Singularity42 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) Notification: Speedy deletion nomination of Cumberlandindustriesuk. (TW) |
||
Line 221: | Line 221: | ||
Sorry, I cannot implement a rangeblock as the [[CIDR]] in question includes 65536 possible IP addresses. However I have gone ahead and blocked the second IP, and will semi-protect the article if I see it disruptively edited again. Thank you for your help on this issue! — [[User:Kralizec!|Kralizec!]] ([[User talk:Kralizec!|talk]]) 15:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC) |
Sorry, I cannot implement a rangeblock as the [[CIDR]] in question includes 65536 possible IP addresses. However I have gone ahead and blocked the second IP, and will semi-protect the article if I see it disruptively edited again. Thank you for your help on this issue! — [[User:Kralizec!|Kralizec!]] ([[User talk:Kralizec!|talk]]) 15:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC) |
||
==[[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|Speedy deletion]] nomination of [[:Cumberlandindustriesuk]]== |
|||
[[Image:Ambox warning_pn.svg|48px|left]] A tag has been placed on [[:Cumberlandindustriesuk]], requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under [[WP:CSD#G11|section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion]], because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read [[Wikipedia:Spam|the guidelines on spam]] as well as [[Wikipedia:FAQ/Business]] for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the [[Wikipedia:Article wizard2.0|Article Wizard]]. |
|||
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding <code>{{tl|hangon}}</code> to '''the top of [[:Cumberlandindustriesuk|the page that has been nominated for deletion]]''' (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on '''[[Talk:Cumberlandindustriesuk|the talk page]]''' explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for ''speedy'' deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact [[:Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles|one of these admins]] to request that they [[Wikipedia:Userfication#Userfication_of_deleted_content|userfy]] the page or have a copy emailed to you.<!-- Template:Db-spam-notice --> {{Do not delete}}<!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 20:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:01, 8 November 2009
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Deletion
what can i do to get it to not be deleted?
i changed it and said that he was an amature hockey player. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schennfan1 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Read WP:ATHLETE first. For an athlete to be notable, they need to be at the fully professional level of the sport (which Ben Alavie is not), or competed at the highest amature level (such as the olympics or world championships, which Alavie has not). In either event, I have put the article up for a deletion discussion since you were objected to my deletion proposal. You can join in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Alavie. Singularity42 (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I saw an article for Taylor Hall (born 1991) up and he is an amature player too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schennfan1 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Which may also be wrong. Just because other stuff exists doesn't mean it's right. Singularity42 (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Please tell me what I can do to keep this article up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schennfan1 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Explain why you think it should be kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Alavie. Oh, and please sign your comments by typing ~~~~ at the end of your comments. Thanks! Singularity42 (talk) 20:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Who makes the decisions whether to keep articles or not, because if you put it up for deletion, doesn't that mean you would make the decision?--Schennfan1 (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- No. As explained on the message I added to your talk page, a third-party, uninvolved administrator will now make the final decision. By the way, Taylor Hall competed in the World Championships, and won a number of prestigious international hockey awards, which is why he has his own article. Singularity42 (talk) 21:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Please allow my page i created called quarter toss to be a page. i have a picture of it being played i just do not have it at the moment, its on my camera i just dont have my upload cord. This game is a different than quarters,( yes it involves a quarter and a cup or shot glass) but it also consist of throwing and the biggest thing is when the coin lands on heads you have to drink. It requires a high alcohol tolerance. Many people at North Lake college play this game it just has not picked up yet. This article will help promote the playing of this game so please allow it to be a page and not just a redirection to quarters because it is more like Chandeliers which has its own page. please sir let this page exist what harm can come from its existence. --Taylorwebb (talk) 01:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
For third-party editor reading this discussion, the context of the above comments is that I re-directed the article Quarter Toss to Quarters (with an explanation on the user's talk page)... Singularity42 (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Technically, I have not prevented you from creating the article. What I did was redirect it. You then moved it back, and I reverted, with an explanation on your talk page. First of all, take a look at WP:ONEDAY. It is an important guideline, explaining an important policy, WP:What Wikipedia is not. Specifically, we generally don't allow articles about some fad, such as a drinking game, just because some people made it up one day (in this case,
Septemberlate 2009). This is because of two reasons:- WP:No original research is one of the guiding policies for Wikipedia. It does not allow articles based on orginal research. You want to base you article on a separate game based on your own knowledge about this game and pictures you have taken about the game. That is original research. What you need is a third-party, reliable source.
