User talk:Evb-wiki/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Evb-wiki. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 4

Talk text from January 2008 through August 2008:

Texas

Regarding this revert: You do of course realise that the sentence "Texas is the southernmost part of the Great Plains, which ends in the south against the folded Sierra Madre Occidental of Mexico" is in the article twice, don't you? In the paragraph Texas#Geography (second sentence) and in the paragraph directly below it, Texas#Geology. Not an elegant solution imo. If you know a better way of improving this, please go ahead and fix it. But please be more careful when doing blanket reverts. I dorfbaer I talk I 09:50, January 1, 2008

Sorry, I did not notice that. Please provide a more accurate edit summary when making changes. Yours (-.) was misleading and inaccurate, suggesting the edit was not done in good faith. Thanks. --Evb-wiki (talk) 13:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Admittedly, I was too lazy to put in a proper edit summary. However, this primarily shows that edits should always be judged by the changes, not by the edit summary. Consider my last edit a viable example.[1] I dorfbaer I talk I 15:46, January 1, 2008

Youngg2010

I've declined the speedy tag you placed on Youngg2010. The reason is:

Was clearly intended as the author's user page, so I moved it to the appropriate place.

For your information, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC) עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Title (band)

An editor has nominated Title (band), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Title (band) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Alan Keyes

Alan Keyes has no more or less chance than the 60+ candidates in the 'other' section of the republicans 08 candidates article. Each one is is factual and verifiable. If you declared your candiancy tomarrow and made a website your candancy would be just as factual and verifiable but not relevant to the main article. Please see the discussion pages of the articles for irrenvelcy eveidence. --mitrebox (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:STCL-logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:STCL-logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"Official" nicknames

I understand the reasons why you removed the "official" designation for the Energy Capital nickname, but I feel that I had valid reasons for making that designation and I'd like you to reconsider.

I was bothered (and I expect I am not alone) by the "Other" section in the article. Titles like "Other" and "Miscellaneous" generally are to be avoided in Wikipedia, so this is a serious flaw in the article. Furthermore, it's clear that "Energy Capital" is a deliberately selected marketing slogan, not an informal nickname, and I think that its deliberate use for economic development purposes needs to be documented in the article.

Granted the Greater Houston Partnership is not a government body, but it's the local business community's primary economic development organization, which makes it an important local establishment. (The website says "Greater Houston Partnership is the primary advocate of Houston's business community and is dedicated to building regional economic prosperity. The Partnership comprises the Chamber of Commerce, Economic Development and World Trade and is a 501(c) 6 not-for-profit, private, Member-driven organization.") Chambers of commerce may not be elected by us citizens, but when they adopt nicknames the nicknames are generally regarded as pretty official (for example, see the discussions in Wisconsin Community Slogans: Their Use and Local Impacts), and the organizations often receive government money (directly or indirectly). As I see it, Houston has an official municipal nickname and an official nickname adopted by its economic development organization. Both were officially adopted, but they are adopted by different entities. --Orlady (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion about possible COI of editors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_presidential_election%2C_2008#Possible_COI_of_two_editors --70.11.142.4 (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Eichman (talk · contribs)

He has been blocked. Previous accounts included Jayjg is queer (talk · contribs) and Hail Victory (talk · contribs). Jayjg ^(talk) 17:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Roy Scheider

You keep removing the picture of Brody and putting "Scheider as Martin Brody in Jaws" in the info box caption but the picture their is not from Jaws. the picture there is a file photo from 1984, several years after jaws. Dr. Stantz (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't the image in the info box when I made my edits. It appears that you have fixed it. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Pea coat

Hi, on Pea coat, in this edit you moved the images around. What was the problem with them before? The only reason I'm uneasy with the change is that now the section edit links are stacked up. ALTON .ıl 03:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I stacked the images to remove the large blank space between the intro and the *history* sections here. I'm not sure what you mean by the the edit links being stacked. --Evb-wiki (talk) 03:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it must have been a cached version. Thanks for the edit. ALTON .ıl 07:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ralph Nader

I saw the article in Newsweek. I am working on a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.253.102.180 (talk)

US and USA versus U.S. and U.S.A.

