Misplaced Pages

User talk:B. Wolterding

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gidonb (talk | contribs) at 23:39, 14 November 2007 (→Edward Top: wiki). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:39, 14 November 2007 by Gidonb (talk | contribs) (→Edward Top: wiki)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, B. Wolterding, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! 

Spam

Hi. You tagged Whole house fan as spam. It is not. A whole house fan is an appliance like an air conditioner or a water heater. You tagged Silicon Valley Power as spam. It is not. It is an appropriate article for Category:Power companies of the United States. It is inappropriate to tag such pages as spam and highly inappropriate to tag them for speedy deletion. When an article contains spam, it should be tagged with Template:Advert. Then the spam content can be removed. But the article itself is not under consideration for deletion. Thanks for helping to improve the Misplaced Pages. — Reinyday, 23:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability sorting

Hi! I noticed that you do quite a bit of sorting for WikiProject Notability and want to thank you for all your work, especially since you also specify a subject parameter (e.g., "Biographies"), which is especially helpful to new users. I am just writing to ask if would you also please specify a date parameter (in the form, e.g., {{notability|Biographies|date=May 2007}}), so that the articles are sorted into the monthly maintenance categories? Cheers, Black Falcon 18:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I was assuming that the date was automatically added by robot User:SmackBot every now and then. Actually that happened at least to some articles I edited. But you say that some of them were not updated? (Maybe only the more recent ones?) --B. Wolterding 19:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Yep, SmackBot does date them. It's a very minor issue really and the subject parameter is, of course, more important than the date ... adding the date parameter just reduces the lag time in subcategorising articles placed in Category:Misplaced Pages articles with topics of unclear importance. Cheers, Black Falcon 19:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks again for your participation in WikiProject Notability. Ran across several articles where you forgot to delete the 'notability' tag, which kept it on the project's to-do list after you had nominated it for deletion. Just a reminder to remember to do this. Thanks! Steve Carlson 08:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi! I usually keep the notability tag on the article until it actually gets deleted (or sorted otherwise). This prevents articles from just "falling of the list" in the case that for example a PROD is contested, but I didn't have hte article on my watchlist. --B. Wolterding 11:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
My opinion on this is that once we sort an article and add a {{db}} or {{prod}} tag, it becomes part of another process (speedy deletion, deletion) and the article appears on another list where it is handled by another segment of the community. Our function is to arbitrate cases where notability is contested and get them to the next step in the process. Once we have done that, I think the article should be taken off our to-do list. That's the way I read #6 here. Steve Carlson 20:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Mentoring

I realize that you are fairly new to WP and might like some help with your deletion projects. Normally, I am concerned about new volunteers getting overly involved in deletion, but you seem to be very conscientious and we could really use you your energy. I would be happy to help you anytime that you have a question regarding policies or guidelines. If I don't know the answer, I know the people who will. I should disclose that I am inclined toward finding alternatives to deletion for borderline topics, but I am not naive when it comes to getting rid of spam, vanity, and other crap. --Kevin Murray 19:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you; yes, there's indeed some point now and then where your assistance would be helpful. If I have a question, should I just post it to your talk page? --B. Wolterding 19:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, or feel free to email me if it is urgent. --Kevin Murray 02:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd hate to bring this up here, but since Kevin's understanding of policy and guidelines is fundamentally incorrect in several areas, you would be better off bringing your questions to the village pump, which was made precisely for these questions and gives you wider input, rather than one person's opinion. >Radiant< 11:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability project

Just wondering how this project exists. I am all for removing spam from wikipedia it is a good thing but if you keep deleting people's work your gonna get some opposition. Isn't your split second decision of notability a bit POV? Mikko Innanen is a noted saxophonist - copywright should be removed but not the entire article - leaving it as a stub with a brief rewritten summary would have been the right way to do it -it shows a complete lack of respect anyway that you don't contact the creator before systemically wiping out articles. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 21:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I actually did not list the article for speedy deletion because of notability issues (that would be against policy). I listed it because the initial version was a copyright infringement, uploaded by a single user, criterion G12. If you want to create a new version of the article without copyvio, you're welcome! --B. Wolterding 21:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


