User talk:Astanhope
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Let's Start Fresh!
Welcome back. R. Baley 01:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Notability of Abdel Kechiche
A tag has been placed on Abdel Kechiche, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Ozgod 23:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Notability tag removed; notability asserted. The article could use exanding; an image; and better sources, though. Rklawton 01:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] A. Whitney Brown
While you are correct to reject unsourced or primary-source-only material about a living person, as WP:BLP requires, you might also want to take a bit gentler tack than calling the edits vandalism—I don't see any vandalism there, I more see newer editors who really do want to contribute and aren't aware of sourcing requirements and such. It appears the existence of the column itself is quite real; perhaps you could work with the other editors involved in looking for appropriate secondary sources on the controversy, rather than simply reverts as "vandalism"? I really don't think semi-protection is required right now. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Do not remove sourced information from articles - especially not without explanation. It tends to look a lot like vandalism. Rklawton 20:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Go away. --AStanhope 00:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Rather than link to the DKos diary itself, the source linked back to a partisan blog. I changed it to go to the original source, that is all. I think it's fair I have a chance for my work to be viewed in its original context when possible. I apologize for offending any editors, but I still believe the tone of my article was needlessly snide. I note that when other writers have won an Emmy they are called 'Emmy Award-winning". Compare this to the markedly different tone in the introduction to conservative satirist Dennis Miller and you will see what I mean. It may be vanity, but I have a right to be treated with ordinary respect, I believe. I do not expect people to take time out to defend me, but I should be allowed to keep people from dissing me. Respectfully, A. Whitney Brown Thank you. AWhitneyBrown 17:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] I'm back
Hi, sorry long time no edit (on my part). I had some terribly big issues in real life which naturally limited my wiki-time. I think at this point I'll be able to spend a little more time editing. I did get to check out a few of the pics you linked to (thanks), and it looks like your family was having a good time. I am keeping an eye on your situation, and it looks like things have died down a good bit. If it pops up again I'll do what I can to help. But enough about that for now, because around here at least (if not in real life) it's usually better to let bygones be bygones. Take care, R. Baley 01:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hey fellow co-oper!
You're the first person I've seen on here who also lived in the co-ops while at Cal. I lived in CZ my first year then in Stebbins up the street for the other 3. By that time Barrington was just a name and reputation. Go Bears! --BrokenSphereMsg me 23:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Bangkok Wat Pho Monk.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Bangkok Wat Pho Monk.jpg. 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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 02:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Perro de Presa Canario
Please see my comments regarding the problems with the section you wish to include in the article. That this breed is more aggressive than a poodle is encyclopedic. Your approach toward making this point, however, isn't appropriate. Included within this analysis is a recommendation regarding how to best accomplish your objective.
- Appreciated. Sometimes revert wars are effective, too. --AStanhope 19:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, I added a comment to the Presa page re edit wars and would appreciate your comments about the situation so maybe we can work something out. Cheers - Mr Bungle | talk 12:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Blackbird
Hi. They sent in an audition tape but due to confidentiality agreements I'd rather not have anything posted about them on here. Feel free to check out their music though! Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ga gurl101 (talk • contribs) 04:18, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Pull (band)
A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Pull (band), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest 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. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. 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. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Oli Filth 00:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] AfD nomination of Pull (band)
Pull (band), an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Pull (band) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pull (band) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Pull (band) during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Oli Filth 08:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks for Camden 28
Thanks for the great article! I'm glad it's started. Now I'll go see if there's anything left for me to do :-) -- ke4roh 23:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Notability of Ciara Durkin
