption that you have a conflict of interest.
You need to write the article as a neutral observer, with information that both favours and criticises the subject. The article as it stands is not a good starting point, as any resulting article will inevitably be an advert tweaked to make it less of an advert. Start with a blank canvas, read some of the wikipedia policy pages and advice, then start afresh with the article. Mayalld (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have looked at other articles about companies such as this, like alibaba which only gives information on the company, and does not include criticism towards the company. I do not understand why I could not follow that same type format. I am trying to take out any sentences that may sound even remotely advert to you or another wikipedia editor, but I do not see why providing just facts about the company would not work. Ahf1286 (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that other articles have issues is not a valid argument for allowing another problematic article. We can't deal with all the problems today, and some articles come under the microscope before others. Anyway, I will back off on this article for a week to give you chance to fix it. If it is still fundamentally the same after a week, I'll put it up at MfD. If it is rewritten to be neutral, the problem will have vanished. Mayalld (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I am not saying that these other articles have issues, I'm merely stating that there are other articles only state company information and do not seem to have this problem.If all these other articles are allowed to be on wikipedia with information and not favoring or criticizing the company, than why not this one. Ahf1286 (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look at what I've been doing to revamp the article to make it less advertisement like? I have changed the wording of a few things and taken some stuff out. I figured, since you were the one who qualified the article twice for speedy deletion I would see what you thought. So here is it: User:Ahf1286/B2X article
Thank you. Ahf1286 (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for making a report about JebusHchrist (talk·contribs) at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. Unfortunately, your report has been removed due to the username not violating policy, or not being blatant enough for a block. Please remember you should only post infringements on this page if they are so serious that the user needs to be blocked immediately. Others should be discussed with the user in question first, for example using the {{Uw-username}} template. A request for comment can be filed if the user disagrees that their name is against the username policy, or has continued to edit after you have expressed your concern. Thank you. Is he back? (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. Clearly we take a different view of things. I find usernames which would be regarded as blasphemous, or which are deliberately intended to be close to blasphemous (regardless of the religion that the name attacks), highly offensive, and believe that they should have no place on Wikipedia. That is, however, only my own view, and clearly it is not one which others share.Mayalld (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody seems to be paying attention to what I'm actually trying to do at navigation keys. I'm attempting to merge several articles without removing the originals so I don't screw up the AfD process. Please see the AfD on WASD keys, and please don't leave any condescending "welcome to Wikipedia" messages. I know the drill here. Haikupoet (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's late here and I'm rubbish at these. Please could you double check everything is ok with how your AfD debate is formed, as the link at the top of the article to its AfD is still a red link and doesn't link to the debate, even though the debate page exists? I approve of this AfD:) StickyParkin03:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Mayalld. You have new messages at Rspeer's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You're wasting your life Mayalld
Spending all of your time deleting articles. Destroying what other people have created. Have you ever actually started an article or contributed anything of substance beyond deletion nominations? Tick tick tick. 203.194.15.78 (talk) 10:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TBH, I am confused myself now. I cannot for the life of me remember what I thought the link said in TW when I used it, but it clearly wasn't what I thought it said. Severe brain fade on my part there. Mayalld (talk) 06:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Review Page
So I asked you this already when I asked you about my B2X subpage before, but since you never responded I thought I would ask it again under a new heading. Since you were so adamant about having my B2X article and subpage deleted, I wanted you to see if there was any sort of advertising that you felt was blatant. I do not think there is, but then again I didn't think it did before either so I thought another opinion would work. The link is in my last post. Please let me know what you think. Ahf1286 (talk) 13:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the article stands, it isn't ready for somebody to spend time reviewing it. You need to read WP:MOS and get the referencing right. That means having inline citations linked to a references section, so we can see which resource supports which article text. Doing it with a Resources section that doesn't tell you which source supports what is not the right way. Mayalld (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats fine, and I wasn't finished with everything yet. All I was asking from you was to tell me if you thought it was blatant advertising anymore or not. Also, there are other pages that do not have citations within their article. I could give examples if you wanted. It's not that I think those sites are wrong or should be deleted as well, just that as they are accepted that why I don't see why this one would create such a big deal. Ahf1286 (talk) 14:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, at a 10 second glance (which is all its getting until it has proper citations), it still looks VERY like advertising. The article takes great pains to tell you in great detail about all the things this comapany does, and an entirely un-needed list of execs, but doesn't discuss the company at all, and is written entirely from the POV of the company. The article has to be written from teh viewpoint of an outsider, rather than from the viewpoint of the editor of the company annual report. Mayalld (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
well I'm not sure what you were looking at considering the article I have right now is about 10 sentences long and does not seem to go to "great pains", as you say, to go into detail about all the things B2X does. I'm really not sure what an outsider would write besides what the company does. I truly think you need to get off your high horse for a second and try and realize that I was looking for suggestions on things to add, not constant negative. And as for the citations, like I said before there are other sites with the same types I have, I changed the name to external links because I realized resources might not be the best word. There are other sites that only have a list of external sources and nothing else. But since you seem to refuse to help me, but would not hesitate to just delete anything (and everything) you see, I will just ask others one wikipedia Ahf1286 (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You keep coming back to what is in other articles. Put it aside, because it isn't relevant. The fact that other articles may have more faults is not going to make a blind bit of difference to THIS article, any more than telling a police officer that others are exceeding the limit more than you will get you off a ticket.
