User talk:teb728

/Archive

---

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen you around a lot at WP:MCQ and some at WP:HELP. You clearly know what you're doing, and a glance through your talk page archive shows that you have a record being calm, rational, and friendly to new users. As far as I can tell, you've never either stood for adminship or declined to do so after being asked, so I'll become the first: any interest in being nominated? Steve Smith (talk) 09:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not ignoring you, but I have been unusually busy last few days. I am drafting a reply on my PC and hope to post it soon. —teb728 t c 08:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to be a pest, but how's that reply coming along? No hurry from my end, just wanted to remind you that the offer stands, if you're interested. Steve Smith (talk) 05:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still planning to reply. I've been on a l o n g wikibreak for the past year+ -- partly due to a flakey computer and partly due to other projects. —teb728 t c 23:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

teb728, can you discuss with Lonelydarksky of your thought on moving pages of Startling by Each Step (novel) and Xuanyuan Jian: The Scar in the Sky, since he's the one who asked to me of doing so? I don't want to start an edit war.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 06:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already posted at Talk:Bu Bu Jing Xin (novel); talk pages are the place for article discussions. I don't know about the other article. —teb728 t c 06:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The other article is the same reason, thought the translated title not official so wanted me to put the the pinyin transliteration of the Chinese title.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 07:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help in preparing the page: Lincoln University School of Law, 1938 - 1955. I want to ask you for another favor. I did the research for this article, so obviously, I want to be accurate. Therein, I stated that this law school was the only one to have been created as the result of a lawsuit. That statement is not correct. One other law school, Southern University School of Law in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, was also created and established as a result of a lawsuit. The source for the information about Southern is the Wikipedia article on Southern University School of Law.

An interesting point is, however, that both Lincoln and Southern were established as traditionally Black law schools that were set up by the respective state legislatures in response to lawsuits filed by African Americans claiming violations of their civil rights. I'll leave it to you to make the changes and if you deem it noteworthy, to incorporate the point newly raised herein. Thank you again. Slidhome (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just for what it's worth, I was not in the wrong for blocking the user without a warning. Nowhere on Wikipedia:Edit warring does it say that prior warning is required before blocking due to 3RR/disruption. Thanks for getting involved though. I hope after this settles down, I'll be able to recruit the user as a writer. Clearly he's passionate about storms :) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does say that however at WP:AN3, which is where you as an WP:INVOLVED admin should have gone. —teb728 t c 22:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for your help with the image and the infobox on Tri Beta, as one of people who have edited it in the last month could you chime in on whether it should be moved to Beta Beta Beta over the redirect. Beta Beta Beta has some trash edits to it, before it became a redirect, so we'll need to make it formal, and if you are opposed, maybe it is for a reason I haven't thought of.12:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht (talk • contribs)

I have no opinion on the move. —teb728 t c 17:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank youNaraht (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your inference that I am being paid is incorrect. I am not being paid nor have I ever been paid for any work done on the Arnold Leibovit and linked pages. . A third party connected us a few years ago and I voluntarily agreed to edit his pages thinking this would be great way to learn how Wikipedia works. Early on, I thought about whether or not getting paid for this was even appropriate but a little research showed me it was not. I never met the guy,never talked to him on the phone...only email. I think or at least I thought I was behaving in line with the philosphy of Wikipedia which I understand to be: Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia where anyone can contribute to and edit pages. It is in that light that I am trying to learn the Wikipedia way. However regretibly, I have run head on into an enormous collection of image submission guidelines that are significantly confusing and complex, and while I have asked a few times for help, I get only criticism and false accusations. Is there anyone there who can actually explain to me like I am a fifth grader and not an IP attorney how to properly get an image onto a page so that it won't be deleted in 7 days? In addition,I have edited the text of his page and used the apparently acceptable page of another film producer as a model, yet you tell me it still has issues. Pls enlighten me. Thanks.Recado (talk) 06:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on your talk page. —teb728 t c 09:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Maybe we are getting some place. The first thing I need is for you all to accept that I am not being compensated in any way by Arnold Leibovit or any of his interests. You must accept that because that is simply the truth. I have no other way to prove it. It my word against yours,and I am a little bothered that you made the assumption of guilty until proven innocent. I am a pretty ethical guy and I ask that this be accepted and put aside. I intend to be unbiased, neutral, etc. I owe Leibovit nothing and he owes me nothing. Any resemblence to anything other than this is probably caused by my relative newness to Wikipedia.

I will pull (well, it is already gone) the photo of Leibovit until I can get one that is acceptable. I will make it a point to reread all the guidelines. Regarding the Arnold Leibovit page, I edited it to resemble the Nora Ephron (director of Sleepless in Seattle) page so I can't see how this could be a problem in terms of the critique of resume, lists, and advertisement. However, if the issue is notability, then I need to work on that since you rejected some of my resources. Pls comment on all this. Thanks. Recado (talk) 22:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your statement that you are not employed by Leibovit, and frankly I do not understand why you are defensive about the subject. Even if you had been a paid writer, that would not make you unethical. Editors who are connected with subject are almost always ethical and frequently intend to write about their subject in an unbiased and neutral way. Their connection just makes it difficult for them to judge neutrality.

When I asked if you were a paid writer/consultant, it was not an accusation: You had said you were “maintaining a number of Wikipedia pages for a friend,” but later you said you had never met him. I simply wanted to understand why you were maintaining the pages for him.

