User talk:Theseeker4/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Theseeker4, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing! Blooded Edge Sign/Talk 19:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help


MegaPrint

I am trying to understand how users such as VistaPrint can have a page up, but when I try writing an article about a similar print company it gets deleted. I have rewriten the content, but I don't know if I dare put it up? Is there a way to have others look at it first?--MegaPrint (talk) 13:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think VistaPrint is an advertisement, but I can't mark it for speedy deletion as it is not a new page. I think the biggest problem you will face with creating a page about MegaPrint is that you are blatantly associated with the company. To overcome this conflict of interest I suggest you cite as many reliable, non-press release sources as possible. Third party analysis, etc. should be used. You also need to concentrate on why the company is notable, not simply list the strong points of the company. Even then, you will probably be tagged with a speedy delete template; when you are, place the hold on template on the page and make your argument in the discussion page. An admin looking at the page will then decide whether to delet it or not. Good luck.Theseeker4 (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


Thank you for the input. I will remember these things as I proceed.MegaPrint (talk) 21:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Talkback!

Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 17:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, why notify me of the tagging? I tagged the article myself, so obviously I knew of the tagging, then WP:TW recreated it because of some glitch. -- Mentisock
Sure, welcome to a world of glitches. ;-) -- Mentisock 13:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Milhist

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! --ROGER DAVIES talk 23:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Template Substitution

Hi there. When you add a Test template to a user’s page please remember to substitute it. If wish to reply please use my talk page and if you need help feel free to talk to me there or you may find Wikipedia:SUB helpful. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 16:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Environmental Data Resources

Theseeker4

Our company has been around since 1990 and has a 85% market share in providing environmental data to the industry. We are the de facto source for information in this space, effectively the "Kleenex" of the industry.

I've read pages for Microsoft and it is not clear how the neutral language of the last post might be seen as promotional.

Any guidance would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huntresj (talk • contribs) 15:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is two-fold; first, you are associated with the company you are writing about, and therefore you are in violation of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Secondly, you need to provide reliable, verifiable third party sources for articles, especially an article about a business. If you write an article about a business, even if it seems to be neutral, it is still in violation of Wikipedia:Spam as it is promoting the company using the company itself as a source. Any other questions, feel free to ask, and please sign your posts on talk pages with 4 tildes (~). thanks Theseeker4 (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidance. We'll follow the protocols set forth and look for other industry experts to make the post. Huntresj (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)huntresj

You left me a warning

What did I vandalise??

I mistakenly placed the warning on the wrong talk page. I was attempting to warn a different anonymous user. I removed the warning.Theseeker4 (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


AfD nomination of Air Europa Flight 196

An article that you have been involved in editing, Air Europa Flight 196, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Europa Flight 196. Thank you. Mjroots (talk) 07:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

New entry

Hello. I don't know if I'm e-mailing a real person, but I went online to search for my new entry under CAHPERD and got some sort of message about a speedy deletion. I don't know what it means, but I think that CAHPERD should have an entry in wikipedia. The message said something about adding "hang on" to the article, but I don't really know what that means.

There are a lot of National and State Associations and Organizations on wikipedia and CAHPERD should be one of them. I have been to some of their conferences and they are a leader in supporting K-12 Physical Educators and many other professionals.

Please send me a response (or e-mail) with what this all means. Thank you.

-Jessie airmarsupilami@hotmail.com

A couple of issues exist. The main one is that the article you created did not establish the notability of this specific group. This is not saying that the group is not notable, it is simply saying you did not write an article that clearly says why Wikipedia should include the group. Second, since you are saying you are a member, you risk a conflict of interest. Articles in Wikipedia should have third party sources and citations to help establish notability. That doesn't mean you cannot write an article about a subject in which you are involved, it simply means you need to be even more careful to back up statements with third party citations. I suggest checking out the welcome page and the page about writing your first article for more information. The page is currently tagged, but you can always re-create it if you can do so in a way that avoids conflict of interest and notability issues. Feel free to respond to me if you have any other questions. Also, sign your entries on talk pages with 4 tildes (~) to make it easier for users to know who wrote what on talk pages.Theseeker4 (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I'm afraid I don't understand what needs to be done. I don't want to write an essay on what makes the organization noteworthy in the entry because that would not be information on the organization. I wanted to only include the facts about the organization - what it is, what they do, how it is comprised, etc. Also, I am not a member (I do not have enough money to pay dues to every organization I would like to join); I have been to some of the organization's events, so I do not understand how that would be a conflct of interest.

