User talk:Fuhghettaboutit

——————————————— TALK PAGE ———————————————

Translation
Useful language dump
Corrections spreadsheet
sandbox
Archive1: December 2005
Archive2: January 31, 2006
Archive3: February 18, 2006
Archive4: March 19, 2006
Archive5: March 27, 2006
Archive6: April 21, 2006
Archive7: May 21, 2006
Archive8: June 26, 2006
Archive9: August 12, 2006
Archive10: August 24, 2006
Archive11: November 1, 2006

---

If you leave a comment for me below I will likely comment back here as well, but I might also duplicate on your talk page, depending on context or if you request. Please sign your comments by putting ~~~~ at the end and note that new posts should be placed at the bottom of the page. Thanks.

Thanks for the Welcome!

Cheers for the welcome and the toolbox on my talk page. Very useful! - Phydaux 23:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, cheers bru! Thats a welcome! Noserider 13:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Adrienne Shelley

Welcome to Wikipedia! I know there are tons of editorial policies and guidelines, so check out WP:CITE, and you'll see why I made the change to adjust "External links" to "References." Thanks!--69.22.254.111 20:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Those are not references because they were not used as references (I wrote the article; please see the page history). References are those things that were relied on to garner information for an article. Please refer to Wikipedia:Citing sources#"Notes" section for the format where notes are the only references. External links sections are ubiquitous across many articles, are created by convention (see Wikipedia:Citing sources#Further reading/External links) and are used to provide links to useful information on the topic but which were not used as references. By the way, thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia, but I have over 18,000 edits here:-)--Fuhghettaboutit 20:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It's nice to see a fellow admirer of Shelley's and Hartley's work. The reason I say that IMDb biographical data and similar biographical material falls under Reference is that, whether you yourself used them or not, her biographical information has to come from somewhere. Also, please see WP:OWN. --69.22.254.111 20:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. It did not come from there. I was not claiming ownership over the article so referring me to WP:OWN is not helpful. I state that I created the article to alert you to the fact that the references I used are not those in the external links section.--Fuhghettaboutit 20:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Film credits on the IMDB

Credits on the IMDB aren't reliable either. 6 years ago, I uploaded the full cast and crew of a Christopher Walken film called "The Prophecy 3: The Ascent" into the IMDB. As a joke, I added popular B-movie actress Linnea Quigley to the cast, credited as a "Hooker". The IMDB fully accepted my addition. Quigley is still listed on that page (although she has been downgraded to "uncredited"). This credit is now also listed all over the net. Quigley was even asked about the role in this interview: "You had a small part as a hooker in The Prophecy 3 in 2000, did you have any scenes with Christopher Walken and what was he like? I don’t think unless they used old footage that I’m in Prophecy 3. I have to see it sometime but I wish I could have worked with them. Damn, if you have seen it and I’m in it let me know." Mad Jack 22:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Ha! Well, first you should definitely bring that up on the talk page of WP:RS. I'm not sure though that your incident though can be used right now to deprecate imdb entirely for filmography. I believe you, but your incident may be an anomaly in the face of the quite clear statement that such sources are provided not by users by by the writers' guild. So, I agree that it should not be used for her birthdate, and would be happy if you found a different and more reliable source for the same information and replaced the references with that citation, but I don't think they should be removed and leave a gap requiring a {{fact}} template at this time.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I wish you hadn't shown me that...

I'm still laughing. Seriously. That made my day, thanks for sharing :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 05:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alley Cats Strike Again

Got the second one now, thanks. Yomangani^talk 09:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability

This is concerning http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notability_%28books%29&curid=5779956&diff=86669236&oldid=86664273. Your reasoning was "(Revert Jeopardy! edit--"Criteria" is perfectly descriptive and parsimony in section headers is a virtue)."

I believe "What are the criteria for notability of books?" is much more descriptive and headers in question format are much more useful, though I agree it is not a parsimony, in which it is a benefit to the article.

