User talk:Valrith

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello Valrith! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, ask me on my talk page, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. And remember, no question is "stupid"; if you have anything, absolutely anything that you'd like to know, feel free to drop on by and leave me a message! :D Happy Editing!
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical

GeorgeMoney ☺ (talk) ☺ (Help Desk) ☺ (Reference Desk) ☺ (Help Channel) 23:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy delete placement

Please place speedy delete, prod, and other delete tags on the TOP of articles, especially redirects so that they are visible. Thanks! --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 18:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] yurik/r

Please do not delete sub-pages under yurik - i am using them for testing interwiki bot. Thank you. --Yurik 20:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CSD Criteria

Hi, thanks for the note. As I'm sure you are aware, the thing with the CSD criteria for notability is that it is about asserting notability rather than the person actually being notable. The criteria also says that "only those articles where there is no remotely plausible assertion of notability should be considered". In this case, I felt that the statement about him creating concept and production cars for Nissan, and about developing the relationship between Nissan and Airstream meant that there is at least a "remotely plausible assertion of notability". As such, if we follow the criteria, I'd say that it should really be PRODed or sent to AfD. Hope that clarifies my thinking, and I'd be keen to hear any more thoughts you have on this. Cheers TigerShark 22:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Ok, I'd never seen the 'no remotely plausible' clause before. That's significantly more restrictive than I thought... Valrith 22:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Acoustic_Guitars_(band)

Hello... are you monitoring the discussion? Might you consider withdrawing your nom so we can speedy keep the article? PT (s-s-s-s) 22:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion

I noticed that you tagged the page Cadboro Bay for speedy deletion with the reason "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". However, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" is not currently one of our criteria for speedy deletion, so I have removed the speedy deletion tag. You can use Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if you still want the article to be deleted. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 23:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] C. Kumar N. Patel

Hi. Would you please revisit C. Kumar N. Patel, and see whether the NPOV tag you placed there is still appropriate? Please either delete the tag, or leave a note on the talk page so other editors know what your concern is. Thanks.--Srleffler 06:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ellen Perry Berkeley

You tagged the article Ellen Perry Berkeley for speedy deletion. I just wanted to let you know that I was able to compile a list of her books at the Library of Congress using the catalog at http://catalog.loc.gov , and find some other information on Google, so that I could expand the article and assert notability. Could you please takle a look at the article and make any further changes that seem appropriate? In general, if someone is identified as a writer but the article seems to be speediable, a quick check at the Library of Congress or at Amazon for the person's books may allow you to either expand the article or (if nothing notable is found) to continue with the speedy-delete process. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gideon Dreyfuss

You tagged the Gideon Dreyfuss article for speedy deletion. I was able to find some additional information. I think that, if an article states that its subject is a professor, then that statement is an assetion of notability, and the article is not eligible for speedy deletion. It may still be eligible for prod or afd, but often a bit of research will find enough evidence that the person is notable. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gillian Elisa

Isaw that you marked Gillian Elisa for prod. Please do not mark an article for prod without doing a Google search first. I was able to expand the article with the assistance of a quick Google search. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 18:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shame

on you for prodding Alexander Vvedensky, a famous Russian pre-WWII poet. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Clearly I know nothing about Russian poetry. However, I still don't see any evidence of the article satisfying WP:BIO... Valrith 20:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] D C Killingsworth

Hi, I noticed that you marked Killingsworth's article as CSD A7. Thanks for your input, but I don't think that this is appropriate; the article states that he was an officer in the Civil War and made a significant contribution to the battle of Antietam and others. This is certainly an assertion of notability. If you think he is not notable enough to qualify, then please nominate the article for AfD and have the discussion. I'm not convinced that this should be deleted at all, but no way is this a speedy. --- Deville (Talk) 21:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please be careful when creating categories