I read through the help guides on writing your first article and I still think the facts I provided are correct in accordance with the guidelines. I do not think anyone outside of the organziation has published a book(s) that state what their mission is or who their members are or how the organziation is structured, which is what I was trying to create, so I do not know how to include another party in my explanation of the facts.

Any specific advice (words, sentence structure, etc.) would be helpful to proceed - the guides are too generic; they do not offer specifics for creating anything other than I alrady have. Thank you in advance for your help.

Also, I am afraid I do not understand what you mean about the signing of entries. Is this e-mail a "talk page"? Is this what I am supposed to sign? I sighed my name above my e-mail address in the last entry.

Jessie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moosenz (talk • contribs) 22:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The specifics of what you need to include depend on the particular organization. To determine what you need to show to determine notability of the group, you should see WP:N and WP:GROUP. No, you don't want to write an essay about how the group is notable, and even if you did, if you did not cite your information your article would be deleted. Unfortunately, as much as you may want this group included in Wikipedia, as valuable as you think it is, it may not fit the standards for the inclusion criteria. I am not saying it does or it doesn't, I am saying it may not. For more help, read WP:NOT. Your group needs to be notable, and you need to prove this notability by citing non-trivial, third party sources. This means articles in reliable media outlets (other than the school's paper, etc.) web sources other than blogs or Myspace, etc. Yes, there is a lot to do if you want this group included on Wikipedia, and no matter how much work you do, the Wikipedia community may decide the group doesn't meet the inclusion criteria, and may delete your article. However, if you think the group is notable, and you have third party sources to prove it, by all means recreate the page and include your citations.
As far as signing your posts, yes, these are talk pages, also known as discussion pages. To sign, you don't type out your name. Type 4 tildes (~) at the very end of your entry without any spaces. This will produce a time and date stamped signature of your user name, so someone can read the post and know who wrote what without going to the history. Type the 4 tildes, or just hit the "your signature with timestamp" button in the center of the toolbar on the edit page. Theseeker4 (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Ideal Innovations, Inc.

The article "Ideal Innovations, Inc." is meant to only be informational about the company, not promote them. I have added all the citations and hope that will help. Is there something else I can do to make it more "encyclopedic"? I tried to mirror it after other company's articles. Ideal3231 (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, the biggest issue I see is that it reads like a press release, and has citations to the company's own website, which is problematic regarding conflict of interest concerns. I would find third party citations that determine why the company is notable, meaning citations other than the company itself or quotes of the company's press releases from media outlets, and then you should be good to go. Theseeker4 (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind checking the Ideal Innovations, Inc. page again? I've removed the link to the company's website and added a few articles from the Washington Post, Tech Bisnow, GlobalSecurity.org and ExecutiveBiz that mention the company without quoting from a press release. Ideal3231 (talk) 21:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Questioning deletion

Good day,

I placed an article yesterday, which was immediately deleted and the cause given was "blatant adertising":

A tag has been placed on IXeo, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article.

I am wondering why this is the case, because it was all factual information and followed a similar pattern as the Expedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedia

So my questions is why is one advertising and the other not?

Reiseplanerin (talk) 07:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I agree that Expedia article is also advertising, and have placed a tag indicating as much on the page. The biggest thing you need to do to avoid having your article deleted in the future if you wish to recreate it is to establish its notability using reliable, thrid party sources. This means do not rely on the company's own website, press releases (even if reprinted by third party media outlets) or blogs. Yes, there are many articles in Wikipedia that are in violation of these guidelines, but that is why Wikipedia is constantly being edited. Even without my tagging the article for deletion myself, it will likely be tagged by some other new page patroller. The article needs to be written in an encyclopedic fashion and not seem to be simply promoting the compnay. If you can write it in that way, and provide sufficient thrid party sources to indicate why this particular company is notable, the article will probably survive administrator examination. Remember that myself, and anyone else who simply tags a page for deletion, are not admins, and it is up to the admin to ultimately decide if the article deserves deletion or deserves to remain.Theseeker4 (talk) 13:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Mikala Clark

