User talk:Tstormcandy

Welcome!

Hello, Tstormcandy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! ➜Redvers^{talk  ❝It's bona to vada your dolly old eek❞} 07:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

→ NOTICE: Messages relating to deletion tags and community discussions

I feel deletion and other user comment discussions to be very useful and can do a lot of good. However, I admit I make some mistakes, and I know some guidelines are subjective so that some editors have a different view than others. That said, if you disagree with my opinion or what I tagged (or untagged), please leave me a message here so we can resolve the problem diplomatically. Please be sure to explain your reasons in your edit summaries and mention precise details when referring to Wikipedia guidelines. For more information, I suggest looking at general deletion policy, and more specifically common rationale for deletion tagging. If you still want to say something like "but it's important/popular/notable/great/special!", check out opinions about articles claiming unusual mention and that just existing and having a website with some information does not make you, anyone or anything automatically notable to have a place in the depths of Wikipedia. I'll reply as soon as I can! ♪ daTheisen(talk) 06:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Greeting to Would-Be Message Deliverers

Hello! I will attempt to reply to any messages left as soon as I get a chance to. Feel free to post regarding any objections I may have caused with content, confusions left in WP:AFD discussions, or disagreements in clean-up edits; I will be more than happy to look into the matter further and address any mistakes I may have made. Best wishes! Datheisen (talk)

Evo Street Racers

20-22 Oct 2009 Summary: Clarification was offered per my request for more independent sources for said article to make sure it wouldn't be subject to PROD or AfD tag a second time. Editor kindly offered more information and had further questions... everything addressed to the correct persons and all is well with an article that was saved from deletion per discussion consensus. A helpme tag came up by mistake and a very diligent contributor hopped straight on to what was essentially a Wikipedia wrong number. If you really, really, really want to see the text of this for some reason or want to know who was involved, it's be in the article history. Datheisen (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Page has been updated with the requested third party sources and the language has been cleaned up. Please review and advise. Thanks for helping me learn the Wiki way! ELandry1979 (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Galveston Bay Area

Thanks for your input!

For what it's worth the article has come under fire more than once since I started expanding it. Though certainly my writing is not perfect, IMHO, the criticisms have more had to do with biases against the subject matter. Most of the original critics have since mostly backed off and some have even become supportive (which I much appreciate).

The current RfC is the result of one editor raising major concerns and being unwilling to back down from them or really even discuss them. Nsaum75 put out the RfC to try to help the situation by soliciting more input and build a concensus.

--Mcorazao (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems you've agreed to not do any further edits so at least there's no fuss about needing any sort of protection on the article itself. Cheers~ Datheisen (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that's just a stop-gap solution. I had refrained from edits for about 3 weeks previously to let things calm down. I had thought when I got neutral peer-review feedback I could safely start editing again but the whole war started up again. So I stopped again. I want to push this toward GA but essentially until this settles out I'm stuck. --Mcorazao (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Stop-gap or no, I suppose this was more my thinking "hey, people debating both ends of a RfC discussion are being mostly civil! Awesome." Obviously welcomed. Mind you, I'm not an admin nor do I have any extra privileges yet, so I do apologize if it sounded like I was considering it with the actual ability to. This should, theoretically, get consensus on how the article moves ahead, so there should be hope for GA yet after knowing what should be improved or not. Cheers~ Datheisen (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

If I recall, Mcorazao stated earlier that they had never lived within the Bay Area the article is discussing. Used to live in the broader region, but still never affiliated within the area here. Just a clarification, and I know the issue is deeper than place of residence. Datheisen (talk) 06:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional input.

Honestly I'm having trouble seeing how this is going to settle out. I don't want to be in the position of continuing to revert somebody's edits just because I think they are unreasonable. But I can tell nobody else wants to stick their neck out too far. Although arguably the current discussion is a little better than what's been there before I don't feel that it is heading anywhere productive very fast. I hope the mediator can help ...

--Mcorazao (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. RJN's talking about the time invested on developing the Houston article -- I believe -- explains a lot about his frustration. Still, I don't know how to make that better. --Mcorazao (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I deserve to be flogged. RJN just now went to a great effort to be accomodating which was more than I expected. I've been unfair. --Mcorazao (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ha, nono, you're thinking it over too much now, which is understandable given your relation to the article. From how I looked over all of it... well, toss-up in the end. It would be hard to find any kind of content dispute that was more civil than this. Sure, I guess there were a few tense days of "I wonder what'll be edited today", but in the end there seems to be an understanding reached and thus I'd assume both of you feel the article will be free of issues worthy of further bickering. Both of you were great about contacts and explanations and use of talk pages. The only thing farther in terms of good faith either of you really could have done is just give in, which is rarely a "good" result. ...So yes. You're being a bit too hard on yourself I'd say. Just think about the percentage of stress that will be gone starting now... and hey, if anyone else comes along and looks like they might want to forcefully insert their opinions, there are now two of you that know every last detail of the article. Best wishes on it all and I'm glad this was a puzzling-yet-quick-yet-very civil resolution compared to a million other article disputes. Datheisen (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you have lost interest in the article at this point but, if you still have an interest ...

