User talk:Triwbe/Archive5

GeoSmart - CSD declined - shows significance

hi again :)

just for my education...

"shows significance" as in WP:GNG and the bit about "Significant coverage"?

theres a whole bunch of refs on that page now, so they'd justify that?

thanks. Mission Fleg (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Sure, the Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7 is only if there is no claim to notability. An article that claims notablity can not be speedied. It does not have to prove or supply references. That is why the template calls it significance. After that, if notability is not shown and proven, either WP:PROD or WP:Afd can be and should be used. That was what I was told some time ago when I was in your position :-) Happy patrolling. --triwbe (talk) 05:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

ok, got it, thanks.Mission Fleg (talk) 09:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sheri Martinelli

Hi, I'm a newbie and you just fixed up the m in Martinelli from lower to uppercase. What had I done wrong? Thanks (and feel free to point me at any relevant faqs). Mission fleg (talk) 06:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You have been welcomed ;-) --triwbe (talk) 07:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

MOTUbassist

My article is describing a band which is the best example possible of a new genre and it's themes of paranoia and sci fi/fantasy with the sound of death metal blended with mathcore. I feel its relevence towards the progression of metal music is high and that it should not be speedily deleted. The terms used in the artricle are meant to highlisht the surreality of the music and the key features of the genre whilst not patronizing the reader by explaining in simple and over explained terms which would remove the element of surreality from the explanation of the genre. Also, it is my first article and I am not certain as to the reason for the deleteion necessity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MOTUbassist (talk • contribs) 10:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles by Colors8

Hello again, Triwbe ...

Are you interested in doing anything about any of these articles by Colors8 (talk · contribs)? I noticed that they've been MIA since 2008-06-22.

Happy Editing! — 151.200.237.53 (talk · contribs) _{16:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)}

 Done … they all have seconded PRODs now. — 151.200.237.53 (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Murray Dry

Please don't patronize me with templates telling me to look at WP:YFA; I have been an editor for over two years. I'm sure that wasn't your intent, but as a general recommendation, only use templates like that for newbies. At any rate, I will review the article and see what I can do for sources, responding further on the article's talk page. I do believe he meets the notability requirements. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 16:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the template is a little patronising for non-newbies, please don't take it personally. As for the article, I do not question the notability, it is a problem of WP:V which is a core policy of wikipedia and I feel must be respected by all editors, new and old. Regards.--triwbe (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course. I'm a little busy at the moment, but I'll try to find the time tomorrow to find some reliable sources. And no worries; I didn't take it personally. (Sorry if I seemed a bit cross there! Such is online communication.) Also, I noticed that you put this on my talk page, but you surrounded it with HTML notation to make it unnoticeable without looking at the recent changes.

Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please do the following:

1. Place {{hangon}} on the page. Please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag(s).
2. Make your case on the article's talk page.

Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. ... DO NOT remove the {{Db}} tag yourself! I have restored it ... please read Wikipedia:Three-revert rule and don't do it again, or you may get blocked from editing here.

Was that intentional, or a mistake? Because you didn't tag it for speedy deletion, and I didn't remove a tag for speedy deletion (and would never do so, when I could just put the {{hangon}} tag in there!). -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 01:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to drop in uninvited, but as the author of the {{Flag-editor}} template, I must ask you to RTFM ... please start with Flag templates for deletion warnings ... then see Template:Flag-editor#Removal of speedy deletion tag for documentation of the "hidden" message added by the template ... see also the 2nd Step: Alert the author of the WP:FLAG-BIO protocol for a message that is not repeated in the other Flag templates.

BTW, the Whole Story (and yes, it was designed primarily for nuggets) is at WP:FLAG-PROTOCOL, but that's an awful lot to try to absorb on First Reading. :-)

Happy Editing! — 151.200.237.53 (talk · contribs) _{03:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)}

RTFM pointers for Flag templates

Hello, Triwbe. You have new messages at 151.200.237.53's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— 151.200.237.53 (talk · contribs) _{00:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)}

CSD removal of Dark Intervals (film)