I will reply to your article-related comments on your talk page. —teb728 t c 20:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Larry N. Jordan (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I appreciate your feedback on the article I tried to write on Larry N. Jordan but somebody named OrangeMike has now targeted it for discussion about deletion claiming it is a "puff piece" and that I "admit" to being close to the source, etc. First of all, I don't think what I wrote is much different than most of what I read on Wikipedia which cites people's accomplishments. As for being "close" to the source, Mr. Jordan is a professional colleague, that's all. I have expanded the article this morning to cite more specific sources but as for claims that he was praised by Bill Clinton, etc., this comes from Mr. Jordan's bio on Amazon that was written by his book publisher. Why would that be any less trustworthy than any other source? I'm not married to the guy, I'm not related to him, I don't have access to his personal files. I got some of this information from public sources on the internet which, the last time I checked, Wikipedia was also on... So I am really floundering here. I need HELP before my post gets deleted by OrangeMike or somebody else. I have found Wikipedia to be excessively complicated and I really don't have the time to study up on it, so coaching me on what to do is probably futile. This post may be more trouble than it's worth. I just find Larry Jordan to be a very interesting fellow and a good guy and thought: why shouldn't HE be on Wikipedia considering a lot of people I see on here who probably can't hold a candle to him and his good works. Any help you could offer would be very appreciated! Lisa Brown--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by LisaBrown2012 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)‎[reply]

Before I comment on the article I want to complain about your posting on my user page: While it is not totally forbidden to edit someone's user page, it is bad form unless you are trying to help the user with the content that THEY are trying to put on THEIR page. When you want to send a message to another user, the place is the user's talk page. Most signatures have a link to the user's talk page: In your signature above, that link is "talk"; in my signature below it is abbreviated as the solitary "t". If you wind up on someone's user page, you can always get to their talk page by clicking the "Talk" tab at the upper left. I moved your post here for you. —teb728 t c 18:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, when you send a message to somebody, please sign it with four tildes i.e. ~~~~ This automatically adds links to your account (typically your user page where can see what you want people to know about you, your talk page where they can leave you a message, and a list of your contributions where they can see what you have been working on. When you signed just your name, I didn't who you were. I added your signature above for you.

Also, it would have been considerate when you are asking about an article for you to link to the article: If you enter [[Larry N. Jordan]] it will be displayed as Larry N. Jordan. That way I can get to the article conventiently. I entered a link above for you. —teb728 t c 19:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for the article: The subjects of all articles must be notable by Wikipedia’s standards. So start by reading Wikipedia’s notability standard for biographies. Ask yourself which of the criteria there qualifies Jordan as notable. Emphasize that in the lede section of the article. So, is he notable because he was a commercial publisher from the age of 15? Is he notable for Jim Reeves: His Untold Story? Frankly neither seems very impressive to me. It is essential to cite independent reliable sources which verify the facts that make him notable. A bio on Amazon that was written by his book publisher is hardly an independent reliable source, for both Amazon and his publisher have a financial interest in making him look good.

You might clarify what you mean by “commercial publisher”: Is that he published commercials or that made money publishing? I think it improved the article when you took out some unencyclopedic and difficult-to-verify details like his daughter’s schooling.

As for OrangeMike saying you are Jordan’s friend, you said that yourself on the Help desk; what you said there sounds more than a "professional colleague." The Articles for deletion discussion should go on for a week before a decision is made. If you have not gotten the article up to snuff by then, you can ask for it to be moved to your user space for you to work on it some more. —teb728 t c 00:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TEB728. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/anything cool by ilop, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article criteria do not apply to the Wikipedia talk: namespace. Thank you. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 22:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have added an external source and two internal sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Landa (talk • contribs) 04:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Tait (illustrator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi TED728. I noticed you declined the speedy before I had the opportunity to explain it. I would very much appreciate that opportunity, if you are willing to do so and reconsider. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 06:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:CSD#A7? It sets a very high bar for speedy deletion: the article does not need to show the subject is notable—just indicate why its subject is important or significant. "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." But I am open to persuasion; so what is your explanation? How can winning an award not indicate significance or importance? —teb728 t c 06:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've read WP:CSD#A7 and thanks for being open to listening to my concerns. First, I'll note that I believe(d) #A7 applies because it covers "An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization (for example, a band, club, or company, not including educational institutions),[5] or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. We agree that the only claim of notability here is the award. However, we haven't established the notability of that award; or what distinguishes this award winner from the scores of other recipients who have not received BLPs based on it.

Second, to really appreciate the reason this stub was created you have to understand the creating editor's history. I invite you to review the full record on the Douglas Tait AfD, then review the BLP's log for the kind of edits Novaseminary consistently makes to the existing BLP. This editor has already been ANI'd for this behavior of obsessive battling and persistent disruptive edits just 3 months ago and continues to ignore all warnings now. Instead, this editor has engaged in an unrelenting one-person campaign against this BLP for over a year and the current AfD is simply the latest forumshopped effort. The editor's stated intent and clear record is to delete and/or diminish that BLP: either piecemeal or all at once; by whatever policy or means are necessary - but absolutely not to improve or strengthen it. The editor has already rejected several invitations to collaborate to improve the BLP. So this stub and this editor's subsequent disambiguation efforts are simply the latest efforts by one determined editor with a vast knowledge of WP policies, but whose disruptive edits are pretty blatant. If there was legitimate interest in creating an article and meeting the notability threshold for Douglas Tait (illustrator), that would be one thing. But instead the stub, like the disambiguation, are just being used as vehicles by an editor on a mission. That's why I proposed the speedy and on the policy merits, I still feel it is justified. But if you can suggest a better option, I am very open to suggestions. Thanks! X4n6 (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the first place, in assessing an A7 speedy one does not look for notability: Although notability is one of the standards for AfC and AfD, the standard for A7 is quite different—a credible claim of importance or significance. You question the notability of the award, but A7 explicitly “does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim … does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines.” (emphasis added) So the notability of the award is not at issue. You ask why other recipients of this award do not have bios: Perhaps nobody has written their bios yet, or perhaps the bios were deleted at AfD (where notability is at issue), but I still don’t see how they could be speedied for A7.

You seem not to appreciate that the various categories for speedy deletion are intentionally made very narrow and specific. This is because speedy deletion allows one admin to delete a page with no discussion. Deletion on the basis of something so subjective as notability can only be done at an AfD discussion. (or PROD for uncontroversial deletions)

If I were looking for notability, I would find it in references to the McDonough profile and the Defoe article (recently added), which show significant coverage in two reliable sources, and which may be enough to fulfill WP:GNG. If you want to discuss the illustrator’s notability, the place for that is an AfD discussion. But if you do nominate it at AfD, I would strongly urge you not to bring up your dispute with Novaseminary, for that would likely backfire. —teb728 t c 01:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughtful response. It simply seemed logical on some level: that if the standard of A7 is "a credible claim of important or significance" and that claim is based wholly and solely on a single award, a review of the credibility of that award seems reasonable. Note I said "credibility", not "notability." I'll willingly concede I misstated that in my original post, which likely contributed significantly to the confusion. A7 does say: "The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible." However I suppose the rebuttal is, because the threshold is so low, the claim is deemed credible by the presence of the links provided. So I'll take your point.

