Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:26, 27 October 2009

Wait! Are you here because your article was speedy deleted? Click here before leaving a message to find out why.

If you place a comment/question in my Talk page, I will respond here. If I placed a note in your Talk page I will be monitoring it for a short while so you can respond there. This helps keep the thread readable and in one place.

Vandalism

I just got several messages about me vantalizing pages that I'd never visited or even clicked the edit button on. What's going on? How can my IP adress be vandalizing pages i've never visited? Please do not blame me for any vandalism that occurs in the the future, as I do not have anythign to do with it. Also, if you could help explain what is going on, that would be great. Thanks, 67.106.160.122 (talk) 00:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What happens is that you are sharing your IP Address. It does not belong to you but to XO Communications in Herndon, VA, USA. Whenever you come in, your system grabs one of their assigned IP addresses from a pool. Therefore some other people have been using it also, unfortunately some of them do things that harm Misplaced Pages. I would suggest you create an account if you want to avoid this problem in the future. -- Alexf 11:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

171.64.44.60 (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of William Grassie

Dear Alexf,

I noticed recently that my Misplaced Pages page was deleted by you.

22:50, 25 August 2008 Alexf (talk | contribs) deleted "William Grassie" ‎ (A7 (bio): Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a real person)

So I am a real person and you will find a now broken link to my name under Metanexus Institute (I am the founder). Importance or significance is difficult to judge. I am essayist of some renown. I have an interesting background in peace work in the 1980s. I have taught at Temple University, the University of Pennsylvania, and Swarthmore College. My first book, The New Sciences of Religion, will be published in 2010.

Thank you for un-deleting my my Wiki page. While someone else created the page, I had hoped to update it.

Sorry no haiku...

Be well, Billy

Grassie (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems you do not understand Misplaced Pages when you talk about your page as there is no such thing. All pages are public. Also you mention that importance or significance is difficult to judge. Not so as Misplaced Pages's rules for notability are very clear. Sorry that there is now a broken link but that is immaterial to the encyclopedia. Also please read about conflicts of interest and autobiographies. I think these pages will help you understand what the encyclopedia is about. -- Alexf 21:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I have stuck a {{Prod}} on Metanexus Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) because it totally lacks any WP:RS coverage, just dead links and links to its own website. <Sigh!> Happy Editing! — 141.156.161.245 (talk · contribs) _{20:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)}

Patrick Arundell

I declined the speedy on this article because, after a google search, I thought the claim that he was published in multiple newspapers was likely to be verifiable. You chose to delete it anyway. Do you not think it would be courteous to at least to have informed me you were going to do this, even if you were not prepared to listen to my opinion. I'm sure I don't have to remind you what wheel-warring means. SpinningSpark 12:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I missed your decline. Saw the previous deletion yesterday. Saw the article has no merit IMO. Not only no refs whatsoever, but an astrologer? Would have to have really good sourcing for him to be notable at all IMO. Not interested in wheel-warring over this anyway so if you think it is warranted, go ahead and restore. I don't think he's notable. -- Alexf 14:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to restore and be seen to be warring over this. If you agree you made a wrong call you should self-revert. I think you also need reminding of some of the speedy rules. These are strictly limited for good reasons:

• Article has "no merit" in your opinion is not grounds for speedy.
• Subject is not, or might not be, notable is not grounds for speedy. A7 requires only that the article makes a credible claim of significance or importance. This is a lesser requirement than notabilty. The article claims publication in over 200 media and I verified by google that he at least has some publications. This makes it a credible claim.
• Likewise, lack of referencing is not grounds for speedy, you might get it through an AfD for that, but not speedy. In any case I think the AfD would probably say that references are available and so call it keep.
• The previous speedy delete was G12 copyvio and the article you deleted is not the same. If G12 still applies then that is a different situation, but you deleted for A7.
• There is no policy against astrologers. There is especially no grounds for speedy delete of astrology articles. I am not a fan of astrology or any of the pseudo-sciences and if Misplaced Pages had a policy against them I would go without sleep for a week personally deleting every last one of them. However, that is not the case, and you cannot use admin powers to keep it out.

