User talk:Splash/Archive19

Archives
Archive to end 1st August 2005 17th August 2005 11 September 2005 02:53 (UTC) 26 September 2005 22 October 2005 19 November 2005 5 December 2005 3 January 2006 20 January 2006 5 February 2006 4 March 2006 23 March 2006 3 April 2006 29 May 2006 1 August 2006 16 September 2006 12 November 2006 6 August 2007

Deletion of Shoplet

We object to the removal of Shoplet. Please note all informatoin submitted were verifiable. Why is Shoplet treated differently than WB MASON? (Both are similarly situated copmanies. Please advise how I can immediately get Shoplet wiki reinstated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nymonsoon (talk • contribs) 18:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, there. From reading both articles, I think that an organisation of the age, extent and repute of WB Mason is very different to a successful internet trader of the last decade or so. For example, Shoplet does not appear to supply to major baseball teams across the States and all kinds of other things. Reading the article, it struck me as being in some significant part written to talk about the company for it's own sake in the style of a 'newsletter' or 'brochure' almost. This is too close to advertising in the article, and so it was deleted. Additionally, I do not think the company is likely to pass the inclusion tests set out in this document. Splash - tk 21:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Surviving the burst of the internet bubble and prospering on-line for over 13 years has an “X Factor” like dog years and places Shoplet on equal, if not, better footing for longevity in its business sector. While WB Mason may service a few Major League Baseball teams, it does not service the public sector. Shoplet is the holder of 5 Federal GSA Contracts GS-35F-0736P (70 Information Technology); GS-07F-0091T (84 Surveillance Systems); GS-02F-0141P (75 Office Products); GS-07F-5601R (73 Cleaning & Maintenance Products); and GS-28F-0015T (71 Furniture)), and services various State and public institutions throughout the entire United States. In addition, Shoplet is the only pure play standing e-tailer in office product industry since 1994 and according to published articles has been experiencing triple digit growth year over year and is expected to approach $100 million in revenue this year. Many of the referenced articles suggest that Shoplet is the ultimate on-line success story, and was the catalyst to for the change the industry currently experiencing. If WB Mason is worth mentioning along with many other doc.coms that actually made it (examples: Buy.com, drugstore.com, AbeBooks, eBuyer) -- so is Shoplet. Every industry deserves to have a darling and a hero. Shoplet is the one for office products category.

That being said, and if your concern is that the article was too much like a “brochure,” please suggest a more limited scope presentation that would comply. Shoplet truly is an innovative business enterprise that exemplifies the future of an industry.

We await your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nymonsoon (talk • contribs) 17:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Following your further information, I have temporarily restored the article and nominated it for discussion as part of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion process. The procedure lasts for about five days. To have the article survive, you will need to work closely with the advice in WP:CORP, WP:RS and WP:V. If the article still sounds like an advertisement during that process, it will be deleted. You also have very clear conflict of interest issues in this article, and that will also make your case the harder, so do study that document also. Finally, bear in mind that it is exceptionally unlikely that Shoplet is the "ultimate online success story" and that there is no given right to an article in the encyclopedia. Splash - tk 21:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Gardner

It's a shame past achievements don't count

http://www.oric.org/index.php?page=software&fille=detail&letter=&num_log=1284 http://www.oric.org/index.php?page=software&fille=detail&letter=&num_log=445

I suppose the creator of the Cube engine warrants a page because he's a professor? I've dedicated years of my life to freeware and open source games but I don't get a chance to have a page of my own, just speedy deletion. Thanks guys.....

The page was redirect to the engine of note. It was not deleted. Try clicking on the page - you will find you are bounced automatically to Retribution Engine. Along the way, you might also consider the advice in WP:AUTO. Splash - tk 21:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Admin conflict

No problem, as this is one the most valid uses of IAR. Coming to it, I agree with you. Maxim 22:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Question about Image:8PSK_Gray_Coded.svg

Hi, I'm currently learning about modulation for a project I'm working on. I was wondering, is there a reason your image here doesn't use binary reflected gray coding? I understand that it's still a gray code and works either way, I was just wondering if there was a special reason you used this alternate form as I'm trying to learn as much about common usage as possible. Feel free to reply here or there. Thanks! -Weston.pace 18:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Splash - tk 20:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

About the article on Tudiabetes.com

Dear Splash, I'm writing you to ask about the deletion of TuDiabetes.com

I don't know the reasons for the deletion of the article. I believe the content was written in a neutral point of view. I used the format as other social networks such as [myspace] and [facebook]. Although, not as famous, TuDiabetes.com has become a credible source of support for people affected with diabetes around the world.