A person that is famous for only one thing (eg, their death) is generally not regarded as notable (See WP:BLP1E). Wikipedia is sadly not a memorial. Is there any evidence that she recieved coverage outside of Massachusetts? shoy 17:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- The article mentions none of that. You have sources-- great, add them; you'll prevent future editors from making the mistake I did. But please refrain from making borderline personal attacks in the future. shoy 17:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- I asked you a question about it here. Would you rather I had slapped it with an AFD tag? And once again, please don't personally attack me. shoy 18:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I fail to see how the timing of my comment indicated that the article was imminently going to be deleted (which I cannot do, since I am not an admin). I was merely informing you that in its state at that time, I had cause for concern about the notability of the subject. Since you apparently neither want nor need constructive criticism, may I suggest creating the article in your user space and then submitting it at WP:AFC? shoy 18:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Jammu and Kashmir
The official language of this state is Urdu. Please do not put in Kashmiri till it becomes official as well. IP198 01:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Juan Sebastián Elcano (Spanish ship)
I'm not sure why you removed the {{unreferenced}} tag from this article. There are only internal WP links under /*see also*/. Toddstreat1 20:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Who cares? --AStanhope 21:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Times Record (Brunswick)
I moved the page back to its original name. The title isn't the place to define where the paper is located; ideally, the article would simply be called The Times Record, but there needed to be a "disambiguation" word in parentheses to distinguish it from another newspaper by that name (in Maryland, if I recall correctly). As there are not two papers called The Times Record in two cities called Brunswick, there's really no need to bring the state name into it. ``` W i k i W i s t a h ``` 04:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Huma Abedin
Take care not to remove reliably sourced, relevant information from an article - especially without discussing it in the article's talk page or even mentioning it in the edit summary. Rklawton (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Not you again. I'm afraid that references to the "Lezident" aren't acceptable. I will revert any and all such references that appear in the Huma Abedin article. --AStanhope (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
It's me again. And if you check the article, you'll see that not only did I remove a Lezident.com reference, but I deleted the related article as well. You, on the other hand, removed the Times - a reliable source, so take heed. Rklawton (talk) 04:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Do you think that Huma Abedin is Hillary's Muslim-Lesbian lover? --AStanhope (talk) 04:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- I believe there is a dirty tricks campaign, and that's sufficiently sourced for the article at hand. Rklawton (talk) 05:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "No free image" project
There isn't one. The place holders do get us free images from new users and when new users click on the image there should be enough information in simple terms to decide if they can upload the image they want to upload or not. If you think the images are ugly design better ones. As for unprofessional I assume that IMDB's interface is produced by professional web designers there days and they use placeholders.Geni 22:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Or you you could go look on flikr rather than stright remove them. oh and see Category:Reviewed images of people replacing placeholders. I would appear that new users can navigate the system.Geni 01:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Wouldn't it be more professional if we just didn't have a picture?68.13.238.221 (talk) 04:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Speedy deletion of Jonathan Shockley
A tag has been placed on Jonathan Shockley requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- Huntster T • @ • C 07:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Speedy deletion of Travis Harmon
A tag has been placed on Travis Harmon requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- Huntster T • @ • C 07:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Speedy deletion of Travis and Jonathan
A tag has been placed on Travis and Jonathan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- Huntster T • @ • C 07:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Speedy deletion of Red State Update
A tag has been placed on Red State Update requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jmlk17 08:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Regarding above material
If you truly feel the above stuff is notable, I would suggest placing *all* related material into one overall article, which can effectively describe the people, the group, and the events surrounding their supposed notability. I still don't feel they are notable, but if you can find additional sources, it would make it much more likely for an article to survive and possibly flourish. If you have any questions, just let me know. -- Huntster T • @ • C 08:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Red State Update
Hi,
Regarding your request, the simple answer is "no." Speedy deletion is a "normal" deletion process here at Wikipedia: in this case, the article fell afoul of CSD A7, as it failed to assert a claim of notability. There was nothing in the article to suggest that the subject belonged in an encyclopedia. If you feel that there is something encyclopedically notable about this subject, you may try to rewrite an expanded article (you'll need a claim of notability, and better sources if you want it to survive), or you may take the question to deletion review. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 02:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- You did ask politely, but your (implied) suggestion that the deletion was other than normal was incorrect. I appreciate your experience at Wikipedia, and so I'm sure you'll appreciate that deletion decisions are best made on the merit of the content, without reference to the contributor. Jimbo Wales himself would find an article on his pet turtle deleted, even if he wrote it lovingly.
