User talk:Finngall/Archive06

Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal‎

There are several wiki pages for journals. For example, see the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bioinformatics_journals Why I am refrained to create the page for "Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Publications.assistant (talk • contribs) 17:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Other stuff existing is not a valid justification to create an article on a related subject. The speedy deletion nomination I made was rightly declined because you had added context to the article, but you have not demonstrated that this journal is notable enough to merit an article in a general-purpose encyclopedia. On that basis, I will be momentarily nominating the article again for deletion, this time via a more formal process whilch will allow for discussion and consensus. You are welcome to join this discussion and make improvements to the article in the meantime. --Finngall ^talk 17:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Dear Finngall, "Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal" has been evaluated by PubMed Central committee and got indexed. Please see our editorial board and the scientific articles published in it. It is a NOTABLE open access journal in its field. I hope that you will let wiki page to go live without any hindrances. (Publications.assistant (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC))

@Publications.assistant: The PubMed link establishes the the journal exists, but nothing more. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals). --Finngall ^talk 18:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Dear Finngall,

"Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal" satisfies the Criteria mentioned in the "Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals)". For example, Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal is indexed in SCOPUS. Please see http://www.scopus.com/results/results.url?sort=plf-f&src=s&st1=2001-0370&sid=3B399A6130211F68742EE4D9188827D7.zQKnzAySRvJOZYcdfIziQ%3a30&sot=b&sdt=b&sl=15&s=ISSN%282001-0370%29&origin=searchbasic&txGid=3B399A6130211F68742EE4D9188827D7.zQKnzAySRvJOZYcdfIziQ%3a3 (Publications.assistant (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC))

(talk page stalker) Hi Publications.assistant, at this point you should make your case here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal. Also you don't need to put parentheses ( ) around the 4 tildes in you signature, just type ~~~~ I hope that helps. Valfontis (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Skills

I have never before seen an admin fix my changes so quickly. I guess you have a log of changes by new users? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trollpatrol14 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Big Blue Systems & Storage International, LLC

I have validity based on comments and likes from LinkedIn and Facebook company pages. I need guidance on what to do moving forward. This is a legitimate posting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcoleburn (talk • contribs) 01:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jcoleburn: Please read Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies, then read up on verifiability of information and what we consider to be reliable sources for articles. Wikipedia doesn't care about LinkedIn comments or Facebook likes--anybody can write those. Have there been articles about BBI in any major media outlets? Any independent coverage at all? Press releases don't count. As I said before, without that, there is no basis for a proper article, and such coverage has yet to be provided. Feel free to come back here with questions, but please read the policy pages I've linked to first. Thanks, and have a good day. --Finngall ^talk 06:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Real Life Radio

Dear Finngall,

I received your post regarding the concern over the promotional nature of my article. Please advise me on how to possibly rewrite this to allow it to pass the guide line rules. We have launched this new endeavor in our company after being in operation as a local organization since 1998 and I want to offer verifiable information for individuals seeking to learn more about who we are. Once we launch the organization internationally. We are a 501c3 Nonprofit. Not sure if that makes any difference in this equation or not.

Please forgive me. This is my first attempt at submitting anything to wikipedia and I want to play by the rules.

I looked at the page for EWTN which I referenced in my article and it obviously has passed the scrutiny of the wiki guidelines. How can I make what I want to convey more like what the EWTN page offers?

Any suggestions you can offer would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you, 913leob (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC) 913leob

@913leob: First off, remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not LinkedIn or Facebook. The article needs to maintain a neutral point of view, free of first-person statements, and free of peacock terms that make it look more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. Which in turn brings up root of the problem--that you're writing about your own company. We strongly discourage people from writing about subject with which they are closely associated, because that conflict of interest makes it difficult to maintain the necessary neutrality.

That said, none of the above even matters unless you can show that RLR is notable enough to merit an article in a general-purpose encyclopedia. Has RLR received any third-party media coverage? As an encyclopedia, everything in an article should be backed up with verifiable references to reliable sources which are independent of the subject. ETWN has received coverage in the New York Times and other major newspapers. Has any major news outlet taken notice of RLR? If not, then at best it's too soon for them to have an article. And besides, if the article were to get to a point where it could stay in place, you would not own it--it could be edited by anyone, including negative coverage if it in turn were properly sourced.