The first time that someone on my account put an article in about Mikala was my brother. And i just made the page better, she's my best friend! So how can saying that she's a talented 8th grade student be an "attack"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MR.Dr.Prof.Me (talk • contribs) 19:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The page was deleted twice. In one version which I tagged, it was written as an attack page. The second version was deleted because it was about a non-notable person. Wikipedia is not a blog; an article will be deleted if it is not notable, and an article about a person who happens to be your friend, no matter how nice, important or special she or he is to you, does not belong here. Thank you.Theseeker4 (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Viadeo

Viadeo is on of the most relevant business-oriented social networking sites together with XING and Linkedin. Xing and Linkedin already have pages on Wikipedia and I think that the users should also get to know Viadeo. I think it should also be added to the list of the social networking sites.

Indeed it does not offer a lot of information yet, but I will work on that. I am not working for Viadeo. This is not advertising. I am just a very active user of business-oriented networking sites.

Given this facts, I would appreciate if you remove the tag from the article.

Best regards, Cezar

Caesarmcm (talk) 19:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

Viadeo may be a notable site and may be worthy of an article on Wikipedia. However, the article as written seems more like an advertisement than a neutral article. I will replace the speedy delete tag with an advertisement tag, but a different user may come along and replace it. I suggest finding thrid party sources to establish the notability of this company to avoid deletion by an administrator. Thank you.Theseeker4 (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alucard Music

Please return to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alucard Music, and add your reasons for your delete recommendation. This will make it easier for the closing administrator to evaluate the arguments. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vicenty Khvoika

Could you please revert the Vicenty Khvoika article back.Ii haven't finished translating it. It is about an important archeologist. I had to attend to some business and by the time I got back it was gone. Thanks Bandurist (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I am sorry the article was deleted before you completed translation. I however tagged its notability, but I did not delete it myself. I am not an admin, so I cannot delete or revert an article that has been deleted.Theseeker4 (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Rationales

What made you agree with the nominator? Please add a rationale of your own to the discussion. It does not help AFD when editors do not actually double-check for themselves whether an article should be deleted. Please read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Discussion. Make sure that you make a solid case, based upon what our Wikipedia:Deletion policy says should and should not be deleted. Uncle G (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the guidance. I commented on this AfD discussion prior to reading the essay WP:ATA which says "as per nomination" is not good form when weighing in on a discussion. I had used this argument for a few reasons, 1, it is widespread in AfD discussions, 2, I believed it did in fact help to establish consensus, as agreeing with someone else is a step toward establishing consesus and the third, lazy reason was it saved time over typing out everything the nominator said in my own words. This does not in any way indicate the I simply read the discussion and didn't bother to read the article itself on my own. I haven't weighed in on any AfD discussions without first reading and analyzing the article in question myself. I will, however, avoid "as per nom" responses, or "as per above", etc. in the future, as I was planning on doing since reading WP:ATA. I will add to my comment on the discussion page. Theseeker4 (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Excellent! Don't forget to double-check the nominator, so that the holes in your slice of Swiss Cheese don't line up with the holes in xyr slice. (See Swiss Cheese model.) A group of editors who have individually done their own research, read the article, and come to their own conclusions is what helps AFD to come to the right result. Uncle G (talk) 18:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Rationales

