User talk:Antonrojo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed about the article "Yoghurt" here. The following have been listed as participants:

Please visit the request page to indicate your acceptance of mediation. I urge you to accept, as it doesn't seem like we're getting anywhere arguing on the talk page. —METS501 (talk) 02:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Yoghurt.
For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz]
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 04:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Candlestick Chart

You seem to be an active member on the candlestick chart article. I left the following in the discussion area: I'm putting the following link Candlestick Chart formations: Engulfing, Dojis, Star formations up to scrutiny of others. Investigate the bottom links to the bullish/bearish engulfing pattern, dojis, dark cloud cover, morning/evening star links as well. The charts are helpful and the psychology is discussed as well as intra-day charts for some sections describing what is happening while the candlestick patterns are formed. Very educational, very applicable. Thanks. ThomasMark May 27

Will you please re-review the following site: http://www.onlinetradingconcepts.com/TechnicalAnalysis/Candlesticks/CandlestickBasics.html You peer reviewed it before and gave it the okay (note: it hasn't changed; it still explains in detail 17 of the candlestick formations, with actual charting examples). It would be nice if a human editor actually reviewed the external links rather than relying on a blind algorithm that throws the baby out with the bath water. Thanks. ThomasMark Jan 04 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasMark (talk • contribs) 16:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hawai'i Championship Wrestling

It would seem the anon isn't interested in discussing, simply removing the tags. I think a simple run up through the various warning templates may be in order, and if the problems aren't addressed an AfD could be in order? One Night In Hackney303 23:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Recently I dealt with a similar article (in fact a competitor of the org. in this article) where AfD was used at NWA Hawaii and I re-created the article as a stub. I think notability would be the reason, if any, that this would qualify for an AfD. For vanity articles I tend to prefer reworking the article and using anti-vandalism mechanisms as needed. In this case, the main problem seems to be unnecessary detail that only an insider would know or care about. Antonrojo 12:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Well that's the problem with the article admittedly, however the other concern is with the anon who refuses to improve the article or allow the tags to be on there. His single purpose contributions make me think he may have some sort of conflict of interest. One Night In Hackney303 13:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure there is a conflict of interest. In my experience 3RR and peer review requests (to get more objective editors interested) solve most COI and POV-warrior issues. I don't think either is required here yet. Antonrojo 15:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NWA Hawaii

Saw this over at DRV, and I think there's a slight problem with the stub you created that you may or may not be aware of. The original NWA member promotion stopped operating in the early 80s, and then the name was revived in the early 2000s by Island Xtreme Wrestling Federation, who became an NWA member. NWA membership is relatively easy to get these days, I forget the exact procedure but there's a vote of NWA board members and a payment of somewhere around five figures. Naturally unless there are major problems with the applicant the payment means the vote is more of a token gesture than anything. So what it seems like to me is that the content of the main body of the article refers to the 60s-80s version, the external links were to the new version which has no real direct connection to the older version. So I'm thinking while an article on the older version would obviously be merited (subject to reliable source material), the newer version should be a standalone article on its own merits? One Night In Hackney303 04:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If members such as NWA Hawaii are claiming the history of the original organization as their own, which you make a convincing argument for, then I agree that the notability of each NWA member should be based on the member's own merits. Based on your comments, those merits may be few or nonexistent. My main argument in the deletion review is that there should be an AfD process to consider points like the one you raised. Antonrojo 04:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I understand why you've taken it to DRV, just I'm trying to point out the problem you have. In terms of the current variant, the stub had no information about them, just an external link. One Night In Hackney303 04:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison between Ajax and Flex

Thanks for your help with the rewrite of Comparison between Ajax and Flex. Very good suggestions.

Thank you. I was inspired by your efforts to cut down the jargon and remove POV gems such as the advantage "great speed increase over previous versions of flash (if that was even possible)". Antonrojo 19:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Knightley - Johansson - Vanity Fair Full Cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Knightley - Johansson - Vanity Fair Full Cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of cult and new religious movement researchers

An article you created has been nominated for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cult and new religious movement researchers. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shop

Hi. I'm setting up a shop and was wondering if you'd like to become our assistant userscripts developer. If you do, then all you've got to do is go here and add your name. If not, then just tell me so. Thanks! --Gp75motorsports REV LIMITER 20:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of List of cult and new religious movement researchers

An editor has nominated List of cult and new religious movement researchers, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cult and new religious movement researchers (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 10:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)