Check http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parsimony. Parsimony is "extreme or excessive economy or frugality." This is not necessary especially in a header. "What are the criteria for notability of books?" is not to long and if you still believe it to be so, then you may suggest a shorting of it, and afterward we can discuss. Please reply on my talk page so I get the alert, and duplication would be nice as well, if you could. Thank you. FactsOnly 07:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi FactsOnly! The reason I think "Criteria" is a better section heading because it is monolithic, not susceptible to multiple interpretations, whereas the lengthier change is not so clear cut. In a page entirely devoted to criteria for a certain topic, the only thing one would expect to find below a banner marked criteria is...the criteria promised by the nature of the page; it is implicitly declaratory, inviting us to put a colon after it in our mind's eye. I would ask you: What purpose is served by lengthening the header and turning it into a question? The form of announcing a question as a header often precedes a discussion, rather than a listing. The header is also more in keeping with Wikipedia's heading style guideline which states that we should "[a]void restating the subject of the article or of an enclosing section in heading," which the change does.

The reason I didn't answer you within moments of your post is because that was my last edit for the night. I also went to work the next day. If you're going to run with reverting unless you receive a response to a post, you need to acknowledge mortal considerations. For the same reason, consider archiving posts a few days apart, which will avoid fractured discussion, such as this one. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

My Reply:

First, I like to thank you for your kind and well-written explanatory note. "Criteria" is sufficient enough, and I have nothing further to contend with you, though many comments you made are not entirely accurate. If you are curious on my reasons and rebuttal, you may read them below:

"monolithic, not susceptible to multiple interpretations, whereas the lengthier change is not so clear cut."

• For the pure fact that it is monolithic is precisely why it is susceptible to multiple interpretations. For instance, consider the monolithic words, justice, love, and blue. What shade of blue? Dark? Light? Any hints? Romantic love? Platonic love? And let's not even go on to justice. Not susceptible to multiple interpretation? I doubt it. The lengthier change is more specific and thus more clear as to what follows.

"In a page entirely devoted to criteria for a certain topic, the only thing one would expect to find below a banner marked criteria"

• This is a assumption that is mostly true for experienced Wikipedia users. I think we need to consider how newcomers will view things and try to make things easier for them.

"it is implicitly declaratory, inviting us to put a colon after it in our mind's eye."

• It may demand some by declaring, though the page is a guideline page, to guide, not demand. As such, the page is only the view of those who edited it, and the question format whould be as if a newcomer to Wikipedia had asked it.

"The form of announcing a question as a header often precedes a discussion, rather than a listing."

• Or it may precedes an explanation of criteria for a particular topic.

Personally, if I were advocating for it, I believe these are the best reasons for "Criteria": Simple & Sufficient

Regarding the MOS: "It is assumed that you are writing about the same subject, so you usually do not need to refer to it again. Thus "Early life", not "His early life"."

• Yes, it may be assumed, but "His Early Life" is much more preferred. It's more specific and it's such a minor difference.

"Rules and regulations", not "Rules and Regulations".

• "Rules and Regulations" is better. Looks better. Parallel "R"'s. Able to become acronym RR. Is better. Is presented better with both caps is my main argument. The opposing argument would likely be that it doesn't follow a trivial rule that has no major practical significance and really doesn't matter in the case of titles.

Thank you for referring to it. I will go now and examine MOS, and make my suggestions to the MOS talks, after a few days of thought. SolelyFacts 22:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Oil Painting Reproductions

So why don't you add some more information? Its a work in progress. I am doing a PHD in Art Histroy, I don't know what you are talking about—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Barcelona3006 (talk • contribs) .

Let me clarify then. First, articles at their start should ideally meet with the requirements of Wikipedia:Stub (<---that's blue meaning it's a link), meaning the article provides enough information to be useful—generally three to ten short sentences. A one sentence article is really little different than no article at all. Second, the article appeared to be an advertisement masquerading as an article, since the one sentence text was followed by a link to a commercial website selling paintings. Even if you are not involved in that website and advertizing was not your intent, the impression given is otherwise, and such a website link is inappropriate for an article in an encyclopedia; see WP:SPAM#Advertisements masquerading as articles and WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided. For those reasons the article was tagged for speedy deletion, and was thereafter deleted.--Fuhghettaboutit 18:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Cue sports

Left you a big response (and request for some little actions) at User talk:SMcCandlish/WikiProject Cue sports#Towards making this a real WikiProject. Cheers. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

PS: Feel free to edit in there; just because it's temporarily in my juicerspace doesn't mean I think I Own it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, maybe you didn't notice--I added some detail to the section in which you talk about DYK two days ago--I've had a few articles featured there and they need to be more than stubs and must cite sources in order to be accepted (even if they are on silly pokemon monsters).--Fuhghettaboutit 00:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Some thoughts on notability, and inclusionism vs. deletionism

