User:Cornellrockey/Archive03

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is kept for archival purposes only. To leave a message for User:Cornellrockey, please use his talk page.

Contents

[edit] Cathedral Saint-Peter Saint-Paul

Thanks a lot! I'll do that, will think of an intro sentence.

This above was GGenov 18:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contesting of Green Frog Studios deletion

I dissagree for your proposition to delete the article green frog studios. If this article needs to be cleaned up, please just clean it up. Though its an un-recognised website, the site is young and plans to soon be as popular for this. Visit the site www.thesupertoad.com and read the comics, bios, and podcast to get the right info for the article. If I can't do it. Then mabye one of the administrators can do it for me. I'm only a teenager! And I demand my what you ageist retards call "stupidity" and "un-exprience" you seem to speek of to be proven. And I demand that you, and the other "administrators" to fix the article to be the way it should.

    -Jonathan C., Youth Rights activist

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jlhc (talk • contribs).

[edit] Re:user page vandalism

Your welcome, and thank you as well. This guy is a stubborn one isn't he? If he tries it again I'm going to list him at AIV.--Dycedarg ж 02:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cornelliana

FYI, Cornelliana has been listed as an Article for Deletion. --Xtreambar 15:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fallbrook

I do not understand why you would remove the Fallbrook entry from Lincoln neighborhoods. It is NOT part of the Highlands as an editor stated in the Fallbrook in Lincoln, Nebraska entry. Jason McCants jason@groundedideas.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.52.52.70 (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Image tagging for Image:US Army WWII field artillery.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:US Army WWII field artillery.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removal of Retecool

Hai,

This is the 2nd time I get an deletion proposal for retecool. First time was quickly written, okay, but a second time?? Come on..

Let me explain then (I mean, I can understand things happen incidental)

Did you notice that the Dutch Site of Retecool has been around for a while and is notable. I do agree on some of your critics, however I think you aren't fully aware of the Dutch Blogosphere.

Dit you look at all the press mentions at:

http://wiki.retecool.com/index.php/In_%27t_nieuws ( use http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/tr Dutch -> English )


http://2006.weblogawards.org/2006/12/the_2006_weblog_award_winners.php

Retecool has won several Dutch Blogosphere awards. notable? check: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Bloggies with http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/tr (YES) Which did it win? -> http://wiki.retecool.com/index.php/Dutch_Bloggies

But again being in the top 5 biggest Blog communities of the Netherlands in the last 5 years doesn't count I guess? If you are familiar with LeWeb3 (a web 2.0 french conference) you might as well know:

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:CUimnUm-FeMJ:www.socialtext.net/loicwiki/index.cgi%3Fdutch_blogosphere+http://www.socialtext.net/+retecool&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1 (socialtext cache because - coincidentially socialtext has server update)


Furthermore did you read: http://www.bloggersblog.com/cgi-bin/bloggersblog.pl?bblog=109072 and

http://searchengineland.com/070108-170335.php


to conclude... I'm the first to say I didn't write an perfect wiki entry here, but doesn't the Wikipedia Philosopy besides accuracy does favor that knowledge in general gets spread. Therefore I thing "deleting" just like now is proposed isn't right.

I hope you read all the way, learned something to of us dutchies :) and I'm looking forward to your next actions.

Shovel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shovel (talk • contribs)

[edit] Re: IQ by race

No, I do not think that it warrants inclusion on its own. It lacks both the context and explanation necessary to make it useful, and since these are already present in other articles I really don't think that it belongs in a separate article. It could possibly be integrated in a limited form into one of the Race and Intelligence articles, with all the proper caveats and context. However, it has some other problems with it. One major problem is that all of the IQ's listed come from differing sources. Because the sampling methods and actual IQ tests used in the studies differ, comparing the results from them in this manner is misleading and can lead to highly erroneous conclusions. Even though there is a warning warning about that (albeit a terribly unclear one) it reduces the usefulness of the list to about zero. Frankly I think it should be deleted, and any desired list of IQ by race should be compiled from one source and integrated into an existing article on the subject. Since I just wrote this big explanation anyway, I think I'll put it on AfD. Dycedarg ж 00:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

And done. It's at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IQ by race if you want to vote. Two votes for deletion besides mine in the first two minutes, one of which happened before I even finished listing it, so it seems we weren't the only people who have a problem with it. Dycedarg ж 01:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] image copyright help

I uploaded this, and then OrphanBot tagged it as being unsourced and uncredited. Its from the National Archives, Image:US Army WWII field artillery.jpg. US Gov't work is public domain, even if it doesn't have a specific photographer credited, so I'm not sure what to do. Please help. Cornell Rockey 16:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

OrphanBot and the image copyright policy are still somewhat fickle. It can be difficult to tell whether or not an image is correctly sourced and licenced. I believe you have it correct now, but I am watching the image just in case OrphanBot decides to mark it again. -- kenb215 talk 01:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi!