Finally, I really have no dispute with Novaseminary. Any dispute is with the editor's edits and tactics re: this BLP, which are on record and available for review to anyone as they deem appropriate. But again, I appreciate your point and the rest of your comments. Thanks again. X4n6 (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You declined WP:CSD#G6 request with the edit summary "deletion is not uncontroversial: nominating for RfD". Given that consensus was reached (here and the rest of page), why do you consider this to be contraversial? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the RfD discussion: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#Talk:Universiteti i Prishtinës —teb728 t c 21:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have no idea on what you are getting into. The split discussion lasted since 2007 and only now came to consensus. Why can't you carry on with WP:RM after this all ends? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please just withdraw this AfD? The article needs a talk page and the temporary status your RfD nomination gave that page just made the things more complicated. You can start a WP:RM discussion whenever you want, but RfD is a wrong place for it as this article is just one of several created after split (University of Pristina was split into University of Pristina (1969–1999), Universiteti i Prishtinës and Univerzitet u Prištini) and all of them should be discussed in one central location. Thus it is not an RfD question at all, so your RfD nomination was bogus from the very beginning, and I would have closed it by now if I wasn't participating in the discussion before. Still you can close it as "withdrawn" and move on with whatever suggestions you have. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:TEB728, I am sorry for this late response to your comments and advice on the above mentioned page, thank you. I have also given some further comments and am reading up on various Wikipedia guidelines now, having signed up formally. Thank you again AsadUK200 (talk) 05:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)AsadUK200[reply]

Hello TEB728. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Minerva University to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know that A7 does not apply to educational institutions, but it seems to me an "online university" is less of an educational institution than a business / web content. —teb728 t c 03:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was tempted, but I'd rather err on the side of caution. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: Actually, I did block him, but something went haywire with the block. The account really is blocked, but the log entry for it wasn't written. I did get an error from the Wikimedia servers after I placed the block and I suspect that the error was from it trying to write the block log. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. —teb728 t c 23:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to "correct" the log by unblocking and reblocking him, but it just made a bigger mess. Suffice it to say, he really is blocked. Trying to alter his block, popups, and the WP:AIV bot all confirm that he is truly blocked. The logs are just all messed up. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a WP:VPT thread about the issue now. WP:VPT#Blocks stopped showing and do not appear in logs. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Morning!

Saw your declination for the speedy, which I honor. In case this raises questions, however, I have placed it for speedy again under G8 - the target has been speedied under G11.

--Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TEB728! You posted Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fair use review back on 21 June 2008 and the project again is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Non-free content review. The outcome of the 2008 deletion request was Keep/Reform. Did enough reform happen or was the can merely kicked down the road? Since you originally requested the project be ended, it would be nice to have your thoughts at the MfD discussion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. 乌拉跨氪 did not discuss. The first time, he deleted many phrases of these articles (almost distorted the articles), I sent him several messages. No answer, the artcicles were corrected back. He deleted them again, then forbided the author — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.117.157.164 (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But how can Chinese wikipedia let him do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.117.157.164 (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Wikipedia is a separate project. Nobody on English Wikipedia can do anything about what they do there. —teb728 t c 20:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question - I cant find the tag for an empty portal for deletion. I have been asked to fix this ..but the pages are all messed up. How can I get these pages deleted so I can make the portal for the kids that asked. I have done this many mnay times before but the "emptyportal" tag is gone what should i use?Moxy (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy tag for empty portals is {{db-emptyportal}}. The only other speedy tag for portals is {{db-speedy delete if article}}. —teb728 t c 04:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I don't think Team Noname should be speedily deleted. There is an assertion of notability, so if you think it's not notable, it should be listed on AFD. --Slashme (talk) 09:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. —teb728 t c 09:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you declined the CSD for the said article even if you're not an admin. Why do you do so? TruPepitoMTalk To Me 09:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, it (the article) is already deleted. TruPepitoMTalk To Me 09:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have to be an admin to delete a page, but anybody (except the creator) is allowed to remove a speedy from a page that does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion; see for example the instructions at {{db-a7}}. The page in question was clearly for an educational institution (a gymnasium), and it was nominated for A7. The page, however, does not qualify under A7 because educational institutions are explicitly excluded from A7; see either {{db-a7}} or A7. (See also the post above for 03:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC))—teb728 t c 09:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final words: see second comment. TruPepitoMTalk To Me 10:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, I don’t understand what you are referring to: Is it your comment above that the page was deleted? You do understand don’t you that the page was deleted after I removed the speedy and that it was deleted under a criterion totally unrelated to the one that I removed.

If you are asking for my take on the deletion, I am mystified by it: The deletion was based on the criterion, “Articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article.” When I read the article, I had no trouble identifying the subject. —teb728 t c 21:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For actually tagging this article for speedy deletion, and not cut & running, like I did. Don't know how I could have thought it wasn't a hoax/or vandalism. I swear I'm half asleep today! -.- -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 10:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey TEB, this is Jethro, the current maitre'd at the Teahouse. My position is not one of any particular authority, but just to oversee the Teahouse and make sure things are running smoothly. I wanted to welcome you as a host, and thank you for joining us. Here are a couple of resources you might find helpful as you're hosting:

• User scripts - This is a list of user scripts which can allow you to automatically post talkbacks for the Teahouse, provide invite templates to new users, and a few other things.
• Host expectations - Just a short list of general expectations and guidelines you should consider following in your work.
• Hosts talk page - A good page to keep in your watchlist for announcements and other discussions related to The Teahouse.
• Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host_lounge/Maitre_d/Calendar - The maitre'd calendar so you know who to go to with questions about The Teahouse on a given day.

Let me know if you have any question, and happy hosting. :) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jethro, and thanks for the welcome. Although I was aware of the user scripts and host expectations, and I probably have no need for the calendar at this time; I am particularly thankful for the link to the Hosts talk page. Does that page serve as a forum for hosts? I had looked for such a thing but didn’t find it advertised. —teb728 t c 23:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, yeah, it is a forum for hosts. If you have comments or questions for other hosts, it'd be the place to bring it up. In fact, you might consider bringing up the fact that it's not well-advertised to other hosts! I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TEB728!