Sandhyavandanam

Please take a look at the input I have made at Talk:Mantra#merger:_Sandhyavandhanam and weigh in. Specifically, I found that the correct article was at Sandhyavandanam where I replaced the unsourced version with a sourced version that I just put together in trying to respond to the (mis-spelled) stub. Can you please weigh in on the need for merger at this point? My opinion is that we need both Mantra and Sandhyavandanam to remain, putting a redirect on Sandhyavandhanam to go to Sandhyavandanam. Buddhipriya 23:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Closing discussions properly

Hey, thank you for working really hard within WP:NN where I also participate. Just wanted to note that you didn't close this merger discussion formally, as advised ar WP:MM, which is important for automated archiving of talkpages. -- Futurano 11:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Sundancer (Yacht)

Hello. Sundancer (Yacht) has actually previously survived prod. You might try AfD instead. NickelShoe (Talk) 02:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry; I missed that point in the edit history. --B. Wolterding 08:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Active user verification

Hello, B. Wolterding. Due to the high number of inactive users at WP:WPNN, we are asking that you verify that you are still an active contributor of the project. To do so, please add an asterisk (*) after your name on WP:WPNN. Users without one by the next issue in 2 weeks will be removed off the list. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks. Diez2 03:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Delta Theta Sigma

Hi there, I added some to the article on Delta Theta Sigma in the hopes of at least removing the no reference tags removed from the article. Since you were the last user to edit the tags, I was hoping that you would remove the tags from the article. It seems like cheating to remove them myself. I know that it still isn't a very good article, but it at least has some reference3s to corroborate the information. Please let me know what you think and, if appropriate, remove the tags.Dekkanar 20:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article for me. Maybe I'll get around to finding more objective sources in a couple months. At least the new tag is some improvement.-Dekkanar 23:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

John Colling and Dixie

Hi there, just wanted to give you a heads up that I posted on the merger section. Thanks for my own heads up in talk, appreciated. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 22:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

assistant professors

agreed that assistant professors in general are not notable--even at universities like Berkeley. academic notability depends primarily upon the publication of work recognized by other experts in the field, and most assistant professors have not done enough. One published book is certainly not enough. If you find any more, put them up for prod as well. In the last six months, I think AfD only accepted two or three as notable at that stage in their careers. DGG 03:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Christine Kunkler

Per your request for a response: article deleted as promotional article requiring rewrite. Also one might add notability not evidenced. Tyrenius 15:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hills End

I have added some sourced material to this article about the Ivan Southall book. I would be grateful if you could take a look. Capitalistroadster 01:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Nokia 6151

Hi. I have undeleted the article Nokia 6151 after someone contested the prod. If you think it should be deleted, feel free to nominate it on AfD. Cheers, --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Subst

Sorry about the substing on Zina Goldrich. Usually I remember tags like coi and expand, etc, don't need subst tags. Must've done that instinctively and didn't notice. Anyways, sorry and thanks. -WarthogDemon 20:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Asbjørn Lønvig

I reviewed the article per your suggestion and posted my findings on the talk page. Per my findings, I proposed the article for deletion.

Thanks for the notification on the WikiProject Contemporary Art page! Cheers. Infiniteawe 18:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Stella Maris

Actually, it is more appropriate to simply delete this article now. Stella Maris is no longer is school and is used only as a convent see http://www.swansea.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=11293 about what has happened to the school. I will tag it for deletion for you. Sloman 18:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Mead and Spokane

Thanks for tipping me off to the merger discussion. Although I've spent only minimal time on the Spokane article, this proposed merger aroused my interest. JStripes 14:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

AFD nom on Santiago: a Myth of the Far Future

This nomination does not seem to have followed the Notability project's guidelines. Your AFD reasoning isn't compatible with the project pages instructions. Georgewilliamherbert 19:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Prods

Thanks for all your good catches. But you could help even a little more by making it easier for us admins who have to sort through them to do the final deletion--when you mark a bio as non-notable, please say what sort of a person it is -- a singer, a politician, a businessperson, or whatever. Not all of us are competent at everything--I don't want to be the one to screen bios of athletes, for example. DGG (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I will include that in the PROD rationale from now on. --B. Wolterding 13:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

