User talk:Eluchil404/Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Re:David S. Bowen

hi, who are you and why did you feel it necessary to delete my page that i spent a long time on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Powermetal328 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:American Professional Football League

I contested the deletion, because the one who deleted it said he had no problems with it being recreated if there were external sources. I am adding some, so please let it stay. Tom Danson 17:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Locker

Did you close this AfD discussion without deleting it? Are you aware that non-admins can only close unambiguous keep AfDs? Please read this section of the deletion process for further details. Regards, (aeropagitica) 18:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That section of the deletion policy has been rewritten slightly since I read it last, and I apologise if I was too bold in closing the AfD. Since it was an unambiguous G7 speedy I thought it best to simply tag it and end the discussion rather than tag it and wait for an admin to delete it before closing the AfD. Eluchil404 02:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If you don't have the power to enforce your decision then closing the discussion isn't an option. I'm not aware of a previous time when non-admins were permitted to close discussions that resulted in a 'delete' consensus. It is good that you have now reviewed and are now aware of the current policy about closing AfDs. Regards, (aeropagitica) 02:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Northern Irish people

I have left you a reply on my talk page. --Mal 07:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

BWW

Thanks. The important question is whether to have a page titled Bill Britt with a section on BWW, or to have a page titled BWW with a section on Bill Britt. I suggest the latter, it is broader. Most publicly available information about the person is in connection with the organization. But that means reorganizing the article and I guess having a redirect in the opposite direction. -- Knverma 14:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Your closure of Stefan Dohr AfD

I see you removed the AfD template for Stefan Dohr and added the {{oldafdfull}} template to its talk page. However, you forgot to close the AfD discussion. The directions for closing an AfD are found at Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Articles_for_Deletion_page. You should also review Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions. Agent 86 01:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

"not really a darwin-wedgwood tree"

You might as well say the same about darwin (this is not really a darwin - wedegwood tree, just darwin) or wedgwood (this is not realy a darwin - wdegwood tree, just wedgwood!).

Keynes family

It seems as if, through the magic of the newly transformed superior?links, "Keynes family" now just points to "John maynard keynes" (ignoring other family menmbers and indeed your tree connecting various other keynes).

Additionally, "de Keynes" now points to "john maynard Keynes". It was much more sensible as it was!ken 06:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Through my very simple "original research" I believe I have just discovered that the inventor and legendary "bouncing bomb" creator Barnes Wallis is almost certainly the cousin of Geoffrey Keynes. Barnes middle name is Neville and his father supposedly had a lover/wife called Fanny Bloxam - I believe she was in fact Fanny Keynes (possibly married to a Bloxam before or during the relationship) , (half) sister of Geoffrey Keynes's c1887 and also John Maynard Keynes, father John Keynes c1852. This relationship will become another victim of censorship without publication in "conventional" (outdated?) printed works for review by outdated peer review in several years time - if anyone bothers to publish this single but interesting fact ken 23:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding overturning non-admin AfD's

I agree with you totally, and your statement matched my initial thoughts. I just wasn't sure exactly what the current status was, so I thank you for your clarification. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 08:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Catholic-link deletion review

You endorsed the "no consensus" ruling, and I have addressed this at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Template:Catholic-link, where I invite you to take a second look. Cheers! — coelacan talk — 10:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

TeckWiz's RFA

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 19:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tall women, List of tall men

Please see new combined deletion debate. ~ trialsanderrors 20:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Garion96's RFA

Thank you for your support in my request for adminship which closed successfully last night. Feel free to let me know if I can help you with something or if I have made a mistake. I would also like to encourage you to vote often (just in case you don't) on other candidates since we need more admins. Also, thank you for changing your vote from neutral to support. Happy editing, Garion96 (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability/overview‎

There is a centralized discussion on notability at Wikipedia talk:Notability/overview‎, which is linked from the pump. --Kevin Murray 13:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to add on the Notability/Overview section

You stated that WP:N is a policy... that is technically incorrect. It is a guideline. DanielZimmerman 14:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarification please

Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(films)#AfD_.28Second.29

Thanks. Travb (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Narnia Newsletter March 2007