You've been here many years longer than I have - I am having difficulties with having this article deleted - per CSD A7 Unremarkable companies - as there are two editors (I suspect are both the same people) 108.34.225.65 and User:BlastGangg who keep on rmeoving my tag, or blanking the article (which I would then move to G7 Author requests SD) and then they re-add the content w/out the original A7 CSD tag. Here's the history - I'm somewhat unsure as to where I should pursue this further. AN/I? thanks, -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 10:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about taking it to AfD? —teb728 t c 11:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smart thinking! shall initiate the discussion now. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 11:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for catching that BLP violation over at 2013 National Scout Jamboree! I was wondering why you didn't give the offending editor a warning, though? It seemed like a pretty blatant defamation to me (well, maybe more harassment than defamation, per that recent court ruling that it's not defamation to call someone gay, but still). Thanks. (I've given him a 4im, by the way, in light of his autobiography contribution, plus a rational application of WP:SNOWBALL to WP:CIR.) — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 06:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per AGF I didn't read it as either harassment or defamation. I thought it more likely he was complaining that BSA homophobia was preventing his troop member and friend from participation. I took it as well-intentioned outing that was only only a little worse than the spam aspect of his post. —teb728 t c 08:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Maybe I was a bit too hasty to assume bad faith, but I don't know if I agree with you, still: He added the comment over the course of two revisions, and in the first he simply said "[redacte] will not be going at all." Considering his cheery disposition, and his use of parentheses to explain why [redacted] will not be going, I read it as a pure statement of fact - i.e., "He will not be going. He is gay," which I took to be harrassment since, I mean, you don't just go around saying "so-and-so is gay" on random articles for innocent reasons, unless of course, you are the overly proud friend of a homosexual. (I NEVER thought that I would actually be able to cite that essay in a legitimate discussion!) If you think I should take down the 4im, though, I suppose AGF means a tie goes to the runner, as it were. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 08:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TEB728,
I agree with your re-direct here, but the creator of that page was a totally new editor and was rather unhappy.See FeedbackDashboard/58500 "My edits were deleted".
I have welcomed them and explained a little about what happened.

I can only suggest that when you make a re-direct like this, perhaps it would be good to consider informing the editor of what you have done and why? Regards, 220 of ^Borg 08:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. —teb728 t c 08:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! - 220 of ^Borg 10:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that your speedy deletion nomination at Aeiou (band) has been declined. You may wish to try PROD or AfD. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Jamie Lynn Spears discography, which you proposed for deletion. I am leaving this message here to notify you about it. While you are right that the subject does not merit its own article, you wrote "Her discography is not extensive enough to need a separate article. It should be included in the bio."—that is, it should be part of the main article, Jamie Lynn Spears, so the correct procedure is a merge, not deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to it. Instead, feel free to list the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!

הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 04:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and bon appetit The iWriter (talk) 08:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Greetings, Mr Jones. Wikipedia would like your permission to use your photo of the late Sir Denis Mahon at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/culture-obituaries/art-obituaries/8481701/Sir-Denis-Mahon.html . If you are willing to give it, then e-mail it at info-en@wikimedia.org. Thank you very much."

Is that all right?--94.65.26.121 (talk) 01:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Wikipedia does not accept permission for use only in Wikipedia. Since we have a goal of producing reusable content, we require permission that allows reuse by anyone for anything. I should have told you before to see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for the required permission and how to request it. —teb728 t c 05:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Dear Mr Jones,

I am writing to confirm whether permission is granted to use an image that you have taken under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). The image in question is an image of the late Sir Denis Mahon CH CBE, posted at his obituary from The Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/culture-obituaries/art-obituaries/8481701/Sir-Denis-Mahon.html) Please be assured that if you do not grant permission, your image will not be used at Wikipedia; we have a strict policy against copyright violations. You can read CC-BY-SA in full at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License. The license stipulates that any copy of the material, even if modified, must carry the same license. This means that anyone would be licensed to distribute the material, possibly for a fee (we would distribute your work free of charge). Under the license, no distributor (commercial or otherwise) can restrict future distribution, so your work would never become proprietary. In addition, the license does not grant the right to imply your endorsement of a modified version. Please note that your contributions may not remain intact as submitted; this license and the collaborative nature of our project entitles others to edit or alter the image. There is more information on our copyright policy at:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights . Thank you for your time. I look forward to your response. Yours faithfully,

• [NAME]"

Is that all right?--94.65.26.121 (talk) 11:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I sent it but he declined....--94.65.26.121 (talk) 12:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I expected that would be the case, but I didn't want to discourage you from trying. —teb728 t c 09:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested, this image is nominated for deletion. Please join in discussion to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 05:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I don't understand, why would you move an image to commons that tagged for deletion ? Mlpearc (powwow) 05:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't move it. It was uploaded there by the same user who uploaded it locally. With an OTRS tag the commons version is more likely to survive that either local copy. —teb728 t c 05:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC) I see the commons version is now nominated for deletion; it didn't have that when I tagged it "now commons" —teb728 t c 05:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was going by this diff not realizing you just tagged it "now commons" and not actually make the move. Thanx for clearing that up and my apologies for the poke. Mlpearc (powwow) 06:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TEB728. In view of your copyright contributions, I'm hoping you can help out. Bdcousineau works at the Ford Presidential Library and Museum, which is uploading more than a quarter million images to Commons for use in Wikipedia and other places. There seems to be a variety of copyright issues (copyright in photos of Betty Ford's dresses, gifts from citizens, etc.). If you would be so kind, would you mind popping over to Bdcousineau's talk page and giving some assistance on some of the copyright issues. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue seems to be about technicalities of public domain, which is not my favorite kind of issue. Try asking as WP:MCQ. —teb728 t c 21:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TEB728, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Casey swag, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: hoax implies intent to deceive. Let the AfD take care of it - may well be a quick SNOW. I have pointed the ajuthor to WP:NFT and WP:NEO and suggested he try Urban Dictionary. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page is so ridiculous that that it cannot be taken as a mere neologism. So I think there was an intent to deceive (or perhaps vandalize since the ridiculousness is so transparent). But I am content with AFD. —teb728 t c 21:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If he had said it was widely used or well established, I'd have gone along with "hoax"; and you have a point about vandalism, which I usually interpret as "cannot reasonably have thought this would improve the encyclopedia". It's certainly borderline and I don't criticise you for taggig it. A new speedy for "Blatantly made up one day" has often been suggested (including by me) but always gets turned down for problems of definition. JohnCD (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see Uncle G (talk) agreed with you, and he is a highly-respected admin; maybe I am too soft... JohnCD (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I maybe should have used {{db-vandalism}} and left a note on the talk page to indicate that I was seeing more than neologism. —teb728 t c 22:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, maybe. Uncle G points out on my talk page this was probably one kid getting at another, so G10 would have done. JohnCD (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you declined a G12 speedy on this article since the source was GFDL licensed and thought you should know that we haven't been able to use that license since Nov. 1, 2008. You can read Wikipedia:Licensing update for all of the gory details. Now we can accept CC-BY-SA and similar licenses, but even those require proper attribution which this article lacked, and so if the source used an acceptable license then attribution should have been added when the speedy deletion was declined. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS

Hello again! We have some neat updates about the Teahouse:

• We’ve added badges! Teahouse awards is a pilot project to learn how acknowledgement impacts engagement and retention in Teahouse and Wikipedia.

• We’ve got a new WikiLove Badge script that makes giving badges quick and easy. Add it here. You can give out badges to thank helpful hosts, welcome guests, acknowledge great questions and more.

• Come join the experiment and let us know what you think!

• And...for all of your great work and all of the progress that you've helped the Teahouse make, we hereby award you the Host Badge:

	Teahouse Host Badge
	Awarded to hosts at the Wikipedia Teahouse. Experienced editors with this badge have committed to welcoming guests, helping new editors, and upholding the standards of the Teahouse by giving friendly and patient guidance—at least for a time. Hosts illuminate the path for new Wikipedians, like Tōrō in a Teahouse garden. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here

Thanks again! Ocaasi 01:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TEB728, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Soldaten reisen nach wales, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: It is in German - G1 is not for material not in English. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 18:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am well aware that it is German. That doesn't mean it is not incoherent text. Translated to English it means roughly, "The soldiers traveled to Wales because they do not want to hassle with their parents. They were whipped and therefore they went to Wales." G1 is not for "coherent non-English material", but this is not coherent material. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before further removing speedy tags. —teb728 t c 18:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TEB728, When the non-English material is something you know to be incoherent then I'd suggest a prod or explaining that in the speedy tag. If you tag a non-English article as G1 without indicating that you've translated it then you rather risk people lumping your tag in with those speedy deletion taggers who make the common mistake of assuming that simply not being written in English is a valid reason for speedy deletion. ϢereSpielChequers 19:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been an exciting year for the Teahouse and you were a part of it. Thanks so much for visiting, asking questions, sharing answers, being friendly and helpful, and just keeping Teahouse an awesome place. You can read more about the impact we're having and the reflections of other guests and hosts like you. Please come by the Teahouse to celebrate with us, and enjoy this sparkly cupcake badge as our way of saying thank you. And, Happy Birthday!

	Teahouse First Birthday Badge
	Awarded to everyone who participated in the Wikipedia Teahouse during its first year! To celebrate the many hosts and guests we've met and the nearly 2000 questions asked and answered during this excellent first year, we're giving out this tasty cupcake badge. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges

--Ocaasi and the rest of the Teahouse Team 22:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bat Creek Exam 5-28-10.JPG is being used at Bat Creek inscription. If you look at the recent edit[1] there's a dispute as to how this should be credit. I don't know who is right here but I'm of the opinion that credits should be as unobtrusive as possible and can't find clear guidance on this. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ukexpat is absolutely right: Per WP:CREDITS we don't put photo credits in articles (except in an exceptional case where the credit has encyclopedic significance. —teb728 t c 00:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TEB728; I'm sorry, but I'm getting slowly but surely quite angry: What the hell is this? I'm a relatively new user, and just had the exhilarating experience of creating my first article .. then bam "speedy delete".. what? So an admin thinks my contribution is unworthy; I thought Wikipedia is a place for *everybody* to contribute. But it seems that new comers have to beg admins *not* to delete there stuff. I don't get this .. I don't vandalize or don't write about a political issue; it's simply about software. But I got a feeling the contributing to Wikipedia is actually more pain then pleasure. Can somebody explain to me why my article was tagged for a speedy delete? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsk81 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hsk81. Yes, Wikipedia is a place where almost anybody can contribute (subject to some limitations like all content must be verifiable by reference to published reliable sources). But not all subjects are acceptable. For one thing a subject must be notable: A subject may be notable if it has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Software may also be notable if it satisfies the notability standard for software. As far as I can tell your editor is not notable by either standard. Indeed, your article gives no indication of why the editor is important or significant at all, and that is why it was tagged for speedy deletion. (Begging an admin not to delete it would do no good.)

BTW, I happened to notice that you posted something to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/NoTex. This is not a page that anybody is apt to look at; I noticed your post only because I had to go to your contributions to find out which article had been nominated for speedy deletion. If you want to discuss the nomination for deletion, you should go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NoTex (without talk). Describe there how your editor satisfies WP:GNG and/or WP:NSOFTWARE. Good luck —teb728 t c 01:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You just beat me to the punch on replacing that removed speedy on Fernando henrique de oliveira. Keep fighting the good fight! Ducknish (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined your speedy as the article is (unfortunately) about the game not the company (which appears to have been founded by a 14 year old). (OK, Mozart was notable at that age, but...) I've prodded it instead. You're welcome to add a prod2 if you like. Peridon (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have been more explicit about this article which had multiple problems and had been tagged for lack of notability and autobiography and prodded for BLP before I saaw it.

• I did not feel that the unsourced information showed that he met the prof test for reasons that I'll return to below
• You are right that unsourced BLP is not a reason for deletion, but I added that tag to indicate a further problem.
• Research Impact appears to be promotional, especially when it is in what appears to be an autobiography. Other unsourced claims presented as fact include: leading... major conferences... featured in major newspapers...
• Even his claim of notability rests on simple counts in Google Scholar and other search engines. There is no indication of why any any of his writings have had any impact. It's as if a biography of Einstein just said "he wrote some papers in 1905 and 1915", without bothering to tell us what they are about. We have a list of journals referred to only by cryptic initials, and his claim of notability seems to be "I've written lots of stuff" without telling us what it is about.

