User talk:MadeYourReadThis/Archives/2010/January

This is an archive of past discussions with User:MadeYourReadThis. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Thanks for uploading File:WIHB logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 that will be useful. However, please note that images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I see you've tagged this page for speedy deletion, reasoning it falls under WP:COATRACK. That may very well be true, but that's not a valid speedy deletion criterion - specifically, look at WP:NOTCSD, number 14. However, the article does remain heavily problematic, so I suggest we try and think about what can be done - a bold redirect to Justice or something like that, perhaps, or maybe a PROD or AfD? Thanks. Peasantwarrior (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice photo, but it has a lot of stitching errors. Do you have the original photos? I'd like to try restitching to get a better end product. Thanks. upstateNYer 15:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, this is the only version I am willing to share.--RadioFan (talk) 15:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks anyway. upstateNYer 15:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey

You recently edited the CASC page and noted you took out minute details, etc. Question: why is it that details on CASC's programs are not allowed, while organizations like JSA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junior_State_of_America provide more detail but their page has not been modified? Mike Adkins (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

California Association of Student Councils came to my attention because it was just recently created. Junior_State_of_America needs some cleanup as well as it covers too much minutia making the article more difficult to read, espcially for those unfamiliar with the subjects. Just because something exists on wikipedia doesn't mean it will always exist, especially in its current state. All articles are subject to the same policies and guidelines, some get forgotten for a while, thanks for pointing that one out.--RadioFan (talk) 06:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that Kibaale Community Centre may be notable as a school. The organization does several things, but operating a school is one of them. You may wish to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kibaale Community Centre. - Eastmain (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:KQQK logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 that will be useful. However, please note that images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, am not sure where to post a response to your comment, but here it is again.

On what was the thinking behind using the old organisation name, I was debating this issue myself. Initially had all the info under NATO Undersea Research Centre (still under development in my user page) but the article was turning out too long. The current article may get even longer when those who know SACLANTCEN decide to contribute/refne. One justification is that SACLANTCEN was pre-coldwar era and written as a historical article while NURC is post-coldwar era and currently engaged in different activities Is that a good justification? On the other hand since the topic is about the organisation it makes sense to have it as one article. But how to deal with the length (planning to add images but still not able to upload them yet)? Am new to Wikipedia, so would appreciate all comments/advice!

Isbpao (talk) 11:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:Guides4.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. RadioFan (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:Guides1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. RadioFan (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Thanks for your advice. I will add them when I have some time to do so. --Vingerhoet (talk) 11:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Mohsin Naqvi, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! --Mkativerata (talk) 14:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, however it is still not clear how this article might meet notability guidelines. Please cite your sources in reliable sources.--RadioFan (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed the sourcing is weak, but it's not a case for a prod. A rudimentary search indicates that he is a prominent poet. The difficulty will be finding reliable sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. While Google searches indicate that they might be prominent, only references reliable sources demonstrate notability. I will leave it for a while to see if sources can be located, if nothing can be located in a reasonable amount of time, it will have to go to AFD.--RadioFan (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. In the meantime, I have let the people at WP:WikiProject Pakistan know as I suspect some Urdu knowledge will be required to find the sources for this guy. --Mkativerata (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi RadioFan. Yes, I did delete the files. The image titles are still blue links because an image with the same title exists on the Wikimedia Commons, whose image repository is shared with all Wikimedia Projects (basically, you can link to any file on Commons as if it were uploaded locally to en.wikipedia). Hope that helps to answer your question. Regards, FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 02:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Should these files be deleted there as well? Wouldn't the same copyright problems exist there?--RadioFan (talk) 04:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I got your message about the redirect of Microsoft Dynamics ERP to Microsoft Dynamics. These are not the same thing. What do I need to do to get the two pages posted separately without the redirect? MSven (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how they are different enough to warrant separate articles. Perhaps an ERP section in Microsoft Dynamics?--RadioFan (talk) 12:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

		"Speedy" Barnstars
		In grateful acknowledgment of your excellent work with speedy deletions. (Feel free to archive this when it gets annoying!) - Dank (push to talk) 17:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

		"Speedy" Barnstars
		In grateful acknowledgment of your excellent work with speedy deletions. (Feel free to archive this when it gets annoying!) - Dank (push to talk) 17:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion regarding Scott Moyer. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). iBen^talk/_contribsIf you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 23:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe this article meets speedy deletion criteria and the creator should be given the opportunity to substantiate their claims with reliable sources.--RadioFan (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done-- iBen^talk/_contribsIf you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 23:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion Girls Gone By Publishers

Hi

I have included some independent references which, I believe, support the notability of this page. They are a small UK publishing concern but have widespread interest especially in the UK, Australia and New Zealand. If the added references are not suitable please could you be more specific as to what you feel is required. There are at present a number of links to the page from the pages of the authors which they re-publish. BTP51 (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for adding references, that helps a lot.--RadioFan (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks RadioFan. I've just about finished for now. Completely overhauled the layout of the page and added fourteen external references and I shall be adding to this page as new titles are published. I've deleted the notice you put at the head of the article. Is that OK?