Since we seem to be moving back to a phase of discussion and resolution I set up a small discussion forum on the talk page to close some unresolved debates that have been hanging out there (some that at issue in the latest round of quarrels and some that were there before but I could never close). I'm hoping that this time around there is sufficient discussion that we can get consensus and close the issues permanently.

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Great! I'll keep checking up on it, but after reading comments from you both I think things will end up well. Really though, if at the "tipping point" of possible escalation in debate the matter fizzled most completely in but a few days, you guys will be fine. I'll leave the page on watch and check it every few days. Cheers. Datheisen (talk) 21:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Exmortis 3

Hello Datheisen, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Exmortis 3 - a page you tagged - because: Not unambiguously promotional. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the notice and my apologies to take up your time on the speedy delete tag like that. I admit I was not 100% certain and my post history will show I'm more than happy to talk in a normal AfD discussion, but I considered this in particular because of the direct purchase external link on the page. For future reference I'll read through the guidelines several more times, though more than likely I'll just stick with the AfDs and let others make the call. I suppose this is probably not the best way to start an editing history to show good judgment toward hoping for future permissions, oops. Thanks again. Datheisen (talk) 20:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Not a problem at all; it's really a judgment call, and I'm sure there are admins who would have deleted the article in accordance with your CSD nomination. Please don't let this discourage you from doing similar work, as again, it's hardly even a "mistake". Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Afghan Mellat

Thank you for your efforts in the Mohammad Daud Miraki article. Personally, I would either support a deletion of the article (the guy is not really important) or support direct quotes from his book, leaving all interpretation to the reader. Anyway, I would like to ask you if you also have a few minutes to check the article Afghan Mellat. Currently, the article is protected because of recent editwar and POV-pushing. It's about an ultra-nationalist party which claims to be "social-democratic". Yet, it is neither recognized by the Socialist International (I have provided a link to the SI's official website), nor is it accepted as a member. It's leader, Ghulam Mohammad Farhad, was a Pashtun nationalist politician, inspired by Nazi policies of Hitler's Germany. Sources have been provided for this, including a publication by the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung. The party has been criticized as "extremist", "ultra-/super-nationalist", "in the far right", "racist" and "fascist" by various authors and political commentators. User:Ketabtoon has removed these sources and changed the wording of the article, trying to give the party a more acceptable image for the reader. I am criticizing his edits as WP:POV, WP:OR (he cites unrelated and unreliable websites and draws his own conclusions), and partially propaganda for the party and even for the Taliban who are an ideological off-spring of that party. Thank you. Tajik (talk) 10:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank for the message.

I deliberately chose this review off the ANI list because thought there would be absolutely no way I would have any pre-knowledge or bias with article content... and I was 100% correct! Since the article was only 2 days old, to avoid endless edit warring and flying review tags I figured we could just pretend like we were starting over. Since one of the contributors has recently been unblocked with a 1RR rule, I wanted to weight the possibility on conflict starting from either end being equal, and that one side could use 3RR over 1 could be in natural advantage in the extended direction of the article if it did not have continuous monitoring. In other words, I'm hoping to create a fair playing field to start from.

It has been difficult already. I invited both major contributors to comment, and they have. I'm actually just finishing a response to both...... here[1]. ...Ha, seems you beat me to commenting. I'll respond to your question here-- My general thoughts are to wait a day or two yet to give Inuit18 a chance to directly cite his quotations from the book he is using and see if anyone else comes in from the ANI with opinions or more information. I already have a few concerns on both ends, but to stick with fairness I go through every citation and check where it leads me. Most certainly I can review your suggested article as well in the process. If only a few quotations from a single book can be posted on one side it will be hard to sense WP:WEIGHT on the small amount of information. I have no doubt that once resources are checked properly and the article edited to reflect data available from reliable sources that the future of the article will be clear-- mostly than likely an AfD. Even then, this process will be worthwhile since the AfD would be a lot easier for others discuss with those pesky quality tags at the top hopefully gone. One way or another the future of the article will be settled and civility can be kept. Datheisen (talk) 11:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

My First Vandal!