- WP:Notability is another very important guiding policy for Wikipedia. It means that the threshold for articles on Wikipedia is that the subject is notable. If you just made up the game last month, and it hasn't gotten much attention outside of a group of people at your school, then it is not notable. You can't use Wikipedia to promote something that is not yet notable. We work the other way around - first it must be notable. WP:ONEDAY explains how you can promote your game outside of Wikipedia.
- Now, you and I are both editors. I am not an administrator. You are free to disagree with me, and since no one else has weighed in yet, there is no consensus yet. If you disagree with me still, you should check out Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, where you can request a discussion to determine if my actions were correct. Let me know if you need help with how to start a discussion on that page. Singularity42 (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Re: WikiIslam
Hi. You may be interested in this AfD wherein consensus was achieved to keep the material as a section of the Faith Freedom International article. Nothing seems to have changed since then in terms of more sourcing. ITAQALLAH 20:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info. Exactly why I mentionted at Wikiproject Islam - seemed there must be more history to the articles than from what I could firstsee. Looks like the redirect was taken care of. Singularity42 (talk) 20:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Newpage Patrolling
Hello. Thank you for helping Wikipedia by marking inappropriate new articles for speedy deletion. In case you didn't know, please mark all pages you tag for speedy deletion or deem acceptable as patrolled, unless you're not sure. This prevents other patrollers from repeating your actions. New pages can be marked as patrolled by entering an unpatrolled page from Special:Newpages, and clicking the link that looks something like so: [Mark this page as patrolled], at the bottom right corner of the newpage. Thank you for trying to help out! Intelligentsiumreview 23:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Argh! Normally I do. Seems I've been forgetting today. Singularity42 (talk) 23:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
WTH please read
Okay, I made an article and it got tagged for deletion like 10 seconds after. Can I make the article again but add a site and get it saved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluchurch (talk • contribs) 18:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- From what I recall, the issue was that there was nothing to suggest the individual who the subject was about was in any way notable. WP:Notability is the main policy on that issue, and WP:BIO is the guideline of how the notability policy applies to people. My suggestion is to take a look at the article creation wizard. Unfortunately, since I am not the person who deleted your article (I just tagged it for an administrator to look at it and make a final decision), I can't look at the deleted article or give you more specific suggestions. Versageek was the administrator who made actually deleted the article, so that might be the person to speak to if you want more advice about that specific article. Let me know if you have any other questions! Singularity42 (talk) 19:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Re: does the edits i made fix it? Bluchurch (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- No, I don't believe so. Again, just because the person has their own website and has a YouTube video does not make them notable. Since this person is an artist, why don't you look at WP:ARTIST to see the very general guidelines about artists who have articles about them. Singularity42 (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
ohhh ok how can I move it to work in progress?] Bluchurch (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- You can add {{Under construction}}, but I'm not sure that will help, since I just don't see this individual being considered notable. Singularity42 (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
ok, but he has been mentioned by Halo.bungie.org at least a dozen times. And the remake of 28 weeks later has been put up on numerous sites. (spike tv had it on their site for a while)
but il delete it if you really think he is not notable.
- Here would be my suggestion. Create a subpage for yourself at
User:Bluechurch/Jamie98sUser:Bluchurch/Jaime98s, where you can work on the article and get the various links added, etc. When you think it's ready, let me know, or post it at Wikipedia:Articles for creation for another experienced editor to look at it. Singularity42 (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'll do that. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluchurch (talk • contribs) 20:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Eskimo Buddhist blanks talk page
I'm not sure you are quite right in reverting a revert of a page blanking. The page contained a sockpuppet inquiry and a reference to a live deletion discussion. As I read the rules, these should not be deleted from talk pages. Bluehotel (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sockpuppet messages should not be deleted while the block is in place. Jemesouviens32's block was expired when he removed the message. Nothing stops an editor from looking through the page history to find if needed for future purposes. The reference to to a deletion discussion is just to turn his attention to the discussion. By deleting it, he has confirmed he is aware of it. The exception you may be thinking of are MfD tags (which means the actual template tag, i.e. the page itself is tagged for deletion - talk page messages are not the same as a tag). Hope that helps! Singularity42 (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Rytz Axis Construction
Dear Singularity,
there was absolutely not a single shred of advertising in my article, what so ever. So I fail to understand the rationale of tagging my article for speedy removal from Wikipedia. I am however, completely new to this aspect - posting articles - and as such, I am unfamiliar with the modalities of doing so. If I have committed some infraction, plaese explain the rationale to me. Forgive me for leaving this message, on your page but, I don't even know how to get to my page, yet!