You want to know what to add. Add proper inline citations, instead of the links that you have at present. But remove the pointless list of executives, and trim the article down more. Mayalld (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like I stated before, i'm not saying other articles may have more faults, I jsut don't understand why this article is treated differently than all the others, as though you are personally attacking it for some reason. That being said I can remove the list of executives (although I do not find it pointless, but anyone who has knowledge of a business world wouldn't either) I will instead leave the three most important ones in the sidebar i have created. Coming back around to the actual point of what I asked in the first place, I don't see what you feel needs "triming". You seem to have extremely strong feelings towards this article being an advertisement, but still have failed to offer any reasons as to why you think so. Ahf1286 (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It just comes down to luck of the draw. Some articles wait around for months before anybody decides to deal with the problems, some don't. By chance, I alighted upon this article, and will follow it through to either an acceptable article, or deletion. I usually follow about 5 articles at any one time, and stick with them until they are no longer a problem, before finding another article. Mayalld (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, and I also would like to see it through, hopefully to inclusion. I really don't mean for it to have any advertising. I have rewritten it again. I understand how adamant you are about the citations, even though there are so many other sites with worse citations than what I have (they all have a banner on the top saying the citations are not proper, which I do not see why could not go on mine as well for now), but I would like to make the article neutral first. Ahf1286 (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the map template down the article, and inserted a line in the template to collapse all of it - I experimented with collapsing only segments but as it has 3 arms, it doesn't quite work. I've asked around to see if anyone can make it work better. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Deletion of HMPP
Hello, Can you explain me why you proposed HMPP for Deletion?
I'm kind of newbee here and I didn't get why.
Thank you
Certainly. Wikipedia only allows articles for notable subjects (click the link for information about notability in this context), and that notability can be verified from reliable sources.
It may well be an information web site, but the article on there carries the by-line by François Bodin, Chief Technical Officer, CAPS , so whether you regard it as a press release or not, the site is merely regurgitating content from the company. The fact that a company writes about itself is NOT going to make it notable. Mayalld (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what else to tell you. This HMPP directive set as some big chance of being part of OpenMP 3.0. Look at the article about OpenMP you will see that this is a tool used by many people.
You may not know that tool but some people are using it. Mainly scientists use it for HPC.
Now I don't know what is the procedure to go back to a not marked for deletion article.
But I hope you will help me to do so.
There isn't some magic process! If you can show that this is a notable subject (by providing independent sources), the deletion will be rejected by an admin. If not, it will be deleted. Mayalld (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And what do you mean by providing independent sources? Find someone how knows HMPP better than you do? HMPP is a new way of thinking heterogeneous multi-core programming. So unless you work in that area you will never use it. But what mean a notable subject? A subject that everyone can understand? In that case HMPP article is not needed, neither OpenMP one. I just don't understand how you can say if it's notable or not. I thought an encyclopedia was here to share knowledge. That's what I'm doing here. For me people able to say if an article is notable or not is close to censorship. Sorry to use that word but I think we are not far from that. The references I will have are thesis available in some university but no on line link because usually users have a NDA and are not allowed to publish about their applications (could be nuclear, military, defense code). I hope that will help you to understand in what kind of area that tool is used and why you can't find a lot of information about it.