- On one point, it appears I was ill-informed. This subject has already been the topic of a deletion debate, closed as delete. My speedy deletion was thus valid as a CSD G4, the question of notability having been already discussed and decided by consensus at a community discussion. The article I deleted was actually shorter and of poorer quality than the one deleted at AfD. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 03:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you mean, unless you are referring to your own conduct. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Volapük
Hi AStanhope! I found your name via the m:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians, and thought you might care about this discussion: m:Proposals for closing projects/Radical cleanup of Volapük Wikipedia. In case you think that deleting stubs is not the best way to go for the Volapük Wikipedia, you could help us fight against this proposal with your vote. Thanks in advance! Smeira 17:09, 13 jan 2008
[edit] AfD nomination of ZEGG (band)
An editor has nominated ZEGG (band), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZEGG (band) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Reply
Even if someone cares enough to keep re-adding the page, it does not make it notable. Surely, you would know that. Undeath (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Just because one editor feels strong about his article does not mean that the article is wikipedia worthy. It is jut like the many, many people who make pages about themselves. Undeath (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Rakan Ben Williams
Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Rakan Ben Williams, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Amazon linkspam
Yes, links to any particular bookseller (including book reviews on their sites) are automatically considered linkspam. Please provide a link to the ISBN for the book, and/or to independent reviews of the book. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] No free image images
Please stop removing the "no free image" images from Wikipedia articles. If you do not feel the "no free image" images should be used at all, you can nominate the image for deletion, but removing images from articles where they are appropriate is considered vandalism. Thanks. Queerudite (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- You clearly have strong feelings about the image, but removing the images is disruptive to the editors who use them to monitor articles. And vandalism can result in being blocked from making edits to Wikipedia. Wouldn't it be more constructive to nominate the image itself for deletion if it is truly unnecessary? Or replace it with a less "ugly" version? After all, Wikipedia is consensus-based. Queerudite (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- I honestly find them helpful, but I can appreciate your perspective, too. I do feel strongly though that removing them article by article is disruptive and unhelpful. They should either all be removed or all remain, and that decision shouldn't be made unilaterally. Queerudite (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think they are a helpful reminder to less experienced editors that they can upload a free image if they have one. They also allow for the categorization of articles that lack images, which allows editors to more easily monitor those pages.
- Are we in agreement though that the images themselves should either be all deleted or all retained by a consensus-driven decision making process? I'd like to undo the edits you made recently that removed the "no free image" images until the fundamental question of whether they should be used at all is resolved. Thanks. Queerudite (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- The whole of Wikipedia is consensus based, see WP:Consensus. Queerudite (talk) 13:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I honestly find them helpful, but I can appreciate your perspective, too. I do feel strongly though that removing them article by article is disruptive and unhelpful. They should either all be removed or all remain, and that decision shouldn't be made unilaterally. Queerudite (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Mike Smith (actor), you will be blocked from editing. I appreciate that you feel that Wikipedia would be improved by removing placeholder images, but there is a constructive/consensus-based way to do this and a disruptive/unilateral way to do it. Systematically blanking placeholder images, one at a time is a disruptive way. Please stop. Queerudite (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Dafydd ab Hugh, you will be blocked from editing. Queerudite (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- You are still doing this despite the above warning? I've had a look through your contribs and you don't appear to be making any headway with this campaign so far. Do you need more outside opinions? MickMacNee (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] "Keep it in my pants?"
You may have a point about deletions, but please: keep to a higher level of discourse? --Orange Mike | Talk 21:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] March 2008
With regard to your comments on User talk:Seicer: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. seicer | talk | contribs 01:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Chandigarh
Hi, this is about your comment regarding notable residents in "Chandigarh", I could not agree more. Is there a way to stop the advertising? Anthony.Gonsalves (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Nepalese royal massacre. Thank you. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] wright
As you no doubt noticed before you removed sourced content on the above page, we are working on building a consensus. Your edit was disruptive to that process. Please se the talk page for relevant discussion--Die4Dixie (talk) 04:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image talk:Replace this image female.svg
Please see my comments/questions. Regards. --Kleinzach (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- also see this proposal. Best --Kleinzach (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Thailand
Hi there!!! You are welcome to join the new WikiProject Thailand, please sign in. We need as many editors from Thailand as possible!!! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 10:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] AfD nomination of Remote Area Medical
An article that you have been involved in editing, Remote Area Medical, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remote Area Medical. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Orange Mike | Talk 19:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Conclusion: Image placeholders centralized discussion
Hi. I'm sending this to you because you participated in the Centralized discussion on image placeholders that ended on 23 April.
That discussion must produce a conclusion.
We originally asked "Should the addition of this box [example right] be allowed? Does the placeholder system and graphic image need to be improved to satisfy policies and guidelines for inclusion? Is it appropriate to some kinds of biographies, but not to others?" (See introduction).
Conclusions to centralized discussions are either marked as 'policy', 'guideline', 'endorsed', 'rejected', 'no consensus', or 'no change' etc. We should now decide for this discussion.
Please read and approve or disapprove the section here: Conclusion --Kleinzach (talk) 10:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Please note this message conforms to WP:CANVASSING and has not been sent to anyone has not already participated in the centralized discussion.