A joyous occasion for me today... my very own vandal stopped by this morning with quite obscene and offensive harassment on my user page. Incredibly, it was caught and reverted by an admin in less than one minute because of those fancypants vandal monitoring tools they have and I can only dream about. Generally speaking, this vandal and many other editors got smacked with some abuse after issues here[2].

Still, good fun! There's not a single thing anyone could do or say to me here that could actually offend me, and I have trust in the administrative process that any such attempts to bully me will be dealt with accordingly. Insults and profanity isn't exactly something new to my life that I've never run into anywhere before, so really, you're not going to accomplish anything. Datheisen (talk) 05:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Pennsylvania political articles

I am sorry to see that you and I have some divergent interpretations of WP:N and WP:RS. I have tried to address as many of your concerns as possible, either at the AFD pages or at the relevant talk pages. --Blargh29 (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry as well, but the feeling of their being listed merely on recorded fact is just too strong. Per administrator statement, the articles barely survived speedy delete on grounds of notability and business promotion. Those same issues are still there. Adding more company information doesn't solve those concern and do more harm than good sometimes. Wikipedia is not a directory, notability is not automatic because stated, and a source that proves something's existence does not mean it is notable. It all needs outside references; from non-political groups, in articles that are not variants of press releases. We're both going to go mad if this drags on, so I'll given an open suggestion here-- If you can reasonably explain the creation of all those new articles to be put into the category of Lobbying Firms in Pennsylvania and persons running those companies, I'd be more than happy to never look at it all ever again. The only catch? You need to tell me why they "should" be in Wikipedia. Since they only list basic company information and statistics, why are they especially in need of articles? "Because they're important/notable" won't suffice without explanation. None of the sources you've used for any of the articles tackle the "why?" issue of notability instead of just the "who?".

Wikipedia isn't a directory of lobbying firms. Though I freely admit I'm no expert in Pennsylvania politics (so I can't say what "prominent is as you state), these articles could just be extended from the definitions of WP:ENN and WP:GARAGE. Someone's band in Harrison that made a top 100 list of other locals on year and had no other information listed than its members and their personal histories would not have notability as a Wikipedia article, and these are no different in their current forms. That is precisely how these articles look in many ways and I could find discussions for a hundred similar or more detailed that have been deleted by standard policy. I know neither of us want to spend the time on this, so find me the "why?". A found a few of the articles to be excellent, actually, such as Jim Eisenhower. The difference there is that it's a record of public service instead of a glorified business card for a lobbying group's founder. If the other articles can be neutral in the same way, I'd love to never need to check on them again. Let me know if you'd like more information. Datheisen (talk) 02:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't believe that these are "glorified business cards," but I do see your point of view. Here's the thing: I am an expert in this field, so I know that these are in fact notable lobbying firms. The problem is in proving it--a challenge that I nontheless accept.

But, proving notability by the standard method is a very very difficult task. First, by their very nature, lobbying firms are under-the-radar and actively try to kill and news coverage of their activities. Second, compared to rape, murders, and balloon boys, the activities of lobbying firms are not very interesting to the average news reader, so they don't get a lot of coverage. Seriously, would you ever see an article title "Powerful Lobbying Firm Uses Contacts and Influence To Obtain Bond Issuance Contract"? Not likely. So, by that standard, the fact that ANY sources exist for these lobbying firms is astounding testimony to its notability.--Blargh29 (talk) 03:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I can see that you genuinely want to improve the encyclopedia, so if I may, let me give you some insight into why I write these kinds of articles. Journalists are lazy. Let's say S. R. Wojdak & Associates gets some client a sweetheart contract to do some work on the Pennsylvania Turnpike, a journalist might do a 30 second google search and then write a 2 sentence blurb in a Business section. But, if they come across the Wikipedia article, they might use that as the basis for an expose about the insane influence that the lobbying firm has in the state government.