So know if you can help me one way or another to find some notable content for that article I will be glad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebenworld (talk • contribs) 15:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right at the top of this conversation, I provided you withlinks to our notability, verifiability and Reliable sources policy pages. Call it censorship if you wish, but the policy is that unless there are independent sources (which need not be online) that somebody can go to to attest to the notability and acuracy of the article, it doesn't belong here. Mayalld (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help anyway, I will try to find some articles about HMPP, and the references to the tesis.
How long this article will stay? If I can't provide those information? I will do my best but I'm on holidays tognight.
Talk to you soon
--Lebenworld (talk) 07:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I'm back... And I worked on the references of HMPP. I moved the old content of References into Publications. And I added some references which I hope you will find more accurate.
Thank you--Lebenworld (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that it does absolutely nothing to convince me that this is notable.
Instead of referencing the companies own website, you have added a "publications" section. This is just a set of external links, and as such is wrongly titled (perWP:MOS) and contains excessive links to the company website (per WP:EL
None of the references have inline citations which show which part of the content they purport to provide verifiability to
Half the references don't actually mention the product
Of the references that do mention the product, one is a blog, an inherently NOT a reliable source. The other is a powerpoint slide pack on an ftp server whose status is impossible to determine.
I'm afraid to say so but it looks like you didn't spent much time to study the links.
The section Publication doesn't contains any link to the company but to a notable website in the HPC world call HPCWire.
Automatic Parallelization for Graphics Processing Units in JikesRVM is a thesis explaining that HMPP is related to the GPGPU world. As RapidMind is.
Workshop on General Purpose Processing on Graphics Processing Units is a highly recognized workshop for science reviews. (HMPP is mentioned in the program)
Data Transfer Optimization in Scientific Applications for GPU based Acceleration is the HMPP problematics and it as been proved to work during that event.
Lead, Follow. or... Blog is a well known blog in HPC world.
A tag has been placed on Association of Nene River Clubs requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
Hello, can you please explain the reason for the proposed deletion. I'm sure they do not include notability or lack of references. Thank you. Dr.K. (talk) 15:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage of the trial that the new article will provide when fully developed will be much more extensive than what curently exists at the main article. This was a complex and notorious case. It cannot be fully covered within the junta article. Dr.K. (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. I would like to inform you that the article has now been expanded manyfold and I think that it fulfills your volume requirement. In addition the consensus at its AFD page is rather clear. I would like to make the DYK deadline if possible and I wonder if you would agree to close this AFD nomination early so that the DYK candidacy of the article can proceed. Thank you. Dr.K. (talk) 03:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for applying to access the account creation tool. I have approved your request. You may now access the tool here. Before you do so, please read the tool's guide to familiarize yourself with the process. You may also want to join #wikipedia-en-accounts on irc and/or the mailing list. Keep in mind that the ACC tool is a powerful program, and misuse may result in your access being suspended by a tool administrator. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions. Thank you for participating in the account creation process. —— RyanLupin • (talk)21:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see definition #5 given @ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wicket for dictionary.com or, more clearly, definition #3 at the same page but under the American Heritage Dictionary section: "A sluice gate for regulating the amount of water in a millrace or canal or for emptying a lock. "
Thanks for the definition. I still don't think that it belongs in the header of the section though. Paddle is by far the most term worldwide by a wide margin, and there are other terms (Slacker and Clough spring to mind) which are more widely used than wicket. All should have a mention in the article, just not in the header! Mayalld (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. I added it back before your response (clarifying this seems to be an American term, although I wonder if it may be archaic), but I agreed before you even pointed it out, that it looked silly in the header. You seem to know a lot about canals. I live in Lowell, Massachusetts, which, depending if the comparison is canals or textile mills, has been called the Birmingham and the Manchester of America respectively :-) I think that it is interesting the in the UK, canals were mostly about transportation, whereas in New England, although they did serve that purpose, we used them primarily for water power. It seems the reason is that New England is both not a coal rich area, and our Industrial Revolution didn't really take hold until about 1820, which was very close to the dawn of railroads. CSZero (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
infobox canal