Hi. The only reason why I allowed this to stay was because there's so little context and substance that I wasn't entirely sure what facts are being asserted that may constitute a hoax! Is the author talking about a screenplay, a film, a proposed film, or what? - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not a hoax, it is part of my filmography. With so many truly questionable listings on Wikipedia, to concentrate solely on my addition is unwarranted. The author (me) is talking about a screenplay that I sold to director Joe Brewster, yet the film was never made. Would it better to go to great lengths to describe all of this on that page? It hardly seems worth the effort, yet it is part of my filmography, therefore I think it is of importance. Regards. Ebfilms (talk) 08:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Please take note. I do not solely concentrate on your contributions, my edit history shows this very clearly. Also Wikipedia policies demand verification of all content and none has been supplied especially if you are involved with the subject as you declare yourself to be. --triwbe (talk) 08:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Listen, it's quite obvious you're only focussing on my additions, and I think it's unfair. There are so many other things on Wikipedia that don't exist. I don't care about your edit history,l I care about what I have listed. Now you're saying that my film "Once A Champion" doesn't exist??? Come on man, give me a break. You sound like a disgruntled "wannabe" editor. get a job where you actually get paid, and stop nit-picking. The more you flag, the more I add. Move on. Ebfilms (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

If you continue to ignore Wikipedia guidlines, as you have been informed about extensivly on your talk page by numerous editors, you will not be adding much more. Please cool down and reflect on why multiple editors are all warning you. I did not say the film does not exists, I said that it is not notable under Wikipedia:Notability (films), if you can show notability it will stay, if not, it will be deleted, and not by me. --triwbe (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Film afds

I think you may have to open a separate deletion subpage for those films. Best, --Cameron* 17:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Forget that it's complete rubbish, so long as you've temp'ed the others (which you have)... --Cameron* 17:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Standel article

Hello there. I believe you underrated the Standel article. It needs work, but stub class is too low. I have corrected the WP guitarist and WP musical instrument templates. I believe C-Class is more adequate. NeedNotGreed (talk) 20:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

'Fraid not, without references in reliable 3rd party sources it cannot be more than a start class and could even be a deletion candidate. Needs improving. --triwbe (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No hard feelings

Hey there, just wanted to say sorry if I came off a bit brusque over at AfD. I imagine you were diligently patrolling new pages when you happened across this one, and I can't blame you for taking action. It's tough quickly taking things into account (what kind of contributor is this? is the subject worthy of inclusion? do i think the article can be improved? is the article speediable?). I appreciate your willingness to step back and reevaluate. And I'm always trying to improve my civility. Happy editing :) -FrankTobia (talk) 06:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely no hard feelings. I appreciated your input that prodded me to review my proposal. --triwbe (talk) 07:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Niche Science & Technology

Hello Triwbe,

You tagged an article of mine (Niche Science & Technology), for deletion and I wanted to remedy it, but I'm not sure what it needs. I tried to discuss it on the page, but that dosen't seem to work. Could you give me a few hints.

Many Thanks

mightyhansa

Mightyhansa (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for communicating, happy to assist where I can. So to explain; every article in Wikipedia must be notable. We take this to mean that it has been the subject of significant coverage in 3rd party media (otherwise know as reliable sources). In this case the criteria for notability is given by Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) mainly under Primary criterion, and the references should be reliable (see WP:PSTS). Your sources are all self published and so do not count towards showing notability. Any references you can find in better sources and the issue can be closed. if you need more help, let me know. --triwbe (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Speedy deletion of Plurk

Can you please help me out on how to establish the importance or significance of an article in Wikipedia? I just got your speedy delete notice for Plurk, and I do not yet have much experience in handling this kind of notices. --Aeon17x (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I have replied on the article talk page so that others may see it. --triwbe (talk) 08:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Little Maria

As you can tell, I think that this article should remain, and am prepared to fight for its right to remain. However, we could perhaps reach a compromise whereby the information contained in this page could be incorporated into the Frankenstein (1931 film) page? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bravo Plantation (talk • contribs) July 23, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bravo Plantation (talk • contribs) 09:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Advice