I noticed some tagging you were doing at new pages patrol. We need help so thanks! Just wanted to drop you a message about one issue. When you tag an article for speedy deletion, it really needs to fall into a specific speedy deletion criteria, which are listed at WP:CSD. There are a pretty short list of speedy deletion tags that are used often which tell you in their text the criteria they are used under (you can memorize them pretty quickly because their names tell you the criteria).

Here's a list of pretty much all of them: {{db-bio}}, {{db-group}}, {{db-web}}, {{db-nonsense}}, {{db-empty}}, {{db-nocontext}}, {{db-band}}, {{db-club}}, {{db-attack}}, {{db-repost}}, {{db-vandal}}, {{db-copyvio|url=url of source}}, {{db-redirtypo}}, {{db-redirnone}}, {{db-blanked}} and {{db-talk}}. The article, The Deaf Nun, now deleted, had no assertion of notability, so {{db-band}} fit, and given some of the text, {{db-nonsense}} might have worked as well, but your belief that it is "NN", as you tagged it, is not a basis for speedy deletion. If no criteria fits, the typical thing to do is to use a {{prod}} tag. If that is removed, or the deletion is controversial, the article can be listed at AFD. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit 15:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are two criteria which cover companies. Take a look at {{db-bio}} (refers to CSD criteria A7), which is specific to articles containing no assertion of notability, and covers people, groups of people, bands, clubs, websites and companies (companies were actually added to the criteria fairly recently). There is also criteria G11 covering articles which are blatant advertizing and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. You can use {{db-spam}} or {{db-g11}} for articles which meet that criteria (the two templates I just listed are the same; most templates have alternate names, one descriptive, the other based on the number of the criteria. For instance, {{db-bio}} is the same as {{db-a7}}). Please don't hesitate to ask if you need any help or have any more questions.--Fuhghettaboutit 15:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
By the way, looking at your userpage, you have great taste in books (and your politics are right up my alley). I just started reading Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things and I think you might enjoy it.--Fuhghettaboutit 15:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ronald A. Katz

You have nominated Ronald A. Katz for speedy deletion. It seems to be contested. I suggest to transform the tag into an Afd, if you feel the article still needs deletion. Cheers. --Edcolins 21:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ronald A. Katz

Thank you for deleting the speedy deletion tag on Ronald A. Katz--Nowa 02:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SelTrac

Hi Cornellrockey,

I notice your ((advert)) tag on the new SelTrac page.

Do you have any positive suggestions about how I can make it less advert-y?

Failing that, what aspects of the article do you object to?

OrangUtanUK 15:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article proposed for deletion

Hi,

I'm an administrator for the online game called Londinivm. You recently added Londinivm's wiki page to the list of articles proposed for deletion. The reason for deletion was 'NN-role playing game'. I'm not too familiar with wikipedia policies, do you think you could explain to me what this means so that I can improve the article or ask for it to be improved by other Londinivm community members?

Jon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Morthy (talk • contribs) 16:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] GeenStijl.nl

I've closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GeenStijl.nl as "speedy keep, nomination withdrawn." AecisBravado 21:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I know what you're talking about, coffee and internet are a deadly combination :) I've rewritten Retecool with several assertions of notability. As a result, the article is structurally different from the version that was nominated for deletion. I would like to ask you to review the article to see whether it still meets the deletion criteria. AecisBravado 12:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Old Kings

I fixed the link. Just click on the red link to start the discussion. (When you post the AFD on today's discussion board, that link might need fixing too.) Pan Dan 23:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WHY?

Just looking for an explanaition on why you tagged the SAK Comedy Lab page as a page for speedy deletion. When I became a user, this page was just a stub, I became interested, changed my user name to match it, and expanded it, alot. It is my main work, (along with the Welcome to Justice page) and it would be helpful to know what I need to do to save it. It is a very popular Improv venue in Orlando, and it means alot as a second home to many people. Just as a note, I am not the origanal author of this page, just a dedicated expander. 13:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)saksjnSaksjn 13:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

Just discovered this: From WP:AFD#How to list pages for deletion: If the article has been nominated for deletion before, use {{subst:afdx}} instead of {{subst:afd1}}. See Template Talk:afdx. (I used to fix the template manually as here and here.) Pan Dan 16:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Udall Family

Hi, I see that you reported my edit (under my ip address, my user seemed to sign out again) as vandalism, but I had noticed that John Nicholas "Nick" Udall's wikipedia page listed him as a Republican, as did the chart of the family below that description, so naturally I believed it was a typo. I am not quite sure what party he actually belongs to, but there seems to be some disagreement with his party descriptionson Wikipedia. Sorry for the confusion I was just trying to help. --Massrepublican 00:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Haha, Im an idiot sometimes sorry. --Massrepublican 01:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The internet seems to be a rare place for my type, but that might explain my lack of Computer skills. --Massrepublican 02:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] accidental vandal warning

NP, just out of curiosity what article were you looking at? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr0grady (talk • contribs)

[edit] Mr0grady 05:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

i dont even remember what i wrote. oh well.