In sum, a subject gets an article into Wikipedia after it is already notable--this is not a place to go to try become notable. But if you wish to try to create the article again, please carefully read the various policy articles I've linked above before making the attempt. Feel free to ask further questions. Thanks, and have a good day. --Finngall ^talk 05:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

International Union of Bilateral Chambers of Commerce and Industry

Hi Finngall,

I am the Secretary General of IUBCCI and I am in charge with the media and communication of our platform Chamber of commerce that was created in United States. We are an NGO and you are welcome to see our website at www.iubcci.com. I am seeing you proposed the article to be deleted from wikipedia and we want to understand your criteria. We are multinational chamber of commerce and we want to be aligned to other US Chambers of Commerce that already are visible on wikipedia. If you have additional questions or concerns, please contact me at : (917) 530 6093 Isabelle Vladoiu - Secretary General of IUBCCI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivladoiu (talk • contribs) 19:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ivladoiu: First, please read Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest--we discourage people from writing about their own organizations. Next, please read Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations. Can you provide references that show IUBCCI meets the notability standard? --Finngall ^talk 19:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)km

Thank you for your reply and we reviewed the wikipedia's guidelines. It is not my company and I am volunteer for this NGO the same like you are doing for this Wikipedia. We are providing other sources in English and other languages that prove our notability.(www.theinternationalombudsman.com, www.uccbr.ro, www.economicdiplomatsclub.com...) In addition all the chambers of commerce are on Wikipedia and one of them is member of us.......I understand what need to be address in this page of IUBCCI in Wikipedia now and please take the restriction from this page ......thank you in advance,....

CONtv deletion

Greetings Finngall. I am not sure why you have deleted my entry on CONtv. If I removed the tag, I assure you, it was a complete accident. Please explain the difference between CONtv and other wiki entries such as Crackle TV or Netflix or Amazon Instant Video. All provide video content. After looking at those pages, I'm baffled. Why have you singled-out CONtv?--N0047283 (talk) 06:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@N0047283: To be precise, I did not delete anything, and I have no power to do so. I felt it qualified for speedy deletion and tagged it as such, and the administrator who reviewed what I did apparently agreed with my assessment and did the actual deletion.

But to actually answer your question, those other sites have had a longer history and have received lots and lots of news coverage by major media outlets. All you provided in the way of references for CONtv are a bunch of links to pages which cover Cinedigm in general, but which said little or nothing about CONtv in particular. And without substantial coverage from reliable sources which are independent of the subject (a CONtv press release doesn't count), there is nothing on which to base an encyclopedia article, and nothing which showed that CONtv met Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies.

Which brings me to my other point, which is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a promotional tool or a provider of free web space. The article as of the time of its deletion looked more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article, with should rightly maintain a neutral point of view. (And while Cinedigm is certanly notable, its page here is also rather close to that line as well) If the article were to be recreated, it would need to be rewritten completely to achive a neutral tone.

And finally, the reason the article came to my notice in the first place was simply that one of my chosen activities here is to periodically scan the list of newly-created pages looking for spam, vandalism, subjects which obviously do not meet the general notability guideline, or articles which are mostly or somewhat acceptable but which need to be flagged for expansion or improvement by more experienced editors. Yours was just one of many new articles on a variety of subjects which I perused during that time.

Please take the time to read the policy pages which I have linked to above. It is not my intention to discourage you from trying to recreate the article again, if you can come up with better sources to establish CONtv's notability independently of Cinedigm. But instead of creating a new version in main article space, I would encourage you to go through the Articles for Creation process and create the new iteration at Draft:CONtv, where experienced editors can look it over and see if it meets Wikipedia's standards, provide suggestions for improvement, and move into main article space if/when it's "ready for prime time".