[From 'WikiProjects Cue sports' talk.] Heh, well, I'll peek into the can of worms... Better a can o' worms than a can o' whoopass! Anyway, yeah, I thought I'd seen you in there, in Wikipedia:Notability (books). It seems likely we'll be working together a lot in billiardspace, so we ought to get a good handle on each other's takes on these issues to avoid unexpected stepping on toes (or feelings). For the record, I don't think everyone who strongly supports the concept of WP:Notability is a deletionist, much less a rabid one. And I'm not an extremist inclusionist, either - I've AfD'd stuff myself (and have identified 1-3 cue sports articles that need that treatment already - Beer-In-Hand and two alleged games that appear to be WP:OR / WP:NFT). Rather, the notability guidelines (and more to the point, contentious draft guidelines that may never go anywhere "official" as well as pro-notability essays that are nowhere near guidelines) get abused daily in WP:AFD to remove articles that aren't flawed in any other non-reparable way, just because 5 or 10 or 20 rabid deletionists "vote" Delete vs. 1 or 2 others objecting, sometimes none. Part of the problem is that a lot of the newer admins forget (or never understood at all) that "AfD is not a vote" and treat it precisely as that, declaring "consensus" to delete when nothing actionable on WP Policy grounds has actually been established, only vague notability concerns. <shrug> I see it as a serious Wikipedia problem: for hardcore deletionists, AfD is a sport, a pastime of immense satisfaction, while for man others (esp. inclusionists) it's a stressful morass, so the "sport deletionists" have a perpetual upper hand - they are actively hunting for things to delete, and in many cases seem to genuinely enjoy fighting about them in WP:AFD, while inclusionists are generally writing/improving articles and not being particularly vigilant about AfD fetishism, often avoiding getting involved in the whirlwind of WP policy/guideline "lawyering" in WP:AFD at all. All that said, I've actually been a mild supporter of Wikipedia:Notability (books) because the extant "guideline" on the topic, buried at the bottom of the guideline on book naming conventions, is very vague and hasn't been subjected to enough debate and consensus building. The amount of involvement bubbling up in Wikipedia Talk:Notability (books) is encouraging. I'm not happy with the way notability is being abused, but the concept is part of the wikiculture and I support efforts to improve it (which almost necessarily will hamper efforts to abuse it). Anyway, you don't seem like a deletionist by my definitions. I think I may have called you that at some point, when I didn't understand your operating mode better. Well, hopefully this is more of a can of gummiworms.  :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I for one do not think of myself as a deletionist and also get annoyed when labeled as such because I drafted that guideline. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The War on Freedom for me going against a tide of "delete per nom," among other articles. But from what I see, and I have participates in probably 1,000 afds, most articles that get deleted should be deleted. What annoys me is per noms that are truly blind. I occasionally (rarely) "per nom" myself, but I also research every afd I comment on; my per nom really does mean I looked myself and agree with the reasons given for deletion. I think we're probably not too far apart with you leaning toward an inclusionist stance and me leaning he other way, but both near the line. But I am also very annoyed by (to parallel your phraseology) "rabid inclusionists." Everything should be kept. Just the fact that something was posted makes it sacrosanct. No standards. It's an encyclopedia dammit! I think User:Uncle G/On notability captures my beliefs very well. Anyway, as Cleopatra said, or at least as Shakespeare wrote of her saying, "let's to billiards" and forget all these distractions.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

> also get annoyed when labeled as such because I drafted that guideline.

Noted!

> most articles that get deleted should be deleted.

I'd agree, but I think that a) the vast majority of them that are deleted largely or entirely because of a "consensus" that the subject is not notable would still have been deleted for other reasons; b) that when this is not true it is dubious that the article should have been deleted (and my reading of policy and guidelines is that they indeed should not be). That to me seems to be what most anti-NN or concerned-about-NN people are really saying.

> but I also research every afd I comment on; my per nom really does mean I looked myself

Yep. My solution to this problem is to simply not use the phrase, convenient though it may be. I'll instead say something like:

* Delete. After going over all of this I have to agree with the nom., MKing, and with the additional concerns raised by several others.