Here's an amazing example of where that has already happened: John Verbanac. This article about a lobbyist got 1-2 hits per day for its entire existence. But, one mention of him in a candidates' debate on 10-22 and BOOM, 1,000% increase in hits. You are still seeing articles about this fellow being written. I honestly believe that a large portion of that is a direct result of the Wikipedia article. Also, look at the stats from 10-17 through 10-21. That traffic is 300% above normal and was likely driven by page views from within opposition campaign as it prepared for the debate.--Blargh29 (talk) 03:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, and not that its worth anything, but S. R. Wojdak & Associates is probably the third most influential entity in Pennsylvania government, after the Governor and the Pennsylvania Turnpike. I could write volumes about its influence, but that's WP:OR, because it never gets reported.--Blargh29 (talk) 03:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I rather assumed you knew a lot about this all, otherwise it's the sort of thing no one would write of. I will also give credit that, in the world of what's "notable" for lobbying? You probably have a strong case with that, too. .......Okay, and I'll also entirely agree that "reliability" is tough there too. Actually, having thought about it more, this might be a discussion for the Politics portal, about general guidelines for lobbying groups. Some of that in a perfect would would be groups that may have benefited, but that's kind of private company matters in most cases. Oops. The question is, how much of the process and the organizations is worth getting out there? This is an annoying case of importance and notability being almost complete opposites in terms of what wants to be heard and also available to find. Hmm. Well, my first concern was general company promotion when I ran into the first on the new pages list this morning, but that's obviously not the case. When all of them were new, it really really did look like business cards. Since I saw the background work and large number of posts in a short time it was also... well, a little suspicious. Though I completely confess that I should have given it more time, I'll remind that I wasn't in support of CSD... I knew there had to be something in mind.

Well ok. My brain is fuzzed out this late in the day. Do what you feel you need to and I'll check on the AfDs later and probably ask they be withdrawn. However... I'm going to have to be extremely stubborn and insist with the redirect. Notability might be subjective, but redirects from people to companies or other objects of different groups is specifically mentioned there as things that should be deleted... and that was the only redirect you made that wasn't person to person or at all close... and yes I did note that redirects are not subject to redirection deletion for "no" or "random" or neutrality views. Actually, even spam redirects don't seem prohibited... just mixed categories. How odd. Datheisen (talk) 03:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for withdrawing the AFDs. That was a really swell thing.--Blargh29 (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Paz Lenchantin article

The edits I made on this article have been in the interest of removing the vandalism that has been present for sometime. As it is, the page that you are reverting back to contains numerous promotional inserts and references by bands/people that Paz Lenchantin did not actually work with and insubstantial appearences referenced as another means of flagrant self promotion. If you would carefully read the edits at hand, this should be quite clear to you. --Leftbrain111 (talk) 01:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a minute to leave me a message about this-- Wikipedia would be a much less complicated place if editors would always take this extra step. My major concern with this all... by the general practices of Wikipedia article writing and editing, even if every thing said about yourself is true then I still cannot allow you to edit to page in that manner. The article stood the same way for a very long time with only minor changes and no discussion of revisions, so anything more than cosmetic edits could be viewed as vandalism without it being debated on the talk page. Blanking large sections and rewriting what is left is going to attract attention no matter where or when you do it, and is only considered appropriate in the most extreme of circumstances. I made very certain in my edit summaries that I did not call your edits vandalism because of the unusual process of it all.

I would encourage you to read WP:PAGEBLANKING as my reason as to why I cannot allow substantial edits to this page that result in changed content and especially content without proper citations and sources given. Looking at that policy page, check the example at the very bottom. It says that editors should be very careful with dealing with WP:BLP articles, as Wikipedia is very specific about not allowing unverified claims to remain in those types of articles. Even if you are the person in the article, any blanking of information (without appropriately cited content lets in its place that was hopefully agreed to by consensus on the article talk page) is not permitted. Think of it this way; Editors would be reacting the same way and reverting if a very large section of new gossip information or private personal details were posted.

Though I must always assume good faith from editors, I'm afraid that a long-established consensus of well-cited information on a page trumps any large edits, and as one of the general standards of Wikipedia I must first treat all editors equally based on his or her actions. For concerns you might have about what is in the article, please visit WP:RAA for a list of places to request administrator attention so you can pick out specifically what you're hoping to achieve with your edits. I do want to feel concerned about a possible personal conflict, but since the actions you are taking are the same actions a severe vandal would take when trying to destroy an article. I must treat it equally on both sides without exception. No my knowledge, only incredibly rare circumstances like threats of legal action or threats directed at another user can be looked at beyond the starting blank slate.