Thank you for your time, and please feel free to ask further questions. Have a good day. --Finngall ^talk 22:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Jeremy Brecher

Hi Finngall:

Thank you for your quick response to my article. I understand why it was deleted (because the same information was on Jeremy Brecher's website). It was put there originally so that folks could read it while I worked on his Wikipedia page. The bio has now been taken down. Thus, is it possible to put the Wikipedia article back up so that the link can be put on his bio page instead of duplicate information?

Cathysanfanandre (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@Cathysanfanandre: The copyright violation was the primary reason for the page's deletion, but it wasn't the only reason. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and therefore all articles herein should maintain a neutral point of view and not be promotional in tone. You're not generally going to get that from a bio that was copy-and-pasted from the subject's own web site, copyright or no copyright. Furthermore, while it appears that Mr. Brecher may very well be notable enough to merit an article here, the material for any such article should primarily come from reliable sources which are independent of the subject. The subject's own bio can be used to fill in some blanks within the parameters mentioned above, but only as a supplement to material that can be found from third-party sources.

However, given that you appear to be closely associated with Mr. Brecher and/or his web site, I'll also direct you towards Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest and recommend that you leave the creation of the article to someone with no such association.

All of that being said, I am not an administrator and have no power to delete or restore articles myself--indeed, I have no more powers and privileges here than you do, save for whatever reputation (good or ill) I may have gained from my activities here. Please peruse the policy links I have linked to above. If you still wish to pursue creating the article, then I advise starting from scratch using third-party sources as the foundation. If you still wish for the original article to be recreated, you are free to contact the deleting administrator, Bgwhite, on his talk page and make the request there. Please feel free to come back here with further questions. Thank you for your time, and have a good day. --Finngall ^talk 17:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Title track (song)

I suspect the problem here is I am uncertain whether it is appropriate to link the Wiktionary definition to the Wikipedia Title track disambiguation page. Uncertain whether this can be done in any event. Any cleanup/setup assistance appreciated.

Dreadarthur (talk) 00:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Dreadarthur: There's a {{wiktionary}} template which is used for links to the corresponding Wiktionary entry, and I have added it to the title track dab page. --Finngall ^talk 03:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help. I agree that the page Title track (song) should be deleted, since it is primarily definitional. All one could end up with as supplementary material might be a massive list of title track songs, which doesn't add much, in my view.

Dreadarthur (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Stelios Coucounaras

Hello Finngall, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Stelios Coucounaras, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Contains a clear assertion of importance "His works have been performed in numerous European countries, in the United States, and in Israel". You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 06:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kallappadam

Suspicions of new contributors not understanding our rules aside, please revisit the deletion discussion and the article itself. Perhaps you might wish to reconsider? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@MichaelQSchmidt: Done. But, not being psychic, I don't appreciate being chided for basing an assessment of an article on what's there rather than what's going to be there. --Finngall ^talk 14:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I have learned that topic assessment should be determined by sources being available and not upon a use or not to source an article. And too, there's a consideration under WP:POTENTIAL that tells us to judge less harshly upon how something may be written, and more upon how it can be improved. Those are the tools I have learned to abide by rather succesfully. Again, thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Hi Finngall,

I received your message about my new page being advertising. I noticed other people have company pages and thought I could create one as well. Can you confirm why this is considered advertising? I just would like to have a company page about my company similar to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EFront_Financial_Solutions — Preceding unsigned comment added by ILEVEL Solutions (talk • contribs) 17:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. --Finngall ^talk 17:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Ciorbă

Many thanks. Seems I've stepped on someone's toes.... - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Steve Hanson (Writer)

You have flagged this page for deletion.

The reasons given - self-publishing, lack of credible sources etc are all completely incorrect.

Clear links to credible sources have been given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikihandle72 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@Wikihandle72: Let's look at the sources provided thus far:

• Taylor & Francis link: Book blurb on publisher's web site, not independent.
• Zero Books link: Author page on publisher's web site, not independent.
• Nyx interview: A monologue in a minor online journal that's really little better than a blog and which does not appear to be notable in its own right. The fact that they thought he was worth interviewing shouldn't be totally ignored, but at best it's pretty thin as valid sourcing for an encyclopedia article.