Takes more time, but pretty much impossible to mistake for a blind "me-too".  :-)

> but both near the line. But I am also very annoyed by (to parallel your phraseology) "rabid inclusionists."

I hear ya. Ironically, while deletionists seem to rule AfD, their counterparts seem to have undue influence on the Featured and DYK processes. I've seen incredibly asinine, embarassing garbage show up there. Once around mid-summer, I think, the FAotD was an in-depth examination of some very minor Pokemon monster, something like Tortomongu or whatever, a turtle-thing. I just about coughed up my skull. It's one thing to have the review processes label something a Good Article because of the quality of the research and editing - that's about form, not content per se. It's a way different ball-game, and an alarming one, when there's an apparent consensus among the people active in selecting FAotDs that the best article they can find, to represent Wikipedia, its participants and its purpose and progress, is juvenile (and manipulatively commercial) gibberish (and minor blather at that; perhaps Pikachu him/itself would have almost, sorta, been OK...

> "let's to billiards"

YES! My new table is GORGEOUS. My back already hurts from practice-playing on it nonstop for hours! Whooo-hooo! 13-year dream come true. It's 9' teak Presidential Edinburgh, with Simonis's fastest, and AccuFasts, and Super Aramith Pros with the measel ball (I love that thing) - not the hideous pink & tan TV set, though. >;-)

Anyway, good to get to know you better, compadre. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah...Simonis 860—there is no substitute. Hope your taking some time out to do drills. Damn I had to go and spoil it all didn't I?--Fuhghettaboutit 06:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You'll think I've lost my mind...

User talk:SMcCandlish/WikiProject Cue sports/Notability !! Very rough draft. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you know

On 27 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Irving Crane, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow that was faster than usual. Thanks for the work in updating.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Newsletter

The November 2006 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Cbrown1023 23:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion Tags

Is it okay to use subst? or db? or a little bit of both? I don't have VP. Bearly541 07:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a ethernet connection, fast typing skills, and a firefox browser. Thanks for the help! Bearly541 07:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Your userpage

No problem! :-) (I blocked him too) Khoikhoi 03:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

John Carpenter

Good catch! Earlier today I was reverting vandalism (before I logged in) and making another minor edit, and I didn't even notice that the template had been deleted.

Sullenspice 02:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! It was at the bottom of the article and there were many edits in between. I also had an unfair advantage: ego factor; I created the template so human nature, of course I looked for it. Glad to see you've struck around:-)--Fuhghettaboutit 13:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I haven't added a significant amount of content in a while, but I do monitor what's going on and edit new contributions when needed.

Sullenspice 15:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you know?

On 6 December, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Artistic billiards, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 15:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Great article! I had never heard of this before; well done. Doc Tropics 20:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Doc!--Fuhghettaboutit 22:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

DYK notification

That's actually a really good idea. I've knocked up a quick template at User:GeeJo/Nom, since I typically write nominations for around 4-6 articles per day, and from now I'll make sure to add it to the talk pages of the users behind the creation of the articles I nominate. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 20:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Great. I'm sure doing so will lead to some articles being in better shape by the time they are selected.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thomas Hazlehurst

You've just changed my title from "Thomas Hazlehurst, businessman" to "Thomas Hazlehurst". My next article will be about his son, Thomas Hazlehurst - hence the qualification added to the title. I was going to differentiate (disambiguate?) by using the title "Thomas Hazlehurst, chapel builder" and I don't want the father just to be plain "Thomas Hazlehurst" as this will lead to confusion. I am rather new to Wikipaedia. What should I do? By the way I did explain this on the talk page - did you not notice? Peter I. Vardy 16:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Peter. I made a series of edits this morning and then went to work, so no, I didn't see the talk page and just got this message. I get ya--two people named Thomas Hazlehurst. My suggestion then is to make Thomas Hazelhurst into a disambiguation page (rather than a redirect) and make the two articles with disambiguation appenders as you had started doing (in the form Thomas Hazlehurst (businessman), which is the style). Please understand, there are thousands of new articles created every day. Those of us who patrol the new articles pages work frantically to keep up with the tide and we see many of the same things over and over. One of them is article titles that have disambiguators that are unnecessary. In your case, it was necessary, so sorry about that. I'll go make the disambiguation page:-)>--Fuhghettaboutit 00:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks; that is most helpful. I can now proceed with the other TH. I did know about the painter (well spotted) but I think I'll leave him to someone else. I do appreciate how much pressure there must be on those patrolling the new articles but imagine the "distress" to a new contributor to be told that your article is about to be deleted! So I did the "hangon" as directed and left a message but action was still taken. At least it was not deleted but the redirection was a further confusion to me. Perhaps I should have done a disambiguation page first, but I'm not sure how to go about that. Anyway I am learning fast! Thank's for your offer of help in the future - I may well need it when I can't understand all the stuff on the "Help" pages. Best wishes. Peter I. Vardy 09:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Overdue kudos!