WikiProject Narnia Newsletter Issue 1 - 2nd March 2007 . Written by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs)
WikiProject Narnia News The WikiProject has been a little quiet lately. There are still quite a lot of Narnia stubs. It has been nearly three months since we last worked on Minor characters in The Chronicles of Narnia, which still looks very much like a draft page. That would be a nice article to get into the main namespace. Good and Featured Articles First Battle of Beruna has been listed as a GA. Our only FA at the moment is Narnian timeline. Other news WikiProject Narnia's first newsletter issue has been published. You're looking at it right now! Member News We are now proud of having PiratesArCool (talk · contribs), Mimepants (talk · contribs) and Johann1870 (talk · contribs) on our team. Good luck! To-do Add characters and bios to minor character draft page. Expand Narnia stubs. Place links to the Narnia Portal on article pages by using {{portal|Narnia}}. Add the stub template {{Narnia-stub}} to articles in the category Category:Stub-Class Narnia articles so that there are the same number of articles in Category:The Chronicles of Narnia stubs. Link the first mention of a year in all Narnia-related articles to Narnian timeline. Rewrite character articles to use the Narnian character example article format. Adopt an article and improve it to the best of your ability. Wikify The Chronicles of Narnia article, especially the new lead and Narnian Universe sections	From the founder I am proud to present our first issue of the WikiProject Narnia Newsletter. I decided that we needed to alert everybody who had expressed interest in the project that there is much work to be done! Please check in every once in a while at the project talk page, and tell other project members what you've been up to in terms of Narnia articles. Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || Article of the Month: Edmund Pevensie Edmund Pevensie is a major character in The Chronicles of Narnia. He appears as a principal character in three of the seven books. Edmund was the second to enter Narnia, although he tried to betray his siblings to the White Witch. However, Edmund managed to help save Narnia by neutralizing the White Witch's most powerful weapon, her wand. Collaboration of the Month: Shasta (Narnia) Shasta is currently quite short and not much of his background has been mentioned. The article also lacks images – but make sure if you upload one, you include a FU rationale. Contribute!

Fair-use images removed from your user page

Hello, Eluchil404. I've removed some images from User:Eluchil404/Test, as they are copyrighted, unlicensed images that are being used on Wikipedia under claims of fair use. Unfortunately, by Wikipedia policies, no fair-use images can be used on user pages; please see the ninth item of the Wikipedia fair-use policy and Wikipedia:Removal of fair use images. These images have not been deleted from any articles. If you have any questions, please let me know. —Bkell (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Mayan languages FA nomination restarted

The FA nomination of Mayan languages where you had expressed your opinion has been restarted because of substantial changes having been made to the article. You might wish to restate your opinion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mayan language.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 11:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:User no GFDL

Just thought you'd like to know:

A template you participated in a Tfd for (Template:User no GFDL) has subsequently been speedily deleted, and is now under deletion review. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   16:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

RFA

I was going through some notes and realized that your original RFA was one that I supported strongly, yet did not pass. Are you still interested in the administrative tools? If so, I may be willing to support/nominate you. Let me know here or on my talk page, if you please. -- nae'blis 14:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I do still think that I could make good use of the admin tools. However, I have not been very active recently and it might be better to wait awhile. I would accept a nomination gladly but you should definitely check out Special:Contributions/Eluchil404 and such carefully before you make it. Eluchil404 16:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

How about this: if your activity level rises and you're finding your contributions hindered by not having access to the tools (my standards for "needs the tools" are looser than some people's), drop a line on my talk page, otherwise I won't bother you with this, and you won't get opposed for low activity. Fair enough? -- nae'blis 17:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. I will definitly let you know, when I think that I am ready and able to pass RfA. Thanks. Eluchil404 17:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Got your note; this weekend is kind of busy, but I'll probably get back to you within a week, okay? -- nae'blis 14:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

No sweat. Thanks for looking into it. Eluchil404 17:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Oi. Life's been insane, but this week looks better. Sorry about the delay of game. -- nae'blis 06:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Whenever works for you. At least you haven't disappeared the way the last person did. Eluchil404 06:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Jane Harvey page deleted

I was surprised to see that the Jane Harvey page I have been working on has been deleted (maybe by you, but I'm not sure), after seeing this message from DGG on the discussion page: "I think at this point the article seems to not just assert but demonstrate notability, so I decline to delete it as speedy--Good job, Chrischmoo. DGG <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG>" I was very pleased to see DGG's message as I had gone to some effort to make improvements to the article, and I do believe Jane Harvey is is 'notable'. I did say that I agreed with Corvus Cornix, which I now realise was a mistake. I am a new inexperienced user, and as it seemed the page was doomed & I did not feel qualified to argue, I just wanted it deleted as soon as possible. Now, in view of DGG's comments I am thinking I should republish it. I have also asked his advice. Thanks for any help/advice you can give. Chrischmoo 20:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dash_(The_Incredibles).jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Dash_(The_Incredibles).jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ElinorD (talk) 11:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops sorry, I posted something here, but I was wrong, just ignore it thanks. Until(1 == 2) 16:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA was successful