Hi, once again thanks for creating this - I just wanted to ask, does the template need to be embedded into each article, or is it possible, like the waterways maps, to create a separate page (for instance, Template:Bridgewater Canal infobox) and use {{Bridgewater Canal infobox}} instead? Silly question I know but I'd rather ask than just go ahead and create a page that someone later has to delete. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In general, templates that are only used on one article are frowned upon. The maps are a very borderline case that we "get away with" because they include a lot of code. I suspect that trying to transclude the infoboxes as {{Bridgewater Canal infobox}} would end up with people proposing their deletion! Mayalld (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to create it, but it wouldn't create due to too similar to User:Helenes. As that account has no edits and was created over a year ago, the account was clearly appropriate to create, but not possible for me. User:TravisTX was able to create because he is an admin, and can override the too similar stuff. Mayalld (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The tool doesn't always identify all the usernames which might conflict. It seems to use a different algorithm to the main site. Hopefully, before too long Account Creators will get the ability to override as well as admins. Mayalld (talk) 10:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sock-puppet report
Thanks for noting. I'm still wondering how to report user who has just created a name but let the page go empty. The user exists and is actively pursuing edit wars and propaganda on wikipedia, I'm just not sure how to check such pages IP for sock-puppetry. You can help me by fixing that report, I also left a message for admin who earlier removed that report. This time I thought to add more information (like mentioning that the user exits, just the user pages have no text) but seems like its still not in appropriate form. --Roadahead (talk) 23:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice
Hi,
As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.
We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.
You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.
We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!
I'd like to discuss the deletion of the STAR Group page (been on holiday, did not respond in time). I can't say that I found any blatant advertising about it. I did take care in making it encyclopedic. I understand that not every company in the world needs to be listed on Wikipedia, but since I have been making a few additions lately regarding the translation industry, I thought it strange that such a major player in the industry was not mentioned. Especially when I see that it's competitors are allowed to have a similar wiki page. What would I need to do in order to meet your standards for such a page? (And yes, for the record I used to work for them once.) --Daha6439 --Daha6439 (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no recollection of the article. If you could get an admin to restore it to your user space temporarily, I might be able to comment Mayalld (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G12 speedy of Puerto Del Rey Marina
You tagged [:Puerto Del Rey Marina]] for copyvio from epa.gov. Work of the U.S. federal government is in the public domain unless stated otherwise. Puerto del Rey is a major marina in the Caribbean and I am working to clean this one up. I've taken the speedy tag off. • Gene93k (talk) 10:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MBB FAC page
Gah, you are quite correct. Well spotted, I shall unscore that entry and work on it. It doesn't help when the people you email for sources don't reply :/ There are only two anyway, I'm sure I can replace them both with other references. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I notice you've picked up the WP:MEDCAB on this article. They listed it on WP:3 also and I picked it up from there. You could still be really helpful in the final stages of the negotiation. It's almost complete, but there's a snag with the final layout. Perhaps you could take a look? We are going to reconvene tomorrow. Fr33kmantalkAPW03:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW: I see that you're keeping an eye out, thanks! Could I also ask you to actively critique my performance as an WP:3O or perhaps even from the standpoint of a potential informal mediator? I greatly value feedback and have just started doing this sort of task on Wikipedia (finding mainspace less interesting for some reason). I'll leave you with links to my 3O's so far and you can review those also if you wish. I'd really value another opinion. Thanks! :-) Fr33kmantalkAPW22:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see you closed the case. It was my first time "mediating" on Wikipedia so if you'd like to say how I did, I'd appreciate it, if not; no worries. Thanks! :-) Fr33kmantalkAPW21:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no problem with the archive. The link is dead, but nobody cares about the link. You editing here is becoming extremely disruptive. Please stop. Mayalld (talk) 13:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an admin, so I cannot delete. In any case, the page contains much useful information in its history about the antics of that user. Mayalld (talk) 12:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message, although "(diff)(hist)User talk:Gb; 13:31(+251) Mayalld(Talk | contribs | block) (→Wikinger/CBMIBM: new section)" is, with no disrespect to you, a line I hoped never to see in my Watchlist! I'll have a look through the contributions and see what I reckon. GbT/c13:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was certainly a blast from the past! I'm going to be a bit busy over the next month (getting married), but I think I may run for admin in late October. Mayalld (talk) 13:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done for 1 week. You might like to add a link to a scratchpad (see my talk page as an example) - that way non-vandal new users and IPs can still message you. Remember to add the scratchpad to your watchlist, though. GbT/c15:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.