[edit] Nicholas Saputra

Check the link to the indonesian page, the article might need cleanup and wikification, but he seems to meet WP:N. -- febtalk 16:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding "NN-software"

Hello :-)

I saw you had proposed deletion of my PEQ-2 article due to "NN-software". I've tried searching both Wiki and Google for nn-software, but no luck. So I was wondering if you could enlighten me. Also, I modelled my article of another wikipedia article about the RV-7, yet I don't see the major differences and therefor was curious why my article has been tagged while the RV-7 is not.

- Skjalg.skagen 17:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:JimDavisFlorida.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:JimDavisFlorida.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 20:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of No Doubt awards merge

The merge of List of No Doubt awards into No Doubt that you suggested two weeks ago hasn't generated any discussion. If you still believe the merge should happen, please state why at Talk:List of No Doubt awards. If not, I'll go ahead and remove the notices. ShadowHalo 19:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do you know who it was? (little help please)

The sak comedy lab page got deleted. I fixed the problems, I removed the lists, and added verifiable information. It got deleted and it wasn't even tagged this time. Can you help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saksjn (talk • contribs)

[edit] Ok Cornell

Ok man, what's wrong wiht it this time. I started it again and I'm Doing it with a diferent layout. I sited my sources. Just tell me what's wrong. And give me time to finish it. I was just starting it the same minute that you tagged it. GIVE ME TIME TO FINNISH Saksjn 14:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)saksjnSaksjn 14:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Check this out List of improvisational theatre companies at the top it says to only list notable theaters. I have not ever edited this page. And someone else added SAK to the florida part of the list Saksjn 14:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)saksjnSaksjn 14:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An offer

I would like to apologize for blowing up at you this morning. I would like to make a deal regarding SAK. If you give me a month, or less if you prefer, but no less than two weeks, to write this article and perfect it, then at the end of that period check it to see if it meets guidelines, but not before. Would you either consider this offer or give your own offer. Just let me finnish wrighting, then we can decide. Saksjn 18:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)SaksjnSaksjn 18:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] If you give me time

I can get it to meet guidlines if you give me time to. It would be the first article I would write from scratch. I have gotten some advice from another Wikipedia user on how to make good articles, (in person not on my talk page) and how to site proper sources. I believe I can make it meet guidlines, just give me a little time. I am only able to edit wikipedia in the mornings, (that's when my computer class is at school, I attend high school and my computer at home has dial-up so it takes to much time to do anything) that's why my articles look half done sometimes, because they are. If I have the time to finish them before they are deleted. They will be fine. Saksjn 17:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)saksjnSaksjn 17:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for the idea, I'll try it and post it in 2 weeks to a month. Thanks Cornellrocky Saksjn 13:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)SaksjnSaksjn 13:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


You nominated Welcome to Justice for deletion, and I agree. I wrote this page and don't know how to delete it. Currently I just changed it to a message asking for deletion. I already talked to the other people that knew of this page and knew about the topic and we agreed that it can't be saved. We are going to wait untill the play is performed at a professional theater, which is planned for two theaters, and then use the sources (reviews, ads, etc.) that result to wright a proper article someday. So if you sould delete it for us that would be nice. thanks. Saksjn 13:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)SaksjnSaksjn 13:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Sandner

I'm surprised you placed a "notability" tag on the John F. Sandner article. He is quite a prominent figure in finance with over 1000 google hits, if you count both alternate spellings of his first name. However, you are right that the article needs more sourcing. This is just a stub and I had planned to expand it., hopefully with the help of other interested editors. Cheers, --Samiharris 04:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ==Rossiya (television network)==

You have restored the cleanup tag on that page. May I ask you why? Why should someone waste his time cleaning it up if it is a duplicate of Russia TV Channel and is to be merged? Colchicum 17:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] please use the talk page, thanks

The page is just built and the proof of relevance will be added, but you just have to give me more than 5 minutes to do this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sunsetexpress (talk • contribs) 15:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] RE: opinion request