Have you ever read Ten Commandments for Speedy Deletion, you might find it informative. SpinningSpark 16:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. Had not read SoWhy's reasonings page. Did now. Article restored. -- Alexf 17:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll go harass the creator to put in some references. SpinningSpark 17:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Cavite Football Association (CAFA)

Dear Alexf,

I was the one who made the article on Cavite Football Association (CAFA). Please help me legitimize my article because the whole organization believes that wikipedia can help educate readers about the organization. I am currently the president of CAFA and wish to extend my gratitude to you in advance in helping me post the article.

Thank you very much.

Best Regards,

Perry P. Camba —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppcamba (talk • contribs) 06:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

All you need to do is to read the notability rules, and please don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes at the end. -- Alexf 08:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Please restore Objective Corporation

Hello Alex,

I realise that our wikipedia entry was deleted as it was essentially a stub. We would like to restore the page so that we can include relevant facts about the company and who it is. The company relates to a number of other specific links on wikipedia in realation to the industry in which we operate 'Enterprise Content Management'. We are linked to a number of these sites, so wish to update the content of the page so that it is in line with wikipedia content requirements.

Objective_Corporation

Many thanks Paula Walker

(203.26.11.62 (talk) 22:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC))

Seems that you have a Conflict of Interest. Have you read the business FAQ? -- Alexf 01:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate the conflict of interest and have reviewed the Business FAQ, i do however still think that it is reasonable to restore Objective, in light of other organisations that are similar to us that have pages i.e.

Tower_Software

Open_Text_Corporation

I have similar content and facts that i would like to share with the wikipedia community, as these existing pages.

Thanks Paula

(203.26.11.62 (talk) 02:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC))

Article restored. You need to assert notability though reliable sources. -- Alexf 10:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I've started a WP:FLAG-INC review of Objective Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) … Other stuff exists is not good enough … I may WP:PROD it in a few days if there's no 3rd party WP:RS coverage to establish WP:CORP. — 141.156.161.245 (talk) _{15:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)}

That is fine. I was thinking along those terms too. Meaning Prod and OSE. -- Alexf 15:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, it's been 48 hours since restoration, and it hasn't been touched, so I stuck a {{Prod}} on it. <Sigh!> — 141.156.161.245 (talk) _{20:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)}

User:72.75.91.179/sandbox

Hello, Alexf …

Thnx fer zapping this old sandbox from a previous IP account (2008-08-07 to 2008-08-26) … just wanted to ping ya with an Attaboy! fer yer due diligence. :-)

Happy Editing! — 141.156.161.245 (talk · contribs) _{14:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)}

Lothian Buses

Thanks for helping us deal with the vandal on this page. God knows what Lothian Buses have ever done to the vandal, but they seem to have a real axe to grind with the company. Just wish they'd keep Misplaced Pages out of it! Thanks again --5 albert square (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

Dear Alexf, You have blocked me for "vandalism". I cannot understand why you would want to do this. Please unblock as soon as possible. MMcC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hichamelguerrouj (talk • contribs) 12:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Your account is not blocked. You must be mistaken. If any other account was blocked (and there are many), the block notice always contains instructions on how to properly request an unblock. -- Alexf 12:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

G12 Deletion of the Poietics article page

Hello Mr. Administrator Alexf !

Greetings! I must say it's rather difficult to get the hang of all the procedure necessary to approach an administrator for consideration of what an author-user deems is "hasty" or "unjustifiable" deletion of an article.

From your declaration in the deletion-log, I take it you were first alerted by the "First Page Patroller" Salif to effect a speedy deletion owing to what he considered copyright violation.

I followed the procedure required to email all concerned (please see my talk page)in order to clear all doubts about who the copyright owner is or may be.

Yes, I used text from two different books I have published on "Poietics": one a Mobipocket eBook and another printed book available on the Internet. See please Amazon.com

In other words, the text I used is mine all the way. I made this clear in "My Talk" directed at Salif. You'll agree one can't steal one's property from oneself nor plagiarise one's copy/text.

Even if my Username is "Kangesh", the name of the author of both the books is one and the same, that is, "T.Wignesan".

On October 6 last, Misplaced Pages authenticated the identity of "Kangesh" as "T.Wignesan" through contact with my email address and which is (address removed to protect privacy).

Given the above explanation, I would like to know why my article may not be reinstated as a Misplaced Pages page since it deals with a subject of research that is hardly ever discussed in far-flung academic circles but which constitutes an entire domain of research in France where I have been an academic.

