User talk:Smkohnstamm/Archive Jul 07
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Kohnstamm Communications
A tag has been placed on Kohnstamm Communications, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.
If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 06:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] List of area codes in Cape Verde
A tag has been placed on List of area codes in Cape Verde, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Jmlk17 06:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Applewizkid
A tag has been placed on Applewizkid, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Jmlk17 06:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles, as you did at Kohnstamm. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Jmlk17 06:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ill-considered move of twin
Over 500 pages link to the twin article, and the vast majority of those are are referring to the correct article. If you are not familiar with WP:MOVE, it indicates that pages should be moved when they meet the following criteria:
- The title has been misspelled
- The title does not follow the wiki's naming conventions
- The scope of the article has been reduced, extended or otherwise changed
While I have no doubt that you meant well, the principle of least astonishment would have us revert this page move. For future reference, controversial move requests should be handled via WP:RM. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 15:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Miranda Devine / neutrality issue?
Hi there, Smkohnstamm. You put a tag on the Miranda Devine article. What is not neutral about it? I can find no discussion from you on it. The quotes (eg Pro-America, Pro-Bush) are from some pretty heavy weight famous people. Regards, Pigmypossum 05:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Re; Miranda Devine, I just don't know if those descriptions should be included in the introduction. You can say that she is more conservative, but this is slightly libelous. Smkohnstamm
- Hi Smkohnstamm, thanks for the reply. People could argue about the writing style of having the comments up top, and its merits in that regard. However, it is not an issue of liability, because the comments were made by other very famous people, and it was all fully cited in the references. It would only be libelous if a Wikipedian was the originator of the comments. cheers, Pigmypossum 06:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Re; Miranda Devine, I just don't know if those descriptions should be included in the introduction. You can say that she is more conservative, but this is slightly libelous. Smkohnstamm
[edit] Whoops
Give it a second, it will come to you :) Happy editing, thanks for the lookout! Keegantalk 05:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- You left a talk message on the userpage! No biggie, happens all the time by everyone. The one time I forget to double check I'll do that as well. Happy editing to you. Keegantalk 05:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] General Hospital hoax
I have been unable to find a single reference which affirms that Lindsay Maria Spencer is a real character. The relatives of Luke and Laura have been well-documented. There's no mention of a "Lindsay Maria Spencer" anywhere, and a character that was one of the "longest-running characters on the show" would surely be mentioned somewhere. And this article says that the character has been played by "Emmy Award-winning actress Elyse Austin since 2000." There's no such actress. There is no listing at IMDB.[1] This appears to be a hoax. The editor who added this information also added an article for Robert Justin Scorpio, who "has been played by Eric Dunn for the last 22 years." Again, there's no such mention of this character, and no evidence of the actor "Eric Dunn" playing on General Hospital.[2] --Elonka 19:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- No such character has ever existed on General Hospital. This is nothing more than a hoax. MysticBlue 22:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] TPT
To answer your question (see my talk page), channels 2 and 17 should be split. And the articles for both should be in the form of their call letters. This is the form in which all radio/TV station articles take. Channels 2 and 17 are separate stations, with separate licenses, different sign-on dates, power output, etc. Granted, both stations are owned and operated together. But so are KMSP and WFTC. And KSTP-TV and KSTC. Should both sets of those stations be combined? I think not. --Fightingirish 08:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] July 2007
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as in Image talk:Da.jpg, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. JWJW Talk Long Live Esperanza! :) 04:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- also just an other small note, don't forget that warning templates such as the one above, go on user talk pages, so that the vandal gets a notification that he has a new message on his user talk page.--JWJW Talk Long Live Esperanza! :) 05:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WP:CVU status
The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 17:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