My first instinct, on looking at the article (Vancouver Furious George) was to agree with you that it's non-notable, as all of the references are from various Ultimate Frisbee sites. However, I researched the topic a little (sports isn't really my field) and according to the article on Ultimate, the Frisbee sport is much more significant internationally than I had realised (it even has its own wiki, Ultipedia). Obviously the primary notability criterion, for any organisation, is that it must have been "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are independent of the organisation itself". Clearly, therefore, the question is whether the various Ultimate Frisbee league and committee sites count as non-trivial independent sources; I'm forced to conclude that they do, as they're independent of the team itself. So although I personally don't see the point in these articles, I think they just about meet the WP inclusion criteria. Walton monarchist89 17:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism Accusation

I'm not sure how adding a link to your page (to another wikipedia article) is construed as "vandalism". Since linking to other articles is deemed (in most circles) to be a *productive* activity, I can only conclude that perhaps your accusation is a case of "passing judgement without all of the facts".

Please refrain from heavy-handed accusations (especially those that suggest malicious activity) when you may have not done the legwork to ascertain the facts.

More discussion is here:

(talk)

Warm Regards! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.9.32.49 (talk) 03:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Your ever esteemed opinion

Rockey,

Do me a favor and look at the article for Royal Military Academy Sandhurst then take a look at the talk page section on alumni. I'm looking for your two-cents as to whether it is a worthwhile effort to create a Sandhurst grads category or not. --Cjs56 17:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CHU

Yes, changing your username would change all the things you list. The only things it won't change are your signatures on talk pages. Warofdreams talk 18:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, your previous signatures would link to your old userpage, which would redirect to the new location. Were you to delete the redirect, of course, they would become red links. Warofdreams talk 18:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thumbnail sizing

Please don't add hard-coded sizes to image thumbnails as you did to UH-1 Iroquois, as this is contrary to the Manual of Style and it interferes with the user preferences feature of Wikipedia. If you want the images to look bigger on your screen, go to the "my preferences" link at the top and then click on the "files" tab. There, you can select the default image thumbnail size that works best for your monitor. Thanks! Akradecki 21:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't make the assumption that everyone in the world views Wikipedia on a hi-res monitor like you do. By hard coding the thumbs, you force everyone to view them at your preferred size. Try viewing/editing for a while on a 800x600 monitor, and you'll see how annoying really big images are! Wikipedia is viewed world-wide, and not everyone in the world has the latest, greatest high-res monitors. You have over-generalized what MOS says...unless the three criteria apply to a specific image, i.e.
“ * On images with extreme aspect ratios
  • When using detailed maps, diagrams or charts
  • When a small region of an image is considered relevant, but the image would lose its coherence when cropped to that region
 ”

then leave them up to the readers to set the preferences. Thanks. Akradecki 23:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think I'm being condescending, I meant nothing of the sort. But I beg to differ, the MOS is pretty clear. It says sizing is generally not recommended, and then it lists the three exceptions. Why? Because is forces image sizes to those who want it different. Our job as editors is to think of the reader, not ourselves. If it's a matter of readers not knowing, then you can help us educate them. The bottom line, though, is the MOS is there for a reason, to affect a unified style from article to article, and until you bring it up for discussion there, and achieve a consensus to change the guidelines, then please respect what it says and don't add sizing unless it is for one of the three reasons given. Akradecki 00:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't assume you were ignoring the MOS, I just assumed that you, like many others, weren't aware of it. I wrote when I saw that another editor on the project with whom I work closely with had reverted your edit, but hadn't left you a note as to why, a common courtesy when reverting a good-faith edit. Since he and I cover each other's six, I thought I'd drop you a note just so you'd know why it was reverted. No assumption of bad faith was assumed, and I really didn't intend to piss you off, all I really wanted to do was let you know the reason behind the revert. Akradecki 00:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the nudge to archive...you're right, it was getting a bit long. And thanks for that last message, it was a bit of a wake-up call to me. I don't want to come across as lecturing, either old-timers or newbies, so your comment was a reminder to me to be a bit more careful in how I word things. Thanks (and meant!) Akradecki 01:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AGF?