Please be careful when creating categories to ensure that you are not creating a duplicate (such as your Category:People from New Zealand). Wikipedia has tens of thousands of categories and unless the one you want is very specialised it will almost certainly exist already. Hawkestone 09:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok. What do you feel Category:People from New Zealand is a duplicate of? Valrith 20:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Category:New Zealand people. Punkmorten 21:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed prod for Cynthia Koh

Hello. I removed the proposed deletion tag for this article; she seems to more than pass WP:BIO and the Wikipedia criteria for actresses, having appeared in multiple notable stage and television productions in Singapore, as well as being nominated for major television awards in the company. I have also added a link to her IMDB entry. Crystallina 14:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, which one of these criteria does she meet?
  1. Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers (ie - Hollywood Walk of Fame)
  2. Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by:
    1. Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers
    2. A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following
    3. An independent biography
    4. Name recognition
    5. Commercial endorsements
  3. The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)
I don't see that any of these applies... Valrith 15:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
2, clearly. She has appeared in notable television shows in Singapore - see the wikilinks in the article - and has been nominated for awards for said television shows - see Star Awards. This, I believe, qualifies as name recognition and large fan base. Crystallina 15:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confederation of Hackers

Some time ago you proposed the deletion of Confederation of Hackers. It's now being put to an AfD vote. Anton Mravcek 17:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aquanodd labs

aquanodd labs.........keep it

Please do not delete aquanodd labs article..as it is an article which abides by the rules of wik. It is also an article which is greately need to spread the word of these great artists involved in this project..thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.70.141.22 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

  • greatly needed. That's a good one. Valrith 01:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suzi Digby

Hi -- just wanted to let you know I made substantial adds to the Suzi Digby article and have removed your prod. Take a look and if you think it still needs more work let me know. --Bookgrrl 02:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • You're right, it's looking better. The article still needs sourcing. I'm still not sure she meets the notability requirements, but I'll take a wait-and-see approach... Valrith 19:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enigma Software Group

Valrith. OK you are correct again. I will leave them. However this is unfair because these comments and votes were made with only half of the information available. And they failed to say what rules of WP:CORP the article was breaking. There haven't been any comments since I have answered your questions and put other links.

My main concern with those comments is they had nothing to do with the rules for deletion that Wikipedia has set forth here WP:CORP. Read the comments again. Please tell me how they apply.

You flagged the article for deletion under WP:CORP. I produced the proof that it does not, I feel that we qualify under the first criteria you disagree.....fine. How do we get a real consensus on this issue

Also, it bothers me because I feel like our company is being unfairly targetted. Can you enlighten me as to why pages like this PC_Tools can exist and yet our company is considered not to be important? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Enigmasoftwaregroup (talk • contribs) 21:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

  • My theory about PC_Tools is that it exists because noone has gotten around to nominating it for deletion. If you feel the article doesn't meet the notability requirements, you can nominate it to be deleted. If you marshal your arguments well and enough people agree, the article goes away.
  • As to getting a consensus on your article, I think we're getting there. Valrith 01:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Gilbert's Corner

Sorry, I thought that the nobility tag was a proposed deletion. They look quite similar. T REXspeak 00:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Janice Neuberger

I've removed your speedy deletion notice from the Janice Neuberger article, since the article clearly does assert notability. I'd suggest you might want to use AfD instead. Best, Gwernol 14:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marie St. Fleur

Hey there. You recently tagged the above article as needing citations. I had fleshed it out to save it from Afd -- I've now gone back and sourced it (I believe) properly. Can you go take a look and either give me some feedback on the way I sourced it or, if you're comfortable with the job I've done, remove the tag? I'd remove it myself, but I'd prefer a second opinion. Cheers Dina 19:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi. Looks great to me. I'd still like to see a reference for the 'personal life and education' section, but I think the unsourced tag is no longer warranted generally, so I've removed it. I also modified the referenced articles so that each only shows up once in the 'references' section. Valrith 01:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks. I'll check your changes to see how it's done. I should be able to reference the personal life and education section better -- I want to find an article about when she was first elected, it should contain all that info, but most are about the recent controversy. Thanks Dina 02:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cargoitalia

i believe i have met every criteria for this article. yes, it is not stock full of info, but the company is young. i am not advertising, i think this is as unbias as it gets. there are other airline pages that are just as short. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varig_Logistica so, if there are any other issues, comment on my page Urban909

you still have YET TO GIVE AN EXPLANATION FOR DELETION. give tips, hints or whatever else is needed to keep this article open. i have NEVER had this much problem creating a page. WRITE BACK! Urban909