De Aston School‎

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from De Aston School‎, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. I have nominated the article for deletion instead; the debate may be found at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/De Aston School‎, which overrides the need for a {{prod}} tag. I have explained my reasons for doing this in my nomination. Thanks! KTC 01:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Electric helicopter

David Watanabe list

The David Watanabe list is proposed for deletion. You have made edits to this page, so I have informed you as a courtesy. Bpringlemeir 14:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Uzinele Braşov

Hello. I received a notice about this article, apparently by mistake since I did not write it (or even contribute to it). Regards, Skartsis 15:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Video Gems

OK, I agree, I din't started the article anyways. Nothing would be lose, for sure. Bolt 21:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Seyit Yöre

Have added in the URL of the copyvio on the article page for you. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 20:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Highways in Saskatchewan, etc.

Go ahead! The two I removed were notable enough on their own but the rest are not much! On another subject, the Dec 2006 notability left-overs contains two Minnesota theatres that could go either way. (nimbus & fifty foot something) Are you going to Afd them? I did a lot of searching; didn't find much but they would probably rate a weak keep at Afd. What do you think? --Stormbay 17:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Perpetual Motion Theatre Company

The above is a third theatre in the same vein as the two mentioned in the previous post. They look like they are the same general type. (I can't decide on this one either.) Thanks! --Stormbay 21:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Kroll

Could you please refrain from frivolous prods such as the one you did with Eric Kroll. Kroll has published anthologies for Taschen which is one of the major publishers of photography and art books worldwide. Thank you. Hektor 19:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Note that the fact that Kroll has published anthologies does not make him notable - it's rather source about him that are needed. See WP:BIO. The article did not give hints to such coverage, and I was not aware of any. Also the article had been tagged with notability questions for more than half a year. You added independent sources now - that's fine; but calling the prod "frivolous" seems like failing to assume good faith. --B. Wolterding 16:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael Tornambe

You're right, I speedy tagged it with the wrong code. Thanks Jauerback 16:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hay

Thanks for informing me on that article, I completly forgot about it. I have left a comment on the discussion area.

mickyfitz13 16:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

konquest

While I don't agree with the afd, I appreciate how you notified me. --Adam1213 Talk 00:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Royle School

Please don't redirect articles without merging information from the redirected article to the new spot. Noroton 01:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

My mistake! I see it's already there. Never mind. Noroton 01:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Atze Schröder

You went to exactly the right place to raise the issue of whether to include the real name of Atze Schröder; there is no other particular board which would be appropriate. However you might want to go to get a third opinion, or raise an article request for comment which are ways of getting other editor's opinions on the subject. As there is no legal question of the Florida-based Wikimedia servers being caught by a German judgment, it is not likely that anyone else would get involved.

You can also remove the name yourself if you want to, but be careful not to get into a revert war over it if another editor puts it back. Just contact the editor and discuss the matter on the article talk page. I would also advise you to be prepared to concede the issue if it becomes clear that there is a consensus that it is acceptable to include the name.

The article could still do with expansion; non-German users are unlikely to be familiar with the subject. What sort of humour does he use? Are there additional characters in his shows? Sam Blacketer 23:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Edward Top

Hello Wolterding, are there any particular facts that you would like to see verified? I can throw in some more references, but perhaps you had some particular points in mind when asking for verification. In other words, one or two more {{fact}} requests would be helpful. Just for background information: I felt uneasy that Top ended up with no entry because of a few unclear statements, although he is very notable by our standards. Best regards, gidonb 13:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

  • My concern was not so much about the factual accuracy. Rather, it seems (from the sources you gave) that the article was written only from primary sources: his website and the website of his publisher. If you say he's "very notable", then certainly more independent sources exist - press coverage, for example, that gives biographical information about him. These should be added, or even more: they should be the base for the article. --B. Wolterding 13:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello again. So you do want a few independent sources, without being concerned about a particular fact. Thank you for setting that straight. There are plenty. BTW I did not use his website for the writing or the publisher's website. The publisher (Donemus) is a not-for-profit Dutch music institute. Best, gidonb 13:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Wolterding, I have added several references. If you have any additional concerns, please let me know. The case of Edward Top was a clear "spite delete" (deleted in spite of notability) that I am happy to set straight. Regards, gidonb 23:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)