User talk:Mh29255

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Just wondering

How do I put a web address on an article without making it copyright infringement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarquetteGoldenEagles (talk • contribs) 20:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blatant promotional material

I just removed a bunch of blatant promotional material at Heartland Payment Systems- why did you undo its removal last time? --Treekids (talk) 01:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Accordance

Further to your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accordance, I have done more work on the article, and the nominator has changed his view to Keep. If you have time to review the article and are prepared to change your own "Delete" vote, this might enable early closure of the AFD. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strider Phoenix

Actually there are plenty of warning templates you can use on his talk page. See WP:WARN for a complete list. Start with a level 1 or 2 warning depending on the severity of the situation. (You may go directly to level 3 or 4 if the person has a history of disruptive edits.) And when the person ignores a level 4 warning, report him at WP:AIV and watch him as he gets blocked within the next 5 minutes. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 04:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

What Blanchardb said. Place a warning template on the user's talk page after each offense. If they have been Blatant vandal warned a couple of times and or given a final warning, I report to AIV. I think this particular user should be getting the message soon. If he keeps it up, he can be blocked. Dloh cierekim 05:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I've spelled it out for him. He may mean well and is just overly enthusiastic. He may be totally self-serving. If he becomes constructive, great. Otherwise . . . . Cheers, Dloh cierekim 05:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I put a level-3 "warning against vandalism" on his talk page. Maybe this will get him to stop. Mh29255 (talk) 05:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No bother

thanks for your note.

No bother. You just did. Uncle G moved it per his reasons on the afd page. Not sure I understand moving an article during an AfD, but there it is. Durban Strategy redirects to the page under its new name. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 05:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Persistent SD Tag Removal From Page

Yeah, you should send that to AfD. There's an assertion of notability there, and I would have declined an A7 deletion anyway. east.718 at 08:31, December 27, 2007

That's fine. I just wanted to get some clarification. Mh29255 (talk) 08:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ketoret

{{unreferenced}} shouldn't be used for an article that has some references. Please use {{refimprove}} or similar instead. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Replay Publishing

Hello Mh29255. I'd like to ask you to take another look at the Replay Publishing page, which was nominated for AfD. I've added a number of references to the page, and enhanced the article text and links. Any further constructive criticism you could give would be greatly appreciated. Perhaps a single, sourced page would be a viable solution. Thank you. Kezzran (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello again Mh29255. I'd like to ask you to review my last comment on the AfD page for Replay Publishing. I think I've presented a more logical conclusion to the pages being merged. Thank you for your time. Kezzran (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brisbane Ladies

Thanks very much for your work on this, which has obviously saved it from deletion.12:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I really appreciate that. Mh29255 (talk) 05:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gay Dublin

Hi. Can you tell me why the Gay Dublin article was deleted when the Gay Blackpool article hasn't been removed ?? It just seems very inconsistant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taoiseach (talk • contribs) 17:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware of the article until you told me about it. It doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Mh29255 (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean you weren't aware of the Gay Blackpool page? Well both the Gay Dublin and Gay Blackpool pages are very similar.

I don't understand how come the Dublin page has been deleted and the Blackpool page hasn't been deleted either. Can you tell me why? thanks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taoiseach (talk • contribs) 17:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An unfortunate phenomenon

Pleas allow me to tell you about an unfortunate phenomenon first. I am one of the wikipedia's more prolific contributors. And I write on controversial topics. Consequently, I have had to participate in dozens of {{afd}}s on the hundreds of articles I have started.

One unfortunate phenomenon I have observed is the propensity of some {{afd}} patrollers to make snap judgments. Some regular {{afd}} patrollers don't bother actually reading the articles for themselves. One hot-spirited patroller nominated three articles I created for deletion, posting essentially identical justifications for all three. He asserted that all three fell into a particular class of article that he didn't think the wikipedia should carry -- guantanamo captives. And the first commentators who expressed a delete opinion echoed his judgment, as if they too had read the article for themselves.

The nominator was busted. He had not read the articles in question closely enough to notice that one of the subjects, Zahid Al-Sheikh, was not a Guantanamo captive at all. He is an older brother of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed; a notable fighter during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan; notable for introducing his brother to key jihadists; notable for facing accusations that he played a role in several key terrorist bomb plots; notable for being a director of several charitable organizations following the ouster of the Soviets from Afghanistan.