[edit] sigh

I think some people think us wikipedia editors just arrived fresh from the pod..

--Charlesknight 21:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Beare

Sorry sir,

What would be your grounds for the deletion of this article? I have cleaned it up exstensively since it was forst nominated for deletion, and intend to do more. AlenWatters 00:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ZIM Debate

Sorry for being a jerk. I'm clearly new to wikipedia. Educate me. Don't you think that instead of deleting the article, it just needs to be rewritten in a more passive way? ZIM really is legit, it's just that it's not big on the internet and the article posted seems like an advertisement. I've tried to clean up the deletion debate page a little bit, and I think it will bring the debate back to order and fairness. Check out what I did. From: ZX2C4.

[edit] removal of warnign

I read it, and I didn't want it on my talk page so I removed it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zx2c4 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Gee, wonder why... Valrith 20:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I join the chourus of voices pleading with Valrith to stop his storm of destruction

I think for the first step for determing if a page should exist is getting the name right. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alpharigel (talk • contribs) 17:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

  • If you're going to whine, you ought to at least give an indication of what you're whining about. Valrith 20:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your thoughts on the Dayton Mall article

This user MidCenturyMod has the ip number of 65.xxx.xxxx. This user has reverted the article for the Dayton Mall once again. But this time, I am not going through the trouble of reverting it or cleaning up editing errors. I'm only leaving the decision in your hands if you think that this article should be edited or reverted. You will see the link located below here. Thanks. LILVOKA 14:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm fairly ambivalent. I see good points in both versions of the article, but with no sources cited, I don't see a way to choose between them... Valrith 19:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your tags of The Anchro Blue Clothing Comapny

As the article does cite sources and it is notable company and the required changes were made, the tags are removed. If this tag removal war lingers on, you can nominate the article for afd. Thank you. --Marriedtofilm 20:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Removal of youtube links

Can you please explain what's inappropriate with my posting of youtube links in Wikipedia? I don't see a reason why you have to remove those links considering there are lots of articles with links to youtube music videos, shows etc. Pszx 20:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

  • See the style guideline for external links, with attention to the sections on links normally to be avoided and rich media. Valrith 21:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion

You tagged Con-Dom as speedy for patent nonsense but the article is not unsalvageableably incoherent or meaningless information. It has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Con-Dom T REXspeak 01:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • It seemed so to me. Valrith 12:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy criteria

Hello, please review the criteria for speedy deletion at WP:SPEEDY before tagging articles. You have tagged some for speedy deletion because of being non-notable - that is not a reason. If the article asserts notability, it cannot be speedied. You have to use WP:PROD or other. Thanks! --Aguerriero (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Some people seem to have an awfully thin definition of 'asserting notability'. Valrith 00:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Arrojo

I think my newest edits satisfy the notability requirements for a bio, wouldn't you agree? Mapetite526 20:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corey Beaulieu (Trivium)

Hey Valrith, I rejigged your nom to make the redirect issue a little clearer, hope that's cool. Deizio talk 19:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Yep, that's cool. Valrith 20:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American is a nationality, but not an ethnicity.