In practice, notability and non-notability are often asserted without proof. If a nom is just "non-notable" then "notable" carries equally as much weight, right? More often it's a failure on someone's part to realise WP:MUSIC, WP:ATHLETE et al. are supplements to WP:N, not superseedents of WP:N. If sources establishing notability are already in the article, duplicating them on the XfD nom is just a waste of everyone's time. I would expect the closing admin to examine a point of fact under dispute (certainly when I close XfDs with points of fact under dispute, I'll pay far more attention to the side that has the point of fact right.) If I have to go dig up new sources, I'll almost always list them - in that case, I think failure to do so would be an oversight, yes. If you take, as an example, the most recent AfD I've commented in, on Silvergate, the nomination claims "no third party references" - but a quick examination of the article reveals the presence of third party references. There's nothing to say but "uh - has third party references". What else? WilyD 18:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that for nominations that say delete without specific policy violations, saying keep without citing policy would be just as valid. Perhaps my misunderstanding is with WP policy regarding the notability requirements. From various articles that have been deleted, and the associated AfD discussions, I was under the impression that "significant independent coverage" being the criteria meant multiple references in non-locality specific media outlets. Some articles you have said meet WP:N in the usual way have single sources, that are in the same locality as the subject of the article. Am I correct in reading WP policy as meaning mentions in local news do NOT establish notability sufficiently on their own? WP:N seems to indicate that a band, business, etc. needs more than a feature article in a local paper to establish notability. I have seen the references in articles you voted to keep, yet have been unable to find any significant coverage outside of the locality in which the subject resides. If I am misreading Wikipedia policy I certainly will alter how I review articles, but I don't think that coverage in a specific town by a local paper is enough to say a given subject deserves a Wikipedia article. Thanks. Theseeker4 (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
The very short of it is WP:N is not instructions on what to do; it's a history of what has been done. There are no policies establishing notability, and the thresholds have wide grey areas where there's no real agreement. "Independent" is almost always a must (but then, high schools often get kept without truly independent sources, for instance, as do cities & towns), multiple is not a requirement, but without multiplicity you're in dicier territory. But a person with a single biographical work published in a peer reviewed scholarly journal would probably be kept, significant is also a judgement matter (many many short bits may be worse than a single comprehensive source). "Locality" is a poorly defined concept - I think the reliability of the source is far more paramount. And I don't think "locality" is very consistant in what the outcome ends up being. People are biased against "local" coverage, but there's certainly no hard and fast rule.
The very very short of it is - don't really worry too much about what the guidelines say when arguing at AfD; How much sourcing is, to some extent, a matter of taste; otherwise we wouldn't need discussions. What you should be arguing is most just with "is an encyclopaedia" in mind. Reliable source(s) are needed for us to be able to collaborately write and fact-check, so those things without reliable sources really shouldn't be included. Independent source(s) are needed to ensure the sources can be trusted to be somewhat unbiased, but this is sometimes flexible (after all, no sources are unbiased anyhow).
In general, I don't really comment in AfDs unless the subject is in these grey areas; if it's something people aren't going to disagree about, I'll just as soon let the admin hopefuls fill out their "project-space" requirements" with easy keeps/deletes. It isn't surprising that what I'm satisfied with you might not be, or vice versa and so on. WilyD 21:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)

The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Dariusz Ratajczak

Please note that "Negative BLP" is a valid criterion for speedy deletion (see CSD:G10), and that an article being discussed on AFD is not a bar to it being speedily deleted. Stifle (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I am aware that current discussion on AfD is not a reason to bar it from speedy deletion, but often when there is contention or any reason at all to believe the article may be worth keeping, it is better to leave the speedy template off and let the discussion run its course. The article deals with the subject negatively, but there is a huge difference between that and it being an attack page. CSD:G10 deals with attack pages. The tone of the article is negative, which may violate NPOV, but it is not an attack page, nor does it "serve no purpose but to disparage the subject". If the tone being negative is a criteria for speedy deletion, the article about Hitler would have to go as well. Speedy deletions are for blatant violations, and this article is not a blatant violation of CSD:G10. It may deserve deletion, but not speedy, as it is not an attack page, and there is at least some claim of notability (book author, controversial professor, considered for nomination for candidate of a political party). I am not arguing here that the article should be kept, but only that it is not a candidate for speedy deletion, especially since an active AfD discussion is in progress. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

AFD request

Would you be willing to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prairie Lights? A user has supplied several significant references, enough to convince me that the article should be kept; and as the article seems not to be the problem that it was when you agreed with deletion, you might profit from seeing it again. Nyttend (talk) 03:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

SoundGate

Thank you for alerting me to the AfD on SoundGate. However, I had nothing to do with the article outside of putting some tags on it when it was still new. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Garnet

I replied on the article talk page. We can continue the discussion there if you have more to add. Crystal whacker (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Bradford Elementary School

Please see the new version of Bradford Elementary School. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 19:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)