Congratulations, I have closed your RfA as successful and you are now a sysop! Please add yourself to WP:LA. If you have any questions about adminship, feel free to ask me. Good luck! --Deskana (banana) 20:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Congrats! Now, get to work! :) Jmlk17 01:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, by the way - I was on vacation but I see you've already gotten your knees wet! -- nae'blis 00:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of BioAnalyte company page

BioAnalyte passes the requirements for notability due to relevance and uniqueness of technology and categorization within existing wikipedia categories. The BioAnalyte article described technological advantages and technical methodologies, but did not explicitly offer anything for sale and therefore does not constitute advertising. It certainly cannot be called spam, since it was written by hand with the stylistic guidelines in mind. (Indeed, spam is automated, offensive and way-off topic, which is something quite different altogether.) I ask for a review of the deletion, and I ask my comments on the discussion page to be considered. Cascokid 19:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The page met speedy deletion criteria G11 as blatant advertising. I.e. # Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having e.g. a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion; an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well.

Please cite the inappropriate content. Seriously, I'd like to know which collection of words crossed the line and met a standard of outrageousness.

It cited no independent sources and had a consistently positive point of view more akin to a press release than a neutral encyclopedia article. If you wish to contest the deletion the next step is Wikipedia:Deletion review. But I would instead encourage you to find independent reliable sources and attempt to create an article based on those. See WP:FORGET. Eluchil404 20:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Failure to cite independent sources does not constitute inappropriate content, but a lack of appropriate content, which is quite different. This point does not support the speedy deletion of BioAnalyte on inappropriate content grounds.

• Also, Wikipedia policy expressly prohibits a negative point of view, and drawing a line between a neutral and a positive point of view is in the eye of the beholder, more often than not. It is a judgment call, not a speedy-delete criterion.

While I accept your points about independent citations and the FORGET directive, I hasten to add that his standard is not applied uniformly. The Gas Powered Games article (stumbled upon while looking for the GPG akin to PGP) convinced me that a BioAnalyte article would be appropriate. The GPG article contains corporate history and titles of commercially available games, but it doesn't contain the sort of generic contribution that the BioAnalyte article has: a rather dispassionately-described scientific data reduction work flow that is valuable independent of the company. And the GPG article has no third party citations. And no warnings or threats to this effect. And certainly no speedy-delete activity against it.

Further review of Category:Companies_based_in_Maine reveals a similarly low standard for third-party verification (with several articles so annotated) but evidently there was no speedy deletion of these, either.

I am happy to add references to BioAnalyte from popular third party sources such as the Portland Press Herald and the Working Waterfront. Please give me a chance. Indeed, BioAnalyte exists in a variety of industry directories, all of which I can site. I can also highlight the work flow more prominently and move product names to lower status. No problem.

I strongly suggest that you use your speedy-delete reflex for egregious infractions of the no advertising rule, such as articles that offer a product for a price: "Buy my gizmo for $9.95." That's blatant advertising, and deserves the swift justice of a speedy-delete. Describing an innovative technical work flow is not, and deserves better. Cascokid 22:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello

In light of your AFD on MegaUpload, I've started this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Box.net. FYI, >Radiant< 12:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Please be more careful

Your undeletion of Julia Earl was in error and harmful. The article was not a contested prod - it was deleted as a speedy, as my deletion comment of "prod unnecessary" made clear. Furthermore, the prod tag, which I hope you looked at, cited an OTRS ticket number. OTRS tickets, particularly when involving BLPs, are generally sensitive issues, and are worth checking with the deleting admins before taking unilateral actions to overturn. In this case, the damage was minimal, but it was appreciable. Between the OTRS ticket and the BLP concerns, much more care and review was warranted. Phil Sandifer 01:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

What Mr. Sandifer means is this: If he takes an arbitrary action, you'd better agree with him! Otherwise, you're not being "careful." No consensus building for him. (P.S. And when, on other pages, he says that he won't reveal whether a deletion resulted from an OTRS ticket, he means, unless he chooses to reveal it elsewhere.) 23:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Notfromhereeither 15:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Le Shok