I reverted your edits for two reasons, both noted in the edit summary;
The tables did NOT look good. There were spurious extra columns.
The tables were very badly coded. Unless there is some compelling reason to use html markup, you should use the syntax at Help:Table rather than html markup
Your comment You work together against me. is a blatant assumption of bad faith. I am not in league with anybody against you. I am trying to ensure that the article is improved, and I see one editor (you) having a temper tantrum, and flinging WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF out of the window on any occasion where somebody disagrees with your edits. Mayalld (talk) 14:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now I correct the tables in the right from. I know the right form from other tables here.
I hope, it's clear and you can read the cast from UpStairsDownstairs better.
The problem is that you STILL got it wrong. You ended up with a bodged table with a narrow blank column down the side, and some poor English in the body. Please, until you understand tables properly, restrict your use of them to the sandbox Mayalld (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope, it's allright now. I made a lot of tables here, without the help from a sandbox. But I know, what I sandbox is.
I have proposed it for deletion because it isn't notable. You appear to on some kind of crusade to include every single tin-pot beauty pageant in Nepal. Mayalld (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mayalld. Why do you think NORD74 may be a sockpuppet?
New account, but obviously experienced editor
Similar interests, in terms of obscure French Actors
Several edits to articles last edited by AlexLevyOne before his block
Same tactic of blanking his talk page without comment
There isn't one single thing that screams "sock", but there is a build up of little things that seem too big a series of co-incidences (although I freely concede that they may not be obvious if you haven't dealt with him before.
Remove my comment? Then you should remove his, too. You clearly stated no response to each other, he pretended not to realize that (typical of his style). It should be removed or my comment should be reinstated. Even playing field, no? Prince of Canada t | c21:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How should I deal with this sort of nonsense? Quite apart from the fact that both he and G2 clearly have a personal issue/vendetta against me (one notices nobody else singled out in Gavin's archives, and only one in G2's--someone he also has a personal issue/vendetta with), how on earth does an editor get away with "compiling for possible future use"? How is that not an incredible breach of AGF? Prince of Canada t | c22:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G2baminbo will use the mediation to stall. After an agreement is reached, it will be ignored and PrinceOfCanada will be faced with the same frustration. --Lawe (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is, of course, a possibility. However, in agreeing to act as mediator, I intend to assume good faith on both sides of this dispute. If either goes back on an agreement later, there isn't much I can do about it. Mayalld (talk) 14:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a big assumption, but I stick by it. Clearly we haven't reached agreement (and we may not do so), but I don't equate that to any lack of good faith. Mayalld (talk) 09:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your efforts, Mayalld; as you seem to be aware of, more good than bad came out of the exercise. Much more, I'd say. Have a happy, internet-free homeymoon, and hopefully you won't be completely absent from any future proceedings about this matter of images. --G2bambino (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, a good deal of credit is due to both of you for the way that you stopped bashing each other and engaged. I really hope that you can yet find some kind of compromise where you each give just a little more, and I hope that your fellow editors will be able to help find that compromise. Good luck! Mayalld (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Speedy deletion of STAR group; article recreated
One of the editors helped me restore the article to my personal pages. Please take a look and let me know what else needs to be done to fit the guidelines for inclusion and notability. I ask you to please refer to this article to see a similar article. --Daha6439 (talk) 12:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, referring to another article isn't relevant (the other article should be deleted in any case). The decision as to whether an article is appropriate for Wikipedia is made by reference to guidelines and policies, not by comparing to other articles.