In what way exactly have i forgotten WP:AGF? Along AGF lines, I've welcomed him, suggested that user put in and edit summary, and explained on his page why it probably was a good edit. I don't know why you should feel (apparently) so offended. I also find telling another editor to remember the AGF is actually a bit ironic (would that not mean that you yourself have forgotten it?). Perhaps you can remember it next time you immediately give someone a vandal warning when you have been giving many others welcoming messages today? Furthermore, i did not assess the guy's other edits - i just made my assessment on that one - ie, the definition of assuming good faith. regards Merbabu 06:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

regarding your suggested links to Evangelicalism#Evangelical_politics_in_the_United_States, Christian_Fundamentalism#Christian_Right_.28USA.29, Christian right in United States politics, & Christian terrorism, they're articles on a more extreme/fundamentalist aspect of Christianity in America - not a very general "Christianity in America" article which i suggested would be more comparable to the general article in question (ie, Islam in Indonesia). I see a big difference there. Another point is that there is no mention of terrorism let alone the specific attacks in that article. Nor do i feel completely uncomfortable with that. OK, maybe it needs a mention, but in the greater scheme of things, terrorist attacks by radical fringe groups in Indonesia are a very minor topic within the greater topic of Islam in Indonesia as the country's dominant religion and one of its dominant cultural influences since the 1400s. Another thing to remember that due to systematic bias, Indonesia articles (like other non-English speaking developing countries) are not as well represented on Wikipedia as say US-related articles. regards Merbabu 06:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks. (edits summaries - such powerful little things aren't they - lol). and i think you are correct in suggesting he won't have much more to offer, if anything. ciao for now. regards Merbabu 06:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Venaculas

You've marked this article for speedy deletion. After checking the text, I saw that the band was notable enough not to warrant an A7. I've tidied up the article a bit to WP norms and removed the spelling mistakes. You can now remove the speedy template or move your deletion request to Afd. JoJan 16:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution User Box

Me again. I like your snazzy Evolution User Box and tried to pinch it from your user page, but I couldn't find it. Could you let me know where you found the script please? Cheers Maustrauser 22:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: prod deletion

A page that you nominated for PROD deletion has been contested, restored and is now at AFD. You may wish to participate in the debate. Rossami (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SAK notability

I have been working with saksjn on his SAK Comedy Lab project. I have found reviews of its shows on the Orlando Sentinel's website and information about the club itself on about.com and 10best.com, all of which are non-trivial, third-party references. By this, SAK meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. When you have time, would you review the SAK section of saksjn's user page and get back to me on what you think it needs. I would hate to go on believing that the page is ready, only to have it deleted again when the deadline comes.

Thank you.

--Autumn Forrester 16:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RNG Gaming

Hi Cornellrockey,

At this time there are more than 3 links to RNG Gaming (inckuding the categories that are mostly relevant to this term).

Is that ok? Why is this term has always beeing editing for advertising?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerald.Howard (talk • contribs)

[edit] Plymouth-Canton Marching Band

The PCMB is a three time national championship program with over 500 awards over the past 15 years. (This is not sarchasim)Is that not notable for wikipedia? If it is, how can it be changed? Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.149.73.85 (talk) 03:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

I understand your reasoning. However, I looked at the music portion, and it does say a music group must have "won or placed at a major music competition". The band has won the Bands of America National title three times. I cite this because the competition itself has an article, so is the accomplishment of winning it not notable? As well other bands listed on the Bands of America page have an article that is not tagged for deletion. The band does have a national reputation among music educators around the country. I am not a member of this band, so I wont be upset by it's removal. If you feel it should be reviewed by a larger group, then do so but if not, allow it to be delted. I just find the accomplishments of this band quite notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.149.73.85 (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for your hellp on the sak comedy lab article Saksjn 13:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)SaksjnSaksjn 13:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the heads-up

Thanks for the heads up... I guess the clone is flattering....sorta:) Leafyplant 17:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diana Quinn

I may have gotten this wrong. If I have, please accept my apology.

Anyway, I think you may have deleted a music-related article on "Diana Quinn" that I started. This is not a problem. You did me a favor. Music is not exactly one of my strengths. I enjoy history and I approached the Quinn article more as a history article than as a music article.

Hoping all is well with you.

Mkpumphrey 19:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Probabilistic design

--Clint Steele 01:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)I have made changes to this article in response to some of your comments. Please take a look and give me your thoughts.

[edit] Carfax

Hello, Yes, I suspect they are carfax shills. One of the original lawsuit-removers was a carfax employee (see the carfax talk page). I have requested blocks for both my clones and your clone also. It seems as if those three accounts have been blocked. Wonder what they'll try next. :)Leafyplant 22:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Another clone Teafyplant today, I have requested block. Leafyplant 15:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Teafyplant has indef block, now User_talk:BoyRoy is at it. The vandal probably creates accounts every day and uses them four days later. What options are there other then a full-protect? Leafyplant 01:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plymouth-Canton Marching Band

Wait, it was nomintaed, then it got reversed, now it's back nominated? What is going on? I didn't contest the deletion, I was alright with it, but why does this keep going back and forth? Refusetobesilenced 03:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Florida Literacy Coalition

Hi Cornellrockey. I noticed that you recommended that the article Florida Literacy Coalition be deleted. I authored that piece and am new to Wikipedia. Could you please help me understand your objection coded as NN Organization.