All told, there's nothing here that qualifies as the substantial, verifiable coverage in reliable sources (which are independent of the subject) which shows that Mr. Hanson meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies in general or authors in particular. Even if the speedy deletion tag is declined by administrator, I'm reasonably certain that the consensus at a more formal Articles for Deletion discussion would be to delete the article unless the sourcing were to be substantially improved.

Feel free to ask further questions. Thank you for your time. --Finngall ^talk 18:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Re page flagged for deletion:

Thanks for your initial advice.

I don't feel the judgement has been made after thorough investigation: The Taylor & Francis link is to a peer review journal article rather than 'blurb' for a 'book', as you describe it. If listed academic works are cast as 'in doubt' the entire operation is under question, surely. It has an ISSN number should this be used?

The Nyx journal is certainly not minor, by what criteria have you judged that? It's produced by the Centre for Cultural Studies at Goldsmiths, University of London, you seem to have made that judgement on the aesthetics ('like a blog') and you appear to be making a qualitative judgement on the content, what are your qualifications to do so?

The book exists, is an ISBN number good enough to list it?

Clearly this writer, his book and many other published works by him exist - and many of his fellow Zero authors have Wikipedia pages - so what would count as evidence? Book reviews? Awards? More books? Sleeping with famous people?

At what point does someone exist?

The most intellectual and original man I know has never published a book, but translated work by Gilles Deleuze, Robert Galeta, is he off the radar of Wikipedia because he is an 'unpublished' translator? He'd blow 90% of the listed writers on Wikipedia out the ocean after a drink or two, intellectually speaking of course. I was going to list him next...

To ask an opposite (speculative) question, how would Mr. Hanson ensure that Wikipedia never place an entry on him, in any language, on any part of their site? Is it possible for him to contact someone to put this embargo in place?

Thanks for your engagement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikihandle72 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@Wikihandle72: Generally, merely existing isn't enough--certain notability standards need to be met. Please see the general notability guidelines for a start--this general guideline, along with more specific guidelines for specific topics (like the ones I've linked in my previous reply, or the guidelines for books for another example) are the current consensus among experienced editors. Also, notability isn't necessarily inherited--Goldsmiths is obviously notable, but if nobody has written articles specifically about the Centre for Cultural Studies or Nyx, then there's no basis upon which to create articles for them. I looked to see if Nyx is a notable magazine--I didn't find anybody not associated with them who's written about that publication.

Remember, this is an encyclopedia. It's all about verifiability and reliable sources. Not every person gets an article, not every book gets an article, not every band or musician gets an article (and trust me, I've speedy-tagged attempted articles for dozens of crappy garage bands throughout the civilized world (and most parts of the United States)). I've got several friends (and an ex-wife) who are published, but only one currently has a ghost of a chance of getting an article about them, and it hasn't happened yet. If nobody has written an article or any other verifiable information about them or about Mr. Galeta, then is simply nothing upon which we can base an encyclopedia article.

As for the opposite question, one somebody is notable, it doesn't go away. We're not going to delete an article on a famous person just on that person's say-so. Also, a flip side is that negative information about a subject is liable to be included if is verifiable and properly sourced. If the subject of an article wants certain information removed for privacy reasons, we have channels for requests for that sort of thing, but we're not going to allow them to whitewash verifiable quotes and things. (Just yesterday, we had a kerfuffle when a Scottish MEP personally and repeatedly tried to remove controversial (but well-documented) quotes from his article--his edits were reverted and he was temporarily blocked from editing for his efforts.) But I would think it would have to be a pretty borderline case for someone to have an article on them removed entirely, say, a losing Parliamentary candidate about whom little or nothing has been written outside the context of the campaign. Nobody, not the creator of an article, the subject, or anyone else, "owns" the article or has any more rights than any other editor to make changes--indeed, the subject has even less, since we strongly discourage anyone from editing articles where a conflict of interest may exist. My employer has an article--I don't touch it, ever.