Cordially,
Stephen Koroknay —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen Koroknay (talk • contribs) 17:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- I felt that the only purpose of the article was to promote the company. It did not appear encyclopedic, and the company itself did not appear to be notable, which is one of the main criteria for articles. Wikipedia cannot be used for the purpose of advertising non-notable companies. Also, the final decision was not mine to make. All I did was tag the article so an administrator could review it. In this case, User:Fastily made the final decision to delete the article.
- Nothing wrong with writing a message on my talk page - that's what it's here for! To access yours, log in and go to the top-right of any Wikipedia page. You should a number of links, including a link called "my talk" - which takes you to your own talk page as well. Singularity42 (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
The Rytz Axis Construction is a procedure discovered by D. Rytz in the 19th century to find the correct axes of the only ellipse that can fit precisely into a given parallelogram. This technique belongs under the general science of Descriptive Geometry. There is no company.
Cordially,
Stephen Koroknay —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen Koroknay (talk • contribs) 23:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- If I was wrong, than I am sorry. Since the article is currently deleted, I cannot look back and make any specific comments about why I thought it was necessary to tag the article. If you think it was deleted in error, please talk to User:Fastily, who deleted the article. (Oh, and you should sign your comments on talk pages by adding ~~~~ after your comments.) Singularity42 (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Speedy Deletion Converted to PROD: Bibleball
Hello Singularity42, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have changed a page you tagged (Bibleball) from being tagged for speedy deletion to being tagged for proposed deletion. The speedy deletion criteria are very narrow to protect the encyclopedia, and do not fit the page in question. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks again! Tim Song (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- No problem. I was debating between a speedy deletion and a proposed deletion. Since there was not a single Google hit on the "game", and there were, in fact, numerous references to "Bible ball" (which had nothing to do with the article's subject), seemed to be a blatant hoax. But I can see where it might be more preferable to do a PROD and see if any references are added... Singularity42 (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
BOO
boo happy halloween —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piper987 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- A little early, but thanks, I guess. (I shall take it in a good faith spirit...) Singularity42 (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes im early and in holiday spirt (r u doing anything 4 halloween) im going to go 2 a skating halloween party —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piper987 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds good. However, I generally reserve this talk page for Wikipedia-related discussions, rather than as a social site. Singularity42 (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Paradise du golden
My presentation is very important so can you please stop doing that until 10/21 11 AM EST. I would really appropriate it. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.221.78 (talk) 01:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
dude i deleted it. Happy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxfriendlyxx (talk • contribs) 01:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, actually. Singularity42 (talk) 01:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Tsk-tsk education is extremely important in the real world and education is how we are able to write these article. So this is my way of showing people to be cautious about sources. It called teaching. It's a pity but i am sure there are many mistakes in other articles ie. elephant article. But my sincere apologies for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxfriendlyxx (talk • contribs) 01:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Your intention was to demonstrate that Wikipedia was unreliable by adding a fake article. In that respect, you failed. So the educational value is that you have learned how difficult it is to add unreliable articles to Wikipedia. Singularity42 (talk) 01:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Enough with the repetitive conversation
|
---|
well not really that was an extreme case. May you should google unreliable source wikipedia there are article on it? FYI my teacher assigned this position so i am completely for wikipedia. Like I said, I am sorry for that article and it was only for one day and after that i don't really care what you people did with it. So thank you for ruining my presentation and my GPA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.221.78 (talk) 02:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
A presentation on why it is unreliable as a bibliography in research was the assigned topic. I wish my teacher didn't so technically it's not my fault for doing that. Why are you saying stuff like that when it's a presentation in class its not like i chose it. Maybe you should take this issue to the teachers in school, you know do a campaign on why student should use wikipedia. Because apparently many teacher don't like Wikipedia and according to them, it's for procrastinators. And I love to use wikipedia as a source because it saves time. If you took up that cause students would be eternally grateful to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.221.78 (talk) 02:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Why am i even "making a discussion" with you it's so pointless and a complete waste of my precious time because after tomorrow i really don't care what you think. And I would never edit anything because I have better things to do than edit something. I really hate editing so you don't have to worry about me posting fake article. Why am i even "making a discussion" with you it's so pointless and a complete waste of my precious time because after tomorrow i really don't care what you think. And I would never edit anything because I have better things to do than edit something. I really hate editing so you don't have to worry about me posting fake article.24.190.221.78 (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC) |