I'm prepared to source it (when I figure out how) and would appreciate any assistance you can provide to make this article better.

Thanks

Smithg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithg (talk • contribs)


[edit] Florida Literacy Coalition

Cornellrockey - I read over the notability criteria and I think that the Florida Literacy Coalition measures up. While it's not a large non-profit, it is well respected in it's field and is recognized as a partner by the Florida Department of Education, The National Institute for Literacy and ProLiteracy International.

Please let me know if you have any specific questions or concerns.

Smithg 02:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

quit talking shit, goody goody

[edit] Romance mass PROD

I see that you're also the person who prodded the Killer Bikini Vampire Girls shorts, which I agree with. But I have to say that I'm not happy with the way you went about your recent mass PROD of romance writers. The only thing they had in common was being romance writers, and apparently being created or edited by E-romance. Some of the writers are very prominent, like Karen Robards or Kristin Hannah. Prodding authors like that makes it seem like you didn't bother with research. In fact, none of them are really obscure, and I and Black Falcon have de-prodded them all (I might have let Tanya Anne Crosby and a couple of others stay prodded).

Also, you put up notability and other tags at the same time as your prods. Why not wait a while to see if someone brought forth evidence of notability, instead of proposing it for deletion right away? And some of the articles already included references to awards. Another thing, nominating so many of a contributor's articles at once is liable to make her feel bitten and discouraged about making future contributions. Yet you didn't even leave a message on her talk page to tell her that you'd prodded dozens of her articles. I'm sorry if I'm sounding harsh, but these prods really seemed indiscriminate to me. --Groggy Dice T | C 04:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As the other party to the de-prodding, I feel I should comment. I agree with Groggy Dice's comments above regarding the mass prodding of dozens of articles within about 20 minutes, the simultaneous adding of cleanup and prod tags, and the failure to notify the author of the articles. I would also like to add a few other points:
  1. Your reasoning for the prod, "NN-author", was inaccurate or at least highly disputable in every case I encountered. Most of the articles were about award-winning and/or bestselling authors.
  2. In at least one case, you provided an edit summary of "cleanup tags" while also including a proposed deletion. Although this didn't create confusion for me, tagging for deletion should be prominently noted in an edit summary. I believe this was an honest omission (after all, most of the rest are tagged as "proposed deletion"), but wish to make you aware of it.
  3. That said, the articles were unsourced and your mass prodding had one positive effect: most of the articles now have sources. In addition, I have bookmarked all or almost all of these pages and intend to go through each one to perform cleanup. However, I feel this result could have been achieved without as much stress (you will notice that the sources are usually just bulk-added as "External links" for future incorporation).
I believe your actions were in good faith, but feel that the manner of its execution was not appropriate. If there are similar author articles that you have prodded that Groggy Dice and I missed, I request that you voluntarily de-prod them, leaving just the cleanup tags. (If you feel they should only be kept if improved, please list them on my talk page and I will add them to my to-do list). -- Black Falcon 08:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to add, in your reply you noted "the lists of books without proper capitalization." Some of E-romance's garbled syntax indicates that she is not a native English-speaker. In Spanish, for example, it is standard to only capitalize the first word in a title. All of the writers seemed to have had some of their books translated into foreign languages. --Groggy Dice T | C 17:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm the translator of some of the articles about romance writers from the English wikipedia to the Spanish one. I was surprised to see their "notability" questioned. I don't understand why. They are all writers who have been translated to foregn languages, and they sell a lot of books. I think it's enough to write an article about them in order to know, for instance how many books they have written and how many of them are translated and if they have won any prize,... Is it something against romance writers? Is it because it's a genere mainly written and read by women? Or is it just a problem of not having sources? Because it is not the same. References can be found.--Joanenglish 15:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It was not vandalism

It was not vandalism. Vicrum200 asked me to do it. You see, we are friends, outside Wikipedia, and he is not a very experienced writer, and so he wanted me to help him, so I did. Hope that might clear some things up. -- Cheers! :) Zazzer 21:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki-Peace

In the interest of Wiki-Peace, I've removed ALL the photo credits from each and every submitted caption. Until I reach 1,001 active photo submissions, I'll refrain from battling over the merits of this issue...
v/r
Peter Rimar
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chitrapa (talk • contribs) 01:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Image:Rep. dale kildee.JPG

FYI, an image that you uploaded, Image:Rep. dale kildee.JPG, is now an orphaned fair use image and will be deleted within a week. Thanks. --Tom (talk - email) 01:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Florida Literacy Coalition

Cornellrockey - Do you mean that should list their websites as references. I'm not clear how to list as a reference or resource, other than what I have done. Should I list websites' that link to FLC's website?