If you surfed the major search engines like Google or Yahoo (in English or French) with the word "poietics", you'll see that my work: books and journal - takes the primal place as a reference to the subject. I'm not making an attempt to vaunt my products. On the contrary, you asked for some reference in the matter.

Looking forward to reading you soon and with every good wish.

Sincerely,

T.Wignesan Kangesh (talk) 05:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Wignesan. I went back to take a look and the article was correctly removed due to copyright issues. Does the original site say it is in the Public Domain or has a GFDL or CC-BY-SA license? Please read Misplaced Pages:Copyright violations if you haven't. It explains what to do in your case. As per the article, be advised that even if it were reinstated after solving the copyright issue, it most probably would be tagged - as is - for notability issues. As for your comments on being "rather difficult" to approach admins. Not at all. The way to deal with speedy deletion issues is to place a "hangon" tag before the article gets deleted and explain your reasoning. Then there is of course asking the people involved in their Talk pages as you have done or of course there is always a last resort at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. Also please read the pages on Conflicts of Interest. Lastly, it is generally not a good idea to display your email address in public places, unless you like spambots to collect it, so I masked it in your message. Take care. -- Alexf 11:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Alexf !

Thanks very much for coming back to me on the question of the deletion of my article on "Poietics". I have read the relevant passages on "copyright" and "notability" issues of your esteemed encyclopaedia, and I must admit I was not in possession of the body of rules and safeguards employed by the managers in this regard. There's just far too much to read and digest before one can get an idea of the restrictions imposed. In any case, it doesn't matter to me at all - I mean personally - if my article does not see the day in your columns. I just happened to surf your pages when I thought on the spur of the moment that it might have been a good idea to introduce the subject to your readers. I note however that you have included a request in Google for such an article, which means, if I'm not mistaken, there's a "call" for such material, similar to my own sudden urge when I rolled out the blurb from my books. Please let me say however that, with regard to the "notability" charge, I might perhaps be able to lay claim to the following: 1. That my two books on the subject are the first to appear in English; 2. That my bi-lingual (English-French) "Journal of Comparative Poietics" (which I founded and edited) is/was the only journal in English on the subject; the calibre of the contributors is irreproachable. 3. That my book: "Poietics: Disquisitions on the Art of Creation" elicited a flattering review. See please http://www.adamdonaldsonpowell.com/wignesan.html (I can assure you the critic's no relation of mine.) On the question of being a notable author: no, I'm of course NOT, but I do have a corpus as variable in genre as any in the metier, I should think. If you are still interested in seeing an article on the subject displayed on your site, I might give it a try, but, let's say, I'm not excessively brimming with enthusiasm after all these "rejection slips". Nice talking to you. Every good wish. Sincerely, Kangesh (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC) T.Wignesan

Laris Gaiser

hi. I do not agree on deleting Laris Gaiser. Sorry.Is it possible to recall? he is influent thinker Tito77 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.143.71.30 (talk) 12:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The article went through a full week of PROD with no objections. It failed notability requirements. Being an "influential thinker" is not enough. You need to support notability with reliable sources. It could be userfied if you are willing to do the work, and if you had an account. Also, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes. Thank you. -- Alexf 12:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Countryboyjohn

A month ago, you warned Countryboyjohn (talk · contribs) about creating hoax articles on albums. Guess what he's doing again. Dear Mother and Greatest Hits (Chris Cagle album) are both blatant hoaxes and need to be flushed ASAP. I would say that the user is most likely a candidate for indef-block, since all most of his contribs were blatant hoaxes. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 18:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• P. S. 71.125.113.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) seems to be an IP sock of the same user. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 19:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Poke. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 18:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't have the time to investigate today. Very busy now. Please report to AIV if warranted. Thanks! -- Alexf 19:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Anglican International School, Jerusalem

Hi, I've just recreated Anglican International School, Jerusalem which you once deleted for a copyvio. The page is a redirect to Church's Ministry Among Jewish People, the organisation that operates the school. There's a lot of associated history so IMO it is notable. I hope this is OK with you. Sidefall (talk) 11:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not what's OK with me but with Misplaced Pages's policies. -- Alexf 16:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

high- temperature collectors

I was not ready to post that page, I thought it was still in my sandbox. Could you please copy paste all that information including the codes back into my sandbox? thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartychick (talk • contribs) 18:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It's been already done. You marked the page for deletion yourself. It was routinely done. Why place a speedy tag on a page you don't think should be deleted? Baffled. -- Alexf 19:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey there -- re: deleting my article/page (Alan Aspri)

Hey there,

I've been contacting with some agents, and film producers as well as some colleagues who are all interested in a mini biography on me. Hence the reason I created a wikipedia page of my own, so it would be easy and accessible for the many interested in some of my screenplays I have written and complied.