Anyway, please peruse the various policy pages which I've linked above, and by all means continue to ask questions if you feel the need. --Finngall ^talk 22:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Finngall, thankyou for such a long reply. Interesting. It's illuminated Wikipedia a bit more for me.

In my mind these are the kinds of anomalies that circle and never settle: Catherine Malabou has a page and has written for Nyx, but Benjamin Noys doesn't have a page despite several important works on capitalism and speed, same goes for Howard Slater. Noys and Slater are as important as Malabou I think, but you have to have some system I guess and stick to it.

I salute you for speed tagging garage bands! No garage band is ever crappy! That term is not part of the epistemology of garage! Nuggets and Rubble forever! Have a good easter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikihandle72 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@Wikihandle72: If you want to try and create articles on these other people, or to try again on Steve Hanson, I recommend going through the Articles for Creation process, where you can work on articles as drafts, away from the main article space. You can then submit them for review, where an experienced editor can review and either move them into the encyclopedia proper or offer advice for improvement. Wikipedia is inherently a collaborative process, which certainly comes with its own set of issues, but in the end it's what makes this encyclopedia so cool and its community so strong. Happy editing! --Finngall ^talk 16:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Working_Fermentor_+_Freezer_combinations

I have removed the PROD tag from Working_Fermentor_+_Freezer_combinations, which you proposed for deletion.

I expect the table on this page to grow to dozens of entries from other contributors. Perhaps it would assuage your concern if each row of the table included some form of attribution, so that all contributed data points are confirmed as real-world observations?

I don't consider this page to be a How-To guide, since the data is not instructional in nature but rather is informative. By way of example, take the list of Arduino-compatible boards. Such boards are 'open source hardware' in that the creation of a new variant is not governed by a standards board or industry convention; anybody can create a new board + shield combination and propose its relevant uses. Or perhaps consider a list of Cryptids, most of which are unconfirmed and unattributed observations (and / or hoaxes).

In the same way, a new working combination of [fermentor + cooling chamber] is not governed by an industry or society like IEEE, but it is nonetheless useful for the at-large community to be aware of observed instances.

If you still think the article should be deleted, please feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielbcook (talk • contribs) 21:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Re GoGoDragons

Dear Finngall,

Regarding GoGoDragons I have provided my justification, please could you kindly respond if it is sufficient or need more information.

Thanks, Niteshnema

@Niteshnema: There's still no claim here that GGD meets Wikipedia's notability standards for organizations, and no evidence of signifiant coverage from reliable sources which are independent of the subject. Further, statements like "Last chance to see them at The Forum 27-30th September and then auctioned..." can be considered as promotional and therefore not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. I see no reason to rescind the speedy deletion tag as it stands. As an alternative, the article could be moved to draft space where you can work on it at your leisure. Once moved there, you can go through the Articles for Creation process, whereby the article can be submitted to an experienced editor for evaluation. --Finngall ^talk 23:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@Finngall: Thanks for your suggestions. I modified to make it complian t. Please check and revert.

Thanks

@Niteshnema: You excised the passage I mentioned above, but there is other promotional language that needs to be changed, and you still haven't made the case that GGD is notable enough to merit an article to begin with. I really wish you had followed my suggestion and submitted the article for review (using the "Submit" button on the template in the draft version) rather than moving the article back top main article space directly, as in my opinion it still merits speedy deletion for the same reasons as before. --Finngall ^talk 21:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Lighthouse Chapel International

Hello Finngall I have added additional sources to this article and still working on adding more.Hope that will convince you that it is indeed notable and merit an article of Wikipedia.--Rberchie (talk) 10:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@Rberchie: The added sources would have been sufficient for me to withdraw the tag myself if an admin hadn't done the job for me. Thanks, and happy editing! --Finngall ^talk 13:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined

I declined your speedy deletion nomination of Irish Foster Care Association with no prejudice against its deletion through WP:AfD because A7 does not applies. The criterion does not applies to article that make a claim of significance. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@Wikicology: Thank you. I don't really see where the claim of significance is here, but that'll be a matter for AfD soon enough. --Finngall ^talk 14:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The subject of the article had been widely covered in multiple independent reliable sources such as The Irish Times, The Irish Examiner, The Atlantic philanthropies News, Citizens information and The Nationlist News , to mention few are enough to assert the subject notability and this does not translate to passing WP:GNG hence my recommendation of deletion through WP:AfD. However, the article is likely to survive AfD but you can proceed with the nomination. Cheers! Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

contest speedy deletion nomination

Hi Finngall, I would like to continue editing and add additional sources to Greg Di Gesu article and am still working on adding more. Hope that will convince you that it is indeed notable and merit an article of Wikipedia. Mer smith13 (talk · contribs)

Stop! Don't recreate the page again. This is the 3rd time the page was deleted. Wait until your Greg Di Gesu becomes notable and someone with no WP:COI, who knows how to write an encyclopedic article will write about him here. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thanks for your welcome message! While working on editing something, remember to eat. It`s healthy:). Fromentireworld (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

how can i add the filmography??

Hi Finngall,

how can i add the filmography without having copyright violation - as that what i put there are the films he did so far.. ?

thank you!

J — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanBarkerBerlin (talk • contribs) 18:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@JonathanBarkerBerlin: Copyright issues aside, if I were to add material to a filmography section, I'd want to just include his most significant works that have attracted independent attention rather than listing every little video he's ever done. Posting the full list would be considered excessive even if it were not a straight copy and paste from his own website. --Finngall ^talk 18:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@Finngall:

Ah ok thanks - so i add only the music videos, fiction films and the Sheikh Zayed film with links that should be ok i guess. btw can i do that now or will that remove again the delete discussion - cause that what happened last time...

thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanBarkerBerlin (talk • contribs) 19:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Emma 1984

If you mean you weren't seeing the archive link at all, sometimes to fix that you need to use "purge". Adding a blank line doesn't fix the problem, although it probably had the effect of purging.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: If you're referring to a cache purge on my PC, the archive link was not visible at all on two different computers, so I thought I had eliminated the possibility that the issue was just me. If this "purge" is something on the WP side, is this something a general user can do? --Finngall ^talk 16:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Dunno. On my interface, there are tabs along the second-to-top right (Read, Edit, etc.). One is More with a drop-down, and one of the choices is Purge. However, I think that if you do a hard refresh using whatever key combination is required on your browser, that should also work, although it's been a while since I've tried it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The only option on my "More" is "Move", so purge must be an admin tool. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 16:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Stevenson (2nd nomination)

Hi and thanks for your help on my attempt at the page deletion for this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Stevenson

It would appear that once again, the page has been nominated to be kept. I've lost heart now. This person is my deceased wife, the page was written by someone unknown (or at least reluctant to name themselves) and with an agenda other than celebrating her achievements (which are many and significant).

I am not a very competent user of Wikipedia but saw no other option than to try and navigate the site, as well as I could, and try and leave someone with a better legacy than this page leaves her with... perhaps 1 or 2% of what would be required to do her academic and professional work justice.

Thanks again... I'm stopping now, at least until I might find the energy to look at this again.

Clothsnake (talk) 11:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

delete

Hi, can you delete my page, you marked it as worthy of being deleted but instead of it staying up I'd rather just have it gone forever. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masvolpe (talk • contribs) 22:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@Masvolpe: As noted at the top of this page, I have no deletion powers. Your blanking of the article is implicitly a request for deletion, and another editor has tagged it as such so that it should be gone shortly. Thank you for your understanding. --Finngall ^talk 22:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Fitzgerald plot

Should not this be sent to WP:AfD? Bearian (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@Bearian: If the prod is contested and the article not improved in the meantime, I'll do so. No need for an AfD if a prod will do. --Finngall ^talk 21:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. Bearian (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Assist with an SPI

Finngall, you identified Baseerwar (talk · contribs) as a disruptive editor. Upon further review, it would appear this editor has been using multiple accounts across a series of articles. I have filed an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Baseerwar. If you have observed any other accounts editing that appear suspicious, please add your comments and evidence to the SPI. Thanks, Mkdw^talk 00:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding editing