I reverted your edits to Lightspeed Media Corporation. The Ethnicity slot in the Female adult bio templates is not for nationality, but rather for ethnic group or at least race. Caucasian is a race, American is a nationality (proudly including many races). AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I've always regarded 'American' as both an ethnicity and a nationality, especially considering the muddled nature of 'Caucasian'. But whatever... Valrith 22:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disadvantaged

An editor has disputed the prod of Disadvantaged on the talk page. I've de-proded it on their behalf (and removed my prod2) QuiteUnusual 15:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I saw that. I'm leaving it alone for now, but if it stays in its current state for long, it's going to AfD... Valrith 20:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Unit 4 2 Speedy Deletion Tag

Your placement of a speedy deletion tag was without merit on a band that had a two week #1 hit. Your stupulation that it did "not assert the importance or significance of the subject" is a direct contradiction the article line "was a British band which had a #1 hit." I have removed the tag.

You should be reminded that criteria for WP:CSD states that "only those articles where there is no remotely plausible assertion of notability should be considered". Please don't tag articles for Speedy Deletion that don't fit the crieteria for it. Thank you. --Marriedtofilm 23:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation (re: Fiona Mont)

I see that you have completely changed the contents of my page at Fiona Mont again. I have tried to communicate with you to discuss what your problems are. Fiona was not expelled from school, you have just copied an article from the Daily Mail and used it to replace a very well balanced biography of her life. You have also removed totally checkable links which I put there to confirm all the facts. Communication would be very helpful and in some detail, it would be polite seeing as you have deleted all of my work. Comments from editors are always welcome but a total re-ed followed by silence? Graham Hesketh

  • First, thanks for the note. Here are my thoughts on the subject.
  • While the text you would like to use for this article may be, as you say, a 'balanced biography of her life', most of it - the biographical information in particular - is unsupported by reliable secondary sources. By Wikipedia policy concerning biographies of living persons (see WP:LIVING), material that is not verifiable via such secondary sources should not be added to articles and should be 'removed on sight'.
  • As to the particulars of the article, I have seen published sources that state that Ms. Mont was expelled from school, but I have not seen any that contradict that claim.
  • About the 'checkable links', I did read all of them, and I did move some around, but I don't believe I removed any of references to reliable secondary sources. Valrith 22:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Most of the changes seems to be from the first hand accounts of Graham Hesketh - Wikipedia is not interested in truth but verifiability. So yes I agree with your stand in this matter. --Charlesknight 22:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

No-one is going to make more of a stand over my life than me. I am Fiona Mont. Graham's article may sound unbalanced to you but it is all true. I was not expelled from school. School records are not available for public consumption but if it came to a law suit I would provide documentary evidence. It was a lie published about a fugitive, not a person who is in any position to defend themselves. My arresting officer was arrested for perverting the course of justice, once again police files are not public record, however there was a newspaper report which is available on hard copy only and a copy of this is available on my website. As the living subject of this article I am going to make it my business to make sure that a balanced article is published. I am making a request that you please stop re-editing the page with defamatory quotes from newspapers. Graham and I were married on the 2nd Oct and we do have two children. As for the comment wikipedia is not interested in the truth........ Fiona-Mont 23:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fiona Mont

I was not expelled from school. Steve Skerrett was arrested for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and now runs a private detective agency called Giotto Investigations. As I am the living subject in this matter I am going to have to go to mediator on this. Fiona-Mont 16:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Have been reading up on reliable third party sources and am continuing to. Just wanted to say thank you very much for your initial re-edit. It looks very clean and must have taken you ages, much appreciated. Will post suggestions on talk if I find any reliable sources to support my claims etc. Fiona-Mont 18:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holly Marie Combs

I noticed that u changed the article to say she was still expecting her 2nd child if you follow the link on the page her husband David confirmed the birth of there 2nd son! you can also find this out by searching for Holly Marie Combs on google news this has a few pages with David confirming the birth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.159.85.179 (talk • contribs) 23:18, October 29, 2006 (UTC)

  • See my latest edit for an example of how to properly cite your sources. And please, learn to use the edit summary to explain the changes you've made. Valrith 23:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extending a prod

