User talk:Dreamspy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi Why do you want to delete this article, famous Scholar. Was even member of Hoover Foundation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.203.227.6 (talk) 12:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

[edit] Welcome!

Hello and welcome!

First of all, I must commend you on the blurb you left on your userpage about being new and asking for help. That shows commitment and openness to input from other users. I have a feeling that you'll like it here and that you'll do well. You have already made a few good edits and I see you're being pretty active in the AfD discussions and that you have an understanding of the major Wikipedia policies. Well done so far!
There was one thing that I wanted to suggest about a recent redirect you made on Noah lemas. Good job on redirecting the article to the proper spelling of the name. When an article is being considered for deletion, it's probably best to not create a redirect (even if it's misspelled) until the debate is concluded. In the case that the debate is closed with the result of Delete, all of the redirects to the article have to be deleted separately so it's best to not have any until such a time that we decide to keep it. Still, good job in redirecting it.
By the way, I replaced the introductory note you wrote at the top of this page with a standard talk page header box that is more informative and maybe a little better looking so I was hoping you'd like it. If you don't like it, feel free to delete it and add your own text back.
If you need any help getting settled in, feel free to ask me for help.
Peace! SWik78 (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

I rather rudely deleted a red link from your talk page before I realised it was your talk page. Sorry! I meant to thank you for your contribution to the article on John Edmunds. Do you have a source for your addition? Jack1956 (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected sockpuppetry

No i am not (Silverhorse (talk) 08:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/WarthogDemon

I indented your second comment[1][2] as a double vote. Dorftrottel (talk) 17:22, March 26, 2008

You're very welcome. As a side note, Wikipedia lingo would call the above a heads-up rather than a warning, the latter usually resulting only from a blockable offense. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 07:39, March 27, 2008

[edit] RfA Thanks

A message from WarthogDemon.

I would like to thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, was unsuccessful with 61 support, 25 oppose, and 4 neutral. I've been taking the advice of the Opposes into practice and hopefully I can improve myself. Once again, thank you. ^_^

[edit] Afd on Alonso R. del Portillo

Which articles can not be verified? Have you read Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith? Callelinea (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

They are all verifiable. They are in published books. Books are considered #1 for verifiability. Callelinea (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That is where "Good Faith" comes in. So you are saying that all book references should be thrown out and only those that have an internet link are any good? Not all notable persons have something on the internet. Notable is not the same as famous. I understand your a "newbie" and that is why I am trying to clear this up with you.Callelinea (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

How do you know any book mentioned in Wikipedia is accurate? You either go to the library and read it or you go back to Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith. Callelinea (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is one proof of what I am saying is true Amazon.Com where I am mentioned in Pedro and Me. Callelinea (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assessments

Hi. In checking on recent assessment changes through WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, I noted that you had changed assessment ratings on the Jonathan Frakes article, both on class and priority parameters. These assessments are usually done by members of the given project and have specific criteria for the levels. In the case of Frakes, his priority level is in the mid to high range, "Actors and filmmakers who are well-known in the film industry, to film buffs, and others" if for no other reason than his involvement with Star Trek. The class of the article really isn't at a B level as of yet. It still is fairly brief in discussion of his career, isn't well laid out yet, and is missing considerable referencing, especially in the career section. I just wanted to let you know the reasons the assessment has been changed, and how the process generally works. Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. The assessments for quality can sometimes be a bit subjective, but experience tends to guide one to be more objective with it. One of the things I looked at was the quality of the content, which is kind of stark in comparison to a lot of B articles. The big problems to me were with the layout (the entire personal life stuck at the beginning of the article isn't in the way that is mostly accepted as standard for a biography, although it's not a policy), the relatively brief and stark outlining of his acting/directing roles, and how it just stopped. I looked at the mini-biography on IMDB, which can't really be used as a reliable source, but it certainly has a lot more detail, which could be a jumping off point for a well-detailed article. I am sure the sources are out there. In the quality guidelines, for a start class article, it says Some readers will find what they are looking for, but many will not. A reader genuinely interested in the topic is likely to seek additional information elsewhere. On the other hand, for a B class article Useful to many, but not all, readers. A casual reader flipping through articles would feel that they generally understood the topic. It just doesn't have the content. If it were an article in which I wasn't very familiar with the subject, I might accept it as a B class, but probably, due to the layout and really sparse referencing, maybe not. In any case, if you have questions, be sure to ask. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Moorcroft

It's gone now. Thanks! - Philippe 16:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Film AfD

Hi, I noticed your other comments on AfD disccusions for film. Would you mind having a look at this one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fraught? Thank you! Dgf32 (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Madden (solicitor)

I don't know if I should have done it, but I removed the AfD from the article and put a CSD tag on it. The second nomination AfD was never on the main AfD page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)