As an example, just yesterday, TuDiabetes.com was mentioned in the LA Times, the largest newspaper in Los Angeles as part of an article about Marc Andreessen. Here's the link to the article: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-wonderboy13aug13,0,3851733.story?page=2&coll=la-home-business (the mention is in the second page)

If there's something that I did wrong, I respectfully ask you to indicate me what can I do to get the page up in Wikipedia again.

Thank you very much,

Luis Garcia

Hello, there, and I'm sorry for a slightly bumpy introduction to Wikipedia. I have reviewed the contents of the deleted article, and I do agree with you that it was written reasonably (though not completely) neutrally. However, the actual reason for the deletion was that it does not, in my opinion, pass the 'notability' thresholds for web-content - see this document for the full deal (it is extremely unlikely that any website founded so recently could do). As Wikipedia gets so very many website entries - there are billions of them, after all! - we simply delete those that, in the opinion of an administrator, stand no chance of passing the tests at the above link at the present time. Please don't take offence, and please do note the introductory paragraph to that document for the encyclopedic reasons behind that thinking. I hope you can see now the different views of a site like, say, Facebook or Myspace, and tudiabetes.com, without in any way wishing to denigrate the work you do. Further to this, we have found it to be a generally good assumption that if a person, organisation, etc. is genuinely notable, someone else will probably create an article about that sooner or later and some good general advice in that regard can be found here. Regards, Splash - tk 20:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank your the prompt reply. While I don't pretend to dispute the historical value of TuDiabetes.com versus that of MySpace or Facebook. And while I understand that Wikipedia gets billions of submissions every day, I wanted to make two points: First, as the article about Mr. Andreessen mentions, there are 86,000 social networks at Ning. The fact that only TuDiabetes.com was mentioned by name by someone of the stature of Marc Andreessen, in my point of view, makes TuDiabetes.com special. Second, I am not the founder of TuDiabetes.com. I am, like you, a volunteer. Therefore, to that extent, I am someone else creating the article about something I believe is notable. Of course, I do mention myself in the article and it was as a way to demonstrate that this isn't just about someone creating a social network, but rather, it is special enough for a non-diabetic to volunteer time for the cause. If you think this is self promotion, I have no problem taking out the references to myself. Splash, I have nothing but respect for the work that you do. If you still believe we cannot stand the test, I will respect your decision and wait until the time is right. Just wanted to make those two points :) Thank you!

To take the second point first: I wasn't sure what your role in the site is, so please accept my apologies if referring you to WP:AUTO made it look like I was implying self-promotion. I was more interested in setting out why it's best to steer clear of topics with emotional investment implications in general. On the first point: it is certainly good news for TuDiabetes.com to have been noticed and mentioned (good tag line, by the way!), but it is more-or-less exactly the kind of passing mention that WP:WEB sets out as insufficient to establish - and this is the key in this case - standalone notability.

However, there is an alternative open to you. If you like, I can restore the article and nominate it to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion process. This involves other editors and asks them over the course of about 5 days whether they think the article should be deleted or kept. At the conclusion, an admin (not me, I'd leave it to a third party) reads the debate and takes the relevant action. I've been involved in a large number of such debates, editorially and administratively, and the debate will rely very heavily on the advice at WP:WEB#Criteria. Based on experience, I am certain that the outcome would be deletion. I would therefore say that the time you would spend on the process would be unlikely to give the result that would make it worthwhile. For those reasons, I would suggest that TuDiabetes.com return at some later date, but you have the option of exploring the avenue now if you wish. Let me know.

On a brighter note, I wonder if, now you've started, you can be persuaded to look at dipping into other articles that are of interest to you? I'm sure the articles on digital media could use a hand. Splash - tk 20:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Splash, thank you so much for your candid response and advice. It is not my intention to waste anyone's time. So if based on your experience, appealing will end up in deletion anyway, I will not pursue that avenue. I'd rather wait for a later time when the site would stand the test.

On the suggestion to take a look at digital media articles, let me just say first that I'm flattered. Unfortunately, volunteering to one project on top of my "day job" and family responsibilities is all I can handle for now. Again, thank you for the proposal. I wish you the best, and if you don't get this enough, let me say that you do a great job at this. Have a great day!

Copyvio

Hey Splash, would you mind blanking the history of Donna Murphy and Emotionally Focused Therapy that is copyvio. Cheers—Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 21:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Intermediate revisions are generally retained absent an external request that they be removed (they sometimes come in handy for our own purposes eg identifying a serial copyvio-ing editor). See for example the instruction boxes at the top of WP:CP.

