User talk:NoVomit/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:NoVomit. 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 |
Seth Material
Comment – Hello NoVomit, I understand that you are a new user, and by the way welcome to the project called Wikipedia. However, I would like to point out that when you have a disagreement concerning an article, those disagreements are better addressed at the talk page of that article. It is not an acceptable practice, and is actually called bad faith, to bring an article to AFD when one knows that the piece does meet all the eligibility requirements as outlined in notability. I hope that this is just an isolated incident and will not occur again. With that said, once again welcome aboard. If you have any questions or need help in any area, feel free to drop me a note on my talk page. Happy editing. ShoesssS Talk 18:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Seth Material 2
I am sorry if you disagreed with my AfD of the Seth Material, but the fact is I was not the one who said initially that it was not notable or poorly sourced. I thought it was, and then some administrators came along and slapped those tags there, and mostly convinced me that they were right. in the last month or so, it was discussed on the talk page . . . check the three or so pages of archives generated by this, with no one reaching a consensus. Some insisted that it was not notable because the sources were not "reliable" . . . others insisted this was not the case. I asked for third party opinions but no one was interested, and the arguments just devolved into insults. So I assumed the administrator who tagged the article must have known what he was talking about finally and took it to AfD so that it could be deleted if it was really unencyclopedic as they claimed or if it was of value. If you look at the talk page, you will see that efforts prior to this had been made and rejected over and over again . . . mediation was refused, an RfC was ignored and so I thought this was my only alternative left. My apologies if this was improper procedure. NoVomit (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - First, welcome to Wikipedia. In looking through your contributions, you are doing a good job. Regarding the Seth Material piece, it is not necessarily that I disagreed with your opinion, it was more so your approach to resolving the situation that I had a problem with. I understand at times it can be frustrating, and certain incidents can be aggravating. When this happens again, and it will believe me :-), ask a third party – independent editor or administrator to look at the situation. Most times, this is all it takes to resolve issues. This is the tactic I use, and believe me it works. As time goes on, you will note the editors and administrators that seem to come across as balanced and fair. Look to those for advice and opinions. In the mean time remember: “…no harm – no foul” your apology is unnecessary but appreciated, and once again, welcome aboard. Hope to see you around. ShoesssS Talk 19:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 13:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
No Redirect for Tweeners
Hi NoVomit - thanks for your interest in my article. I have a lot more to add, but I am happy about correcting these errors I am finding about generational definitions and etymology.
Anyway - I posted this on the talk page -- thought I would send it to you as well,
- Comment: Keep
A. Generation Jones Does not cover this topic in the least. Redirect would negate the entire purpose of article and said definition which needs correction in the first place. Generation Jones only discusses years up to 1965 and covers social , economoic and politcal areas without relation to etymology and birth rates. It does not even attempt to cover birth rates, which are at the academic fundamental core of the Baby Boom by literal definition. Further, the term, "Generation Jones" is not widely used. This article does not relate to the Tweener Generation as these years of birth rate drops from 1964 - 1968 are not covered nor is the American use terminology or definition.
Further, read original archive from USA TODAY - see link below and abstract.
Title: Stuck between generations Not boomers, not Xers, they are Tweeners [FINAL Edition] USA TODAY (pre-1997 Fulltext) - McLean, Va. Author: Andrea Stone Date: Mar 22, 1996 Start Page: 01.A Section: NEWS Text Word Count: 1333 Abstract (Document Summary)
Baby boomers were born from 1946 through 1964. But the spotlight has always seemed focused on older boomers, those 40 to 50 now. In the mid-'90s, they're starting to fret about retirement and aging. Tweeners, a few of whom even have parents who are boomers, just can't relate.
Despite such differences, the more than 20 million Tweeners aren't recognized as a separate generation. They are counted among the 75 million baby boomers. Yet many are closer in age to Generation Xers who were born from 1965 through 1976. But that designation doesn't feel right, either.
Like the oldest boomers, Tweeners ``are a transitional group, [Walker] Smith says. Those born in the late 1940s share a sense of duty and community with the G.I. generation. But, like other boomers, they also stress individuality. That combination of values leaves many older boomers torn about balancing family and career, even though their generation launched the women's movement. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission
LINK for USA TODAY Archive for March 22, 1996: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/USAToday/access/16394756.html?dids=16394756:16394756&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Mar+22%2C+1996&author=Andrea+Stone&pub=USA+TODAY+(pre-1997+Fulltext)&edition=&startpage=01.A&desc=Stuck+between+generationsNot+boomers%2C+not+Xers%2C+they+are+Tweeners —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archiemartin (talk • contribs) 17:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
archiemartinArchie Martin (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tweener_Generation" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archiemartin (talk • contribs) 17:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Tulasa PR
With respect, I removed and archived the request for a peer review of Tulasa. Because PR is so busy, and editors who volunteer to do reviews have a hard time keeping up, PR has limits. These are explained briefly on the main PR page and in more detail here. Tulasa doesn't meet the limits because of the major clean-up tags. Please consider re-submitting a PR request after the clean-up issues have been resolved. Finetooth (talk) 22:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
You incorrectly nominated this page for deletion. Please add your reason on this page with the format {{subst:afd2|pg=Bangladesh Booty|cat=?|text=YOUR REASON HERE}}. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 16:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
MfD for Aseembly.jpg
Hi. I've closed the MFD; it was the wrong place. If you want to have an image deleted, please visit WP:IFD. // roux 10:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/André Dallaire
I have reverted your out-of-process close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/André Dallaire. It has not had five days of discussion and you had already participated in the discussion. You also did not close the discussion properly. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions I believe it is appropriate that an uninvolved admin close this when the time is right. Thanks, DoubleBlue (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with File:JaneRoberts.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:JaneRoberts.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
You have nominated as well as put the article on hold. The reviewer puts an article on hold, not the nominator. Please tell the reviewer to do so. Am removing on hold tag. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of The Oversoul Seven Trilogy
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article The Oversoul Seven Trilogy, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
- non notable
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. 70.186.172.214 (talk) 11:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
MfD nomination of Template:Colin Wilson
Template:Colin Wilson, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Colin Wilson and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Template:Colin Wilson during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. 70.186.172.214 (talk) 11:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Energy Work
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Energy Work, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
- not notable
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. 70.186.172.214 (talk) 11:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of The Serpent and the Rainbow (book)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article The Serpent and the Rainbow (book), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
- not notable
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. 70.186.172.214 (talk) 11:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use Image:JaneRoberts.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:JaneRoberts.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the media description page and edit it to add
{{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template. - On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 70.186.172.214 (talk) 11:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
George Russells
Might have been worth putting the changes to the various George Russell pages up for discussion before you made these changes? I can see why one might want to establish a dab page, but I'm not convinced by the "not to be confused with" links. And are you intending to fix the links to George Russell the bandleader/composer so that they point to the renamed article rather than the dab page? AllyD (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Samuel Sagan
I have nominated Samuel Sagan, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Sagan. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 17:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)