There is no policy justification, other than to say that prods may be removed at will by anyone, and a fortiori a two day extenstion is fine. It's not like I hid my purpose or anything: I asked on lv:wiki, received my answer, and am not objecting to deletion. As a matter of fact, let me go and delete it right now. There, done. What's the big deal? - crz crztalk 22:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I wasn't claiming it was a big deal, just wanted to see if there was a policy I hadn't read yet. Valrith 22:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephanie Rothman

Stephanie Rothman easily satisfies WP:BIO as a very notable director of horror and exploitation films. The IMDB reference in the article alone confirms this. If you don't agree, send to AfD. Tag is removed. I'm also removing a second one (see below). --Oakshade 04:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missy LeHand

Marguerite "Missy" LeHand is an historic figure and longtime confidant and speculative mistress to Franklin D. Roosevelt. The notability tag is being removed. --Oakshade 04:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Olga Lopes-Seale

Can you explain why you inserted {{notability}}. Isn't a knighthood evidence of notability? Guettarda 13:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, a) I didn't see anything about a knighthood, and b) I don't see knighthood listed as a criterion in WP:BIO. Valrith 20:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
" I didn't see anything about a knighthood" - first word of the article, and last line before the references. Should have been hard to miss.
"I don't see knighthood listed as a criterion in WP:BIO" - true, but then one would think that "receiving your country's highest national honour" would be too obvious to mention. In addition, if you are going by WP:BIO, then you should have been aware of the first listed criterion, "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person". Or did you also miss the references? Guettarda 21:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Image:Chelsea_fanfair1.jpg

I salted it. --Sherool (talk) 23:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks! Valrith 21:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Swarthout

Please note that a) I have restored the copyright explanation on the Gladys Swarthout article, and b) I have removed the notability tag.

B should be obvious; A is because of the problems we recently had with Daniel Brandt and his Plagiarism Detector Bot. Furthermore, the statement on the talk page did not go into enough detail as to the provenance and the legal issues. DS 05:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Bold Stroke for a Wife

Sorry for de-prodding and running. I thought I'd also be able to improve the article after de-prodding, but something important suddenly started take a lot more time then had been, just late yesterday. It'll probably be over by Nov 8th one way or the other, and I'll be able to improve the article after that, but I can't guarantee the time until then. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Improved after all. AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Great job! Valrith 22:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sherisse Stevens

Just so's you know, a biography of someone who verifiably competed in the Eurovision Song Contest is an assertion of notability. The contest is viewed throughout Europe and various other parts of the world. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I guess I'm notably uninformed about European talent shows. Thanks for the info. Valrith 04:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Annie Whitehead and {{cleanup-bio}}

Please see Talk:Annie Whitehead#Missing biographical data?. Regards, BNutzer 14:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Bitch

I randomly stumbled across Bad Bitch after having prodded another article on the same day ... anyhow, I worked it over a bit and removed the PROD after a little research turned up more references than I expected. While it still contains a lot of original research, I think it's an average stub. I don't have any strong feelings or attachment to it, so I'd be interested in your feedback/take on whether the article's worth it, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Strom (talk • contribs) 09:56, November 5, 2006 (UTC)

  • Still looks like neologism to me, but based on your new references, there may be a chance the article can eventually be saved. Valrith 13:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm inclined to remove the original unsourced content at this point, and make it a very small article that at least has a few references... not sure what would be best. Strom 18:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for cleaning the article up; it's helpful for me to see what you did to wikify headings, etc. Can you educate me on why the External Links were removed? I assume there's a guiding principle, just want to beef up my understanding.(Nevermind. I see your reference to WP:EL. Thanks again!)Strom 22:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hu Ge piping

Please see Talk:Hu Ge.
--Jerzy•t 07:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ashley Slanina-Davies

Hi, I see you tagged the above article as a speedy candidate as a non-notable bio. Please be aware that the criterion in question, A7, states:

Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is controversial or there has been a previous AfD, the article should be nominated for AfD instead.