Unfortunately, I do not think I can help you further and I will have to continue to undo destructive edits to the Paz Lenchantin article until an administrator renders a decision on my request to put it under edit protection. Be them in good faith or no, to me it is still the save reversion process. Cheers~ Datheisen (talk) 09:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

HubSpot article

Noticed you deleted a section on HubSpot products. Wondering under what policy this deletion was made Thanks. Woz2 (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

General opinion? Preferred for editors to refrain from adding links directly to company product or purchase sites per sentiment WP:PROMO. I meant no direct offense to an experienced editor, I had just noticed this section was new compared to the rest of the article design. You're free to revert as you would have more experience than I, but if it's a resource/link that can get a new article tagged and spat out for speedy delete, it wouldn't seem appropriate for something well-maintained. Datheisen (talk) 13:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The section was actually created with the rest of the article, but I updated it recently to reflect recent changes. I feel in this case the "product is truly relevant to [the] article" WP:PROMO so I think I'll revert and see what happens next. Woz2 (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wojdak & Associates

I've reversed your speedy keep closure of this AfD as according to WP:Speedy keep a speedy keep is inappropriate if another editor has voted 'delete' as is the case in this instance. Dpmuk (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Understood, and my apologies. This is the first and only time I'm going to attempt such a thing, and even then-- err. I'm don't need to dive any deeper, and I'm embarrassed myself enough already. I promise I'll look at PRODs to save you enough time to make up for it! Datheisen (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it - everyone makes mistakes, especially when they're new, and by just looking at previous AfDs you probably wouldn't realise that a speedy keep wasn't appropriate. Dpmuk (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"Don't think so." -- Case deemed closed fully on 28 Oct 2009

Perhaps you can explain how I bit anyone at the hotel van cleef article. I merely stated I didn't know if the German wikipedia has different policies but all I could find was 7 ghits. Where is that insulting or mean? Did I template the creator, or react in any way other then point out it's non ontbale. No. Perhaps you should read what Biting a newbie really is about before spouting off bullshit like that again. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, you got me on some weasel-like defensive language of the article by removing the CSD tag, but by saying and then repeating "I don't know what the notability standards of german Wikipedia" are in your AfD creation, you leave open the possibility that people could think the standards there are lower-- if this is supposedly a slam dunk to delete here, the connotation on a global level is that it's not worth having anywhere. Is that insulting to them? You'd have to ask them. Despite how it was worded, it's obvious from your rigorous defense that no harm was intended, in which case trying to look at it from a non English-centric perspective might help. I'll also stand by the fact that I consider it polite to new contributors on their first article (in this Wikipedia space, at least) to not delete something they've clearly put a lot of effort into. As for biting? The paraphrased quotes at WP:ABF are always worth a laugh after looking at a lot of angry AfDs in the evening. Datheisen (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Impressive, you overlook my bullshit comment. Good for you. Ironically it was a bad day for me didn't mean to take it out on you. I looked into the other page but unfortunately as a English speaker I was unable to nominate but thus far It looked like the same page and if they do have the same qualifications this one squeezed through. I was more addressing the logic fallacy that just because it is on a different wiki grants it auto inclusion. In this case it wasn't but it could've been made the same day. Either way I did htink it was only promoting a small non notable label so while a unremarkable tag would have worked it didn't quite fit the catergories for anyone in paticular so it was pick and choose. Happy editing. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• All's well that ends well. Speedy deletion can sometimes be a confusing process; I know I've made plenty of mistakes (I mean, I guess I know?), and fortunately there is an oversight process--with the admin who deletes or doesn't delete. I don't agree on principle that every new article has time and energy put into it, but in a case like this, an article with substantial content, one can see that effort did go into the translation, for instance. And Hell is right, notability in one Wiki doesn't mean notability in another. The speedy deletion tag in this particular case was incorrect, though, since notability was claimed and there appeared to be claims to back that up, so Datheisen was correct and their counter-patrol paid off. I learned my lesson a while ago: don't be too quick to apply a speedy deletion template, and when it looks like promotion, for instance, but it's not really your area of expertise, don't push that CSD button. Happy editing to both of you, Drmies (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

As long as everyone is in agreement, no concerns about any of it! I've put up for AfD and withdrawn later as well, in that case all I asked was the author to talk to me. He did, problem solved. In cases where the original author hasn't come back to the article yet it can be a little more complicated to get the most natural improvements by people who'd best know how to do it, but this is fantastic. Well there was one dissenter in the AfD that I might leave a message for since they would seem rather out of the loop compared to the other people commenting, which is ironic since I don't know you two other anyone there :) ♪ daTheisen(talk) 19:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

After my error had been pointed out I moved quickly to fix it by withdrawing the nom. I never ealizzed that the ghits were organized by date. While I still disagree about the biting part I think your assessment ended up being spot on. Good catch!Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe take a look here tell me what you think? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buckhaven town afc Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. Don't get me started on the depth of issues of notability within WP:FOOTY. I've posted over there some with how to attack the issue. In short, their teams are tiered 1 though 15, where 5+ is a "national-level" team and suits notability. Things are really bad, with entries of some teams down to the 12 range from what I've seen. This is roughly the equivalent to you grabbing a few people in your apartment building at random and running off to the nearest schoolyard for a game of technically-competition soccer. Well it's not THAT bad since these are still true leagues with dedicated players, but it's still a bit silly. I'm working on a proposal for a mass PRODding project over there to mop up the mess and make new guidelines for article creation to hope it doesn't happen further. It should be fun. See here[3] for the concept. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 18:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Strata (band) article