I would like to plead you to get back created articles of mine in this case Dosta (song) and A Moževme, because I don't really see the problem with them!!! 1111tomica (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

There is additional information on your talk page. Unfortunately neither of these songs meets WP:NSONGS.--RadioFan (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I am a little new to the deletion process and am wondering; I have already removed the deletion tag but am confused as to whether there is discussion for the deletion of my article Ariel (poem) that is not going on in the discussion page for that article. I would like to see if there is another discussion and contribute to said discussion as it concerns the article, but am unable to find the place where such a discussion is taking place. If there is such a discussion going on, please link me to it. Thank youInk Falls (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The deletion process is a bit confusing. You removed a proposed deletion tag, it has no associated deletion discussion, once the tag is removed, the process is over (unless it's nominated for deletion). You are probably thinking of a deletion nomination which has an accompanying discussion page specific to the deletion, that's not the case here. Talk:Ariel (poem) may be used to discuss this article. It is highly recommended that you provide more information about why you removed the prod tag there, or the article is likely to be nominated for deletion.--RadioFan (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

why is the article nominated for deletion? I have provided the most main stream interpretation for Ariel, as well as the source for everything. Have you seen the source?

The guy put and hangon tag, so I removed your ProD. The article creator has seven days to convince the community as to why this actor is notable by finding better sources, but he appears to have had only minor roles. Bearian (talk) 05:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

To accept your arguments, but I'll edit it and put it in the air again (Shine Yellow) because the single has been released and has no kind of connection to redirect the page if it is satisfied with all the obligations of Wikipedia. Also do not try to intimidate me with comments from "blocking". Thank you and goodbye. *FranklinG* (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Not intended to intimidate, just remind of the policies here. Please review WP:NSONGS, I still dont think this article meets those stringent guidelines. Also you might want to review the article as the release date appears to have a typo in it, should that be 2009 instead of 2010?--RadioFan (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Although I declined the CSD on that article (notability was discussed the lead - although, there's no references to prove it ... and the "#1 status" will fade), I agree that there's a lot of problems with the article. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I have improved the reference section! - BTP51 (talk) 07:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It is still not clear how this might meet notability guidelines. Existence is not necessarily notability--RadioFan (talk) 12:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me But I would be grateful if you could explain why you have proposed that the page on the Leninist League (UK) be deleted just a few seconds after it has been started up.Harrypotter (talk) 12:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, as it says in the tag, it's not clear how this topic will meet notability guidelines. If you are planning on significantly improving this article, especially showing significant coverage in 3rd party sources, that's great. But you should consider adding an under construction tag to let others know that you are not done and the article will soon meet guidelines.--RadioFan (talk) 12:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining to me the deletion process on my talk page. However you failed to explain why you proposed the page for deletion only seconds after the page had been started. I would be grateful if you could do so. ThanksHarrypotter (talk) 12:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

As the article stands, it doesn't meet notability guidelines and should be deleted. If you plan to make great improvements to the article, how are others to know this? If you like to create new articles in smaller increments, that's fine but consider tagging the article to let others know it's under construction or create it under your userspace until its fully referenced and ready for the public area.--RadioFan (talk) 12:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, RadioFan. Just a quick note to let you know why I undid your redirects; I'm about to prod The Chaos Destroyers + its members, because it appears these "characters" are actually game players. From the look of this, I thought I might be confusing you (apologies if so!). Liquidluck✽talk 12:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and thanks for cleaning out that cruft.--RadioFan (talk) 12:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi RadioFan

I note that you nominated for speedy deletion the above-captioned article, and it was indeed deleted. I recreated a new version of the article with references, including this one, which while not itself incredibly great coverage, unambiguously indicates that the company is reported on in France.

Regards, ^Bongo_matic 16:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks better now. Should be able to avoid deletion--RadioFan (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain why a review in Art in America does not constitute enough notability?--Aichikawa (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Its not clear how this person is notable. The article tells is what he does and where he went to school and now includes information on a show he was involved in. The problem is that this could be written about lots of artists but that doesn't make them notable. The addition of more references is good, that will help demonstrate that this person is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but without something in the article that shows how this artist is set apart from his peers (awards, citations by peers, contributions to some new concept, or creation of some work which is widely known) the article could be deleted.--RadioFan (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

hello, i would like to know what does the note that you left on the entry means. and how can i fix it. thank u very much Gerigendel (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello RadioFan. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Kyla cries cologne, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Band article exists, A9 doesn't apply. Thank you. GedUK  19:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Rchilde (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC) With all due respect RadioFan, 100 Park Avenue Building is notable and significant because it was once the tallest original skyscraper in Oklahoma City. This may just be a 12 storey insignificant building to you but it is one of the last buildings of any significance in Oklahoma City. If other cities can have their buildings listed, why can't Oklahoma City? I would think, with you coming from Norfolk - that you would appreciate another mid-sized city taking an interest in it's infrastructure. ... Regardless of a building's size or location, wikipedia should be a resource of information that any person can come to.

Please remove the 'proposed deletion' for this building. Also, I strongly suggest that you perhaps read through the posts before automatically suggesting deletion if you want to be editor and desire Wikipedia to have a wealth of content and information.

That's still not clear from the article, nor from the references included. If it's significant to Oklahoma City, there should be references available that could be added to the article but I'm just not seeing any beyond the single source current there.--RadioFan (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is at least one reference cited at the end of this article... 45ossington (talk) 10:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought you may want to know the PROD on Internet car buying in the UK was disputed (by notice blanking) and is now at AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet car buying in the UK--blue520 14:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)