I wish to have my page back even for just a week or so, so I don't have to go through the hassle of making a website just for some biographical information, or through a Facebook Fan Page (which to me doesn't look too professional, and isn't as accessible as on wikipedia).

If you could please just have my article posted back for a short period of time (a week would do), and I will be extremely grateful. This would mean an honest lot to me.

Thank you so very much for your time, and I hope to have my page back soon!

70.83.92.45 (talk) 13:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Alan Aspri

It seems you misunderstand the place. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a social network. If you want your own page for promotion purposes, maybe you could try your own website which will be more professional than Facebook as you said. -- Alexf 13:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of GlobalAir.com

I'm still new here so please bear with me. I recently had my first article on wikipedia called GlobalAir.com deleted for reason A7. I created this aviation page because I noticed wikipedia has several other aviation websites that are extremely similar to GlobalAir.com, a perfect example being AirNav. I have no problems with the GlobalAir.com wikipedia page being deleted if it is in fact against the rules of wikipedia, however what makes an equivilant website like AirNav ok? I would like to request therefore that AirNav be taken down from wikipedia under the same reasoning that was used for the GlobalAir.com website, reason A7. If I am incorrect in this request please leave me an explanation as to what makes an aviation resource ok to add and what makes it against the rules before I attempt to edit or add anymore pages in the aviation sections. Thanks! Flyguy088 (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

To answer your question, notability was not asserted. Even though your mentioning of another article in comparison should have no bearing on this case, as each article must live on its own merits for notability, this one was removed by an AfD consensus back in March and when recreated, notability was not shown this time either. It is your right to nominate the other article. In order for this one, or any other article, to survive it has to assert notability through independent reliable sources. -- Alexf 22:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh, that actually makes much more sense now! I was unaware of a previous consensus to have this removed from Misplaced Pages once before. As for AirNav I took your suggestion and nominated it for speedy deletion, and it was removed from it's own personal wiki page, but not from other areas of Misplaced Pages. Since this website was found to be against the rules of Misplaced Pages and shown to have no notability, would you please remove it from Template:US-airport since it appears to be under protection and uneditable to registered users. Thanks again for your explanation and your help with this matter. Flyguy088 (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Please undo a speedy delete

Please could you undo the speedy deletion of File talk:Royal Mail logo.PNG. It is not patent nonsense - the i in the logo does indeed appear to be wrong as it would appear there should be a line down the middle of it. (For example see this image). Yes the editor didn't put it very well and may even have not put their comment in the right place (I'm no files expert) but it's not "Patent nonsense, meaningless, or incomprehensible". Dpmuk (talk) 12:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- Alexf 12:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. The edit notice for the talk page says that it's not the appropriate please to discuss improvement of the image - but it doesn't say where is and I'm having difficulty finding anywhere that says where the right place is. Do you know where the right place is? Dpmuk (talk) 12:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Not an expert on image space. Will have to look it up. -- Alexf 12:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

article about Akira Kosemura

You deleted this article with note "(Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)"

He is a famous composer and try to listen some of this songs in last.fm. Then you will wonder you did you delete this article. there are more then 244,000 plays of his tracks. Many people knows about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B kkn (talk • contribs) 09:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You seem not to understand Misplaced Pages's policies and rules. It is not what you or I think is important or significant but what asserts notability for people, by showing reliable sources. In this case please look up music composers/performers notability requirements. Also, please follow etiquette rules by by adding a red-link to deleted articles, as requested at the top of the edit window, and sign your posts by adding four tildes. Thank you. -- Alexf 11:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Business promotion accounts

Sorry, didn't know where to report it, and I'd seen the AIV page used for this before. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

No prob. -- Alexf 16:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Block of 76.91.152.248