Starring in the soap opera Hollyoaks is an assertion of notability, importance or significance. Articles which contain such claims should not be listed as speedy candidates, but rather the proposed deletion or full deletion methods should be used. Steve block Talk 23:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Having a role in a television show is an assertion of having a job, not having notability. Valrith 21:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • No, it's an assertion of importance or significance. Otherwise you may as well just say that having won a nobel prize is an assertion of having won an award, not having notability. You may feel the claim is controversial, but that means the article cannot be speedied. Steve block Talk 21:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Apples and oranges. Winning an Oscar and winning a nobel prize would be a better comparison/analogy. Valrith 21:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Maybe apples and oranges to you, but that's not the point. The point remains that appearing in a television show upon which we have an article imparts significance. That sch assertions qualify as assertions of significance was established when the criterion was proposed. You may contest that, but the assertion has been made. Where such an assertion is made, please take it to prod or afd, not speedy. Thanks. Steve block Talk 21:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carol J. Clover

Hi Valrith,

I agree with you that the article needs a lot more work/it is a stub. What separates Carol from "the average college professor" is that she wrote a book which not only achieved popularity outside academia, but that it contained a theory which is in itself notable. There is already a wiki article specifically about her theory--the final girl.

Thanks, Cindery 16:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Augusta Jane Chapin

What will it take to get the copyright noticed removed from the article on Chapin? The UUA had previously given permission to post the content of their articles on WP if referenced (which is what I did and documented). Do you need to correspond with the person who gave permission? --Mikebrand 03:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

  • You need to read the middle bullet on the article's current page, which shows:
  If you hold the copyright to this text and permit its use under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License:
  Explain this on this article's discussion page, then either display a notice to this effect at the site of original
  publication or send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions at wikimedia
  dot org or a postal letter to the Wikimedia Foundation. These messages must explicitly permit use under the GFDL.
  • Once this is satisfied, an admin can clear up the issue... Valrith 22:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for explaining that. Rather than request formal GNU license from the UUA (their wheels turn rather slowly), I rewrote (and greatly condensed) the article.--Mikebrand 01:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

My comments in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Billoo were not at all personal. I am sorry if that had offended you. Sorry for my unintentional act Doctor Bruno

[edit] Ally Carter

You recently prodded this article under WP:BIO. I believe an author with 3 published books from a major publishing house and a decent Amazon ranking (also available in Audio and optioned as films) with numerous reviews does qualify for notability. If my interpretation is incorrect, perhaps we could take this to AFD. Thanks MNewnham 21:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David (Dave) Mitchell

If you encounter an article about an actor or scriptwriter where you are uncertain about the person's notability, it is often worthwhile to check whether there is a listing for the person at http://www.imdb.com In the case of David (Dave) Mitchell, I was able to find a listing there which allowed me to expand the article a bit. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: Category:Date of birth missing

Good evening. Per the discussion about privacy concerns expressed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of birthdays, date of birth should generally not be added to the biographies of living non-public or semi-public figures. So far, that policy has been interpreted fairly strictly with a pretty high bar being set for the definition of "public figures" who are assumed to have given up their rights to privacy.

By the same token, we should not be adding Category:Date of birth missing to articles unless we have made the case that the person meets the "public figures" threshold. Otherwise, we're just baiting new users into adding content even though the community has already said that we shouldn't include that particular data point. Category:Year of birth missing is okay but the exact date is often not. Thanks for your help. Rossami (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Interesting. However, it seems to me that anyone notable enough to have an article in an encyclopedia is a "public figure". I will keep using this category as long as it exists. Valrith 19:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, our experience has shown that not to be the case. Many people are notable for a single achievement but do not meet the definition of "public figure". WP:BLP requires us to use extra caution for living persons. Public figures in this sense mean those who are so famous that they can be assumed to have other controls and protections in place (such as paid staff who can watch out for identity theft being executed in their name). That would not generally be the case for an author of a single book or person with a minor league sports career. Please stop. Rossami (talk) 06:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ilana Levine

Between the appearence in a broadway play, and the listing on IMDb, this didn't seem like an open-and-shut A7 deletion. Thus I removed the tag and cleaned it up a bit instead. You are, of course, welcome to nominate the article for deletion by other means. -- SCZenz 00:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ELETTRA

Hi, which notability guideline are you concerned the ELETTRA synchrotron does not meet? Also, what sort of references do you agree would be acceptable? Scientific papers, news reports, science magazines? Thanks,Canley 10:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, the only guideline that I know of that would apply would be WP:CORP. Valrith 12:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prodding...