Cheers for the encouragement - just got it together while I should have been working ;) As I stated in the talk page, it's probably a good idea to threaten deletion so that work gets done on these half-baked band articles :) Jwoodger (talk) 03:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The opinion I've trying to take on page deletions is to kind of... downgrade things a bit to slow down, after some admin advice about CSD use in particular. Instead of patrol for G2s and the most obvious I've gone to counter-patrolling and taking off A7 tags if I think the article has any chance at all, so even assuming someone gets mad their A7 was removed and AfDs it immediately then a good faith article that already has resources and some text beyond base intro and info it means the creator (especially new ones) has a chance to improve it. AfDs like I had been considering here I have a PROD on, and never fear! You had at least 10 days until 3 days had passed if there were no edits, I'd contact your on your talk page without reply, and then started the 7-day AfD discussion. In other words, I'm a total wuss who'd rather help see something live, but I still try to follow through with it all :) ♪ daTheisen(talk) 15:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

csd-g5

Another editor removed the csd-g5 tags that you added to Lloyd E. Rader, Sr. and Throwaway Kids. In this case, the creator of both articles was under a username block, not a ban, and the articles were created before the block was imposed, so that csd-g5 does not apply. csd-g5 is only for abusive socks who have actually been banned. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand this now. :) I have a feeling I stumbled into an odd dilemma because things edited by that blocked user and IPs with the edit same edit pattern in the past are on entirely-reasonable and professional subjects. Not a very common place to find a username violation for the most part, and the assumption that A7/G11 will catch material by new users who happen to end up blocked is that the articles will, um, "stand out more"? ...And I've been talking it over here[4] as well. I understand the correct procedure on this now, but I stand by the fact that this was exceptionally strange circumstances compared to most new-article-blocked-user caes. Thanks for the post! ♪ daTheisen(talk) 23:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Broken links

References that are broken links should not be removed. In many cases, you may be able to find an archived copy at http://www.archive.org, typically by putting web.archive.org/ before the address, or at some othet site. References need not be online to be valid. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Understood. I wholeheartedly admit that I just assumed things were meant to be in order since the page was recently updated several times and that I was scrutinizing, and I reverted my version. There are a few archives that I can see and I'll update the article with them. I know inter-wiki links are unacceptable, but what of things that are 100% factually incorrect? Should those be archived-checked as well, and what after that? ♪ daTheisen(talk) 21:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Tstormcandy. You have new messages at Beeblebrox's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Elvijs Putniņš

Thank you for raising your concerns over the Elvijs Putniņš article, it's good to see honest opinions being brought forward. With regards to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability, it is important to note that the player notability criteria proposed are not of guideline or policy, but are currently just part of an essay on footballers' notability. WP:BIO and WP:N can't just be thrown out the window due to the view of one WikiProject on how notability should be dealt with. Once this player makes an appearance at a professional level, then things would be completely different and WP:BIO and WP:N (through the coverage he would most likely receieve for having appeared) would certainly be met and notability guaranteed. But until then, in my opinion, I think the subject isn't really notable. A quick Google search brings up little substantive stuff, and I think it would be necessary for the article to prove itself as being worthy of an article, which I feel it currently does not. Please feel free to message me anytime. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Blah! Alright, if he on the roster hasn't actually played yet, you've got me beat. I know other general Wikipedia guidelines must be met, and I do know that notability article in the project is an essay and unofficial, but after talk with a few admins this past week they've said that's generally okay. Since this is a stub that gives it both some official and unofficial bonus properties, and I saw the creator was an experienced contributor so I also figured they'd follow up on the thing. Do you have any estimate on a playing date? All google searches I ran affirmed his status on the roster, but my internal fussiness agrees that until having played he can't be accepted. Do you have any other concerns about why this wouldn't be an appropriate something to leave as a stub after he actually does play? Every last detail of the club in question fits the essay guidelines and anything I read on the discussion pages-- any team competing for the highest national trophy is the notability threshold (which in the UK would be levels 1-4 then, it seems). ♪ daTheisen(talk) 01:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Why you feel I'm humouring you I don't know, I was merely explaining my view. Again, I'd like to voice the legitimacy and enforceability of WP:FOOTY/Notability. If it were generally accepted, that would give way to every Conference player being notable (regardless of their ability to pass WP:N), and I can't see that going down at all, as I'm sure many would vote delete. Anyway, more opinions should be brought up at the AfD in due time and hopefully more ideas will be thrown into the ring. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 01:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you misunderstand! I say you're humoring me because I'm the one speaking nonsense (or just speaking too much in general)! You're the experienced on the in project and I'm always happy when someone can agree to discussion... well, I guess that's also me naturally responding in a way to defuse someone's possible frustration before replying. I entirely trust and appreciate your civility on the talk from everything you've demonstrated, but my self-preservation instinct reminds me I'm bound to get a scolding/swearing from at least half of people I take A7s off of pages they tagged. I'm looking to apply for Rollback in the future (for vandalism, Huggle, and avoiding self-3RR), but my focus as a whole is that I want to amass as much data as possible on XfD issues. Anyone with even a slightly different view than I have means it's more I can learn.