Hi, I was just wondering if you could give me some advice on this one. I have suggested that the article WWE The Great American Bash be merged with The Great American Bash. My reasoning is that it is because thay are both the same event and I feel that it does not justify two pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bravo Plantation (talk • contribs) 10:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You should know :-) stick a {{Margeto|article}} on one and later merge and redirect to the other. see WP:Merge --triwbe (talk) 10:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure they are the same, a quick glance seems to me that they are different. --triwbe (talk) 10:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, on further reading - Follow WP:Merge to the letter and see where it goes. Both are well developed articles and may produce a lot of resistance. --triwbe (talk) 10:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The Great American Bash is quite a large article (full off Wikipedia:Fancruft)) and merging may not be a good idea. It would then become a candidate for WP:SPLITTING. --triwbe (talk) 10:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Paradise Lost (2006 film)

Looks like you've got your hands full there. Best of luck! GDallimore (Talk) 12:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No I don't. I have a devious plan, and you gave me the solution. :-) Wait and see. --triwbe (talk) 12:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? I'm waiting. This film doesn't exist. What's your "devious" plan? Schatzberg (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah you see, act in haste - repent in pleasure. Be patient. You'll get what you want. --triwbe (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

So you'll remove the phoney film listing, good-glad to hear it. Good Day. Schatzberg (talk) 17:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. --triwbe (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Anarchist International

Hi Triwbe, thanks for jumping in. Replied on my talk. Peace, delldot talk 16:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Triwbe. Thanks for the advise. mrellosMrellos (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Why

Hi I am the creator of the Faith Sees The Savior wiki page. Was was it speedy deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornerstone10 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have already explained on your talk page. regards. --triwbe (talk) 07:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks for rescuing the Kyle Schickner article

But out of curiosity do you have ANY idea what that was about? No one had ANY idea this guy was at all controversial.

His film Strange Fruit is regularly cycled thru on LOGO as a modern LGBT classic and his 5th and most recent (2007) film "Steam" includes stars like Ruby Dee, Ally Sheedy andKate Siegel in major roles.

Was it a homophobia/biphobia or some sort of other prejudice thing or just a random nut-job? Should we have the page protected? Thanks CyntWorkStuff (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The page is perfecttly safe I think, it does not need any more protection. --triwbe (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

But do you have ANY idea why it happened? Is this film-maker for some reason not apparent to any of us controversial in some way? Is there some amazing scandal or something we are mising and should be included in his (let's face it, fairly pedestrian) article? We are just amazed by the amount of trouble someone was willing to go thru to get rid of this article. That usually means something interesting is going on. Thanks CyntWorkStuff (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, am reading thru this all the links you pointed out. I've had a lot of weird things happen on wikipedia, but this is a new one for me. CyntWorkStuff (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

If one good thing came out of this nonsense with all the sockpuppets, it's that it pushed me to improve and reference not only the Schickner article but also the Jerry Schatzberg article as well as those for several of his films. I was surprised to see how many of these classic movies had articles with no references whatsoever. - Dravecky (talk) 07:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James McDonald (Irish Filmmaker)

Found non-IMDB sources linking McDonald with his film company LAC and showing minor notability and additional awards for his films. If article survives AfD I will add them. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 06:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The AI-Wiki-page is deleted, this was not a part of the deal - Where can I find the discussion page?

The AI-Wiki-page is deleted, this was not a part of the deal. Can you undelete it, or may I repost it from my sandbox? What do you think I should do? - See see my talk page... The discussion page is also deleted. Where can I find the discussion page? It must be stored somewhere here on Wiki, and I would like to copy the content to my talk page.It was an interesting discussion.

(Anna Quist (talk) 07:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC))

Sorry, you took too long and there seems to still be a lot of major concerns among the community. I did not propose nor delete the article. The (rather brief) discussion is here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarchist International (2nd nomination). It was proposed for delete by Hoary (talk · contribs) and closed and deleted, very quickly by Bjweeks (talk · contribs). You can ask him to give you a copy of the article and the talk page. there is nothing more I can do. Again sorry. --triwbe (talk) 07:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

CHRIS NEEDHAM ARTICLE Good God, give me a chance to write the article before you go saying it doesn't meet guidelines, etc. You wouldn't accuse someone of stealing in a supermarket before they'd gotten to the checkouts, would you!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PresleyDotson (talk • contribs) 10:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You are lucky I did not mark it for deletion. All articles must meet WP:Stub class before submitting, otherwise work in the WP:SandBox --triwbe (talk) 10:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Chris Needham

PresleyDotson (talk) 12:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC) "You are lucky i did not not mark it for deletion" ... that sounds a rather threatening, unnecessary statement to me. I may just find out who to report you to for that.