See talk on the United States article! I am astounded by the sheer number of "dotted" U.S. and U.S.A. occurrances! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Plunket etc

Hi there! In the edit I made (which you have since visited), I put in a colon or semi-colon because without it the sentence suggests that Plunket himself acknowledged that people had recognised him. But in fact it is that Plunket said he was the accomplice, but HOLLISTER (not Plunket) also says that others recognised him. Without some break there, this is ambigious. I leave it to you! Best wishes Eebahgum (talk) 02:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

removing vandalism - a suggestion

Hello Evb-wiki
I noticed that you revert a lot of vandalism. Thank you for helping keep Wikipedia the best encyclopedia in the world!
However, I have noticed that you do not always leave warnings on the vandals talk pages. You should always leave an appropriate warning after reverting vandalism. (The full list of talk page warnings may be found here, along with some suggestions and guidelines for using them.)
Be sure to leave the correct level of warning, and if the vandal has been warned four times in the last month, (Check the vandal's talk page history. Some vandals remove warnings from their talk pages.) report the vandal by going to this page and following the instructions.
Thank you again, and may the vandals fail... J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 15:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of United States

An editor has nominated United States, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 08:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Tallest building list

Hey Evb, please check out List of tallest buildings in Houston. I'd like to get this to featured list status and need an article (or stub) behind each redink. If you would like to help, grab a redlinked building and note that you are working on it at Talk:List of tallest buildings in Houston. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Third Party Opinions on Harley-Davidson

I put in a request at Third Opinion Page to get outside opinions on the article. It's the first step in resolving disputes. We'll go from there... how's that sound? Supersquid (talk) 03:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds peachy. :-) --Evb-wiki (talk) 03:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want

Feel free to add {{subst:uw-copyright|List of The Amanda Show episodes‎}} to The70sfan (talk · contribs)'s talk page.--Otterathome (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Be my guest. My sig is on that page too many times already. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

GA nomination Texas

I think i cleaned most everything up. All we need to do is find citations for These. Then I think we can renominate Oldag07 (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Paul W. Fitzgerald

Hello, Evb-wiki ...

You cleaned up the boilerplate {{Articleissues}} template I slapped on Paul W. Fitzgerald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) while using my draft WP:FLAG-BIO protocol ... I was just Too Lazy to prune it myself. :-)

Anywho, I would appreciate your feedback on my Flag templates for deletion warnings, e.g., would you use them?

Happy Editing! — 72.75.78.69 (talk · contribs) _{12:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)}

Hi. While, in some circumstances, the flags are an excellent idea, I probably wouldn't use them. If the article appears to just need lots of work, I usually use {{notability}}, {{unreferenced}}, and/or {{cleanup}}. I then usually put {{welcome6}} on the editor's talk page. Sometimes, I put one of my custom notes on the article's talk page to address specific issues. I find that a (small) majority (maybe 60%) of tagged article just need to be deleted. Just my 2¢. Cheers. --Evb-wiki (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thnx ... I don't seem to be finding many folks who are interested in taking the extra time to "wait and see" before they MOVE ON ... I guess my willingness to use them stems from my evil twin tending to do WP:NPP in spurts, and since I am such a rabid deletionist, using the stencils minimizes WP:BITE accusations. :-)

A few specific questions: What do you think of the boilerplate {{Articleissues}} in the 3rd step of WP:FLAG-BIO ... Too many, or not enough? And the default Categories (Date/Place of birth missing) ... do you also add them, or will you start doing so if not already?

Happy Editing! — 72.75.78.69 (talk) _{16:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)}

boilerplate suggestions

You seem to have left one of your tags on the article talk p. for Dr Treacy Parker, but not notified the author--the same tag would do for both. But one thing--your tag doesn't mention copyright, and the article is in fact a copyvio of his web page, & I just deleted it accordingly. I try to delete via copyvio when applicable, because it's an unquestionable reason. It occurs to me that you might be interested in some of the boilerplate messages I use in various cases , so, just for your possible reference here are a few--you are welcome to use or adapt as you see fit--I do them as computer key macros, not templates:

sorry, but I had to delete this article--we're an encyclopedia, not a social networking site. You have to become famous first, then someone will write an article about you. In the meantime, [[WP:CTW| there's lots of things to do here]] -- so {{welcome}}.

I'd advise you to add this very quickly, before it gets nominated for regular deletion.