As an aside, can I remind that checking for any existing non-vio revision is an important part of the process before adding the tag. Splash - tk 21:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Understood—Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 22:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Was A7 not appropriate for breakthroughing?—Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 23:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It was an article about a protologism associated with the group (and really it's talking about a TV program or something, not actually a group), not actually about the group. A7 doesn't deal with proto/neo-logisms. I contemplated a "no context" speedy, but it just about rises above the level of "X is Y", as it specifically contextualises it to American Gladiators. Splash - tk 08:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Bangin' On Wax 2... The Saga Continues

This article should be deleted. Please see this.--Tasco 0 22:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That deletion was unnecessary. Redirects are handy, lightweight and no harm, particularly when they offer a different capitalization of a tricky title. Splash - tk 22:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

And don't revert it again. Thank you. Splash - tk 22:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Why you think a redirect it's handy when all the articles that used to linked to it, are now corrected? --Tasco 0 22:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Because if someone types that capitalization into the search box, it'll get picked up on the redirect. If the redirect from the alternative capitals were not there, they'd get a search-engine page instead. Also, it's possible (even quite likely in this case) that someone will link to that capitalisation in future, and find a pleasant blue link rather than a red link. In general, redirects resulting from moves are retained for this kind of reason. Splash - tk 22:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Why someone would link to this non-linked capitalized article? I still think it should be deleted.--Tasco 0 22:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

They might be writing an associated article, and just try typing in the fully-caps name. It'd just save them a little trouble. Redirects are really nothing to worry about, seriously. You're doing good work, clearly, so don't worry about the little bits. Splash - tk 22:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I do understand whay you are saying, but it's just what I think how it should be. Why you said that I'm doing a good work? Working on what?--Tasco 0 22:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I just meant that I can see from your userpage and contributions list that you do good stuff for Wikipedia, that asking for this/these deletion is part of that, and I'm not trying to get in the way of you in general. Splash - tk 22:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, it's the first time I get a recognition of my work on Wikipedia. About the article, I just nominated it for deletion to make it "democratic".--Tasco 0 23:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Workadded

User:Workadded had been previously blocked for edit warring and 3RR. He's unblocked and is making the very same edits again. He's been given a test4im warning and has not listened. -WarthogDemon 22:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The images are important...The images are releated to the article. The japanese poster shows the difference with the american poster, and the pikachu the movie logo show the changes throughout each movie, the logo for the third movie has the release date for japan ex: Pikachu the Movie 2000, and the fourth logo has 2001 the year the fourth movie was released, and the fifth one has Pikachu the Movie 5th which is the fifth movie, and the tenth movie has Pikachu the Movie 10th which is the tenth movie. These users aren't listening to me when i try to tell them the reasons for keeping the images.

I don't see why this is a problem... Splash - tk 22:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I'm not sure either. All I know is that he does this without discussion. I'm not even a part of this edit war; I've been observing from the sidelines. -WarthogDemon 22:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, well, I can't really do much on that basis and certainly not discussing isn't likely to get a block.

Workadded, what's going on? Splash - tk 22:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You can ask the blocking admin User:Wimt or User:Golbez who ended up protecting the pages. -WarthogDemon 22:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

As there are already a pair of good admins involved, they can probably be left to deal with it, I'd guess. I'd only get in the way. Splash - tk 22:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to have bugged you then. Hopefully this'll get settled quickly. Anyways, cheers and happy editing. :) -WarthogDemon 22:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The noob

My thanks for converting the speedy to an AFD recommendation. Timmccloud 23:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Sundown and/or Last Stand

Greeting Splash

I am disputing the deletion of the submission for Sundown and/or Last Stand...I thought I had five days to show the significance of the band. I would have appreciated actual criticism in the talk page rather than straight deletion. Unfamiliarity with something is not proof of its insignificance.

• I was writing the article as a set of pieces on the Darebin community which has the largest writer/musician/artist concentration in Victoria and is of cultural significance in this country.
• This band specifically is significant because the musician works through a process used by a very limited ammount of people throughout the world (the technicalities being too complicated for me to describe without the aid of the musician who i am attempting to get these details from, thus this information was not yet on the wiki).
• The political standpoint of the musician and associated groups and fanbase, especially in regards to the arts is also of significance in this community....
• I feel it is really important to document the progression of the darebin community which I am lucky enough to be a part of. I want people from around the world to have an understanding of the art scene in this state.

anyway, long enough rant do you think, i hope i haven't been a bitch i am just putting a lot of work and time into this and its frustrating to get such a response. thanks for your time Sevenmish 01:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sundown and/or Last Stand. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Sevenmish 02:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Another noob

Hello Splash..