The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Chelicerata

Hi, thanks for stepping up to review Chelicerata. I've dealt with 2 of the 3 issues you raised. The one about diet is difficult, as there are a few sub-groups for which there appear to be no good sources about diet - see details at Talk:Chelicerata/GA2. --Philcha (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Theseeker4, thanks for your complimentary remarks about Chelicerata. I don't think I'll be going for FA any time soon as there's such a lot to do on other zoology and paleontology articles, e.g. at least 6 more invertebrate phyla, then sort out the Halwaxiid tangle. --Philcha (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Circle of Life Camp

Thank you for your input regarding my request. I have edited the article to show why the camp and the people involved are distinguished and in its own right deserves its own page. In addition, the book listed on the site and written by the camps founder (which I originally left off as not to act as an advertisement) is distributed nationally through the JDRF (the largest diabetes foundation in America) to EVERY SINGLE CHILD in this country who is diagnosed with diabetes. I have used my best efforts to keep it about the camp and not make it an advertisement (as so many other camp wikipedia articles seem to be). Please let me know if there are any other tweaks you would like to see.

Thank you for your consideration. Keep up the good work!

--Badantd1 (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about removing hangon.

It did say that remove it after you fix it, do u? I thought you would remove the template after adding sources and more content, as i had. Anyways, I apologize for removing the hangon template.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem, it is sort of a gray area, a lot of people run into trouble when they simply remove the template, without improving, thinking that will prevent the deletion. What you did wasn't a big problem, I just wanted to warn you in case someone did think it was a big problem in the future. Since the template says to not remove the warning, but feel free to improve, in my experience that means someone else, be it an admin or a different user, will remove the speedy delete template when they see it is not valid. Just thought I would let you know for future reference, not because I think you were trying to vandalize anything, but others may think you are in the future. Theseeker4 (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi

hi,

if i want to publish this essay what should i do ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Girld22 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Theseeker4. You have new messages at SilasW's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LeBoldus

Dear Theseeker4,

You are completely justified in a quick deletion. The situation is this... I have participated in writing for notable people from Saskatchewan but, do not have details for this notable fellow. I know this family and posted this stub in hopes that it would motivate one of his surviving family members to provide the relevant details. I am presently contacting these individuals but have not gotten very far in that process. If you feel the need to speedy delete please don't stress over the decision, there is very little information there - posting was just a motivational strategy. I apologize for any confusion but I would love to see this individual's proper write-up become added. Thanks for the heads up... Cheers, --Amazona01 (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)

The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 05:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Bezgovo cvrtje - hold your fire ;-)

Hi, you tagged Bezgovo cvrtje for WP:PROD, a recently created article on a Slovenian dish. I consider the article bona fide; admittedly problems with broken English, but not completely incomprehensible, and a Google search turns up some supporting evidence. The article is not blatant nonsense, its creation seems to be good faith, it lends itself to be plagued by language problems at its wiki birth, and as such I believe it is unfair to propose deletion outside the regular AfD process, it's like a thief coming at night. Best regards, Power.corrupts (talk) 13:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. I couldn't find anything myself that made the article seem notable in a search. I specifically avoided using a speedy delete template because I could make out some of the intent; however, the article when I tagged it seemed to be an attempt at explaining how it is made which violates WP:HOWTO. Since you removed the prod and have made an effort to improve the article, I am certainly not going to further pursue deletion. I have no doubt the creation was in good faith, but so are many of the garage band articles that are created by the band's single fan; that doesn't make them notable. Proposed deletion is available to allow boarderline articles, such as this one, to be proposed for deletion yet not be deleted for 5 days, allowing anyone who supports the inclusion of the article to contest the prod and improve the article, as you did. In many cases, an article that was created with a few sentences and never improved, when prodded, attracts attention of people who are willing and able to improve the article. For this reason, prod-ing an article is certainly not unfair but rather can result in the rescuing of the article. Theseeker4 (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. If the article is deleted, it wont be improved, and five days is not much. But I understand your reasoning. best regards, Power.corrupts (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Frederick Gore wiki page

Hi,

I don't understand why you have placed a 'not-notable' tag on Frederick Gore's wiki page.

At 95 he is still one of the most respected artists in the UK. The letters after his name attest to this.

RA means 'Royal Academician'. There are only a very few RA's elected and to receive this honour means that you have proved yourself to be one of the most respected and successful artists of your generation. Tracey Emin was only recently elected to be an RA.

