User talk:Reillyd
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Dave Reilly (comedian)
Hi. I'm building a list of all the David Reilly's of the world, and noticed you'd deleted one of mine. I'm fairly new, and not sure of everything, but what was wrong with it?
- As can be seen in my deletion summary, the article consisted only of the words "Dave Reilly is a comedian in the United States." Merely having a job does not qualify a person for an article on Wikipedia, and the article didn't say anything else about him. For more, see WP:CSD#A7 and WP:BIO. —Cryptic 12:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fluid depravation test
Maybe a problem. Depravation definition is : Moral perversion; impairment of virtue and moral principles --ArmadilloFromHell 05:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] License tagging for Image:ClaireLekaPublicityPhoto.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:ClaireLekaPublicityPhoto.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Claire Leka
This is fixed for now. The problem was the way of fixing second refernce. It would be better in future if you put your message at the bottom of the talk page and write the article's name to avoid confusion. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 09:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mother I'd Like To Fuck
You have recently re-created the article Mother I'd Like To Fuck, which was deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policies. Please do not re-create the article. If you disagree with the article's deletion, you may ask for a deletion review. - Glen 14:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] re: your Content Review request
I am going to close your request as "declined" in accordance with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mother I'd Like To Fuck. The core issues raised in the AFD discussion were not about sourcing but about the lack of encyclopedic (as opposed to lexical) content. Reviewing the version immediately prior to deletion, I concur with that assessment. Your page was primarily about the meaning, origins and usage of the phrase (including some examples). The AFD participants concluded that there was no reasonable possibility of expansion past lexical content.
I would encourage you to instead expand the Wiktionary entry, wikt:MILF. If you need the text temporarily restored in order to tranwiki the content, please contact me directly and we'll find a way to move the content without infringing on the AFD decision. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 14:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- As a regular editor, you can't view the deleted content. (If everyone could, it would sort of defeat the purpose of having deleted it.) Administrators have the ability to review and undelete content as necessary.
- My recommendation is that you create a userpage on Wiktionary. Most of us use the same aliases that we picked for Wikipedia (or vice versa). When you're ready, I'll copy/paste the last version of the Wikipedia page to a sub-page of your Wiktionary account so that you can use it to work on the Wiktionary entry. I'll leave a note on your Wiktionary user-talk page explaining where. Hope that helps. Rossami (talk) 04:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Posted to your Wiktionary account. Be sure to read up on their inclusion standards too.
- And thanks for your patience. The vast majority of editors here really do want to make the best possible encyclopedia (and dictionary at Wiktionary). Unfortunately, we are a real target for vandals and others who think that "my little joke won't hurt anything". The volunteers who spend a lot of time on the anti-vandalism patrols see an awful lot of bad stuff. Losing your temper and developing a habit of being curt is an occupational hazard. Please be patient with them. And remember the lesson as you get more experienced and start helping out on the vandalism patrol...
- By the way, I'm going to take the liberty of adding a cross-wiki link on your userpage to your other account. Happy editing. Rossami (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] edit comments
It's very helpful for users with a lot of pages on their watchlist for editors to leave edit comments when they change a page. In the case of vandalism, there is frequently not an edit comment. So I generally check each and every edit without a comment (and of course, many with). You could save me a few seconds each time by simply saying "request for foo" in the edit comment. Thanks, ... aa:talk 08:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] re: Help on a deletion review
It's never too late to open a deletion review but I'm not sure that you'd get a different result. If you do open a deletion review discussion, I'm guessing that a significant number of participants would offer the opinion that "we have no obligation to keep it just because Wiktionary didn't want it."
I'm not sure that I'm going to be much help to you because there may not be a way out in this case. Each project defines its own inclusion criteria and scope. Wikipedia has explicitly decided not to be a dictionary and pushes all "lexical" material over to Wiktionary. Likewise, Wiktionary pushes all "encyclopedic" content back to Wikipedia. Some content is ambiguous and the two projects get to set their own definitions of those terms. There is no guarantee that we agree with each other on the other's scope or expectations.
Having said that, I'll also note that the reversal on Wiktionary appears to have been the opinion of one editor who made a regular edit on the article's page. I don't see evidence that this went through any formal deletion discussion on Wiktionary. That one person offered some suggestions for the article on your Wiktionary user Talk page. Those recommendations appear balanced to me but I don't know if there was some other conversation you had that I can't see.
You could also perhaps seek the opinion of some other experienced Wiktionarians. I do some work on Wiktionary but not enough to consider myself really experienced. Sorry. Rossami (talk) 00:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Palm Beach Currumbin Clinic
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. An article you recently created, Palm Beach Currumbin Clinic, has been tagged for speedy deletion because its content is clearly written to promote a company, product, or service. This article may have been deleted by the time you see this message. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertising service. Thank you. Davidprior 14:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Please see comments below, Cheers, Davidprior 00:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Help David! (copy from other talk page)
You posted on my talk page that you were going to delete one of my articles, and haven't replied. Is it worth expanding the article or are you just going to nuke it. Reillyd 10:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- The short answer: it shall not be deleted
- The long answer: I am not an administrator, and so if I feel a page dhould be deleted, I mark it as such (and leave a comment on the creator's talk page). An administrator would then do the actual deletion. This act as a good check & balance, as it means a second pair of eyes are cast over it meaning thay if a user's been too hasty (as I was in this case), it will not be deleted.
- Finally: appologies, firstly for the hastiness I mentioned above, and secondly for not replying sooner - I believe another user had commented on my talk to respond to your original comments, and I therefore didn't bother replying. If there was a wiki form of beer, I'd buy you a pint!.
- I'll put this on both my talk page and yours. Cheers, Davidprior 00:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Uncategorised Kremzeek
I take your point, a Cat:fictional energy beings created by mad scientists would seem a little... specialised (though it wouldn't be the narrowest category ever created on Wikipedia). What about simply putting the article in Cat:transformers characters? I'm not 100% sure if there's a more specific category that would apply. To get rid of the message, just delete the {{uncategorised}} line from the article -- but please add some category when you do so. Any more problems, please feel free to ask. Alai 15:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
