User talk:Nihiltres/Archive-29

This is an archive of past discussions on Nihiltres' user talk page, as archived on September 2, 2009. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

{{Physics}}

Could you please rename this template to {{WikiProject Physics}} (standardized name)? SkyBon^{Talk\Contributions} 17:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey there.

So I'm back from my reaaaaaaally long wikibreak. Sweet deal. Long time no talk, anything i should be brought up to speed on? I kinda wanna hop back on things. You know.  :: RatedR ^{Leg of Lamb} 04:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Dash Navigation

Hey, I'm not sure how active you are but I noticed you were on the deletion logs for Dash Navigation. Can you restore this page, they recently announced an acquisition by Research in Motion and there is a potential to bring this page up to standards. Thanks riffic (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I userfied it to User:riffic/Dash Navigation for you. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 00:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

RFC for paid editing

Hi, I saw your post at the RFC for paid editing. You said you were contacted by people wanting to pay you for writing an article for them, and that you turned it down. Who are these people, and where can I find them? I've been looking for this kind of "work" for a long time. I know all the policies, and paid editing isn't against the rules (yet).Drew Smith What I've done 00:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to disclose that, sorry. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 00:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Why not? Every article I've created is a quality article. I just want to be paid for something I like.Drew Smith What I've done 09:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

1. I'm still leery of paid editing. Supporting it while the community is discussing it might be disruptive to that discussion.
2. I was offered the opportunity confidentially, specifically to me as a person rather than me as a Wikipedia volunteer. I'm not going to betray their trust, especially given how paid editing can be seen as evil (e.g. in the publicized case of Microsoft offering a blogger money to improve Microsoft-related articles). Were the community to decide that paid editing is unacceptable, is that the time when my contacts would want to have a freshly-made paid article? It might be damaging to them to disclose who they are, even privately to you.
3. "Because". I don't have to justify this decision. I'd like to be paid for my work too, but my gut feeling is that people shouldn't take this sort of job.

Please understand that I'd give this response to anyone who asked. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 12:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Dash Navigation

Hiya, you moved this to userspace; I found a ref, deleted the promotional stuff, and moved it back to articlespace, but if the article still isn't acceptable, please let me know. (Watchlisting) - Dank (push to talk) 00:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

oh good work! I just woke up, i love it when a plan comes together riffic (talk) 04:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Editprotected pages with error message

Could you please fix Eastern blotting and File:Untitled-2.png. A null-edit is probably enough. Debresser (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License today. Debresser (talk) 09:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Samlaptop Debresser (talk) 20:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Jurgenalbanian and Template:Pp-meta/sandbox. The latter is not editprotected, but I can't solve the problem. Debresser (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the former. Due to the special case of the latter, the only way to fix it is to explicitly disable the tracking category. Since TheDJ appears to have implemented his changes on the main {{pp-meta}} template, I'll disable the tracking category again momentarily. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 20:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Here's a new one: File:Imbox deletion.png. Debresser (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Shampoo

I added this exemption because of this. Now I see that "shampoo" was not the only word that contained "poo", so, the exemption is useless. Still the filter created a problem by blocking the revert of vandalism, while not blocking vandalism itself. Ruslik_Zero 17:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Policy

A discussion that you participated in has become involved in a proposed policy in the brainstorming stage. Please come and share your opinion at User:Danglingdiagnosis/Involuntary health consequences Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

KELLY GOODMAN!

hello, ive tried to make and aricle on my friend kelly godman. you just dont understand sir/mam. she is an amazing cheerleader and needs advertisement someway or another. please please let it go through or make and article for me that would pass. mahalo=thank you.

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not supposed to contain advertisements, and your friend Kelly doesn't meet our inclusion guidelines, as far as I can tell (so I can't make a valid article). The inclusion guidelines are intended to help protect people: if there aren't the sort of published sources of information on someone that we can use, anyone could stick anything unverifiable into that person's article and it would stick. Sorry, {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 05:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Gianmichael Salvato