Dear sir(Finngall) The entry is not at all promotional it is a school near Kuttor in thrissur district But the explanation that I had made made to think you so sorry for the same Please see the new version and if it is not meetng the rule please delete it regards sai sundar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saisundar.s (talk • contribs) 08:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

National Crime Scene Cleanup

I encourage you to continue list for afds every article you see that it both promotional and of borderline notability, with questionable references. Experience shows that they are almost always written by COI editors, usually those with an undeclared financial involvement in violation of the terms of use. DGG ( talk ) 08:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

pls, dont delete the wiki page on khaye. thanks Akuba3 (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but I must decline, I don't like nuts. --Finngall ^talk 23:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Re: Johnny Madison/Shilo Sixx blocks

Re your message: I had only blocked the recently active accounts, but after reading their unblock request, the CU confirmation, and their weak denial, I have blocked the two accounts I skipped over. I also left a block notice that I skipped over. Apparently I was half asleep when I did this blocks... -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

What!?

What!!! Michaeljosephboc (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Reminder

Mark your CSD pages as patrolled. Good day! :) Charlie the Pig (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Sister giveth, sister taketh away

Per the above note, I granted you autopatroller status, but I now see I was smoking crack and misunderstood the bit. So I took it back. Don't tell Mom. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 01:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Paramekkavu Vidya Mandir

I don't see the template inside the article.

I have been told there are specific rules regarding educational institutions.

Xx236 (talk) 07:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Xx236: I had tagged a previous version of the article last month as spam, and it was deleted as such at that time. This version of the article, such as it is, is a brand-new creation. As an educational institution, is is specifically not eligible for speedy deletion per WP:A7, and it barely passes WP:A1, but it needs some serious help. --Finngall ^talk 13:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.Xx236 (talk) 05:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

With this ever dramatic world including WikiDrama, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! SwisterTwister talk 18:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

My Body My Rules (2015): FGM Animation

I'm not convinced about the notability of this work, but I don't believe db-A7 applies and therefore removed your CSD tag. Specifically, db-A7 does not apply to creative works such as films (and although this is web content on YouTube, it doesn't appear to be only web content). RichardOSmith (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Playing God without talking to the people

What personality is that? Do you feel good now and big? How is your carreer on wiki going? How many awards do you want? Listen up, this way of aggressiv working is bad and not acceptable. Open your mouth and try to help and ask and connect to people. We are all wikipedia, so do not feel safe and special. Wikipedians must be gentle and not stupid. So, give people time and relax, I am not alone, so do not try to fool me or bann me. I have to fix the site this time i never give up. So think deep and cooperate and find answers otherwise we `ll have a bad time together.Ulla1956 15:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulla1956 (talk • contribs)

Why did you not answering here on your page? Is your site still clean? Afraid of trouble? Thats what Stuart Styron happened. Most links are dead and full of negative lies. Its now 1 Year and now its enough, Wikipedia must take responsibility and understand the things. I`ve talked to my lawyer and gave me green light. Wikipedia must fix the trash they did.Ulla1956 15:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulla1956 (talk • contribs)

Hello there @Ulla1956: How are you? Remember not to make legal threats. Have a great day! Valfontis (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, check this one (talk, he tried several times to delete my article aggressivly! He is blocked and try to teach other people here on wiki. Do not playing the angel, just help out and find a good way. So please check him and block him a longer time. He is not a gentle wiki worker, he is more negative for the work, so take care of him.Ulla1956 17:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulla1956 (talk • contribs)