Well I thought I was being nice, but you can report me at WP:ANI if you like. --triwbe (talk) 12:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

PresleyDotson (talk) 12:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC) Look, you know this place better than I do. If you want to delete my articles then just delete them. What an unpalatable experience this has been so far. So much for freedom of speech.

Who ever mentioned "freedom of speech"? If that's what you want try Myspace or a blog site. Wikipedia have some (a lot) of guidelines. I recommend you read Wikipedia:Your first article carefully because there is an army of editors watching all new pages and edits to prevent SPAM, vandalism, hoxes, attacks, non-notable entries and many other unwanted material. If I had wanted your article deleted it would have gone by now (read WP:CSD#A7 and WP:BLP) but these tags are designed to help you improve the article so that it may remain. So calm down and learn the system. The welcome message I put on your talk page is an excellent source of critical information. --triwbe (talk) 12:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

PresleyDotson (talk) 12:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC) Perfectly calm - but in black and white it's hard to show how you're reacting. Now, I've read the welcome, have read the stubs guidelines, have read about the sandbox (that you've mentioned twice), have read about putting together first articles and have taken on board all the information you've imparted. I genuinely didn't realise I'd deleted a template from In Bed With Chris Needham. Thank you and I hope I didn't come across as too difficult. ps. MySpace et blogs me font chier (yes, I read your user page ... nice to see other UK francophones on here)

Message to Delldot, Maxim and Triwbe about cooperation to improve the AI-Wiki-page

As you well know, the AI-Wiki-page is once more deleted, this time by Bjweeks on a request from Hoary. I have written to them at their talkpages about cooperation to achieve an AI-Wiki-page that has general Wiki-consent, before publishing it again. Copies of these messages are on my talk page. Take a look at them. As AI is the largest anarchist-network in the world, it of course should have a Wiki-page. I invite you all to contribute to a better AI-Wiki-page for later publishing. This time so good that it will not be deleted by anyone.

(Anna Quist (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC))

speedy delete

Don't rush ! take your time --Mardetanha ^talk 19:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

OK :-) --triwbe (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I will take some time - there is no rush

I will involve as many relevant people as possible. I will take some time - there is no rush. (Anna Quist (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC))

OK, I don't know what to suggest. There was a lot of negative opinions out there. Unless you can get a reference from BBC or CNN I'm afraid I see know way of getting past line 1. --triwbe (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Date/Place of birth missing

Hi. Please note that Category:Date of birth missing and Category:Place of birth missing should be placed in talk page. So this edit is not correct. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 11:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Garrett (actor)

I noticed that you created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Garrett (actor), which is now blank. Is this a mistake, or did you want to withdraw the AfD? I added the IMDb page for the actor as a reference before you created the AfD. --Eastmain (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a problem with the Afd template, check out the AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Garrett (actor). --triwbe (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't get a chance to add stuff and it gets deleted

I was trying to add info about a reality show winner and before I could even add references, it was deleted. How much time does this speedy deletion give you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamTam (talk • contribs) 00:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Between 0 seconds and 10 years - depending on when an administrator gets around to reviewing the deletion request. In your case the logs show

    * 20:15, 28 July 2008 Accounting4Taste (talk · contribs) deleted "Russ castella" ‎ (A7 (bio): 
      Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a real person: 
      Article about an a real person, which does not assert notability (CSD A7))
   * 11:52, 28 July 2008 Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) deleted "Russ castella" ‎ (G11: Blatant advertising)

I left a guide on your talk page and recommend you read WP:your first article. Lastly you can prepare an artilce in your own Sandbox where it will not be deleted so quickly. --triwbe (talk) 05:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Regaring Nanoscience and nanotechnology consortium (NSTC)

Can u tell an example which i should follow to rewrite this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sainiravi (talk • contribs) 08:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not a question of style, but rather notability which in this case is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), and this is shown by supplying citations. I suggest you start reading Your first article to get a good overview of all the requirements. Good luck. --triwbe (talk) 09:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Susan Baldwin