The nominator didn't manage to actually read the article before he nominated it. And everyone who chipped in, and criticized it for the bogus reasons nominator advanced was showing that they too hadn't bothered to actually read the article. They exposed themselves as people prepared to voice an opinion based solely on the nominator's description of the article. They exposed themselves as being prepared to pretend their opinion was actually based on reading the article in question.

Well, that is not right.

The reason I am writing you is that there are some guidelines as to what criteria we should use in forming opinions for {{afd}}. And there are guidelines as to how to express our opinions. Short version -- "me too" opinions are strongly discouraged. Assuming good faith, you may have taken an appropriate amount of time to form your opinion. But your very brief explanation of your opinion gives the impression you did not.

Further, you wrote:

"...but no assertion of notability in either article."

However, the second sentence of Wilberto Sabalu says:

"Sabalu, and his colleague Colonel James W. Harrison Jr., are notable for having been killed, by an Afghan guard, who opened fire on their vehicle when they were entering the prison gate."

Now, you are perfectly free to disagree as to how notable this makes the men. But your justification of "no assertion" is simply incorrect.

Okay, what I am going to ask you is, could you please spend long enough on each article where you want to express an opinion, that the opinion you express is not some form of "me too", and shows you gave the article fair consideration.

I spent over three hours on these two articles this morning. I'd feel better if those judging the articles spent enough time drafting their opinion so I could feel confident they actually gave them a fair reading.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply.

I left a reply to the "memorial" concern on the {{afd}}. Geo Swan (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I-605

Where did I say it's going to be built? --NE2 02:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You certainly didn't demonstrate that there is an actual plan that would imply that the road is going to be built. What does the template at the top of the page state: "This article contains information about a planned or expected future road." There IS not plan to build the road. Here would be an accurate template: "This article contains information about a road that has been suggested to be built, but there is no actual plan to build the road and no realistic expectation as to whether it will ever be built or when it might (if ever) be built." In other words, the entire Interstate 605 (Washington) road is WP:CRYSTAL. Mh29255 (talk) 02:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Me? I didn't touch the article except to undo Freewayguy's changes. I think you're looking for whoever placed that tag. --NE2 02:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I was originally fine with the article being renamed to something other than I-605, but this discussion (and further reading) has made me realize that this article should be renamed something like: "Twice Rejected, But Ongoing Speculation About a Possible Additional Commerce Corridor Being Built Somewhere (Washington)". Mh29255 (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE:AFD Removal

Well, hopefully from the looks of things he has stopped. If he does continue, you can issue a {{uw-afd4}}, and if it continues past that, then WP:AIV is the next step. Icestorm815 (talk) 04:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warning substitution

Hi! I see you've been reverting some vandals lately. That's one of my favorite things to do, too, but I'd like to point out that templates like {{uw-vandalism1}}, etc. are supposed to be substituted (meaning enter {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} instead, in case you're not familiar with that feature). That way, if the warning templates are ever changed, we both preserve the warning the user originally got and save the servers a lot of work (they don't have to update 10,000 other pages after the new version of the template is saved). Other than that, you seem to be doing very good work; keep it up! Cheers! Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 15:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. I forget to use the "subst:" tag sometimes. I'll try to remember to include that in the future. Mh29255 (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If you use Firefox, I recommend Twinkle for vandalism patrol. It subst:'s for you. Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 15:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Twinkle. Thanks for the info. I'll check it out as I do use Firefox. Mh29255 (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain why UniComs is for deletion? Thank you. farfouille

Because it's WP:SPAM, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Mh29255 (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for breaking Wikipedia's rules, but I used Merck & Co.'s page as an example. The company Merck discribes its products in Wikipedia and we can not do it... Am I missing something? One more time - sorry for any inconvenience caused! farfouille —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farfouille (talk • contribs) 16:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to read and understand WP:CORP and WP:SPAM before posting articles about businesses. Mh29255 (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Twisted Outlook