I guess you're right, the article does not meet the criteria you refer to, and neither did the other article I guess, since it was deleted. Not that many independent sources on the web (that is not translator's blogs, forums and magazines), so I'll see if I can locate any other printed sources and return to the subject someday. STAR and SDL are among the biggest translation companies in the world, and their respective CAT tools form two different industry standards since they have different approaches to recycling. I think the subjects should somehow be covered in Wikipedia, but I have yet to figure out how to write articles with content verifiable by anyone who has not been in the localization business. --Daha6439 (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He destory my work again. I put the links to the dates in the articles for example about Princess Helena (daugther from Queen Victoria), but he remove them. Thats very rude.
Whilst you are clearly upset that your work has been undone, Wikipedia policy is clear that the dates should NOT be linked.
You clearly think that it looks better with them linked.
The fact that people can't always agree on what looks best is the main reason that WP:MOS exists. Where there is a disagreement about what is best, WP:MOS settles the argument.
Sorry, but User:UpDown is correct. The links are contrary to the manual of style, and should be removed. It is unfortunate that you spent time putting them in but we don't work on the basis that if somebody put a lot of effort into getting it wrong it gets left alone.
You really need to calm down, and stop flinging abuse and accusations about.
I'm quite confused as to what's going on here. Despite saying he wanted nothing more to do with this User:45Factoid44 appears to either intentionally or unintentionally using other accounts to comment and spread word about the MedCab. He responded using his previous IP address, 96.5.66.240, (without accepting or rejecting the rules) and violated your rule about responding to other comments and far exceeded the 30 word limit. And I notice he has been going around to people who agreed with him during the debate lobbying them to respond, re-signing his posts as User:Harvyk. Also, how is he able to quote sources from 2004, when the airline hadn't even been launched yet? NcSchu(Talk)17:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a few issues there!
To be fair, you comment in that section also exceeded 30 characters. In the circumstances, I have decided not to be too pedantic about the 30 character limit (but if we start getting diatribes...)
I cannot be certain that 96.5.66.240 is 45Factoid44. If you think he is, and you believe that he is using a good/bad hand here, WP:SSP is the way to go. I have invited him to disclose whether he is in fact a named participant.
I have now struck out a number of comments for commenting on others, and for being second comments contrary to the rules.
Whilst I expect those whe are named in the medcab to explicitly sign before commenting, I am prepared for other interested parties who were not named to participate without signing. I will still hold them to the rules.
I will monitor the lobbying. It isn't a major issue, because this is a mediation, not a vote, and I am unmoved by force of numbers over policy.
Whilst I understand your frustration, it would be better if you left laying down the law to me!!
Sorry, I did try to keep down my comment as much as possible, but it was a bit difficult. I also didn't see that you put 'one comment'. As to possible sock-puppetry. It was just an observation that when 45Factoid44 registered he claimed that he used to edit as 96.5.66.240 as you can see in Talk:Virgin America ("45Factoid44 (talk) 19:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Previously < 96.5.66.240 (talk) >"). Now, yes, it's an IP address, but I just find it unlikely that two members of the same school district would have very similar interests in editing airline articles. When I was investigating that I noticed that seven minutes after 96.5.66.240 made a comment on somebody's talk page, 45Factoid44 re-signed the comment as Harvyk, which was odd. NcSchu(Talk)13:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that this being a shared IP Address, I am not the user noted above but rather someone else at the institution who owns it that frankly doesn't even know the user and noticed this in the contribution history. Since that user has withdrawn and the commentary on the talk page showed that there was only one side of the dispute involved in the mediation based on the poll they took, I decided I had an interest in getting involved. However, if that is not allowed because I am not a named party I would understand. Could I become an involved party? Is there someway you could make me an addition to the list? Just in one swoop I think I have found better sources to represent the other side of the argument than those who were before. Of course, I included theres too though as that can't hurt right? 96.5.66.240 (talk) 14:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for making a report about JebusHchrist (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. Unfortunately, your report has been removed due to the username not violating policy, or not being blatant enough for a block. Please remember you should only post infringements on this page if they are so serious that the user needs to be blocked immediately. Others should be discussed with the user in question first, for example using the {{Uw-username}} template. A request for comment can be filed if the user disagrees that their name is against the username policy, or has continued to edit after you have expressed your concern. Thank you. Is he back? (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