I'm not quite sure what happened here. I added a PROD tag using Twinkle. Was it speedied in the meantime? I've had Twinkle conflicts before where my edit occurs within nanoseconds of another edit. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 16:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't check the logs, but it can certainly happen. Happy prodding. --triwbe (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This Time/I Wish You Well (single)

Hello, my work on This Time/I Wish You Well is surely not worthy of such a speedy deletion. The release of the single did not happen however it being cancelled is significant in the charting of Cara Dillon's history as it marked her decision to set up an independent record label- information which I intend to add to this page (Cara Dillon) at a later date. Also, the single is notable since copies of the single are in circulation. They can be purchased on Amazon.co.uk (http://www.amazon.co.uk/This-Time-Cara-Dillon/dp/B000GIXVXE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1217776937&sr=8-1) Can I revert to the earlier edit of this page? Donald of glencoe (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Tha page is not deleted, just redirected. Yes you can revert the edit, but explain this on the article's talk page for future reference. Happy editing. --triwbe (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The Bantalas, by Xesko

If I understand correctly, you are doubting the truthfulness of my article. You can check them in the links in reference or when I discovers how I can made an upload of a image, I can put an image of the magazine "The Bantalas" in the page. I have all the numbers. If this is not a trustworthy source, then I do not know what it will be. Xesko (talk) 06:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xesko (talk • contribs) 06:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand, I did not say it is a hoax, I said it is non-notable a basic criteria that must be passed to have an article. How is this magazine more important than the million other magazines in the world ? Why should it be inclduded and not the other 999,999? --triwbe (talk) 06:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that a magazine that revolutionized the culture and the way to understand culture of a whole nation, is not important? Or only is important the American magazines and similar badly written newspapers? Xesko (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well if what you say is true, and I am assuming it is, the next problem is verification, proving what has been written is true by citing collaborating information from reliable printed sources. Read Wikipedia:Verifiability where the first line states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". It is by no means a perfect system but the only one that can be sure to restrict the information to what is notable. If you cannot meet these criteria, do not take it that people consider the article non-notable or not important, just that, unfortunately, you cannot show it at this time. Try to find another reference. I think that if this magazine was so influential, there must be some material on it somewhere. --triwbe (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Angola discovered the Internet to a little time. The important information only now begins to appear and is scarce. the reason to have written this article was due to the fact of not having managed to find any references of the magazine in the Internet. Please help me to find another form that I can prove his truthfulness. Xesko (talk) 05:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, you are assuming that all references have to be on the Internet, but this is not the case. Clearly much much more information exists in paper format, books, journals, newspapers and magazines. ANY of these sources can be used and in any language. See WP:CITE#HOW. I work with Portugese and will be preparing a large conference in Angola next year, and we may even be sending people for the elections next month, so I am sure I can find some way of checking ;-)--triwbe (talk) 05:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

personal attacks

Telling the truth is not "personal attacks" I said that who edits the texts are "stupid American" because it is true the middle IQ of an American is lower than the IQ of an European blond. And if I told that who edits the texts are "pseudo idiots" it was for a reason that I explained very well. (In conclusion what I understand is that the pseudo idiots that do the revisions of the texts, don´t take the trouble to check the references, or since they are not in English, ignore them and do it if they do not exist.) I'm sorry if some one felt offended, it was not with the intention of offending nobody it was only to put the truth back. Xesko (talk) 16:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

Just curious as to why you so radically edited the entry on Ray Gange... --Megaforcemedia (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

?? The only edit I made to Ray Gange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) here is hardly radical and very self evident. What do you mean ? --triwbe (talk) 04:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sugar in the Raw (movie)

Hi. Your notes on this showed a commendable assumption of good faith, but I have had time to do some research. Neither the film nor its "stars" are mentioned in IMDb, the film is not in the Sundance Film Festival 2007 Film Guide, the website given is for a sugar company not a movie, and the last sentence of the article is "This was also a movie made to fool Danica Hall." So I have tagged it db-g3 as a blatant hoax. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Frantic (VIC-20 game)

I'm afraid I've declined this speedy, for the best of reasons - since you tagged it, it's been improved :-) Plenty of context now. --Dweller (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That's good. --triwbe (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Corky Rogers

Revisions have been made. Please review again and identify any remaining "peacock" language. Thanks! Mgreason (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Abdullah Hussein (writer) is incorrect

Hey triwbe, Thanks for fixing my Abdullah Hussein (writer). Can you please move the page title back to Abdullah Hussain? It seems that the S.E.A Write Awards page you included had the spelling wrong. I've looked trough other online resources and can confirm that its Abdullah Hussain.