To me, this is a self-serving autobiography by someone of no obvious notability. Having said that, if you want me to restore, of course I will do so, just let me know Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're pushing at an open door here. I said I was prepared to reinstate, and I have now done so. One reason I didn't get the recent vacancy in Rome is that I'm not infallible, cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:MISL-logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I was busy trying to find any other reference to his birthplace (with no success so far). Looks like the entry that you removed from the article was an assumption. Tonywalton ^Talk 22:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had tagged this article for deletion rather than simply redirecting because the article title Kareena Shahid Kapoor is not a valid redirect to the Kareena Kapoor article. There is no indication that Kareena Kapoor, even though married for a time to Shahid Kapoor, ever used the name "Kareena Shahid Kapoor". Making this redirect (especially since Kareena and Shahid are now divorced) might well be considered a BLP violation. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting the tag and adding an appropriate one for the page Rakesh Jain JRD Films, before it was too late ;). Ghorpaapi (talk) 10:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tshirtspot.com marked for speedy deletion. Explain the difference from this article talking about the printing process and customink or BlueCtton.com that's promoting them selves. Just trying to understand - thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dginnett (talk • contribs) 22:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BlueCotton.com has now been nominated for speedy deletion; thank you for pointing them out. CustomInk was not nominated, perhaps because the company has received significant coverage in the Washington Post and the Washingtonian. (Your coverage in PRWeb doesn't count because it is not an independent reliable source; they allowed you to write it yourself.) The CustomInk article does need a little cleanup to remove promotional content; Wikipedia does not welcome promotional content. —teb728 t c 23:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TEB728, You may wish to see the latest self-advertising from EdVanzd on both the We Were Soldiers article and his own Talk page - he has also commented on my own talk page. This appears to me to yet another effort at self advertising: his credit is 21st on the official cast list, yet wanted to place his name as 6th!! If this carries on, what do you advise? Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: he has now placed his name at the bottom of the cast list - where it should be! I am still concerned that the Wikipedia article about him appears to be totally written as a self-advertisement. Your advice/action would be appreciated. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for advice, the present state doesn't particularly bother me. As for action, there is nothing I could do that you couldn't do. —teb728 t c 06:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know summary it is not needed to "give an explanation" if the editor supplying BLP sources is not article creator, is it? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, but then nothing prevents someone from restoring a speedy tag if it is not clear why it was removed; so as with all edits an edit summary is a good idea. —teb728 t c 05:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The No Spam Barnstar
	Wonderful at identifying un-needed articles! AppleJack 7 02:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Summation. You're clearly ignorant of Indian culture. The article needs a good editor, try to be one, not a judgemental bigot. // FrankB 05:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CSD#G11. There is a consensus that “Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic” may be speedily deleted. Do you deny that as written this article is “exclusively promotional”? You say you “agree the article needs rewritten”; do you agree that that it needs to be “fundamentally” rewritten? That does not mean that Sugandha Kalamegham is not worthy of an article in Wikipedia, but as nearly as I can tell, the article as it is presently written is not a start of an acceptable article. Since you appear to be familiar with her, perhaps you could start a good article about her or at least cut the page back to a decent stub.

Although I thank you for your feedback, I urge you to read and take to heart WP: No personal attacks and WP: Assume good faith. —teb728 t c 07:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In case you are wondering, I didn't retag the article for speedy deletion. Another editor tagged it as a copyright violation, and an admin deleted it as both promotional and a copyright violation. So I am not the only one who thought in its present form it should be speedily deleted. This doesn't prevent you from creating an article about her. —teb728 t c 08:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Be advised you Wikilawyers have ruined the project for the average contributor. Play your power games and cite your massive overbearing bunches of rules all you want, all that tells me is you have your head up your ass. Speedy deleting such a start is a very disrespectful act. Even thinking about it means you are someone who needs to leave the project. An AFD in the old days would have brought out people to fix that up, I saw it many a time. Speedy Deleting anything that isn't is arrant nonsense is inappropriate overreaction-why not use a sledgehammer to crack an egg? What damage does such do, how many people (other than wastrels with too much time on their hands able to patrol new pages?) would even see that page? You don't like it fine. Start a text file and check back in a month. Not be an irresponsible jerk.
• The project is way overloaded with rules these days, and with a cabal of self-aggrandizing immature self-appointed policers who make it hostile to try to add and improve content. W:IAR is always forgotten by you Wikilawyers, but next to the five principles, one of the more important rules. Where was there a personal attack, btw? Telling you the fact that you were clearly ignorant of Indian Culture--is a personal attack? Oh HO! Your precious self-image doesn't like considering that you are acting as a bigot! Well, you are and were. If a cabal of you agreed, you are all guilty of intolerance. You clearly don't realize how arrogantly narrow your own focus is for the topic of that article is very very important to some classes of Indian Culture, and the article as it was is about a diva along the same lines of reputation as Madonna or Angelina Jolie or other such notables in Western Cultures. The Indian nation outnumbers the USA population+Great Britain by what, 3:1? What you guys did is pounce on a new article before giving it a chance to be developed to that overbearing user unfriendly state you imagine everything instantly began as here. It didn't. I was here a bit before you, likely a year as an anom, so climb off the high horse and be an editor. // FrankB 18:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you dont agree with the speedy deletion policy, the place to express your opinion is on the policy talk page, Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Ranting on my talk page is a waste of effort.

Better yet, since you seem to be knowlegible of Sugandha Kalamegham, why don't you create an article about her yourself? The speedy deletion does not prevent you (or someone else) from doing that. —teb728 t c 23:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

actually i have no idea how to put a tag for the picture I'm talking about jennifer lopez article - Como Ama una Mujer - the art work picture cd booklet image

so help me please and by the way i treid to see on wiki about images tags etc... but im still lost kind of . --sola$$$$$$$$ (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The portrait part of the photo is “non-free” in the sense that it does not have a license that allows reuse by anyone for anything. Wikipedia has a policy of restricting the use of non-free content. One of the restrictions is that multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. The article already contains the cover, File:Como Ama una Mujer.png. (The use of this cover is acceptable because it visually identifies the subject of the article.) I am sorry to say that the use of your booklet and case photo does not add enough additional value to overcome the policy.

Although your upload will be deleted, let me tell you for future reference what generally is needed: Look at File:Como Ama una Mujer.png. It contains:

• a non-free use rationale explaining how the use conforms to the non-free content policy. The {{album cover fur}} template was used for this rationale.
• a {{non-free album cover}} tag, identifying the photo as a non-free album cover.