CBE is a British honour, one step down from a Knight (a 'Sir'). This honour is only given by the UK government to those who have proved themselves exceptional in their fields. Freddy's field is ART. Many famous sportsmen/olympic athletes etc. have only received OBE's or MBE's which are lesser honours. For a simple clear explanation of the honours system by the British government see

[1] UK Honours System

Moveover Freddy has many works in Public Collections. Being a Trustee of the Imperial War Museum is hardly a job given to someone who is 'not-notable'. Art students today still refer to the publications on painting that he wrote in the 1960's.

So rather than being in the shadow of his historically well known artist father Spencer Gore, Freddy stands alongside him and is today a grand old man of the art world in England.

Not notable, hardly :-)

SeaFern (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello,
When I added the notability tag, the article was lacking sources and to me, completely unfamiliar with the artist, many of the claims about this individual seemed to be peacock terms to inflate his importance. I see the article is quite a bit different in its current form than when I tagged it, and while it still needs editing of various sorts, the notability is no longer in doubt, so removal of the notability tag is justified. Feel free to remove the notability tag, as unlike deletion templates and the like there is nothing wrong with removing a notability or other cleanup tag after the issues are addressed. Since you did so much work to improve the article and establish the notability of this individual, feel free to remove any tag that does not apply. Theseeker4 (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Frederick Gore wiki page

Thank you very much for your quick reply re this. I am very new to editing Wikipedia and can't seem to remove the notability tag, which I presume I do in 'History' where it says undo, except that doesn't work. Any hints on how to do that? Best wishes, SeaFern (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Worked out how to remove tag on Frederick Gore page

Sorry to bombard you, but I managed to work out how to remove the tags. Duh. thanks again for all your encouragement and support and will be working a bit more on the page when I have time. SeaFern (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you Theseeker4, I really appreciate you taking the time to review the edits that were done on Steinerner Steg. I still plan to leave Wikipedia permanently, but it is even more disgusting how Gryffindor and PhJ come in to throw rocks. It doesn't surprise me actually one bit, but still to be proven correct is also unpleasant. Icsunonove (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Icsunonove

  • January 16th, 18:04: [2]
  • January 19th, 02:00: [3]
Resolved??? --noclador (talk) 01:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I haven't touched that thread in a few days, and when I first set it to resolved, Icsunonove had stated his intention to quit Wikipedia, as I noted in my closure notice. I have done nothing to close the thread since then, so why are you now posting this on my talk page? Theseeker4 (talk) 01:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
He has avoided sanctions for his insults by declaring to go on a "permanet sabbatical" and despite his return every day since then and his continued harassing and insulting of other editors he still hasn't faced any consequences. Your decision to do declare this issue resolved was a wrong. It emboldened him to continue his behaviour. I posted this on your talkpage in the hope that in the future editors will not be able to avoid consequences for insults and incivility by simple stating "I leave" and then not held accountable for ignoring their pledge every day. --noclador (talk) 01:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I stand by the statements I made on the Wikiquette and ANI pages. I believe the source of the problem is how Icsunonove was treated in the diffs I pointed out. I believe if you had dealt with him while assuming good faith, none of this would be an issue. I also think he has carried it too far in his statements, but no further than you have by forum shopping and insisting that the community punishes him when you are as much at fault. I know you disagree with me, as is obvious, but you seem to be seeking my approval of your tactics, which you will not receive. Icsunonove has not received my approval of his actions in continuing the fight, and you will not receive my approval for refusing to drop the issue. I also have not returned to the forums to argue for or against you. Again, I stand by my statement that nothing here would be an issue if people had assumed good faith with Icsunonove and not accused him as you, and others, have. I likewise think he should just walk away at this point, as nothing more will be gained. Theseeker4 (talk) 02:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Yep, I disagree with you: I didn't think about this guy anymore until he had to come to my talkpage today [4]. After that I left the above note on your talkpage, so you are mistaken in who does not want to drop the issue! I keep ignoring him, I'm not seeking approval of "my tactics", I want to edit and an not to be insulted.
Also you are gravely mistaken in the sequence of events: He is in fact the mentioned IP and has admitted it (see the note left on my page and AN/I). There was no edit war/content dispute on Steinerner Steg until he arrived and the very first talk page comment he left was an personal attack. The source of the problem is how Icsunonove claims ownership of all articles regarding South Tyrol and how he treats any editor that dares infringe on them. He will not drop the issue (he has already begun to reedit my(!) AN/I statements today) and I believe it would wise to read this: [5]. --noclador (talk) 02:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I am wrong for losing my temper with this guy, I regret that. But, I was certainly not fascist/mussolini'ish for fixing wikilinks. I tried my best on the bridge to make it a good article, Noclador obviously had already decided I was on some sort of "enemy" list. @_@ I have never claimed ownership of articles. I admitted that is my IP, and the edits I made while not logged in were just as valid. Yes, the edit war began because someone dared to change the page Noclador was guarding -- so who is claiming ownership after all?  :) If Noclador had wanted to drop the issue, he would of discussed it with me one-on-one. I left a message asking that we drop this, or discuss, he removed it as vandalism. :) I edited his ANI statement because he is trying to publicly pursue where I live and work (i.e., amounts to stalking). That is out of bounds, and if he continues, this obviously brings up very serious issues within the Wikipedia community. I apologize to you Theseeker for coming here and continuing a thread on your private page. I can't express how much I appreciate that you actually reviewed the history of that page. You don't need to back anyone, that is for certain, but your open mind on this gives me some hope for this (tongue-in-cheek) damned Wikipedia. ;-) regards, Icsunonove (talk) 06:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