I tried to change it myself by Wiki Help but did not work out. Thank you!

Gogodoll (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorted. --triwbe (talk) 17:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion - UK01

Hello,

I was reviewing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mobile_network_operators_of_Europe#United_Kingdom and clicked on UK01 - it was a stub - so I added and you sent a speedy delete - adverising removed and for now concise factual. Please advise, thanks Magnusemail (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)magnus

OK but now it does not show notability for WP:CORP. --triwbe (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

'tell you what. I redired it to the company article, work on that one and see if you can get it up to scratch. See Wikipedia:Your first article. --triwbe (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

understood, reviewing "your first article" now/tomorrow, thanks Magnusemail (talk) 20:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

SymbolicWeb

Hello? About SymbolicWeb; this is just too much stuff and I haven't even begun to write anything yet. It's an Open Source project backed by an author and a couple of users and hackers with "good intentions". SymbolicWeb has been sponsored by LispNYC and Googles Summer of Code. If it's wrong having an article about this stuff on WP just delete it. I don't want to cause any trouble, and having it plastered with that stuff on the top feels weird.

Lnostdal (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I have not asked for deletion as it seemed to be some 3rd party info about it. Keep working and let's see how it goes. --triwbe (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi triwbe. I've done some editing. Let me know what you think. Lnostdal (talk) 12:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lars, It look better, the references is a little week, but we'll see if anyone complains. I see you did not put any information on its developer, a little WP:COI perhaps :-) The examples are probably OK, but if you want to put any more then watch out for WP:NOTHOWTO. If you want to publish more guides publicly then go to WikiHowTo. --triwbe (talk) 12:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello triwbe, Yeah, I agree. LispNYC intends to update the page by the end of the summer (as done in 2007 and the years before).

I can add a link to one or maybe two external references a bit later. I got one known project by a business in the US which is using SW for a SNMP type real-time user interface thing, and one or possibly two here in Norway (but this is maybe not such a good idea; I'm directly involved with one of these). Some of these are probably worthy of mention or of general interest to show or illustrate what SW is. ....I gotta get back to this a bit later though. If you want I'll send you a message when (or before) I do this to make sure it is done proper and within WPs interests.

Information about developers; I'm not sure what this means. Should I link to the AUTHORS file? (i should really set the server to serve files with a proper encoding btw. ...)

About the examples; yeah, I'll keep that in mind. The idea is/was to show core concepts or ideas behind SW through them. I've found that this stuff, while simple, is surprisingly hard to explain with English words and sentences, but trivially explained or illustrated with code. :)

Cheers,

Lnostdal (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

revert multiple edits

how do you revert multiple edits i can not figure it out--Cmedinger (talk) 14:09, 11 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?

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?Oskulo (talk) 05:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC) Sorry

Well if there are specific articles read pt:Wikipedia:Como resolver disputas. Maybe you can go directly to pt:Wikipedia:Votações. --triwbe (talk) 06:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Long Close School

Hello there, I noticed you have just put a deletion tag on long Close School. I was under the impression that ALL Secondary schools are deemed notable on Wikipedia (as opposed to primary Schools which are not). Seeing that Long Close School now offers GCSE courses and educates pupils to the age of 16 does this not mean that the school is automatically notable? Bleaney (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for communicating. I understood that the schools only prepares pupils for GCSE courses and is a grade school, not high school. A PROD can be removed by anyone (that includes you) if you disagree. --triwbe (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, no the school now offers its own GCSE courses though this is a recent change. Although a good bulk of the schools students do leave after taking their 11 exam, many pupils do stay on to take their GCSE's. I will make this clearer in the article. If you dont mind, I think i will remove the deletion tag, but thankyou for keeping me on my toes!! Bleaney (talk) 22:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

In removing this template at this edit, Bleaney said "removal of deletion tag - School is now a secondary school offering GCSE courses and so is automatically notable according to wiki guidelines". This seeems to me to be mistaken, because:

1. Even if Wikipedia:Notability (schools) did say that, it is now marked as a "failed proposal... one for which a consensus to accept is not present after a reasonable amount of time, and seems unlikely to form, regardless of continuing discussion." The relevant policy is WP:N.
2. The draft policy did not say that "a secondary school offering GCSE courses... is automatically notable". It said under Indicators of probable notability: "In general... senior secondary schools are considered notable. 'Senior secondary schools' exclude middle schools and schools that do not educate to at least grade 9/age 15. They include high schools in the US and grammar schools and comprehensive schools in Australia, Hong Kong, and the UK, for example. These schools are considered notable by virtue of such factors as notable alumni, community importance, notable athletic and scholastic successes. The amount of information from reliable secondary sources customarily available for such schools — based on news coverage of sports and academic awards, relative size, and importance to the community and region — are usually sufficient for verifiability."

Perhaps this school may be notable, but I agree with what Triwbe said in the notice you removed, it does not show notabilty at the moment. Xn4 (talk) 23:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I've said it before, Schools policy is generally a mess. Very few schools are notable by any conceivable context but people tell me that all school dels are controversial, so PROD will not pass and we have to go for AfD. I have not seen any of my school AfDs be accepted. Even school newspapers pass. So I see no point trying in this environment. --triwbe (talk) 05:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

On The Unruled Paper (film)

I object to your judgement in the strongest possible terms! You have not had the time to read my entry, and judged it not POV!!!? Further, I do not know on which account you have decided to welcome me. I have been here since 2006! Please retract your objection forthwith, as I am in no mood to argue. --BF 13:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC).

Just wish to let you know that I abhor your editing and re-editing of my talk page! Do you know what you are up to? You are not allowed to modify the contents of my talk page!!! Do you understand? I further abhor your piling up of tags in the entry just created by me. What "Advertisement" and who has "Disputed" the neutrality of the article? Certainly not by you, whose opinion I cannot respect! As for "cleanup", did you leave me a minute time to check my text? I had not saved if or you started filling the entry with your nonsensical tags! Please kindly get out of my way! Frankly, I dislike everything about you, above all your manipulating of my talk page. --BF 14:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC).

• Please do not take such criticism personally and do not make personal attacks against me. My comments are not just my opinion and if you disagree we can go and get more opinions. I have identified areas needing improvement on your article and your editing on Wikipidia. Also if you did not try to hide past problems by deleting stuff from your talk page, I would not immediately think you are a new user, which you are obviously not, looking here for example. --triwbe (talk) 15:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Methinks you take too much liberty! I did not hide anything! Why should I? And even if I did, it clearly was not effective; you just retrieved one which served your purpose. I consider my talk page as my desk; when things have been dealt with, I clean the associated messages. You just show your personality: as as soon as someone objects to your actions, rather than acting rationally, you start digging dirt. I emphasise, I have never attempted to hide anything, and if you think otherwise, I am really sorry for you. --BF 15:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I remind you that as the history of the above-mentioned entry (the result of my several hours of hard labour and several days of intensive research and thought) shows [1], you tagged my entry within 5 seconds of its publication: I saved the entry at 13:25, and your tagging spree started at 13:30! You cannot have read the entry before having tagged it! When you complain about attacking, you should realise that it was you who attacked first! You treated my work like a piece of garbage, and without the slightest hesitation rubbished it with your hateful tags (you called my work an "advertisement", not wondering for a moment for who? --- I am not here wasting my time for advertising; I could have earned hard cash by selling my text to film magazines). For your information, I am not known as a rude person; my writing to you only reflected the magnitude of your wrongdoing in regard to my intellectual work. I repeat, those tags must be removed forthwith, as they are not there in consequence of some thoughtful decision. I just feel furious by your undisputed violation of my work. --BF 15:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC).