The reason for the restrictions on non-free content it that Wikipedia has a goal of producing reusable content. And the use of non-free content in an article restricts the reusability of the article.

I hope this helps you understand. —teb728 t c 23:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TEB728. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of World Trade Center Tacoma, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The user you said created the article didn't. Thank you. w^{L<speak·check>} 01:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you reconsider: The original author, User:WTCTA was indef blocked for a promotional username and so could not request deletion under that username. Then the user registered User:Tacoma World Trade Center, which also was indef blocked for a promotional username. I think it is obvious that User:Sooffee is the same person. Certainly if the accounts were used deceptively, the single purpose activity would be strong evidence of sockpuppetry. —teb728 t c 02:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll look into it, and block and speedy delete the article based on that block if necessary. --w^{L<speak·check>} 02:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I CSD'd the article under no assertion of notability. As far as the new user is concerned, he only used it because he can't use WTCTA, he hasn't broken any other policy so far, but keep an eye on him. --w^{L<speak·check>} 02:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly they are only here to promote themselves. Ramesh has already had his userpage deleted once, and it is simply a copy of a page about him that was already G7/G11 deleted. And the constant removal of speedy tags by both is an indication that they are only here to promote themselves as non-notable "politicians". Harry the Dog WOOF 11:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the pages are so blatently promotional (if they are promotional at all) that G11 would apply. If you disagree, nominate them at MFD. —teb728 t c 11:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The mainspace articles were deleted under A7 not G11. Deletion under A7 was certainly appropriate for no importance was asserted, but importance is not required for a userpage. —teb728 t c 11:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manavatha (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)t[reply] 

sir, I received your message that orphaned non free content files will be deleted after seven days. Then i tried to move the non-free content files to related articles and removed the deletion template. but it came to know that the other users do not feel it necessary so they remove the files.hence i request you to delete the 6 non free content files. talk page. Manavatha (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you inform me how to edit this page to conform to your suggested tags of COI and Autobiographical.

I am a research PHD student in 20th Century British Textile Designers and Midlands Industry and have been completeing a research project on Jacquard Textile weaving when I was pointed to the Tibor Reich archive available at Leeds University and the V&A, London and was perplexed that no wikipedia page was written, so decided to write one, whilst also contacting his estate for more information.

Please point us in the right direction as how to make this page more neutral as being a historian this 'neutrality' often is not factored into our academic articles. I made the Wikipedia username TiborReich, so clearly it is not him seeing as he passed away in 1996. Please see his obituary in Observer and Guardian Newspaper for more information or the academic article, written about him for the Textile Institute, (Tiborreich (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

Hi, I actually tried to create the Malayalam wiki-article ml:സ്റ്റീൽ ആൻഡ്‌ ഇന്റസ്റ്റ്രിയൽ ഫോർജിങ്ങ്സ് ലിമിറ്റഡ്. I'm sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vipinkumartvla (talk • contribs) 09:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The file actually IS in Commons, under a more proper name, File:James Sinclair, 14th Earl of Caithness.jpg.--The Theosophist (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In that case use {{Now Commons}}. The Wikipedia file clearly does not qualify for deletion under F2, but it may qualify under F8. {{Db-fpcfail}} is for the case where someone has mistakenly added wikicode on Wikipedia to a Commons image. —teb728 t c 20:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Woooops, very sorry about that.... Twinkle can be deceptive sometimes.--The Theosophist (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TEB728. I am just letting you know that I deleted Kshitij Tarey, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. GedUK  11:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello — Could you take a look at an anomalous new page?

Although the subpage feature is supposed to be disabled for the article mainspace, new user Harekrishna2010 has managed to create a mainspace subpage, probably by accident, at User/Harekrishna2010/signbox. This is the page you recently declined to delete under WP:A1 because A1 does not apply to user pages. Note that it's not a user-space page, it's a subpage of the article User. I'm not sure if a mainspace subpage needs to be addressed as an English Wikipedia configuration error.  Unician ∇  07:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On further reading, it may be that the language about subpages being disabled under article mainspace is trying to say that, in the title of a mainspace article, a slash character is acceptable but is treated as an ordinary character. If so, then this is a minor documentation shortcoming rather than a Wikipedia mis-configuration, and the newly-created page can be speedily deleted under either of the criteria suggested by other editors.  Unician ∇  07:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out my misreading of the page name; I'll have to be more careful about that in the future.

I think your second interpretation of subpages is correct. That explains why it doesn't have a link to a parent page in the upper left. —teb728 t c 07:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you just told me not to CSD tag non-english articles. However another admin deleted a page for the same reason just now. What is the correct procedure? NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 10:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope they didn't delete it only because it was non-English. It's OK to tag and delete for one of the reasons at WP:CSD.

Was the deleted article J&J Band? That was a Romanian article about a non-notable band. I posted a Google translation on the talk page and tagged the article for A7. It was deleted on that ground.

What I did with our Kannanda article was: I learned from Google translate that they were writing about St. Aloysius College (Mangalore); so I redirected that article.

If there is nothing wrong with an article beside that it is not English, you tag it {{Not English}} and list it at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. —teb728 t c 10:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nah it wasn't J&J Band, thanks for the clarification. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 11:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This revert How is this relevant? There are many, many categories that contain album redirects and thousands of such redirects categorized. Additionally, there are dozens of CfDs about this. I don't follow. Please use {{Ping}} and respond here. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: Please read Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects. “Redirects aren't articles and most shouldn't be categorized as such.” Redirects are placed in article categories only in unusual circumstances, like for alternative names for articles. Your album is not like that: it is just an album which is not significant enough to have its own article. The fact that Other stuff exists is no reason to categorize this redirect in violation of the guideline; it just means that some people are not following the guideline. —teb728 t c 10:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS refers to deletion discussions. It is still the case that most redirects shouldn't be categorized alongside articles as most redirects are variant names/spellings/etc. One thing that is for sure is that you are not supposed to manually empty categories in order to have them deleted. If you think these redirects should be deleted, propose it at WP:RfD, if you think they shouldn't be categorized alongside fully-fledged album articles, then propose that somewhere else. In the meantime, there is ample precedent extending several years that redirects for albums should be categorized the same as albums are. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually WP:INCOMPATIBLE, which is on the page you linked is exactly what I was saying before. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: INCOMPATIBLE applies where the redirected topic receives actual coverage in the target article. For example, 24 Hours (newspaper) is as much about the French (24 Heures (newspaper)) as the English editions. But Erin McCarley does not give real coverage to Love, Save the Empty. Coverage for an album would include sourced commentary on things like production or critical response or maybe cover art. The article does mention the album title several times, but mostly as a stage in her career or as an item in her discography. The album page was converted to a redirect because the album fails WP:NALBUMS; in other words, coverage for the album simply doesn't exist. The redirect doesn’t qualify under INCOMPATIBLE.