...In any case, leaving it there is quite fine by me, and I'll accept whatever delete decision that might come. I'm going to leave myself as neutral to split the gap between what we both agree on, then a few of your details vs a few of mine. Technically I have a bias given I removed the original CSD. Really, I'm not worried about the end results after talking with you about it, so you have my thanks. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 02:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

deletion

Why did you delete my edit at User talk:AbdulHornochsmannn? Zero^talk 11:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

110% my mistake. In an apparent dyslexic mess I misread the header warning to administrator. Wow, I feel very dumb right now. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 11:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem, it did seem like a mistake. Cheers. Zero^talk 11:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Can't see any reason why Nothnegal was nominated for deletion

i dont see a reason why you have nominated this article for deletion. here are the reasons why i believe they must be noted.

1 - they are a band who's lineup includes noted musicians Reference: [5] - it states on noted band Kalmah's official website that Marco Sneck IS A member of Nothnegal i have included more references for this in the article, and this you can see that this news of them joining was covered on a lot of heavy metal websites and even blabbermouth which is on of the most reliable source of news for heavy metal and other music.

2 - they have released an album produced by a noted producer, this album also contains contributions from noted musicians. Reference: [6] Nothnegal is listed on the official website of the noted producer as one of his clients which proves that he worked on the album. Reference: [7] this album is listed on the noted musician Risto Ruuth who contributed a solo to the album which proves that he did feature on it.

3 - they are featured on major noted music instrument brands along with other noted bands Reference: [8] Nothnegal is featured on Jackson Guitars websites as one of their endorsee and artist, i havent included all the links to their endorsed websites but you can see that they are endorsed by several instrument manufacturers if you search for it.

4 - they have performed internationally with other noted and some of the most popular bands of their genre Reference: [9] (check the 'artists 2009' page) this is the official website of one of the noted festivals and proves that Nothnegal performed on their festival in Portugal along with some of the biggest bands in metal today.

5 - their material have been reviewed and they have been interviewed by websites and magazines. Reference: [10], [www.metal-observer.com/articles.php?lid=1&sid=6&id=16540], [11].

so i dont see any reason why you should delete this page and also everything on it is verifiable through the official website of the artist, company or person as i have referenced. and as you can see most of the references on Nothnegal's article page is referenced to [blabbermouth.net] the reason is that it is the most reliable heavy metal source of all and doesnt write unwanted news.

i understand that this page was deleted about 9 months back, and there was every reason to delete it back then. but when i wrote it this time i made sure the band had achieved enough to be noted. and actually they have.

there are actually bands on wikipedia that have nothing to be noted like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigmata_(band) Stigmata HAVE NOT toured internationally, HAVE NOT played with any recognized bands, HAVE NO recognized musicians in their lineup, HAD NO well known producer produce their record, HAVE NO endorsements from major brands all of which Nothnegal have achieved already. .

so please review this again, i'm sure this is a mistake. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mv head (talk • contribs) 05:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)--Mv head (talk) 05:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving me something vs just deleting the deletion requests, this is usually a lot more effective :) ...Before I start, I'd highly encourage you to discuss on the AfD discussion pages, as a lot of this seems like what can help you there. I'm not the person who might ever delete these articles, but my starting opinion has opened the discussion for broader review and an Administrator will look over the article before any final decisions and has a handful of options to work with. The AfD tag is one of the most open forums on Wikipedia, since after I've made my initial statement at the top, absolutely anyone can give their opinion. The PROD tag is a very generic classification and more often than not will get the attention of an article's creator, which I'm glad it did. With how the possible deletion process is set up, your contesting it takes it to articles for deletion discussion as the next seep and is a much more vigorous process... and I do very much apologize if you think this is about anything but Wikipedia articles and guideline, since I know you have other contribution and they seem quite in order :)