The PROD placed on the article Gianmichael Salvato that you just deleted had been contested and replaced. This article should not have been deleted without a discussion. Please restore the article. Mardaloop (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry; I didn't purge that page before deleting it, so I didn't notice that the PROD tag had been removed. My apologies; I've undeleted the page. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 00:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Nihilres, you've been duped. I've never contested the PROD. I was the one who prompted it for deletion. I don't know who Mardaloop is, but they had no right to use my name as a means to resurrect the page. It's been PRODed for 7 days without any discussions. It needs to be deleted! I did not contest the PROD! I encouraged it on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard If you need to contact me for verification, please contact me via the e-mail address I have on file here at Wiki. Thank You. Kjnelan (talk) 02:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Mardaloop, at least, contested the PROD before the page was deleted, so I didn't worry about the specifics—I haven't been "duped". I'll open an Articles for Deletion discussion, as that's the canonical route to deletion for contested PRODs. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 02:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Will that Articles for Deletion discussion be on the page's discussion or on another page? (I'm sorry, I said dupped, but I realize that may not have been the right wording. I apologize. In the history his reason for removing the PROD was that I requested it. I did not and I just need to make sure that is in the "record".) Thanks. Kjnelan (talk) 02:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The Articles for Deletion discussion is available at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gianmichael Salvato. Don't worry, I don't take offense at your wording. If you want the false statement "on the record", mention it when commenting at the AfD discussion; that's the central record. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 03:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You are cool!!! Thanks so much!!!!  ;) I'm on that page now... Kjnelan (talk) 03:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Global IP Solutions Deletion

I am looking for clarification on the deletion of the Global IP Solutions page. There were 2 sites (iLBC and iSAC) that linked to a non-existent Global IP Solutions page. Therefore, I decided to create one. The page is relevant and useful. If you would like more justification, I would be happy to provide it.Jkhermansen (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

That was a bit of a borderline case, though it did definitely meet the criterion. The page was deleted under article speedy deletion criterion 7 (abbreviated A7): "An article about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." As the article only contained references to the company's own website, and didn't really assert notability, I deleted the page. I'm entirely willing to restore the article, but it would be comforting to see some independent evidence of notability first. Would you be willing to find an independent reliable source discussing Global IP Solutions? The page otherwise looks like it would be, without independent sources, fodder for the Articles for Deletion process. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 23:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I have recreated the entry as a subpage to my user page here User:Jkhermansen/Global_IP_Solutions. I added references from the iLBCfreeware site, a Wirevolution interview with the company's VP of Engineering and a TMC Labs product review. If this demonstrates that the page is important or significant, I can go ahead and move it back to the article space. Jkhermansen (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That interview, in particular, helps. Did you use any text from the now-deleted article? If so, I should be sure to undelete the old article once you've moved the draft into the article namespace. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 23:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I used much of the same text from the previous article. I was not sure of protocol for "moving" the page versus just recreating it on the article page. Since I wanted to maintain the edit history of the Global IP Solutions page and not my user page, I just copied the text from the user sub page and pasted it to the article space. Let me know if I need to do any more cleanup. Thanks for your help.Jkhermansen (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I've undeleted the history of the article; it should be fine now. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 21:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleting I Love My Country

Hello there! I was editing my page of I Love My Country, but when I wanted to save it, you deleted it! Please, let me finish the wiki-page (maybe with help from some other), cause it's about a show created by John de Mol (from the famous Big Brother and Deal or No Deal). Maybe you can help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hnkjr (talk • contribs) 20:37, July 30, 2009 (UTC)

It looks like that page has already been recreated, so I'll leave it alone for now. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me them. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 21:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of ViewGroups

Hi Nihiltres, while we all appreciate your work as to keep Wikipedia clean, could it be possible that you may have been over-enthousiastic by deleting my ViewGroups page. I was in the process of adding more info ... Please restore the page, so I will be able to update / finish it in a couple of weeks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FierceG (talk • contribs) 17:15, August 3, 2009 (UTC)

I'll restore the page to your userspace, at User:FierceG/ViewGroups. You can edit it there and then move it back to ViewGroups once you're done. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 21:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Internet Advertising Bureau entry on Wikipedia

Hi there

I'm contacting you about your decision to delete the page for the Internet Advertising Bureau. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internet_Advertising_Bureau&action=edit&redlink=1

I'm confused as to why you described the entry as "unambiguous advertising or promotion".

As I state very clearly on my user page I am the editorial manager of the Internet Advertising Bureau (IAB) in the UK. I created a Wikipedia page for the IAB UK as no information currently exists on Wikipedia. I tried to be as transparent as possible when adding this entry - and was merely trying to fill a gap in Wikipedia.

I believed that my entry was as neutral as could be. I believed that the entry was informative without trying to simply "advertise" the IAB's services. If you disagree can you please point out specific examples within the text?

