User talk:Triwbe/Archive3

More Floyd Brown

 ...thank you....Phoebe13 (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Re. Notability of Floyd Brown

Hi...just wanted to weigh in that Floyd Brown is quite notable: he is a lengendary "dirty" opposition research specialist for a political party, in part because even his own candidate (George H.W. Bush) filed a complaint about him to the FEC during the Bush-Clinton race. Floyd Brown's name shows up in many books and articles written about negative campaigning. Here's a direct quote from one: Floyd Brown's aggressive research techniques during the 1992 presidential clampaign illustrate the seamy side of opposition research." (Dennis Johnson, No Place for Amateurs, Taylor & Francis, 2007, p. 83.) So even if the lack of citations is problematic at this point, the page itself is worth keeping. I just added a source to it to address the notability problem. The page as is seems to be non-neutral perspective, if not language. I will try to check out sources to corroborate some of the claims by previous additions. Phoebe13 (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

about neosteam page

i just want to sincerely apologize for what happened in the neo steam article. my point in writing the article is to provide information regarding the said game and not to advertise it. i guess its in the manner on how the article was written. i hope i can still create the page so that everyone would know more about this game. i'm considering revising the whole article in order to comply with the rules of wikipedia. i hope you accept my apology. thanks

NeoSteam (talk) 00:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

About the articl Piotr Dranga

Hello, Triwbe! I've improved the translation. Could you check is it good enough now? I would be revy glad to know Your opinion. --Kartasheva Ann (talk) 06:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Хорошо. Не проблема. --Triwbe (talk) 06:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Voila. I have concentrated on the format and translation rather that the factual content. Some of that may be challengen, on verra. --Triwbe (talk) 08:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Спасибо! Merci beaucoup! Thank you very much!--Kartasheva Ann (talk) 10:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thanks for Neo Steam deletion

Yup, WP:Consensus wins in the end. For now, I've fully protected the page from blatant advertising. Cheers. Spellcast (talk) 07:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

CSD G4

...only applies to articles deleted per AfD, not to reposted speedy candidates.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy as non-notable

only applies to people where there is nothing to indicate any importance at all. The CEO of a major company such as John E Rooney is important, no matter how inadequate the article is. Even at one sentence, it meets WP:STUB. DGG (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Not according to my understanding of WP:PROVEIT and Burden of evidence. I will give some WP:AGF, but WP:STUB still says "Lastly, a critical step: add sources for the information you have put into the stub; see citing sources for information on how to do so in Wikipedia." The editor does not even give a link to show the person actuall exits, let alone notable. This could be a complete hoax. If he exists and has that position he is notable, but it must be verifiable. --Triwbe (talk) 15:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This edit

Do you really think that was vandalism? I thought about removing that section myself, after the update from the Humane Society source. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That's odd; I thought when I looked at it that she had left the information about the story's accuracy up, and now it isn't. Since obviously I could never make a mistake, I'll assume that the edit-history has a bug of some sort. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It was simply an uncommented removal of text. I was waiting to see if the deletion was remade, with a comment, explanation etc (it is always good practise to comment edits anyway :-). Perhaps the section needs a small rewrite from a new angle. --Triwbe (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply to 'edit war'

I apologize for the 'edit war' I have displayed. I now understand what I did wrong. By deleting the notability notice I have gone against the motion of the rules, and I apologize deeply for that. More so I believe I have tried adding more information to the Nick Wilson article that I created so it met the notability guide lines. And I meant no harm to the Wikipedia development. Thanks, Lord Shivan (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: Now I understand, I made too many edits in short period of time? It is not an edit war because no one else was involved. I was simply correcting errors I made.

Actually it was the removal of the issue tags (notability especially) which you had done twice. A third time would have been WP:3RR violation, but also, as page creator, you should not remove issue tags place by other editors (although any other editor may do so). The article Nick Wilson, as it is now, does not show sufficient notability (IMO), but I am giving you plenty of chance to find some. Note I am not certain of the links you have already put there, if they are sufficient. --Triwbe (talk) 10:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:ACP-EU logo.png

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:ACP-EU logo.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sdrtirs (talk) 23:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Gallup & Robinson, Inc page, marked for deletion

{{helpme}} How do I make this entry be more encyclopedic? It was not intended for advertising purposes.

24Research (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if I left the message properly, It is on there but I did not click the leave new message button.

I am not sure if I left the message properly, It is on there but I did not click the leave new message button. - I am a total newbie to this.24Research (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What are you on about? I have rightfully updated my good friends entry (arguably one of the better comedians to have emerged from Scotland)and you denied it? You are a scot...wow, well on ya...but come on all I said was as true a you want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farflungwaffle (talk • contribs) 07:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hunh?

whats up dude? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farflungwaffle (talk • contribs) 07:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Miles Jupp

You think You are "all right" do you?