I'll get through all your links above, but here's my basic rationale when it comes the articles-- There are a number of things that need to be kept in mind when looking over music articles, but three are especially important when deciding how to possibly tag them: WP:BAND, which very specifically outlines 12 places that might give weight to band notability; WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, explaining that merely because one article exists means another one should; and the generic WP:RS, with guidelines for acceptable sources that can offer third-party information for notability and citation. There are a few other connections that I'll get to below. What's key to grab about resources is that, just because they say something or mention someone that it does not necessarily make it a reliable source for Wikipedia or establish notability for an article. Wikipedia deals with third-party reviewed and other trusted sources. For music, things like a review in Rolling Stone fits this category perfectly, though something that national or international is required.

Your links--

• 1. 1) I can't even follow the link to its destination. Official web sites for a group/person can only be used as a courtesy external link and cannot be used as a citation for anything more than band album history and the like where it is considered a primary source and not in need of reference.
  2. 2a and b) The first link is nothing but a CD list, with no citations and not even a homepage to follow for more information. For b, it is nothing more than a link to a myspace page, which is specifically excluded as use for as resources or external links per WP:ELNO

1. 3) is just a blank page listed somewhere. It has no information and merely existing proves nothing. In fact, its only links are to things already established as not considered appropriate for use.
2. 4) does not say what the band did or offer other links. All it features is a picture, and if you have more specific information from there you'll need to offer direct links for verification. Again, just because the band is listed on a webpage doesn't prove anything. Merely performing in a public venue does not invite notability, either.
3. 5) I appreciate having some review content here, but I highly object to these websites as "reliable sources". If these are the only two reviews you can find, it could be a sign that the article doesn't fit the bill of criteria. Just because something is a "popular" site within certain people does not make it a reliable source for Wikipedia. If an album can have a combined metascore from review-of-reviews sites, that can often help lend weight to notability.

As for Stigmata? I don't disagree with you, and you're free to challenge to notability of that article. Really, that's why users are able to mark articles as they feel appropriate, but please read in detail WP:DELETE and branching articles which are an overall guide to the process and might help you out there as well. Unfortunately, just because something else has never been deleted or hasn't been suggested for it does not mean a different article is immune. This is the main point of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that I also gave above. One editor alone can't check every single article in every category and the community as a whole completes the process.

Lastly, I'll address the band members individually and collectively... I really really hate disagreeing this much, but just because you say a band member is notable does not mean they are by Wikipedia standards. In fact, in the polices I linked earlier it also explains notability for musicians. -A few- members from the collections of bands linking in and out of your article do meet this standard, but the majority do not. They don't offer any news results online, they don't have interviews from mass media. The band can't been found in mass media, nor has it been seen on any Billboard chart to show at least some level of notability.

Even though it took a few hours, I did look through every single source on the Wikipedia page and everything that the article links to, as well as everything you gave me above. Suggesting a deletion discussion is serious and I wanted to make sure I missed anything out in the open. I'm sorry, but as it stands I cannot help you and my opinion hasn't changed. You do have 6 full days for discussion and improvements before any action might be taken, and by no means is the AfD discussion a true vote or public opinion pole. Head there with solid resources to prove your case and consensus will grow behind you. I know you have the best of faith in your contributions, and such people almost always can pull their articles through with some effort. Even if it is eventually deleted (which is far from a certainty), there is an appeals process or may work on it further for later use. Good luck. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 06:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

i understand what you mean by hear. but as you can see the band is going somewhere, (their news is covered by the music websites ie: http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=129636) regularly which proves that everything they do is recognized by the media. and yes, i believe their news havent been covered by mtv, billboard yet but i are talking about a band who rose to international fame just withing a couple of months with their first release which was just a 4 track EP.

their current drummer kevin talley, have played in several noted bands and was also auditioned as the drummer for the legendary heavy metal band slayer which shows his capability. the keyboard player marco sneck have also been part of a lot of notable bands. this news of them joining Nothnegal is on a lot of places which you will easily find if you search the web. the producer and the guest appearance on the EP is clearly stated on their websites which lists their work (none of these are detailed and just given the links which is the case with pages similar to this kind of pages] and 'Nothnegal's' name is clearly included in the Caos Emergente festival poster [12] this festival caos emeregente which also a music festival noted by wikipedia and it did feature a lot of noted bands.

i hope you are satisfied with this information, i find this band notable enough to be on wikipedia since they are a international touring band with notable musicians.--Mv head (talk) 07:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)