It must have 3rd party independent reliable published sources, print or online (but not blogs or press releases)

You must release it under a GFDL license, which permits reuse and modification of the material by anyone for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and is not revokable

and especially

see our Business FAQ

a wonderful page written by Durova, from whom I learned a lot of my approach.

Please do not add speedy deletion notices to articles that are notable.

In reponse to your message, please use your common sense.

Let's see, knighthood, British Academy, Oxford DNB entry, Cambridge, lots of links. Obviously notable, sorry old chap. Tiddly pop (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Please add assertion of notability to article and follow Wikipedia's rules and guidelines, old chap. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

There was notability in the original article. When did you stop beating your wife? Tiddly pop (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

There are procedures to contest a speedy deletion notice. Please use them next time. And stop beating yours. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Evb, replacing a speedy tag after it had been added to the article that he was "Knighted in 1971. Elected fellow of the British Academy in 1952, and received its Kenyon medal in 1969." together with a source-- that is inappropriate. Those are assertions of notability is as plain terms as it is possible to put them. In fact, they are sufficient notability to pass AfD beyond any question either. Even tho the initial version did not include them, the "sir" should have alerted you to do a check. This is especially true because the article had just been created. The speedy tag was first put on one minute after the article was made. Please be more careful. Tiddly pop is a reliable editor, not a SPA. And Duncan is even better established here. They know what they are doing. DGG (talk) 04:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Currencies

Remember that whenever a currency is mentioned it is best to link to it. That way everyone knows what kind of dollar it is. It may sound strange, but we need to cater to worldwide audiences. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

LundXY

I am trying to edit the LundXY entry. I have no commercial interest in the company, but I recognise its current (and future) importance, particularly in funding humanitarian projects, so I've been working through it and polishing it up, adding references where necessary and taking out peacock terms etc. My argument is that this entry is very much in the public interest, as it is and will be an important source of funding for startups aimed at improving quality of life in developing countries, included basic necessities of life, like clean water supply. If you actually check the current references yourself you should realise that this is a significant company.

I'd appreciate if you could explain to me why it's being tagged as being too much like an advert? What do I need to do to avoid this charge?

ThanksLjon72 (talk) 13:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

My concern was the consistent use of peacock terms that made the article sound like a fan's raving. I've removed most of them. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Your Opinion Please?

Hello, can you take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_breese and put in your vote to keep or delete, I am rather outnumbered by some non-spiritual people, could use someone who has a co-operative energy to look into the matter on a spiritual teacher article. Also please look into another article that was deleted that has been there for years at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_metaphysical_sciences but was deleted by a user as soon as I linked to it. Thanx (SpiritBeing (talk) 09:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)SpiritBeing)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bowel management

Hi there. I've done some work on this article, could you have a look at the new version? Tim Vickers (talk) 02:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

the WP:POINT was

the information appears to be bad. when you click on "ninth" it takes you to a page where according to three entities, the US is ranked either 10, 11 or 12. I DON'T CARE which it is, but as far as i can tell, someone should pick one. its irresposible to revert to "9th" unless you can say where that rank comes from. keep it wankster, Mob stability 16:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand. This should be discussed on the article's talk page, instead of making an absurd edit to make your point or "draw attention" to the issue. --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Lizzie Borden

I have to ask what white space it is that you are referring to when you move the two images on this page. I see no undue white spacing in the article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

There was a huge white space between the heading *Murders* and the text that follows it, because (when placed under the heading) the images fall below the info box and the text falls below them. This is fixed by stacking the images directly below the info box, which allows the text to float up under the heading. --Evb-wiki (talk) 12:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

conflict of interest in petplan pet insurance

Hello,

I would like to have the notice of COI removed from the petplan pet insurance article because I have read the WP:COI and I understand that the article must remain strictly unbiased. If you read the article, I am sure you would agree that it is unbiased. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do.

Thank you, Athlon2009 (talk) 21:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I need Help.