I've visted a number of other non-profit Wikipedia sites that don't prove their relationship with other state or national organzations. Is this required and visable to everyone.

Also, do you know how to retreive the Florida Literacy Coalition's Wikipedia page?

Smithg 02:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Craig Lamb

Hello. You added prod template on Craig Lamb article. The article has been nominated for deletion (AfD) previously, thus it should not be prodded according to WP:PROD. Thus I removed the prod tag. Its previous afd left the article undeleted as no consensus, a somewhat amazing decision by an admin. Feel free to nominate it again. Julius Sahara 17:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uncategorized reply

On my talk page, b/c trying to carry on a conversation on two talk pages makes me dizzy, and I'm dizzy enough as it is. :) Btw, why'd you ask me, in particular? I'm always happy to help where I can, but I'm just curious why I was so honoured. :) --Ebyabe 18:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FLC

Cornellrockey - I went to the category "Charities Based in the United States" and randomly selected 5 charities (see below) to review on the first page. Only one listed an old magazine article and the others primarily listed non-media/news sites such as their own websites or other sites listing non-profits. Do these sites meet your criteria for “reputable news sources”? The notability criteria does not use this term but instead talks about the need for reliable sources, which I believe I met at least as well as what appears to be the norm for many other organizations. If the ultimate goal is to have credible and reputable listings than these kinds of references can be quite insightful when in comes to non-profits.

I’m new to the Wiki world. Can I refute assertions that I don’t agree with? Who is the ultimate decision maker when it comes to disputed issues?

American Kidney Fund St. Baldrick's Foundation One Brick Global Literacy Project Raphael House

Smithg 04:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] kiss my ass

wow ur so h core givin out warnings over the internet......your a mod on wikipedia... you must be the worlds biggist faggy NERD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.73.76.185 (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Straphanger

Don't know why I didn't think to do this a few days ago. As you were the nominator of the 1st AfD of this subject, this is a courtesy notice that the same article is up for AfD again - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Straphanger (2nd nomination). --Oakshade 06:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FLC

I do think what is written about other non-profit organizations (and how they are referenced) is relevant. If a significant number of organizations maintain uncontested listings using the same standards, this helps determine the norm. Generally speaking, if policies (or laws) are not applied equitably, it can create all kinds of troubles. Ask any attorney.

Is there a way I can find out what any editors reviews or comments were once you recommended the FLC section for deletion?

Smithg 02:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2 Rhode Island Infantry

Wow, I am amazed at your nerdiness! I thought you found the Civil War unbearably depressing; what was the impetous for writing this article? I like it a lot, though. I'm going to look into Civil War Unit templates, or something like that that I can add. --Cjs56 13:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: The Straphanger article needs some work, but I can't figure out exactly what work that is.

[edit] 2nd RI Infantry

The first thing about this article is that you need to document your sources and references. Where did you primnarily get your information from? Simply add a listing of these references. Second, this is a stub. You might want to expand the article with information on what battles they fought, what was significant or unusual about the regiment that would make it worthy for an enclopedic article (famous soldiers or leaders, unusual bravery or significant action in a battle, etc.). Take a look at 8th Ohio Volunteer Infantry for ideas. Scott Mingus 15:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey,

Hey dude.

Not offended by the deletion citation. In fact I expected such, but I think that you'll see that it will be alright in a bit... If you want to help me find a way to share this term with everybody please by all means...

Oh, I'm a browncoat as well... nice.

_jammedshut —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jammedshut (talk • contribs)

[edit] FLC

I'm not sure if I am following you. If when you propose an article for deletion, there is no opportunity for comment and review; what did you mean when you said "When something is disupted many people discuss it and come to an agrement."

Smithg 01:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jennifer Blake page

Hi, I saw that you put a notability question tag on the Jennifer Blake page. I pulled some information out of the article and added to the lead so that it should be more clear at a quick glance why she is notable and then removed the tag. (She's written over 50 books, was elected a member of the Romance Writers of America Hall of Fame, and has been on the NYT Bestseller list.)

If you still have questions, please let me know and I'll try to edit the article to make it more clear for you. Thanks. Karanacs 14:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Julie Garwood Page - Cleanup Tag

I noticed that you added a cleanup tag questioning the notability of Julie Garwood. The article clearly states in the lead that she is the author of a novel that a TV movie was based on, and further lists the dozens of books that she has written and had published.

What do you recommend needs to be added to the article to allow the cleanup tag to go away?