You seem to fantasize that I removed the categories in order to empty one of the categories. If that had been my intent, I would have removed only one category not all. My intent was that this redirect is not an article and like most redirects shouldn't be categorized as such. As for your RfD, I am totally mystified by mention of that; I have no wish to delete this useful redirect—I just don’t think it should be categorized as though it were an article. —teb728 t c 21:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing INCOMPATIBLE above gives as a for-instance "a sketch comedy television show whose name exists on Wikipedia as a redirect to the comedy troupe that created it". This is fairly equivalent to the example we have here: media made by someone. I don't know what you think constitutes sufficient coverage or where you're getting that standard but it's not listed there. Why do you think this is insufficient? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for tagging both these pages for speedy deletion. Wanted to let you know Patrick Calvar was correctly tagged A1 by you, and by a slip of the mouse I accidentally deleted it as an A3. MV Peacock was also deleted as an A1 but could just as easily have been G1, which you tagged it as - it would depend on the academic exercise of determining if the use of KKK was supposed to suggest a link with that organisation or was simply random letters.

Just explaining myself in case my logic seemed hard to fathom. Euryalus (talk) 02:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TEB728 Thank you for your contributions. Wikipedia appreciates your help. Your recent edit here does not appears contructive to me. You seemed to had removed a deletion tag from the article without addressing the issue concern. Translating the insignificant short content does not address the CSD. If you are interested in the article you may work on it through your sandbox and pass through the AFC but certainly not on the main space. I want to let you know that I will re-tag the article for speedy deletion.cheers Wikicology (talk) 11:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikicology:I did address the concern: WP:A1 is for "Articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article." Latvijas Dzelzceļa kauss is clearly about a traditional international hockey tournament; so A1 is not appropriate. Perhaps I should have addressed that in the edit summary.

The article still needs work, including moving to an English title, but it is not eligible for speedy deletion under A1.

TEB728 an article below a stub-class meet A1 CSD. The article in its current state is below a stub-class. But you are welcome to improve it to a Stub class. Wikicology (talk) 12:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikicology: That’s not what A1 says: Please read WP:A1. It says nothing about “below stub-class” (whatever that may mean). WP:Stub deals at length with what may be too much for stub class, but so far as I can see, it says nothing about what may be too little. If you want to change the standard to include something about articles below stub-class, you should propose it at WP:CSD.

I will grant you that A7 may have appropriate for this article but not A1. —teb728 t c 20:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TEB728 you need to read more about WP:CSD. Before then let me quickly enlight you on the usage of A1. WP:A1 is used for article lacking sufficient context. Which means article lacking significant information to acertain its important. Am glad to let you know that the article was speedy deleted per WP:A1 here cheers. Wikicology (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikicology: I have raised your issue at WT:CSD#A1 clarification requested. Let’s see what the community consensus is.

As for WP:CSD, I studied it thoroughly in March 2012 and since then have made well over a thousand speedy deletion nominations—284 just this month (so far). So I understand CSD pretty well. One of the things I understand is that the criteria mean what they say and are not to be interpreted liberally (for example by changing “sufficient context to identify the subject of the article” to “significant information to acertain its important,” which is a very different thing.

But you want me to read more about WP:CSD: So what specifically do you want me to read? —teb728 t c 05:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicology, Teb wrongly titled the section "clarification requested". There is no clarification needed. Your version (below stub) is what we like to call "making stuff up." There is no possible way that "unable to determine the subject of the article" means "short article that I don't like."

You are further wrong for reverting TEB. Any editor can remove a speedy deletion tag, and once done, it may not be put back. So, you were 100% wrong on two counts.

I suggest you stop speedy deleting pages for a while until you actually understand the process. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, {{trout}} for deleting it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I appreciates Oiyarbepsy contributions on this issue. I also commend TEB728 efforts in bringing this into discussion as this will have a profound effects in our use of CSD. I want us to realize that Experience come into play when we learn from mistakes, having known that mistake is inevitable in life. Wikipedia veterans may sometimes commit a serious blunder you least expected of an autocomfirm users ( for example in the case of this deletion by a sysop) . This had not make them incompetent, but failure to learn from such mistake prove them incompetent. I also want to mention that the article in question is not the first I had ever tag for speedy deletion, if I had had been commiting series of blunders, I would have gotten hundreads of warning. From my WP:NPOV, I don't think this mistake should restrict me from tagging article that actually meet CSD for deletion. I want to also use this medium to apologize to my friend TEB728, accept my unreserve apology on the above notes. Thanks.Wikicology (talk) 07:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sabri brothers india is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabri brothers india until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.. BMIComp 11:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is about the speedy deletion tag you reinserted here. Before reinserting a speedy tag, please ensure that you personally would stand behind the speedy deletion request. In this case, the article was previously deleted as a CSD-A7, and is not eligible for speedy deletion; the original removal of the tag by an unregistered user was quite correct in this particular case. I've declined the speedy, but if you still feel that the article should be deleted for other policy-based reasons, please start an AfD. Risker (talk) 05:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I've just discussed this further with another editor, who has identified the key AfD relating to this; the article had a different title at the AfD so that would not have shown up using a template to create the CSD tag. In short, the policy-based reason was identified, and the article is now deleted. Risker (talk) 05:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker: Yes, and the speedy deletion nomination had a link to the AfD under the previous title. In any case I accept your apology. —teb728 t c 05:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the speedy tag had a link to the deletion history only, apparently despite your best effort to link to the AfD under the previous title. The template doesn't link to a discussion even if one is included in the tag, it links to the deletion history. That is why the speedy was declined. Risker (talk) 06:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC) Oh good grief. The discussion /is/ linked, just in a weird place, you're right. How unhelpful. We really need to simplify these templates. Risker (talk) 06:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]