Because I'm trying to add correct references. It seemed like I was getting somewhere when a wiki staff member simply said that all I needed to do was correctly arrange the references, which I am doing. There are literally loads of references now, it's noteable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfmmushroom (talk • contribs) 00:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Power ballad

The bracketed weasel words need to go. Article content should convey verifiable fact... not speculative hypothesis. The cleanup tag isn't a grade. Lots of editors make pet projects out of tagged articles. The example list could be shorter too. List cruft tears away at any/all Wiki credibility. That article has been through a lot. Myself and a couple of other editors took it from horrible to horrid. I hacked away at it more and got it from horrid to pathetic. I hacked away even more and got it from pathetic to bad. To be fair your edits took it from bad bad to good bad. :D . Take some comfort in the knowledge that... no matter what we do with it... it'll never be good. Sometimes a turd will always be a turd no matter what colour we paint it. 156.34.208.112 (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's clearly not an easy article to work on. Unfortunately, I don't know of any good references. I just wanted to remove what were the most obvious problems and do an overall clean-up. I agree that it will probably never be that good. Mh29255 (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

At least we can say we tried. English Wiki has over 2 millions articles. And 75% of them are worse than Power ballad!?!?! It's depressing sometimes. I've been here as a staunch anon for almost as long as there's been a Wiki to be here for. It's an interesting experiment. After over 50000 edits I still have enough interest to keep pluggin' away at it. I have no use for user accounts or dreams of adminship (I've turned that prompting down more times then I can remember) I believe in the "purity" of anonymous editing. It's what Wiki was built on. Keep hacking away at Power ballad. This is Wiki... it'll always be a work in progress. 156.34.208.112 (talk) 01:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hilary Summers page.

You can remove it. I apologize.

Ineversigninsodonotmessageme (talk) 07:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Ineversigninsodonotmessageme

Yes, it will be removed; but the page cannot be blanked as that removed the deletion tag. Mh29255 (talk) 07:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Collusion Syndicate

I wrote you a note here on your talk page asking for you to review the Collusion Syndicate article to see if your viewpoint had changed. (I am new and basically had no idea what I was doing when I first posted it but have received a lot of advice and assistance from other admins to improve it.) I noticed that you blanked the question and offered no response. I just wanted to re-ask in case the question was inadvertently blanked by accident during some house cleaning. Thanks - - Operknockity (talk) 14:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tengshu

Tengshu appears to be a character from Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 13: The River of Wind. I recommend adding all the characters bluelinked in the article, as none of them are notable. I'll be glad to add them to the AfD for you, but I wanted to check first -- some people get cranky when other articles are added to "their" AfD nomination. :) --Fabrictramp (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like to go ahead and nominate the similar articles for deletion, that would be good. Thanks for spotting that. Mh29255 (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My Name Is Khan

Declined the speedy delete request. Because a movie is not a person, organization, or web content, WP:CSD A7 (in its current incarnation) does not apply. Consider taking the article to WP:AFD. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 05:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John thompson td bank

Declined the speedy delete request. The article asserts among other things that he is the chairman of the board of Canada's second largest bank. May well be notable. Suggest taking to WP:AFD. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 06:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

Please note this page where an editor has opened up a Deletion Review of an AfD debate you were involved in. Whilst such a request is clearly within their rights that editor has only contacted one or two of those who took part during the AfD process. It would in my view be more appropriate to include a notice to all persons (including yourself) that were interested in the first Article for Deletion debate, and I provide such a notice and link here. Best wishes --VS ^talk 22:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] INFORMS List of Publications

Greetings,

My 5/29/08 List of INFORMS Publications posting, along with pages for our scientific society's individual journals, was blocked and removed with reasons given as conflict of interest, copyright infringement, and blatant advertisement.

I am the INFORMS Director of Communications. I posted these pages relying on the model of our sister society IEEE in their List of Publications at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IEEE_publications. The IEEE page also appears to have been posted by a society staffer in a nearly identical way to mine. Please let me know how I can apply the guidelines so that INFORMS, like IEEE, complies.

Thanks. BarryList 14:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy Deletion of Edjamacation under article G1 of the speedy deletion policy

I was wondering exactly how an article about George W. Bushes use of the word "edjamaction" is nonsense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nefastus (talk • contribs) 00:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)