Halloween
BOO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.237.210.104 (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- What's with this constant "boo"-ing? If I've done something you are not happy about, please let me know so I can discuss it. Singularity42 (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Blocked template
Hi, could you explain why removing the blocked message from one's own user page would result in the user being prevented from editing their own talk page, as you stated here? kmccoy (talk) 02:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Reading over WP:BLANKING, and I see where I made a mistake. I read "Important exceptions include declined unblock requests ... (while blocks are still in effect)..." as including block messages while blocks are still in affect. I'll strike my comments. Singularity42 (talk) 03:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- I would add to my above comments, though, that while the warning I gave was incorrect, the editing was on the disruptive side (i.e. granting himself an unblock, etc.). But at this point, any advice to Aziz090 should come from someone else, due to that error I already made. Singularity42 (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
re
Thanks, I'll take that into account. --Île_flottante~Floating island Talk 23:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Gene M. Ransom III
I removed the CSD, but feel free to PROD or AFD. I just try to be a bit more cautious with the CSD. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds good. I've found that there seems to a lack of consensus about whether A7 applies to living persons whose only claim is that they hold a minor local elected office. I'm thinking it might be a good idea to formerly address that, and make it only PROD/AfD in those cases. Singularity42 (talk) 01:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. If a more generally policy is established, let me know, as I would like to make sure I follow it. Thanks again. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Newpage patrol
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thedarxide (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Regarding this debate, I wasn't quite clear from your comments if you wanted to do so or not, but you can withdraw the nomination. Just say it somewhere in the AfD, and ask for a speedy close. (Of course, if you'd prefer to wait for more !votes, that's fine too). Best, --Bfigura (talk) 02:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Not going to withdraw yet. If there already is a consensus that all villages, not matter how small, are automatically included, then I would withdraw. I just haven't come across anything that actually says that. Singularity42 (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Okay. I just wasn't sure what you meant, so I thought I'd check. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- No problem! I realized how my comments might have been confusing, so I've added a clarification about my position. Singularity42 (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Okay. I just wasn't sure what you meant, so I thought I'd check. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Journey church
Your tagging of Journey church with A1 was incorrect. A1 is for articles with no context (i.e. a completely unidentifiable subject). This article was well, a church, with external links with more info. Due to the unambiguous promotional tone, I have deleted it under G11 instead. A3 would probably also work, since it is a rephrasing of the title. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- The link worked for you? I couldn't seem to access it, and without it there was no way to tell what the article was about. Due to the title, it may have been about a church, but then the one sentence in the article indicated that "Journey" was a "church town", whatever that meant... Anyway, no probs! Singularity42 (talk) 02:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, that's because I deleted it, I'm forgetting what it's like to not be an admin. ;) The content was:
"Journey a Church Community.
LIVE BIG! link title
GO NOW!"
Obviously promotional, but you can tell that it describes a church, so G11, not A1. Thanks, --Patar knight - chat/contributions 12:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Singularity42 (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Gary Wehrkamp
please do not delete Gary Wehrkamp page. It is a reputable progressive rock musician who is linked off of my many wikipedia pages. He has hired me to create this page for him. Sayitdigital (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- I never actually deleted the article. The last version (i.e the one that was deleted on October 27th) was tagged by me for an administrator to delete because the article had no content. That is not the case with the new version. By the way, Wikipedia tends not to be so happy when someone is hired by a subject to write a Wikipedia article about them (but I see somone has already explained that on your talk page). In any event, I have not tagged the new version of the article for deletion (and I probably would not have even known about it if you didn't write me this message :) ) Singularity42 (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
How is content to be accurate on wiki if the page someone is writing is not reviewed by the person it's actually being written about? I never said he "paid" me to write the page. I just got permission to write it about him and asked for some references so I had accurate content. It is not a conflict of interest. Sayitdigital (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- No, it's still a conflict of interest if you have a relationship with the article's subject, which is evidenced by your first comment (i.e. you were 'hired' by the article's subject - whether you are getting paid is irrelevant).