In creating the page I tried to follow Wikipedia rules as closely as possible. I also asked editors to let me know if there was anything objectionable within the page so that I could amend it and learn more about what is required of a Wikipedia editor. As a result I'm very surprised that the page has simply been removed without any further comment.

Can you explain what specifically the problem was the page? If there are fundamental issues that can't be resolved quickly, can you also let me know if there is anything that I can do to re-create the page in a more Wikipedia-friendly manner?

Your help would be greatly appreciated in this as it would be very helpful to understand exactly where the problem lies.

Thanks very much —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuart2009 (talk • contribs) 09:23, August 4, 2009 (UTC)

While the page was not advertising, it was nonetheless uniformly promotional of the IAB. That, in combination with your evident conflict of interest with the subject, was sufficient to convince me that the article should be deleted for now.

Your conflict of interest is of particular concern. I'd suggest that if you'd like the article recreated, you'd do well to run it through the Articles for creation process, which will help provide oversight for your conflict of interest. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 16:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi there

Thanks for your feedback - as this is the first article I've added it's very useful. Having said this, your feedback is slightly confusing.

I'm glad that we're agreed the page isn't advertising. But I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "uniformly promotional" of the IAB.

In creating the page I sought to explain in a neutral tone the role of the IAB - a not for profit trade body. I’m just wondering if you haven’t somewhat confused "explanation" for "promotion".

Look at this page for example which explains the key features of Bunnahabhain whisky: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunnahabhain. By explaining a bit of background about the whisky is this page "promoting" Bunnahabhain? I would argue not.

The statements that I made on the IAB page were all intended to explain the role of the IAB and were very carefully backed up by a wide range of sources - from national newspapers like the Guardian to independent industry magazines like New Media Age and Media Week.

By explaining the role of the IAB - backed by these numerous references - I cannot avoid promoting role of the IAB. The only way I could have prevented this would have been to post negative comments about the IAB. This is not something I want to do. But should I really be penalised for this? By posting an entry for the IAB on Wikipedia though I am by extension inviting others to add their thoughts. I am more than happy for this to be the case. Surely you must agree that this is better than there being no page whatsoever.

Just to give you a bit of background, the IAB is a UK-based not for profit trade body that represents a selection of the UK’s biggest players in the digital industry. We seek to encourage best practice within the industry. The fact that we do not have a Wikipedia presence is frankly bizarre. This is the reason why I attempted to create this page. Given our role in the industry, I also chose to explain very clearly and very transparently exactly who I am. This is also the reason why I added a note to my profile asking for feedback so that I could work with editors to ensure that the IAB could have a presence on Wikipedia.

I am forced to restate my previous request for an explanation of what specifically the problem was with the page. What I am looking for is specific examples explaining where the tone of the page was unacceptable. If there are fundamental issues that can't be resolved quickly, I am more than happy to re-create the page in a more Wikipedia-friendly manner. However, I cannot do this until you explain where the issues are.

As a final comment, I am aware that the page was edited by other Wikipedia users before you removed it. I’m slightly confused about why they felt it was acceptable but that you did not. Would it be possible to get a second opinion? It also may be useful to hear the thoughts of a UK-based editor, rather than someone based in Canada.

Apologies for the long response – this is not intended to be in any way confrontational. I am simply trying to understand Wikipedia policy.

Thanks for your help with this.

Hi, I'm going to be leaving on a little trip soon, so I won't be able to help you in the short term. I haven't gotten back to your message yet, but let me point you to Articles for creation again as a good place to start. You can also request that someone in this category (other than me, of course) give you a copy of the deleted article to work with for that process. I also recommend that you check out the conflict of interest guideline and the organization Wikipedia FAQ as both would be useful for you. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 22:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Little Vic

You deleted this article today, I understand you thought this article met requirements for A7, I will be recreating it with more sources and will keep recreating it until it sticks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.219.125.18 (talk) 13:29, August 4, 2009 (UTC)

While I welcome you to recreate the article with more sources, if it is continually recreated like that version, measures might be taken to prevent the article from being recreated by protecting it from creation, a process known here as "salting". Don't try to abuse the system. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 16:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

Thank you for your recent comments on A7 requirements for the Black Bear Studio Systems entry. I am happy to learn about wikipedia requirements from a seasoned editor. When flagged for deletion, I entered a Talkback citing the brand's significance as a term for underground filmmakers in Los Angeles. Under A7, the criterion for deletion "...does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source". That credible claim was made in talkback form as instructed by wikipedia; however, the page was deleted without regard for the above. Perhaps it was an oversight or perhaps as a long time editor you are aware of an issue other than A7 that I am not. In any case, I am compiling a wealth of resources citing the importance of the name as terminology but am unsure of how to continue as the page has been deleted. You response and expertise are greatly appreciated.