I need Help. I am having problems with the Portuguese version. The Brazilians votes the elimination of all the new articles of Portugal. They do it, without respecting the rules of the Wikipédia. There are some superior instance to resolve a situation like this or to complain whit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oskulo (talk • contribs) 05:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Bukkake

I disagree with your perspective expressed on the edit sumamry of your revert on the bukkake article. Places where something is claimed as fact, and the citation given to support that theory, that claim, that information, or that concept can be found in great abundance within Wikipedia articles. In most articles conflicting information is given, and then the citation is given. If we wished, I am sure you and I could find many cases of this. In the Bukkake article, the sentence clearly is in the context of Sociology, how feminists and othrs feel. It is not stated usng the word fact, or text to suggest that everyone believes that, or that most pepole believe that, or any other qualifier. Some sociologists, feminists, and others clearly feel that the sentence is fact. Despite that, although some may disagree, probably most people would agree that the statement is true and a fact, it is farely obvious. "the use of ejaculation is part of a humiliation ritual and generally does not involve any of the female characters experiencing orgasm." Anyone who has participated in Bukkake recognizes that this is often and frequently true. It does not say that it is always true. ("Generally does not involve..female orgasm"). Just because many people reading Wikipedia's only contact with Bukkake is likely to be a porn film where they saw a woman fake an orgasm does not mean that the statement is false. Of course, my speculation and opinion, the observer with the limited porn contact with Bukkake, nor your opinion matter in this. The statement is there not because of our opinion, nor because it is true, but because it is accurately cited from a reliable source. Just like 1,000,000 other places in Wikipedia where a statement is made.

Nevertheless, I have modified the statment in the article somewhat, in an attempt to find a compromise with you. It reads much less like fact, and more like sociological opinion. I explained why that was unecessary already. Did you consider that it might actually be factual? And that the Author, Dr. Lisa Moore, might actually have researched the topic before making the statement? The problem with the article may actually be that people keep trying to disqualify and weakan a factual statement, mrely because their opinion differs fom the facts. Adding "It is claimed by some..." is an attempt to make it sound as if it is nonsense, but that some people believe it. The statement should stand on its own as current sociologic theory, rather than being hampered by editors whose experience base of pornography tells them that it must not be true. Atom (talk) 04:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lana Erchova

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Lana Erchova, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Enviroboy^Talk_Cs 20:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Chlamys Varia

Thanks for your help on this page. I began by simply translating the Spanish wikipedia site without realizing the information wasn't adequate. I appreciate the help. Dylan.burton (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Use of CSD G1

CSD G1 is not the appropriate criterion to be used when nominating obvious hoaxes or pages containing nothing but lies for speedy deletion (though, make no mistake, most such things are eligible anyway). It is designed for pages that contain gibberish, rather than those which contain falsehood. Instead of using G1, in order to streamline the process and make more sense, thus increasing the odds the speedy will be accepted, please use CSD G3 in such cases. I find WP:CSD to be an excellent reference when one has any question whatsoever about the criteria; I usually refer to it before adding a db-whatever tag to anything. If you've got any questions, feel free to leave me a note on my talkpage. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 03:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

nor can it be used when the article is very weak, but it is possible to tell what it is about. In particular, to delete articles on non-notable recordings, the only methods available are WP:PROD or WP:AFD. Please check WP:Deletion policy. DGG (talk) 06:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It would help if you guys would identify which taggings you were referring to. Going through my watch list and the deletion log, I saw no instance where a G1 tag I placed on an article was declined. Maybe I missed it. --Evb-wiki (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing? Yeah, that's what I thought. Thanks for the advice, . . . not. --Evb-wiki (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Various Comic Pages

Please stop proposing deletion for the pages I am creating for comic books by indy companies. You appear to know nothing of the industry. One of the pages you marked for deltion, Koni Waves, is a top selling indy comic which has a huge fan base, is available around the world, appearded in several TV shows, as well as had collaboration from a Legend in the Industry Rob Liefeld. Comments are welcome just don't be a so rash in your criticisms.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Clasp99 (talk • contribs)

You may want to add a comment to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Poulton. --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for that

Sorry for that but this man have made (moved me) a persecution and are trying to eliminate all the articles I wrote. Oskulo (talk) 14:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Francisco Santos, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Also, fyi, see WP:SOCK. --Evb-wiki (talk) 13:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Consider - if you like: Deleted with Afd pt:Wikipedia:Páginas para eliminar/Xesko. --Gunnex (talk) 00:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Carter

I added some references to Colin Carter. You may want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Carter. --Eastmain (talk) 22:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Karipande

I have already included the references, please check gain. Oskulo (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)