I am surprised that 76.91.152.248 was blocked for only 31 hours. When you consider the previous blocks from when he/she edited from 76.172.176.45, it doesn't make sense. This person has been blocked five previous times and has come back each time and repeated the same edits that caused the block. This time, there's an additional issue of block evasion. (Am I supposed to report IP2 as a sock of IP1 somewhere?) Efforts to engage this editor in a discussion about why the edits are disruptive is useless; he/she doesn't respond. There's very little--or no--hope of redemption. Please increase the block to double the previous block, or at least something that gives me more than a day of peace! Thanks. — John Cardinal (talk) 09:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not see, or consider, the other IP. In any case generally the rule for an IP is a short block for the first time to let them reflect. Don't worry, the next block, if warranted will be longer, by any admin that applies it. -- Alexf 11:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The editor has moved to 216.100.93.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and is repeating the same edits. I will report on the vandal page, but he'll probably evade the block by going to another IP. Are there better alternatives? — John Cardinal (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing Vandalism there. Am I missing something? Toddst1 (talk) 22:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. This is not an example of someone adding nonsense or profanity to pages, but that doesn't mean it's not vandalism. The vandal makes incorrect edits, has been told why they are incorrect, but repeats them way beyond 3RR and has evaded blocks to keep redoing them. The editor continually changes articles against guidelines. From the current IP, he changed the content of the Sur la Mer uppercasing the "la". A small thing, except he's made that edit many times in the past. The first few times, the edit was reversed, and was told why it was lowercase. If you look at the edit history of the current IP you'll see that most (if not all) his edits have been reversed. If you ignore the undos I did, you'll see that other editors reversed his edits and may not have realized he was repeating vandalism edits he's done before--my point is, multiple editors are cleaning up after this person.

As another example, he adds "Album=" parameters to songs that were issued as singles only and then later included as bonus tracks on re-issue CDs. He's done that to at least 10 song articles, he was reverted by multiple editors, the rules were explained, but he keeps redoing the edits. He changes double-A side singles as if they were single-A sides. He changes the correct punctuation to incorrect punctuation. As far as I know, he's never responded via a talk page. He simply won't work collaboratively. He's been blocked multiple times, and he's evaded the last two blocks. We have rules, and he deserves to be banned. — John Cardinal (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

While you're right that these edits may be disruptive, they're not obviously WP:VAN and are frequently not blocked at WP:AIV which is more of a rapid response board for obvious vandals. A complex report about an IP hopping subtle disruptor like this might be more appropriate for WP:ANI. More info here.

Alex, if you're wondering why I'm answering this, it's a consolidation of a conversation that was split between here an my talk page about why I didn't block this IP when it was reported to AIV. Toddst1 (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Salt request

Hello again, Alexf … since Aqib Shah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been created 4 times by the same user in the past 48 hours, and keeps being deleted as WP:CSD#A7, I think it's time to WP:SALT it … after all, a WP:BLOCK of the user would just make them create a new account and keep trying … Happy Editing! — 138.88.125.101 (talk · contribs) _{17:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)}

 Done – Never mind … User:Ged UK already took care of it. :-) — 138.88.125.101 (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Called2Create

I have counseled Called2Create (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with respect to conflict of interest and created JustJoy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for them to use. I will monitor their editing. Fred Talk 23:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

My Friend

I wanted to Create a Page named Faculty of Medicine "José María Aguirre T-9" Matanzas Cuba which is about a Medical School of Pakistani Students in Cuba... I want to Create this Page to Provide Information to pakistan as well as the Whole world about our Program and Cuba to the Whole world... Will u help me Creating this Page??? can u tell me why it was deleted??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Shahid Alam (talk • contribs) 02:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The article was deleted, as it did not assert notability. How is it notable? If you cannot show it with reliable sources, and you hadn't up to that time, it had to go. Also, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes. Thank you. -- Alexf 03:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

More than happy to never tag a subjective CSD ever again

Hello--

I wanted to thank you for your time regarding this diff I quite shamefully tagged with an A7. Not for a minute do I doubt your call on it and I have no interest whatsoever on an AfD; there is a larger issue at hand regarding article creations by a few editors in particular that are always of the exact same format and have the same tags/objections raised each time... but of course every administrator makes a decision for different reasons so the results of the CSDs. In exchange for my sin, I can make a promise that I'll just not even try with subjective CSD tags, and go back checking for mass A7 taggings and the more straightforward categories. I happened to find out later that the football project has their own specific notability requirements. Confusing! I posted in the football project's main talk page asking about it. Cheers~ Datheisen (talk) 11:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)