User talk:B1atv

Okay, what have I done to upset you? Leave your gripes and criticisms here - and don't forget to sign (type ~~~~). Be fair and you'll get a fair response. B1atv 13:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

No worries, I also noticed you never received one of these so have one now --

Hi B1atv, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of Contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.

Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
If you'd like to tell us about yourself and meet other new users, be sure to introduce yourself at our new user log.

Good luck, and have fun. --♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may also want to have a look at your speedy deletion notice on Disabled students allowance as whilst it is a pretty low quality article it isn't really blatant advertising for a company as it is a UK Government sponsored scheme, and is almost certainly a valid article. It does need work doing on it to bring it up to wikipedia standard and a refs section added and so on though. Have fun on wikipedia! ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just spotted your message on the talk page of the Disabled students allowance article, and I don't believe your adding the tag was a "bad faith" at all, just perhaps the wrong tag to add only. I will have a look at the article later and try and clean it up a bit! Keep up the god work! ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Bryan

I declined speedy on this one, because there is an assertion of notability, given the source and being an elected official which some people think is sufficient. Any way, I did nominate it for deletion at WP:AFD because I think it fails WP:N. Carlossuarez46 21:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that - perfectly reasonable. I've already spotted that AFD replaced DB and have cast my vote (I know, I know, it's not a vote!!) B1atv 21:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Shailendra Sharma

Hi!

it is regarding speedy deletion recommended by you for the article on sri shailendra sharma and its subsequent deletion. can i repost the article with a lot of changes. can you help me on this ? Mysticyoga 19:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thanks for your message. I can't see how the article can be re-written to meet WP criteria. He isn't notable so far as WP is concerned. The three pieces he wrote were published on his own website; not by reputable third party publishers and, as you said yesterday, the reason you posted the article was that others could follow the way advocated by him. WP is not an platform for proslytising. You could always retry - but I would warn against it. If the article was re-created and then deleted again it could be considered to be vandalism and some editors could call for you to be blocked. It would probably be better, if you feel he is genuinely notable, to include some details in one of the related articles - but keep it notable, keep it properly sourced (reputable verifiable third parties) and keep it neutral. Writing or editing an article to persuade people to follow a particular religious path is not neutral. B1atv 19:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for your sincere advice. I dont want to hurt the sentiments of anybody and would like to maintain the decoram of WP, as I have high regard for this Encp.,this is the reaseon I have asked for your help and not posted the article straightaway. Further what I meant by 'others could follow the way advocated by him' is not that anybody should follow His path blindly. What I meant was that He is a Guru who teaches the well known path of Kriya Yoga on the lines of Lahiri Mahasaya and those interested in Kriya Yoga would definetely like to know more about the Gurus and the path. Further the books authored by Him are also available in print, it is only for the readers to get freehand information that they have been put on the website freely. Further I would like you to know that Yogeshwari Shrimad Bhagwadgita: A Yogic Commentary is perhaps the first comentary from the viewpoint of a Kriya Yogi and explains to a large extent the Kriya Yog. Anyway can I send you the text before posting so that you can give comments before it is posted to avoid unnecessary deletion. If yes how? Mysticyoga 05:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging of Arab Communist Party

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Arab Communist Party. I do not think that Arab Communist Party fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because with sources asserts some notability, generally any party getting press gets kept at Afd's although we expect more from its distant laggard candidates - a compromise of sorts. I request that you consider not re-tagging Arab Communist Party for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. You are, of course, free to tag the article with {{prod}} or nominate it at WP:AFD . Carlossuarez46 19:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. At the time I tagged the article the only source given was a link to a 1960s press release and two unrelated wikipedia articles. A Google search produced results for the phrase as a generic term but no clear results for a specific group with this name. Since I db'd this article further information has been added. It seems the editor is editing as he goes along rather than using his sandbox. I'll keep it on my watchlist and if it is not significantly improved in a few days I'll nominate as afd; but I'll leave it to see how it brews. B1atv 19:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. Thanks for keeping WP clean. :-) Carlossuarez46 23:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U of St Mary's Kansas

Instead of putting the adv. Why don't you edit what you feel is an advertisment for the schoool. All I did was make a stub for the school giving it location who runs it and how many degrees it gives out. Smith03 20:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may do that at some point; but tonight I do not have the time to do the research. The article reads like an advert because it repeats the university's own mantra (see the source page of its website home page) and talks about what is on offer. It offers no context; no history; no claim of notability. I'm not suggesting the article be deleted; but it does need more work to prevent it reading like an advert. You yourself must have had the same concerns as in your first edit summary you specifically state that it isn't an advert. B1atv 20:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stumble upon this article that had been deleted. I took the old article and edit down to a basic stub. That gives it location who runs it and the number of degress it gives. Appartently in the past someone from the school wrote it and it someone else believed it was an ad and deleted. To me it seems like a better idea to take what was written and edit down to a stub (with basic factual info). That way at least there is something as opposed to nothing with several links . I am in no way connected to the school. As a general rule I would rather see people "fix" something that they feel is an ad as oppose to just tagging it Smith03 21:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how you can stumble across a page which has been deleted. Once it has gone from WP it is gone. And if it has been deleted recreating it could be a breach of WP guidelines unless you have sought advice from an administrator or disccused it at deletion review. Personally I would prefer people didn't create stubs and left things alone until they had the time to do a proper and decent job. B1atv 21:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admins (I am one) have the ability to see deleted pages histories. Since it had been deleted due to being an ad (hence how I knew about it). I just took the old article and edit to a simple stub. ( I think a stub is better than nothing) Smith03 23:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Polluto (magazine)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Polluto (magazine), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dog horn publishing. Thank you. Carlossuarez46 23:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pano

Pano, along with most of the other MÄR character articles, are recently created, and, as Wikipedia notes, most articles start off as stubs, and MÄR should be no different. I suggest you wait until we're done cleaning up and improving the character pages before coming back. I'll send you a message once that is done. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 21:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had actually removed the db flag prior to receiving your message having seen the changes you had made to the article. The article as originally created wasn't a stub - it was nonsense which didn't make sense. Stubs are short articles in need of expansion; your article was incoherent. You should use your sandbox to play with articles until you are happy to unleash them to the world. B1atv 21:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I do (instead I just fiddle around with the uncreated article first, actually), but a large number of articles were just created, and I wasn't allowed that priveledge. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 22:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prods

Good catches, all of them. but it would help the reviewing admins, such as myself, if you could indicate the field of interest of the subject, rather than just "non-notable" -- not everyone is competent in every subject--for example, I dont try to evaluate articles on musicians, and can go faster if I just skip them. Thanks, DGG (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Are you saying it's better to use the templates rather than the manual {{db|insert reason}} flag? B1atv 17:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Sandy Walkington

I'm sorry, but though you ask not to question your motives, I think that questioning them is justified. You admit yourself, that you are a yourslef a PPC. That means also, that you are probably of a member of some party. Would you suggest an article about a PPC of your own party for deletion? I think not. I wouldn't suggest any article about a PPC of any party in the future election for deletion, though it is true that I wouldn't create one about a PPC of competing party. Still there are such articles, for instance about Wilfred Emmanuel-Jones, but that one you haven't nominated. I wonder why? Do you really think that all the PPCs of your own party meet the WP notability test, but the PPCs of other parties don't? --Libs 12:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]