Just came across your various attempts to prod articles. May I kindly suggest that you try to discuss the merits of the article on talk pages prior to prodding them? Thank you. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 21:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: Category:Date of birth missing

Good evening. Per the discussion about privacy concerns expressed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of birthdays, date of birth should generally not be added to the biographies of living non-public or semi-public figures. So far, that policy has been interpreted fairly strictly with a pretty high bar being set for the definition of "public figures" who are assumed to have given up their rights to privacy.

By the same token, we should not be adding Category:Date of birth missing to articles unless we have made the case that the person meets the "public figures" threshold. Otherwise, we're just baiting new users into adding content even though the community has already said that we shouldn't include that particular data point. Category:Year of birth missing is okay but the exact date is often not. Thanks for your help. Rossami (talk) 02:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "bot vandalism"?

Those edits were certainly not "vandalism". See the discussion at WT:CAT for the basis for these retaggings -- and aside from which, try assuming good faith. Alai 21:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

  • My thought was that the bot was malfunctioning by replacing the specific 'uncat' stub with the non-specific 'uncatstub' stub. I wouldn't have considered applying AGF to a malfunction. Valrith 21:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure I quite follow the specifics of that, but thanks for the reply. If you think a bot is malfunctioning, much better to inform the operator about the behaviour so it can be amended (or explained), rather than just reverting. By no stretch is a "malfunction" the same as "vandalism", which specifically connotes intention to make worse; mislabelling questionable (or indeed outright unintentionally bad) edits as vandalism is not good practice, since it's apt to needlessly escalate any disputes that are in progress, or in fact start them in the first place. Alai 21:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Your changes to the Susan Powers page

Please take the time to read the page, or even Rossami's entry one above in here.

1. "This biographical article needs more biographical information on the subject. Statistical information such as date and place of birth, information on historical significance, and information on accomplishments is desired. Please remove this message when done." -- The article includes year and place of birth. See Rossami's comment two above on date of birth, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of birthdays, date of birth should generally not be added to the biographies of living non-public or semi-public figures. The article also contains numerous references to accomplishments. The fact that Ms. Powers is one of the most reknown American folk artists, in the permanent collections of the Smithsonian Institution and AMuseum of American Folk Art, among others, is proof enough.

2. "There are very few or no other articles that link to this one. Please help introduce links in articles on related topics. After links have been created, remove this message. This article has been tagged since November 2006." -- There are fourteen (14) internal and extenral links in the article. That is sufficient to address the requirments in Help:Link, I believe.

Thank you. EHS 14:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Since you disagree with the "cleanup-bio" tag, I won't dispute it, but it still seems to me there's very little biographical information in this biography. I never disputed her notability. As to birth date/year - whatever. I overlooked the fact that the year/place was given because it was placed abnormally. I've now fixed that.
  • However, the "linkless" tag is still appropriate. Notice the text says "There are very few or no other articles that link to this one". It has nothing to do with the number of links within the article. Valrith 15:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Cause marketing article - Thanks

Thanks for stopping by to make some additions. I barely got started last night so I have more that I am going to try to add in the next few days to make it a fuller and wikified article (with references). Uberveritas 22:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you for your stub submission. You may wish to note that it is preferable to use a stub template from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types instead of using simply {{stub}}, if you can.

Thanks! --Vox Causa 00:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/a/l/User_talk%7EValrith_068b.html"