I just made the page about the best comedian to come out of Scotland better..oh You're from Scotland...bias????...I don't know but please re-do my edit. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farflungwaffle (talk • contribs) 07:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Miles Jupp

All info is verifiable...ask Juppy...you think I'm having a laugh? Well all is true. Why not verifying some better things than this? It's called factual information. Don't ask for internetable verification because most stuff on the internet is not verifiable...or arguably so.

--Farflungwaffle (talk) 07:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not descend to personal attacks, they will not be tolerated.

I have added a welcome message to your talk page explaining Wikipedia's well defined policies, especially on articles about living people. All added material must be verifiable by citing 3rd party independent sources. Your own research is not acceptable. Also as you declare yourself to be personally involved with the subject of the article you should not touch the article as that would be a conflict of interest and risk not being from a neutral point of view. Please read the five pillars to know what to do before editing and complaining. --Triwbe (talk) 07:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

For anyone interested, I assume the revert that Farflungwaffle was refering to was this one, make up your mind. --Triwbe (talk) 07:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Miles Jupp

Where is the verification on the rest of the Miles Jupp Page? Ahh.. Nothing...Well you seem to be all about this kind of third-party verification. Well. attack the rest of the unverified references on the page (Miles Jupp). But you did not. Can I just ask why did you not verify the other information?

--Farflungwaffle (talk) 08:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I am just doing it, or you may also do so, if people disagree, it will be reverted. That is the way WP works. --Triwbe (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Miles Jupp

Right, makes sense, in the honour of WikiPedia.

I just don't understand why you object? Nothing was untrue and nothing was verifiable but...oh...what the hell am I wasting my time for...you're the one wasting his/her time. :)

--Farflungwaffle (talk) 08:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If you had read the links I sent you then you would not be asking these questions. --Triwbe (talk) 08:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

Not a Troll...

How can I send a message to Gwernol? Can't seem to.

Just wondering...

--Farflungwaffle (talk) 08:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Last message...Really

Just a question...not a troll...

How can I find out waht is going on in WikiPed? I have been using it for quit a while and I cannot seem to understand why if my entry was stopped (not imortant to this question)why has not other, unchecked stuff not been?

I'm not saying the stuff I said was true, but, I've seen alot of worse things. You guys (I mean lots and lots, 1000's) of you guys are constantly checking? That seems OK and better than nothing.

Only, if you (plural) are the checkers (which you are) how does stuff get buy if my innocuous entry did not? Do you see what I'm saying? Only a harmless entry to an unused page and yet stuff that really could harm someone/something could and does get through. Do you see my question? I hope so, anyway, just wondering...not trolling. Cau. C

--Farflungwaffle (talk) 09:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. See Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol and Wikipedia:New pages patrol where the main concentration of effort is placed. But then there are a dozen other routes that are used to find and checked, some stuff gets through because some people do not check sources as well as others, some people only check for obvious vandalsim. --Triwbe (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Miles Jupp

Ok, you just took a load of stuff of Miles' page...why? What I put was unverified but the rest was there for years. If this is how it works...can't wait to be a part of it...anything that Google doesn't come up with I guess is NON FACT. Good thing I'm supporting miles next week, maybe he will get less hits??? HA.

--Farflungwaffle (talk) 09:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well be sure to pass on our regards, and if there are any reviews (online or printed) be sure to update the article. --Triwbe (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Autocracy is unwelcome

Do not redirect/merge/move articles that you do not create just when you feel like. Its bad manners. Disuuss first. Do read the wikipedia guidelines once again, if you have forgottensarindam7 (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks that is not acceptable. I did begin the discussion, but found that the articles Dry heat and Moist heat did not offer anything new that was not already covered in Sterilization (microbiology) just as well. They were also inprecise, hence the move to more precise article names. If you continued with these articles then that would have meant duplicating information from the main article and then you need to discuss that in the main article.

You are of course completely free to revert any of my edits, as I am yours. You may be the creator of the articles, but not the owner. --Triwbe (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No personal attack was intended. Just trying to get my point through. Anyway. I don't want thousands of small articles myself, if one large article will suffice.

I know I don't own anything. I don't even want the "creator" tag. I just added some information as you do. No hard feelings.sarindam7 (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit on Apostolic Succession

Hello Tribwe -

I introduced the edit into the section on the Latter-day Saints because the final paragraph seems redundant at best. The idea that "ancient apostolic churches" embrace the idea that succession has continued from the time of initial apostles to their present-day clergy has already been copiously covered in the contents of the page. Restating it here seems either superfluous or like a veiled contestation of latter-day saint views on apostolic succession. Entries on Wikipedia are for informational purposes only - not a site to reinforce doctrinal positions or carry out doctrinal disputes. In striving to be sensitive to this issue I introduce the edit. I would encourage you to consider what is being gained by maintaining it - I think it is in the best interests of scholars, students, and the curious to maintain the impartiality of a copiously used (frustratingly so, for scholars, certainly) informational resource.71.38.181.25 (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