For the record: This abstruse concoction of stalking: I copied two lines from two sources- namely: Icsunonove user page and Icsunonove IP page. --noclador (talk) 07:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, for the record, you obviously added more than that. That is neither here nor there now. If you keep RE-adding that, which clearly looks like an attempt to identify personal information of editors on here, it is stalking. If you focus on the accusations you made, that is reasonable. If you start to look inward and maybe consider you pre-judged me incorrectly, you are my hero. I know the last one is a stretch... :) It is just such a shame how poorly you misjudged my intentions on here from fixing wikilinks to improving the article about that bridge. If you'd relax, we may actually be able to LEARN some valuable information about this region from one another. But, this is not the first, nor second, nor third time I've tried to get you to chill... and you keep going on. Man, I know people from T-AA/ST can have thick heads some time, but enough is enough! ...and you can't accuse me of attacking you with that, because you know my roots are the same as yours (just more of a shame for this fighting, isn't it?). Icsunonove (talk) 07:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

And I thank you again so much for looking at this situation I've gone through with an open mind. I had so much hoped that Admins would of come in and done the same from the beginning of this fiasco, and nip this thing in the bud. I for certain could of reacted to these accusations better, and well, life goes on. Also, I'm really sorry that we are filling up your talk page with this banter. :) my best regards, Icsunonove (talk) 07:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


Input on essay requested

I've put together some thoughts on civility at User:Gerardw/Civility and would appreciate your input. Feel free to WP:BOLD and edit if you'd like. Gerardw (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I made an addition to the essay. The addition may be more than you intend for that essay, so feel free to remove content or alter it, but I think the points are relevant. Let me know what you think :-) Theseeker4 (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Shannon Rose

The editor Shannon Rose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has returned, and is using questionable edit summaries again. -- Eastmain (talk) 22:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Unfortunately, I am not an admin so I cannot take any action myself, and since I was the subject of one of her personal attacks, the one which resulted in her block in fact, my reporting anything other than another direct attack on me would look like retaliation. I will keep my eye on her in case she goes too far and no one else notices it before me, but I don't plan on taking action of any sort unless no one else does, or she directly attacks me again. My attempt to warn her about her conduct obviously provoked her, so I would not help the situation by warning her again. However, that certainly doesn't mean I will avoid reporting her if she does attack me, but I think other uninvolved parties should be the primary monitors of her behavior, especially admins. Theseeker4 (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Best Regards