- We do not ensure content is accurate by asking the article's subject - that would violate our policy on neutral points of view. Instead, Wikipeida has a core policy of verification. That is, all content added to an article must be able to be verified by reliable sources (another core policy). The burden is always on the editor adding the content to be able to verify the content when challenged. This is especially true for biographies of living persons. In fact, there is nothing wrong if someone in your position removes content you believe is inaccurate about the article's living subject - but we wouldn't give you (as a representative of the article's subject) any preferred treatment over other editors, due to neutrality. There is also a specific noticeboard for issues regarding biographies of living persons, found at WP:BLP/N. Hope that helps. Singularity42 (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments on my talk page. I agree that it is still a conflict of interest when someone is "hired" to create a page. I also agree that the conflict of interest noticeboard is an appropriate outlet if Sayitdigital feels it is not a conflict of interest for some reason to be hired to create a page. But before creating a thread there, I would encourage Sayitdigital to review WP:COI regarding the definitions of conflict of interest. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- I actually think it's over for now, given the latest comments on the article's talk page. Singularity42 (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Copied from User talk:Sayitdigital. How do I get the 'conflict of interest' warning off of the page? Sayitdigital (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- Copied from User talk:Sayitdigital. I would suggest starting a thread at the conflict of interest noticeboard. By the way, I like to keep conversations in one place, rather than split between two pages. Do you mind if we continue this on my talk page? I'll copy these comments there. Singularity42 (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Article deletion response
OK, thanks for your message. I'll look at the article creation wizard. I'm trying to improve the Irish media pages on wikipedia (they're pretty bad at the moment) and it's hard to do on my own. Thanks. Robfitzgib (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- No problem. By the way, I had to move your comments to my talk page. User pages (like User:Singularity42) and user talk pages (like the one you are reading right now at User talk:Singularity42) are different. The first is where the user can add details about themselves. The second is where they can have Wikipedia-related discussions.
- Also, have you thought of joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland and it's related projects? Some of the members of that project might be able to help you out as well. Singularity42 (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
still waiting for a reply
Hello Singularity42, after seeing the admin discussion of my userpage use I immediately wrote up an in-depth reply on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Several days have passed without a reply from any of the parties involved in the discussion or from the admins who left messages on my usertalk page. I am wondering how the communication process is supposed to take place, perhaps I am leaving messages in the wrong place? Please let me know where I am supposed to correspond. The admin incidents page where the discussion took place suggests that topics that are still under discussion should be moved from the archive to the active page, although I am not sure how to do that. The discussion was archived, and now it is rather hard to find. thanks, ted --Htw3 (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have pulled copied the thread from the archive back onto the noticeboard for an administrator to give a final answer on. (Keep in mind I am not an administrator...) Singularity42 (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you very much!. I have not been involved in any administrative decision making process before, so I am a bit uncertain how it is to proceed. I had been under the impression that such decisions involve discussion. However, so far, with the exception of your reply here, I have had very little sense of actual interaction, it has seemed more like a series of declarations. Part of that is due to the asynchronous nature of course, but also, from the perspective of a non-admin, there was no clear procedural model communicated. I thank you for clarifying that you are not an admin, and thus I wonder who is the relevant admin for this decision? I imagine that this becomes more clear as one becomes more familiar with the process. Thanks again, Ted Welser --Htw3 (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
WP:ANI can be a bit messy (well, actually more than a bit...) Basically, what ends up happening is a bunch of users (usually admins, non-admins with a strong knowledge of Wikipedia policies, and involved parties) give their viewpoints and interpretation of policy, reply to each other's positions, and if there a lot of debate hopefully some consensus emerges (although that's been happening less and less at that noticeboard). If an admin thinks admin action is necessary, they will then do so. What looks like is happening in this case is no one thinks immediate admin action is necessary, especially given the in-depth reply you made at the thread. The discussion may still be ongoing (after I restored the thread), but it's starting to look like they would like you to self-identify which pages are not Wikipedia related, and mark them with {{db-g7}} so they can be deleted. Does that make sense? Singularity42 (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks a bunch. I followed up on the thread and put deletion tags on many of the pages. --Htw3 (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
RE: Rangeblock request
Sorry, I cannot implement a rangeblock as the CIDR in question includes 65536 possible IP addresses. However I have gone ahead and blocked the second IP, and will semi-protect the article if I see it disruptively edited again. Thank you for your help on this issue! — Kralizec! (talk) 15:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Cumberlandindustriesuk
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/15/Ambox_warning_pn.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_pn.svg.png)
A tag has been placed on Cumberlandindustriesuk, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}}
to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Template:Do not delete Malleus Fatuorum 20:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)