Just wanted to touch base concerning the AfD discussion for Allen Sangree. I wanted to make sure that I was taking the correct steps in trying to update the article to meet the proper requirements.

Thanks in advance CheyenneWills 19:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello there. Yes, I think you are doing the right kind of things. I would suggest an approach more based on writing prose than collecting bullet points of information, but I realise these things take time. The discussion on the article will last for about 5 days. Also, to explain, I listed the article on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion as someone had marked it as needing deleting on the spot since it was about a person who was not at all 'notable'. (Wikipedia gets many articles like that every day, from bored schoolkids and the like). Anyway, I thought there was enough material in the article to save it from summary deletion, but wanted other people also to get a chance to take a look. Thus the listing. Good luck, and keep up the good work. Splash - tk 21:19, 15 August 2007

I kind of figured as much. Also I understand about more having more prose, but at the moment I am just trying to pull in the references first (just they way that I think -- kind of start with the outline first then flesh in the details). Again thanks CheyenneWills 00:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

A Woman's Place (Blue Heelers episode)

You redirected the above today. There are a number of articles arising out of the series, Blue Heelers an example of which would be Marissa Craddock. I'm thinking they should all be redirects. Could you take a look and comment? Thanks in advance. --Stormbay 22:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This is one of those matters of opinion. I'd think that such short articles about actors/characters that are not notable outside the series should be merged+redirected to somewhere central. Possibly the main article, or possibly a few spin-off articles e.g. Characters in Blue Heelers, or something like that. They could go into the main article if that would not overburden it, or into aggregating articles if you think they would. Similarly for the episode summaries, personally I don't think they each need their own article, though some would disagree with that. Splash - tk 22:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the main article is too large already so will look at the other! --Stormbay 23:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

BJAODN

Your fourth point strikes me as rather unfair. I don't see any indication that Thatcher is (or thinks he is) acting in any official capacity; certainly no one ever asked him to. Best, Mackensen (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is the fifth arbitration request he has filed in 9 months; that's probably more than any other ordinarily non-litigious editor. The somewhat perfunctory manner of this filing (see WP:AN#Wheel warring, where there are a total of three words of comment including a bolded action of filing) finally caused me concern that, possibly accidentally, there is a sense in which 'looking after arbitration' is drifting into making sure the committee hears about everything Thatcher thinks it might want to. And yes, it matters who brings things to the committee - since the committee should have no bulldogs, the requests need to arise indigenously from the disputants and the disputes they examine. Much like the Mediators do not routinely haul people before the committee, leaving that to the dissatisfied mediatees. Otherwise, we have people acting as a kind of Crown Prosecution Service, and that will bode ill; especially if the members of that Service are already in the 'pay' of the committee. Splash - tk 12:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Fairview, Erie County, Pennsylvania

Could you please undelete this article? I un-copyrighted it. It was nominated for speedy during one of my short wikivacations and I would have contested it if I were there. Please respond. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia'']] 17:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext

Way better - thanks for that :) - Alison ☺ 23:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

:) Splash - tk 22:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: 0RR

Re: User talk:Black Falcon#0RR

Thank you. I don't usually comment at Wikipedia:Requests for pontification but I suppose that the prospect of having to obtain permission for every reversal of an administrative action stirred my inner muse. ;-) Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

A very British mess

Should A very British mess be deleted/merged/moved somewhere? Seems out of place all by itself; doesn't seem very notable unless it can be moved to a bigger article... -WarthogDemon 21:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge it to UK Metric Association, I guess. Splash - tk 21:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Er, sorry if I didn't do exactly what you suggested. You seemed unsure, so I thought it best to open it up for discussion rather than merge myself. Sorry for the miscommunication. -WarthogDemon 21:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I could've just done it when I looked the first time! No need to be worried about merging such a small article back to its 'parent'; that's what BOLD is all about, after all. Splash - tk 21:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Understood, sorry for bothering you. Cheers and peace. -WarthogDemon 21:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Xeequa

Hey there.

Might want to salt the page too; CSBot picked it up three times today alone as a cut-and-paste of the website itself (thus copyvio as well as spammy). — Coren ^(talk) 22:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Already done. :) Splash - tk 22:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi - I'm new editing things here. Sorry If I made a mistake but found competitor LinkedIn and thought it may be appropriate to put up some content on Xeequa too. Need to learn why LinkindIn is OK here and Xeequa not - Thanks for advice Axel