@Ulla1956: That user appears to be a garden-variety vandal (albeit one who has been here before, based on his edits) and has been dealt with for now (though I agree the block should have been indefinite). Whatever the problems with the Stuart Styron article may be, this vandalism is a separate issue and should be treated as such. --Finngall ^talk 17:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I have the right to work and find the best option to manifest a maybe "lower" article. It must be done. There are lots of broken links because of the deletation last Year and its not getting better it stays in index more and more because lots of people checking this more. There is something in the air, because all admins who supported the deletion of Stuart Styron pages wrote that he is not an actor or musician, but he is corrupt and he paid for that wikiside...Thats all not rue and this image is still in the air every day. He is not a fake! Lots of misunderstandings happened and until this day, the links existing. And thats not fair and wiki must take responsibility for that. If everyone can be an admin here and doing whatever he want, thats not good. Thats dangerous. Stuart Styron is loved by the town, goverment and state here and everybody knows him. It`s serious what I`m talking and it`s time to resolve the problem, more than ever. Please understand and try to help in some ways. I know there are options. Thank you Ulla1956 18:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulla1956 (talk • contribs)

New Disability delsort category

Hi: Just a heads up that a new deletion sorting page was created on 19 October 2015 for Disability-related articles, located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Disability. Thanks for your work in performing deletion sorting on Wikipedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for your work in relisting AfD discussions, which helps to keep matters in order. North America1000 07:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of YottaSolutions

Dear Finngall,

My name is Michael Smith and I live in Amman, Jordan at the moment. I have created the article YottaSolutions about a well-known company in Jordan that is trending nowadays. I do not know why you do not find the company important enough to be in this encyclopedia, but what I know is that you did not check it well before you took this decision. If you read the article again and check the company work and achievements, that I only written from what I know from my end and hopefully other members that are located in Jordan will add more information and achievements about this company as soon as its published, you will realize how a company like that is worthy and important to talk about.

I guarantee you that this article and this company is better and more important than lots of web design companies articles I have came through while writing this article, which many of them don't even have the achievements to write an article, so how about Yotta Solutions?

Please review my case and hopefully you will change your quick decision. Thanks in advance.

Looking forward for your response, Yours sincerely, Michael Smith

Smith4720 (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Smith4720: Please read Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies. This article will need verifiable references from reliable sources which are independent of the company itself which show that the company meets these guidelines--all you've provided so far is the company's own promotional materials.

As for the comparisons with articles on other companies, there are many articles here which are borderline or worse with respect to the above standards, and the fact that they still exist is not a strong argument for keeping this article. The article will need to stand or fall on its own merits.

Finally, if you are connected with this company, please read Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest.

Please peruse the policies which I have linked above, and feel free to ask further questions. Thanks! --Finngall ^talk 19:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Finngall: Please allow the existence of this article until another person adds more information and references soon, since I do not belong to the company and I am not connected to it at all. I can guarantee couple of references from independent sources that talks about the company and how important it is that will be added soon by people that are more connected to the company and have better knowledge about it. In meanwhile, I believe what is in the article is good enough to keep this article because I am so sure that what is written should be respected and appreciated for its importance, knowing that I am sure that the reason you patrolled the article is that you do not live in Jordan and you do not know how popular this company is. I was even surprised when I did not find an article about Yotta Solutions when I was searching for it. One more thing, please re-read the article and think again of this decision that was taken on an article of an important company in Jordan and the Middle East as well. Thanks for understanding. Smith4720 (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@Smith4720: I'll leave the decision a friendly neighborhood admin at this point. But I'll also note a few other things:

• If it gets deleted, there's nothing precluding it from being recreated as long as it's not just the same material being posted all over again. Pages can be protected from recreation, but we try to save for that the more egregious cases of abuse.
• If good sources are not forthcoming immediately, but you intend to work on it further, I could move it to Draft:YottaSolutions where it can be worked on a little more leisurely and then submitted via the Articles for creation process where it can be evaluated by more experienced editors. The draft version can stay around as long as it doesn't go unedited for six months, but it's not intended for indefinite storage of material which otherwise doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards.
• I'll also note that many of the other company articles which you were using for comparison may very well have been started waiting for "people that [...] have better knowledge about [them]", but those people never came. In my opinion we need fewer articles like that, not more.
• The company may very well be "important" in many respects, but that's not the same thing as being notable, at least by the standards here.

Thanks for replying. Let me know your thoughts on the above. --Finngall ^talk 19:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	thank you Jonnymoon96 (talk) 00:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)