Hi - I undeleted the page for consistency, because as it stood the articles for all the band's other releases still stood and it seemed a bit odd for this one to stay deleted, especially as the band appeared (marginally) notable. (To be honest, I think all the articles for the band's releases should probably be merged into the main article). However, if you want to delete it again, it's not a problem. ELIMINATORJR 20:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• I've just had a conversation about this, and it looks like it would be best to merge all eight album articles into a discography article. I haven't got time to do this at the moment, but I'll stick it on my to-do list. You're right, eight separate articles about a marginally notable band probably isn't justified. ELIMINATORJR 20:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

JkDefrag AfD

Are the articles by journalist Serdar Yegulalp of Computerworld (also published in Network World Asia) and another one ("Defragmentation freeware outpaces native tools in Windows" in WinComputing April 2007) suitably notable? Then there is the article "Boxed Utility Blowout" in Computer Power User magazine September 2007 pg 66-68. Please advise. RitaSkeeter 07:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

To quote from the Vopt AfD page: Another fundamental issue is that Wikipedia:Deletion Policy -- Wikipedia official policy that requires "Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion" -- seems not to have been followed here. The policy, which seems to have been completely ignored here, requires nominators to consider alternatives to deletion -- such as editing, tagging or merging the article -- before considering deletion as a last resort. Given that the article as it existed when nominated for deletion made explicit claims of notability and provided ample sources, there seems to be little justification for this clear policy violation. At a minimum, an explanation of the nominator's actions would be in order --Donn Edwards 16:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

DRV notice

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Toni Preckwinkle. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Kianna Dior

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kianna Dior. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. UnknownMan 00:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Mike Yaconelli

I don't think the keep decision was appropriate. The consensus last I saw was 4 deletes to 1 one weak keep, when a few hours later two guys run on making claims none of us had time to respond to before the page is closed, had you closed it at the appropriate time, this would have been a blatant delete, and I think if you were going to factor those last 2 so much, you should have given us time to reply.JJJ999 22:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Tom Cumberworth

An article that you have been involved in editing, Tom Cumberworth, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Cumberworth. Thank you. ArtVandelay13 08:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Toni Preckwinkle recreation

I just thought I would call your attention to the WP:CO going on for Toni Preckwinkle. It is this week's WP:CHICOTW.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Presumable Croatian and Muslem percentage in Bosnian-Herzegovian municipalities in 2005

Hey Eluchil404:) It's ok about that deletion. That page should have evolved in proper article, but I didn't have the time to do it:( Ceha 06:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC).

DRV for Cade Gaspar

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Cade Gaspar. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Smashville 19:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

DRV closure for Claudia Ciesla

Just fyi, I corrected your closing statement for the Claudia Ciesla DRV. The AfD concluded without consensus, so the arrticle still exists. ~ trialsanderrors 01:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sergey and Helena Rozhenko

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Sergey and Helena Rozhenko, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Sergey and Helena Rozhenko. Ejfetters 05:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Great success!

Click that-a-way to open your card! → → →

Dear Eluchil, Thank you for your participation in my request for adminship, which ended successfully with a final tally of (52/10/1). I was impressed by the thoughtful comments on both sides, and the RFA process in general. The extra buttons do look pretty snazzy, but I'll be careful not to overuse them. If you have advice to share or need assistance with anything, feel free to drop me a message or email. Thank you and good day! Cordially, — xDanielx T/C\R 06:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Credits - This RFA thanks was inspired by Carlosguitar's RFA thanks and LaraLove's RFA thanks, which were both inspired by The Random Editor's RFA thanks, which was in turn inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks.

Afghan-Americans

If you can please protect the article as Afghan-Americans version because there are some secret vandal editors changing the name to Afghanistani, which is obviously wrong. Protection is the best answer to help save future edit wars.--ZRX222 (talk) 04:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which closed successfully with 44 support, 4 oppose, and 3 neutral. I will work hard to improve the encyclopedia with my new editing tools (and don't worry, I'll be careful).

  jj137 ^♠ 01:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for Restoring "Product Development and Management Association" Wikipedia Entry

I see that my request to restore this entry has been made... many thanks!! However, when I tried to edit the page (to remove the logo which should not be there I see, according to Wikipedia rules), it tells me that the page cannot be edited, and is protected from editing because it is transcluded in the page "Wikipedia:Protected titles/September 2007". Can you somehow get it unprotected so I can fix that problem, and begin to improve the page's content? Or do you know who I need to make this request to? Many thanks.

Davolson (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)