Berkeley Ventures deletion

Dear Nihiltres,

Could you please “userfy” my Berkeley Ventures post? It keeps getting deleted. I wrote this in the talk:

“I believe that this post provides widely desired information about a newly created and in demand company. The post should not be deleted because it does not violate any copyright laws, it is referenced to external sources, links to internal sources, and helps to contribute to this compendium of overall knowledge. Although it does not provide "encyclopedic" material, this post provides practical information to inform interested entrepreneurs and small businesses of alternatives to the typical investment vehicles, such as VCs, angel investors, and banks. Deleting this post would do a disservice to the whole community by not allowing startups, which drive economies, to fully see all options available to them. Tdegrange (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)tdegrange”

I would appreciate any help you can provide to get this post up and running because I believe it can really help contribute to everyone.

Best, Tim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdegrange (talk • contribs) 22:09, August 5, 2009 (UTC)

I userfied Berkeley ventures (note that that is distinct from Berkeley Ventures; Wikipedia titles are case-sensitive) to User:Tdegrange/Berkeley ventures. Let me also recommend the Articles for creation process. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 22:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

List of RCAC squadron deletion reason

Can you please give me a reason as to why you decided to delete that article?

GoldenDragon 66 (talk) 05:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)GoldenDragon_66

In my last 500 deletions, the only two where the title contained the text "squadron" were List of Air Cadet Squadrons in Canada and its talk page. I deleted those as redirects to a deleted page; namely, they redirected to List of Air Cadet squadrons in Canada and its talk page, which were earlier deleted by King of Hearts as a result of the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Air Cadet squadrons in Canada. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 14:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Carol Welsman

I noticed you marked this article for speedy deletion. Please see my notes on the talk page for the article. Matt Zeidenberg (talk) 13:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mark it for speedy deletion: I merely carried out the deletion, whose rationale was valid. Those sources look helpful in establishing notability; there is no prejudice against recreating the article. If you like, I'm willing to provide you with the text of the deleted article, by undeleting the content and userfying it, that is, moving it to a user subpage of yours where you can work on it. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 14:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please do so. Thank you. Matt Zeidenberg (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Kochalevsky

What the hell did you delete Kochalevsky for -- idiot! I was just starting to edit it. I created it, less than five minutes later, you delete! The hell's wrong with you? Majordomo41 (talk) 03:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Please disregard previous attacks, Please RESTORE Kachanovsky article ASAP. Majordomo41 (talk) 03:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

At the time, it met the deletion criterion listed. There's no prejudice against recreating the article, and I can provide you with the deleted content if you'd like. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 04:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

"Reminisce" (song)

Hi there Nihiltres, I noticed you deleted Reminisce (song) after the prod expired. I am contesting this prod, considering the song charted on two separate Billboard charts, which signifies it does meet the inclusion criteria. Regards. — Σxplicit 03:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

While I don't think there's a particular guideline for handling opposition to the proposed deletion after the deletion has been carried out, I can certainly userfy the article for you, and you're welcome to improve it and move it back to the article space. Would you like me to do so? {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 04:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Under WP:DP#Deletion review, it states: If a page was deleted via proposed deletion, it should be immediately undeleted by request. Guess that's the route to go. — Σxplicit 04:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Good catch; I wasn't aware of that point. I've undeleted the page. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 05:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll start my work on that article. — Σxplicit 05:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Certified Manager

I need to contest the deletion of Certified Manager. You state it is an advertisement, when in fact this is a certification provided as a credential for professional managers just like a Certified Public Accountant is given their CPA credential. The association is a non-profit organization/association that works with numerous associations and training companies to validate the process. Hence, I don't see that the deletion of the Certified Manager is warranted given that organizations such as Society of Human Resources Manager or the offering of the PMP (Project Manager Professional) credential offered by the Project Management Institute have not been tagged as advertisement. Isn't Wikipedia set-up to share information in defining terms, projects, names, etc.? I look forward to your response. Kpepper6 (talk) 12:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)kpepper