		The Running Man Barnstar
		For the incalculably valuable (and tedious) task of creating and making navigable the Glossary of pool, billiards and snooker terms — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey thanks! I'm now going to retaliate with a thanking you for awarding me a barnstar award award.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

CSD Templates

Thanks for your edit to Template:empty-warn, so right, if your so inclined could you look at the other in the CSC deletion/nomination groups - see Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace#Deletion notifications, especially my suggestion of merging spam-warn and notice and nn-warn and notice. Cheers Lethaniol 23:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Lethaniol. I do think the -warn templates are more complete, but some users may prefer the brevity of the -notice templates. Both are used fairly often so I'm not so sure a redirect is in order. As for the merge, do you really think there's anything from the -notice templates that is missing and required in the -warns? But since I use only the -warn templates (I created {{Empty-warn}}), and don't feel really strongly about it either way, I'll wait for others to comment at the templates. I wouldn't be surprised though if after you take action, someone who didn't see the talk page message but tried to use the template and got the redirected template instead, reverted in short order.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Witchfinder General

Hi Fuh,

I did edit the Witchfinder General page. Unfortunately I made an error so I had to go back and re-edit. LemonGrass68 23:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey great, you got a username. Stick around and explore. There's a few million pages and lots to do:-)--Fuhghettaboutit 00:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

SpamAVI

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thank you for all that hard work cleaning up the doo-doos left by a vandal on a major spam-fest. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 02:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Cowboy pool

On 20 December, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cowboy pool, which you substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

— ERcheck (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Newsletter

The December 2006 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also, if you have not already, add your name to the Member List. Cbrown1023 00:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Wishing you the best for the holidays and a Happy New Year. I want to thank you for initially welcoming me to Wikipedia and your continued support to the project. Although I got off to a rough start in the beginning, Wikipedia is certainly a great environment with lots of friendly helpful people. As for the past, well, I say Fuhghettaboutit! Best regards, --Lperez2029 19:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

DYK!

On December 24, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Honolulu (billiards), which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 21:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On 1 January, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Balkline and straight rail, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

-- tariqabjotu 15:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Billard

That never seems to have been the spelling - billiard (sing.) may have been in use in French but I think it is just easier to have it modern English spelling, so I've updated it accordingly. See here for etymology which suggests this was in use by the time of the picture. Nice series of articles, btw. Cheers, Yomangani^talk 14:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, cushion caroms, was selected for DYK!

On January 7, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article cushion caroms, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 14:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I realized that too, but I don't think DYK could have any affect on this. It's probably a MediaWiki error. I also went ahead and fixed your DYK entry. Thanks for letting me know. Nishkid64 15:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, carom billiards, was selected for DYK!

On January 8, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article carom billiards, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 04:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Cuegloss for your editing pleasure

I think you'll find this very helpful. So much easier to type than the full Glossary of pool, billiards and snooker terms article name! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedily delete

Why was Genius Products deleted before I got a chance to defend it? --(trogga) 16:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It was tagged by me under {{db-bio}} as failing to contain any assertion of notability. If I remember correctly, it was also a very short article, so it may have also been speedable under {{db-empty}} or {{db-nocontext}}. Once tagged, an administrator looks at the article and determines whether they agree that the article meets the criteria for speedy deletion. There is no set wait time (which is why it's called "speedy"). Another words, once placed in the category, candidates for speedy deletion, the article can be deleted within moments, although there is usually a bit of lag time before it is checked. The deletion log entry for the article is here.