As explained in my edit comment and on your talk page the revert was done because you removed text with out explaining why, that is why and that is considered wrong on Wikipedia. Not because I support any point of view on the information. Please comment your edits and discuss your concerns on the article's talk page where interested parties can discuss with you. Any edit made to wikipedia must be explained and ideally verifieable. --Triwbe (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

joe edward deletion

you put the delete tag on a page that had only been in existance for about five minutes. What's your reasoning? Because you don't know who he is? Under the notability guidelines you are invoking, it says that if a person has recieved an important award they are notable. That is on the page in question. I will source it if you give me time. As mentioned the guy has an honorary doctorate for all the things that I intend to write about on the page. That's a side thing though and there is much more to him. His name is in the newspaper at least weekly. He is a major political/economic force in the St. Louis Area. It is a stub and I haven't had a chance to expand it yet. Give me a chance. DaronDierkes (talk) 06:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

OK now that there is at least 1 reference I have removed the WP:CSD#A7 request. All articles, even first drafts, should include at least 1 citation. We cannot see into the future, we do not know if you intend to add valid references or not. See WP:STUB for a minimum standard. --Triwbe (talk) 06:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I really appreciate it.

Hahaha, really??? Ok, I'll find something else. There don't seem to be many full articles on it though, just his name with lots of other people. ok ok, i'll do something. DaronDierkes (talk) 06:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

About Andover Musical and Operatic Society

Hello Triwbe. I'm just checking that you got my explanation as to why you should allow a page for Andover Musical and Operatic Society. Thanks Pmars100 (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No, but then 2 admins did review it:

* 15:25, 5 May 2008 NawlinWiki (Talk | contribs) deleted "Andover musical and operatic society" ‎ (A7 (group): Group/band/club/company/etc; doesn't indicate importance/significance)

* 15:11, 5 May 2008 Splash (Talk | contribs) deleted "Andover musical and operatic society" ‎ (A7 (group) Group/band/club/company/etc; doesn't indicate importance/significance: also a blatant copyright infringement from http://www.amos-info.co.uk/history.html)

and decided to delete it. Please check WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles for the reason. If you want to contest the deletion see Wikipedia:Deletion review and the best of luck. --Triwbe (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Star Wars: The Emperor's New Clones

They must be as notable as any of the other entries at Star Wars fan films, if not more (it is a full length film, not a short story). But maybe not all of those are "notable"? Or maybe the article should be about Backyard Productions? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 09:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Corey Delany

i have put a hang on tag. Please see the talk page of the article. Shovon (talk) 09:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Problem with editing 'Category:Future power stations'

Hi Triwbe. I see, you pay attention to energy pages. Please revise page Category:Future power stations, I did want to add EMFESZ power plant, but I was no able. Perhaps the categories has different editing rules? Please add if you can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo82 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Category pages are not updated themselves. Instead, when a [[Category:abc]] is added to a page then that page is automatically incorporated to that category list. If the pages is deleted or move, so the category is also changed. --Triwbe (talk) 11:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

EMRG Media is not spam

Please look at a person's record before making accusations like that. If I were a spammer I'd be spamming on behalf of many entities. A company that is noted by Metro newspapers and the NYPost is not Spam, nor is it non-notable. Please remove CSD. Drewhamilton (talk) 11:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Notability on Lyro

Triwbe this Lyro may or may not be notable, but record has changed due to the fact it is now being marketed under a different name (businesscard2). Please advise. Valhallas (talk) 5:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Cookies!

Spam is mystery meat. Let's have cookies!

Drewhamilton (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

AfD archive

Given you were offline, this edit was uncontroversial and related to WP:BLP, I reverted in your absence. Please see User talk:Paul Yeratz. Thanks, Paul Yeratz (talk) 04:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Why no phone numbers and email adddresses?

Why no phone #'s or email addresses? Why arent they allowed?

Techliveadmin (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, placing contact detils is not encyclopedic.

1. Wikipedia is not to be used for promotion as per WP:ADVERT
2. WP is not a directory
3. Data protection laws in many countries forbid the reproduction of personal information with out explicit consent.
4. Much of the information you added was not notable enough to be included.

please read these pages and see if you agree with me. --Triwbe (talk) 12:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Isle of Man Isle of Sam

This is actually true please check The Isle of Man/ Sam website —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.252.21 (talk) 09:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

How can I ? You didn;t supply any references. See WP:V. --Triwbe (talk) 10:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

87.202.170.193 (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you really think it was vandalism?

ok you revertd what i thought was vandalism in itself but should you?

... or was it a bot-driven deletion? Vandalism is what Guillermo Vargas poises as art. I still suggest he hungs and starves himself to death. THAT would be art. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.170.193 (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)