I just wanted to let you know that I think it is unfortunate that we did not get off to a good start working together. You seem like a quite reasonable person. Best Regards, Doright (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your regards. I agree it is unfortunate we did not start off on the right foot. I would just like to say that if I hadn't tried to keep my first comment so brief, maybe I wouldn't have given you the wrong impression. I should have made it more clear that I agreed the edit summaries were incivil, and had planned to warn the user in question about their lack of civility after I received some clarification about the other civility allegations. I saw the changing of the archival times, but did not see actual removal of comments, so was looking for clarification there. I also failed to find an accusation of wikistalking. As I said, the entire disagreement may have been avoided if I had clarified what I had found and what I did not see evidence of; likewise, if I had included more text to that effect my advising you of talk page policy that says one can remove warnings from their talk page would not have seemed so heavily weighted in my reply. Again, the way the thread started out was unfortunate, and seems to have influenced how other editors responded to your posting. I wish you luck and certainly believe your efforts were in good faith, it is just a fact of life that some people rub each other the wrong way without either one being "the problem," and that may have been the issue in this case. Theseeker4 (talk) 13:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Please accept my thanks for your thoughtful courtesy. And, please know that I do not feel like we had a disagreement. Rather, I think there was a communication hiccup that did not actually ripen to the point of disagreement. I also want you to know that I don't feel like you rubbed me the wrong way. In fact, I believe that you are more likely to feel I rubbed you the wrong way. And to that I would say, if you have that feeling, that it is justifiably so. My request certainly could not be expected to have produce much in the way of endorphins. That is why I came here to make sure I corrected any disturbance to your happiness that I may have caused. I also want you to know, I did not take anything you or for that matter anyone else said as a personal affront.
I agree with your observation that " the way the thread started out was unfortunate, and seems to have influenced how other editors responded to [my] posting. " However, you should know that I do not lay that on your footstep more than I do my own. In fact, I was very impressed by your elegant solution to my inadequate and unfinished Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages of the section. That is, to provide the link, along with your comment. But for, another editor's reversion of the refactoring along with a rather "unhelpful" series of message, I think the influence on how the other two editors responded would have been minimal. However, at this point there has been a circling of the wagons and guess who the Indian is? The bias is so blatant that in a way, it's funny. Of course it's quite predictable from a social psychology and group dynamics perspective: I am the outsider perceived as attacking a member of the group (though I never meant to nor do I think I ever did attack you) with another member of the group predisposed to and therefore activated to engage in such tactics as poisoning the well with a tiny coalition of the willing being immediately formed with biases firmly locked and loaded. Well, hopefully that's all water under the bridge
Moving on to what is, for me, the gravamen of the matter. The article talk page mentioned in my complaint is dominated by a fairly small number of editors 24/7 and dedicated to one particular pov. Since most other editors only stop by intermittently their comments and disputes are wiped from the page due to the archiving protocol. Plus, the dispute tags are improperly removed from the article page. If you then played out a monte carlo simulation in your imagination under wikipedia rules with a tiny number of dedicated biased editors AND a short enough content removal interval, I think you will be able to see the nature of the problem. Also note that a software modification supporting archiving based on the existence of a "resolved" template is planned for the future. [[6]]
Please read the section titled, "Comment on Comment, plus added info." As a result, I think you will see that I really didn't care that he called me a sock puppet and troll. And, the big issue with Hapsala is not even that there is a pattern, even though there certainly is. The issue is that I arrived at end game with every attempt to discuss the issue unaddressed.
I welcome your comments here and on the WQA page. Doright (talk) 08:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted to let you know that an admin took care of it so the matter is resolved. I appreciated your comment about wp:point. But, as we see, no good deed goes unpunished. Doright (talk) 07:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

WQA - Mitchazenia

Thanks for trying to mediate the recent situation betwixt Mitchazenia and NE2 over on the Wikiquette page. I think some of the problem stems from the fact that NE2 can be hard to work with at times, he sometimes tends to take Be BOLD! to another level, and it takes a bit to dial him back in. (There's a LOT of history there with Wikiproject US Roads involving NE2, are you SURE you want to ride that train?)

I'm stepping in here, and giving Mitch an avenue to vent. Hopefully, being able to vent in another direction will let off some of the steam that would otherwise get blown out here. I'm sure that NE2 can share some of the onus for whatever transpired, but we'll address that in turn. Edit Centric (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

WP NPA Centralization

You were a part of the mediation on this one, so I'm cc'ing you in. Edit Centric (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Theseeker4/Archive_1&oldid=1142734878"