You have a couple of options. You can contact the deleting administrator (by posting to his or her talk page) and ask to be provided with a copy of the text. You can have the deletion reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review and you can recreate the article, but if it does not contain an assertion of notability it will likely be deleted again in short order, and a deletion review will not be fruitful if it did not. Once an article contains such an assertion and is not empty, etc., then it can only be deleted after discussion or by WP:PROD, but the latter has a long wait time. Please take into consideration a few guidelines and policies:

Beginning articles should at least comport with WP:STUB—3 to 10 informative sentences about the subject. Ideally, every statement in an article should be substantiated by a reliable source, and as already alluded to, there are notability considerations. As I take it Genius Productions was a web based company, please note the criteria at WP:WEB and WP:CORP. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --(trogga) 00:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete reasons

I got your note about tag corrections and reposts. Thanks for the help!! Magichands 01:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

new page patrol

Thanks for the help, I'll start using those. Is there not an speedy delete template for pages such as this Signature Spas of Hickory, Inc., or other blatent advertisements for NN-businesses, or do they as well need to be taken to AfD or PRODs? Cornell Rockey 15:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Why People Believe Weird Things is now on my Half.com wishlist. Thanks for the recommendation. Keep up the wikipedia-ing. Cornell Rockey 16:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

GA nominated articles

Hi. I'm sorry, but I've removed two articles that you put up at Wikipedia:Good articles/Candidates, since you didn't follow the procedure, specifically you didn't add the GA template to the article talk pages. I ask that you renominate the articles, and follow the process properly.

Fred-Chess 20:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I did not. Smacking forehead.--Fuhghettaboutit 21:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Mouse and the Traps

Thank you, "Fuhghettaboutit" for your comments on my article. I was called to breakfast about the time I got your message. I had intended to do an article on Mouse (the musician) and then one on the band, but now think it might be better as a subtitle under "Mouse and the Traps", since most know that name. I realized about halfway through writing it up that I really didn't know that much about Weiss himself. I'll probably redirect Ronnie Weiss also, but I do plan to add something to the "mouse (disambiguation)" page.

I am still learning my way around -- uploading and using images is something I still haven't tried yet but I have bookmarked the article on it. I didn't even really know how to respond to your message; hope I stumbled onto the right way.

Love your name! When I was just learning my way around the New York real estate appraisal market in the early 1990's, a guy in the Property Tax Department up there had that slogan up and used it several times in my hearing. (Different spelling though -- :-) ). I've been hearing it a lot more lately, seems like.

P. S. For some reason, the tag line came in as 8 P.M.; it's actually the morning. My clock is right.

Shocking Blue 14:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

User Warnings

I just updated my toolbox with the new {uw} user warning templates. If you decide to switch to the new templates, feel free to borrow my code if you don't feel like typing all the danged things. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Stress

Ok, no problem. Right now my wife is in hospital dying with liver and kidney failure. You do not know what stress is. Sorry.--Anthony.bradbury 22:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Family

I thank you, truly sincerely, for your concern. I guess we both know that external cicumstances can affect our editing stryle.--Anthony.bradbury 00:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Parents

I am truly sorry about your parents. And I thank you for your supportive comments about my wife, even though the situation appears irreversible. Any supportve comment of any kind is helpful in my time of stress, and i thank you for it.--Anthony.bradbury 00:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Halloween

This has been going on for several days: his first edit to the article was on January 11. Others have reverted it and warned him; the image is currently nominated for deletion. He has violated 3RR several times, but as far as I know he hasn't been blocked once. I'm not an administrator, and therefore can't really do anything regarding this. I have been hesitant to post a message on an administrator's page because, as you noted, in the past my complaints of vandalism have been shot down as content disputes. So, I have no idea what to do. Perhaps the course of action you suggest would be best. Dmoon1 03:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I've seen the persistence. You'll note in the edit summary of my reversion of him about two days ago I had counted the number of times the material was added and it was 43 at that time! What a pain.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that October weather reverted his own edit today. Perhaps he has finally given up? Dmoon1 20:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Hope really does spring eternal. Don't count your chickens. I'm out of aphorisms;-)--Fuhghettaboutit 23:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:The Wrong Arm of the Law.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:The Wrong Arm of the Law.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 10:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"Slow down and smell the roses" from my talk page

Sorry about that. I didn't realize the problem I was causing. I'll try to stop doing that now. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:Films Newsletter

The January 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Nehrams2020 07:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)