I've pointed out to BF that the period from 13:25 to 13:30 is five minutes and not five seconds. Stifle (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The Unruled Paper

Just to let you know that the user you left a message for, User:BehnamFarid, is not a new user, and has in fact been around for quite some time. The "welcome" message you left him isn't really appropriate — I'd encourage you to revise it. Stifle (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I did not leave a Welcome for him!!! The message was added since, at first glace, he had never been welcomed, so a courtesy welcome seemed in order. But I quickly realised he was not a new users a undid it myself here so no bad faith was implied on my part. I did want to make him aware of glaring and obvious POV and non-encyclopedic problems with his article and so added a level 1 POV template to make him aware. The effort the editor is commendable, but not within Wikipedia's guidelines. --triwbe (talk) 15:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You changed the welcome template to another template with "welcome" in it, which really doesn't change things. Stifle (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that's an unfortunate side effect of using standard templates. I agree with you and apologise, a more personal warning may have been more appropriate. --triwbe (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'd recommend easing back on Twinkle warnings with respect to established users. Stifle (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

And just to point out that most of your messages were justified in substance, if not in style. Stifle (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

CSD upon creation of a new article

I have concerns about your comments here. I suggest you review the following text: Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere or be handled with some other action short of deletion. If this is possible, speedy deletion is probably inappropriate. Contributors sometimes create articles over several edits, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation if it appears incomplete. taken from WP:CSD. Yes, it does say to avoid deletion and I realize you are nominating not deleting, but the nominations are just as BITEY and may drive away good editors before they ever finish. Moreover, improving an article to where it will be of value is far better than nominating it for deletion simply because it's a work-in-progress. Thanks.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of UcoZ

Hi! I'm a newbie and have 2 questions: 1. My article about UcoZ was deleted because it is not notable. The service UcoZ offers is close to those of bravenet.com or freewebs.com and the articles about them are present in Wikipedia. So I think that the information about UcoZ is notable enough to be here as well. Maybe I just have to change or add something in the article? Please, just let me know. 2. "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." - where may I put these words? At any page of the external site? May I put them somewhere in the source code, e.g. meta tags? Thank you in advance. Best regards Volnov (talk) 10:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for communicating. Looking at the deletion log here I see it was deleted as being "blatant advertising". I can not see the article now it is deleted, but you could ask Nihiltres (talk · contribs) who deleted it for a copy. However, if you are closely associated with the product, then this will make it more difficult for you. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Proving notability is another issue. Similar articles, which may or may not be notable, do not imply that another article should be there as well (WP:OTHERSTUFF). You would need to show general notability and a neutral point of view to get it accepted. The best way to do this is to refer to other independent websites which talk about the product (in other words Reliable sources) such as news articles or trade reviews. Copies of obvious press releases would not do. I hope this helps in some way. If I can help, just shout here. Regards --triwbe (talk) 10:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

My change to definition of contract research organizations

Hello! I am new to Wikipedia. I understand your rejection of my edit as advertising. Why are there other CROs listed?

Thank you for your assistance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Croexpert (talk • contribs) 20:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did want to expand on this, but I have been busy. What I propose you do is try to create an article about the CRO. But first check out Wikipedia:Your first article and make sure the company is notable especially Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Wikipedia is not a directory or a resource for conducting business and only notable companies should be included. I hope that makes things a bit more clearer. Regards. --triwbe (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

NN actors and their film

Hello again, Triwbe ... would you care to comment on these articles by Retrojew89 (talk · contribs)?

• Evan Davis (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (AfD)
• Sofia Mendez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (AfD)
• 12 Minutes to Heaven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (AfD)

The first one has a PROD (WP:AUTOBIO), the other two are at AfD ... Happy Editing! — 72.75.91.179 (talk · contribs) _{21:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)}

OK, Evan Davis (actor) was contested, so it's at AfD now as well. — 72.75.91.179 (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

These AfDs are running quite well without me. I would only add something if there was something missing in the discussion, which there is not. You will get consensus. --triwbe (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Copy that ... I was hoping for a {{Prod-2}} on the first, but ended up taking it to AfD after it was contested ... can you say, "WP:SNOWBALL?" :-) — 72.75.91.179 (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Bread of Life Ministries International

Hello Triwbe,

I rewrote the whole thing from scratch to avoid copyright infringement. Please do check if the text I wrote satisfies the guidelines of wikipedia. Thanks!

Peridan Peridan (talk) 04:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ummm...

You welcomed a sockpuppet you reported. ;) Check the contributions. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I know. I was just AGF and letting him know we are aware of him :-). --triwbe (talk) 06:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

'kay. Just checking. =) He seems to have stopped. I hope. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)