Thanks. Karanacs 15:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I verified the article and added sourcing, so I think that covers the cleanup tags you added. I have removed both of them. While I understand, and totally agree, that articles need to be sourced (it's on my list to adequately source some of the articles I created before I knew how to source), I don't think that the lack of explicitly stated sources necessitates a notability tag. It just needs an unsourced tag. If the lack of source inclusion meant that an article should be removed for not being notable, we'd have to remove ones like Garth Brooks. Just because you haven't heard of the person doesn't mean they aren't notable, and the two romance author articles I noticed you'd tagged both had notability claims in the article if not in the lead. If the tagging was a mistake or a misunderstanding then I apologize for getting on my soapbox -- as a romance novel fan I tend to be a bit snappish when other people seemingly refuse to take the genre seriously. Karanacs 21:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carfax

I agree, it is time to unprotect Carfax_(company) hopefully the vandal has found another hobby :) Leafyplant 15:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ECAC Hockey

I'm not having any issues with it, but I'm using Firefox on Windows XP. I understand though, I have the same odd bug with Western Collegiate Hockey Association. I have no idea how to fix it, but thanks for letting me know. Craig R. Nielsen 20:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Romance novelists - notability tags

Thanks for looking at those pages again. I guess my biggest complaint about your marking them as potentially unnotable (since you admit you don't know anything about the genre) is that there are multitudes of articles on wikipedia that are unsourced. If all of them were tagged as having notability questions, that would be one thing, but it seems a bit overkill to mark an article as both unreferenced (which these clearly were) and as having notability questions, especially since the articles as you saw them did make notability claims, including lists of awards and published books. Where does the line get drawn as to when to add the notability tag and when to just put the unsourced tag? Thanks for any clarification you could make. Karanacs 18:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] lord knows what this is

sdfsdfsdds —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.4.143.83 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Dixie HIGH SCHOOL HAS 333 students THEY DO NOT HAVE 420

See link --- in fact that number has even lowered since the school was classified. http://www.schsl.org/2005/135%20%2004-05%20school%20year.htm


This a small town that has most of it's people of amish decent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.4.143.83 (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC).


[edit] Pittsburgh Organizing Group

Hi Cornell. Thanks for you note, which I read with interest. Obviously, I don't agree, as I set out in my reasoning on the AfD page. And the quality of sources is something we concern ourselves with (see WP:RS for a discussion on the matter). There are, put simply, some sources that are better than others in this world, and this article managed to have a broad spectrum of Not Good, Biased and Good-but-fails-to-mention-the-group-itself sources. All in all, it came well short of WP:RS and had major WP:V problems.

However, the ground is not salted behind this article. It would be nice to see an article on the subject, but it needs to be one built up from reliable unbiased third-party sources. Without them, it is a stub with no claims to notability. This isn't good.

I'm open to persuasion by reasoned argument on this, of course, from any editor. Alternatively, if you think I have been unreasonable in the closing or the decision, please say so at deletion review - I certainly won't think any less of you (or anyone else) for doing so as all my decisions should be transparent and open to review - this being a wiki! Thanks and happy editing! RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 10:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please fix a word in one of the articles

Can you please go and fix a word that is out of place. It is on this webpage

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dixie_High_School_%28South_Carolina%29&action=history

and in this statement

cur) (last) 21:25, 28 March 2007 Cornellrockey (Talk | contribs) (revert stupidity, insert source for enrollment that random IP left on my talk page instead of the article)

It says "revert stupidity." If a 14 year old high school kid did not know where to put information and put it in the wrong place IT is NOT stupid. they just didn't know.

It should be changed to "revert back due to new information recieved."

THE older person should hold HIGHER GROUND in these cases and avoid personal statements like "stupidity" because a 14 year old didn't know where to put the source.

The older person should change this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.153.60.164 (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Carfax_(company)

Looks like they havent given up.Leafyplant 12:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Artical Deletion

You nominated my artical Becket Chimney Corners YMCA for deletion because of a lack of Notability. I'm confused. First, this is not a summer camp, but a non profit organization. Second, there are many many articals on summer camps on Wikipedia. I will look for, and add more third party references to demonstrate notability. However, because you did not bother to notify me, I only saw the tag for deletion today, and cannot complete necesary revisions by tommorow. How do I extend the deadline? Vzmetzger 22:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pittsburgh Organizing Group

Hi Cornell! There's a possibility you've misunderstood what I said, for which I apologise. The Post-Gazette is indeed a reliable source. However, it doesn't mention the group (that I could see), just the protests themselves. So it's not providing verifibility for the article. If the article was about the protests, it would be fine. But for an article about the protestors, it doesn't qualify as a source. As you've expressed an interest in seeing the article and its sources, I've placed the article here in your user space so you can review it for yourself. If you still feel my decision is wrong, please ask for a review with my blessing. Hope this helps.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  07:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)