User talk:Nancy/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Thanks

Hi. Thanks for deleting Fatehpur, Uttar Pradesh to make way for move (and moving the article too). Could you please look into the same here. Thanks, Why so serious? ^{Talk to me} 08:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Declined speedies=

I am sorry, did not know what got into me. I did not mean to mark the first two pages for speedy deletions, although at the time I marked it, I did not see a credible source, which was later posted. Sorry for the mistakes. Trythisonyourpiano (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Getting back Toufoula article

Hello Nancy , I was working on TOUFOULA wikipedia page and Toufoula is an organization that helps children with cancer in Lebanon and i think there was an advertisement and marketing terms but its not related to marketing at all and the goal of this organization is to help children with cancer and its more like a charity organization. I would like to have back the Toufoula Wikipedia Article and i will check it again and remove what could be violated and if You can please also check what is more likely to remove so we can keep it on wikipedia cause its also not finish yet , i need to add links to the article and pictures. Thank You J.Hassoun J.Hassoun (talk) 11:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the reason given in the deletion log and read the message I left on your talk page you will see that it was deleted because it was a blatant copyright violation. i.e. it was cut and pasted from pages on the Toufoula website which does not have a licence compatible with Wikipedia's. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images and for this reason I am unable to restore the deleted content. nancy 11:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok , Can we do another Toufoula article and write about this organization in a different way then the deleted one ? Thank You J.Hassoun (talk) 13:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to write another article providing you do it in your own words. First though you might want to read through our notability requirements for organisations as the secondary reason that Toufoula was deleted was that it did not give any credible assertions of notability. If you don't also address the notability concerns then it is likely that the article will be deleted again. It is also not usually a good idea to write about topics with which you are closely associated as it makes it difficult to remain neutral and objective; a good rule of thumb is that if a topic is truly notable they someone uninvolved will be along soon enough to create an article about it. Best, nancy 17:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

ARE YOU SERIOUS.

I AM SO NOT HAPPY FOR YOU FOR DELETING MAKLANES WIKIPEDIA PAGE. LIKE HE IS SO FAMOUS & YOU DELETE? ARE YOU HIGH OR.....? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.120.29 (talk) 02:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Crouch

Hi Nancy. Thanks for finally blocking Crouch. You've been amazingly patient with this user and I think you deserve a break from them now. BTW don't forget to put the official block template on their tp lest they tries to game the system. Kindest regards, --Kudpung (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, THANK you!! I agree, you have been very patient. Also, I really appreciate your firm, yet cordial replies to his whinings. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 21:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I take no pleasure in what happened but in the end he just wouldn't listen to reason or respond to mentoring so there was an air of inevitability about it all. I have to admit that the socking came as a bit of surprise; I thought he just end up being perma-blocked for disruption but then he went and took off in a completely unexpected and fatal direction. Hey ho. nancy 20:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Crouch, Swale's work, I'm wondering what should be done about a bunch of their templates. There is one that uses the electoral ward of Boxford, Suffolk

then we also have ones for two of the parishes contained within, namely:

and

This seems like overusage of templates, and there's also unecessary duplication. Are any of these worth putting to TfD? I feel that they should go, but I'm not certain if they actually contravene any policies. Cheers. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree. I've just taken the pruning saw to Template:Groton but can't really see the point of any of them as they largely seem to duplicate info already in Template:Babergh which is on all the same articles. Having templates for such a small division as a rural parish or a ward doesn't seem particularly sustainable to me either but as you say, no obvious policy based reason for deletion. Perhaps I should just IAR and summarily delete them (not really, I think I am now too "involved" for such boldness). nancy 20:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I've put the Boxford one up for deletion, so we'll see how that goes... Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 11:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I was also wondering what to do with Crouch's new pages, as listed here. Row Heath and Skye Green are typical of the unsourced stubs the user specialised in. To be honest my inclination is that this user has already been such a time sink and we should just bin them all, unless other people have contributed content (rather than tags etc) to the articles. I can see how that approach may not sit well with people however. Is it worth having a ban discussion so that further pages created can be speedy deleted on sight? Quantpole (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd be more inclined to redirect them to the appropriate village/larger hamlet/civil parish - I've done that with a lot of Crouch's creations over the past month or so. WRT banning, my feeling is to let it be for now - it will only become an issue if he starts socking to avoid his block & we can deal with that if/when it happens. Best, nancy 16:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedies and Prods

Hi Nancy, I was pretty certain that a contested prod couldn't be speedied, but I was unable to find the guideline. If you can point me to it that would be useful. Rich Farmbrough, 22:50, 24th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

I don't remember where it is articulated but the principle as I apply it is that Speedy is supposed to be uncontroversial. If a Prod for the same has been contested then that makes the deletion controversial and therefore AFD is the only option for deletion. The only exception would be something like a copyvio which would have to go regardless. I'm sure I read it somewhere once; probably many years ago! Sorry I can't be more helpful. nancy 06:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Rich - are you possibly confusing this with the doctrine that contested prods can't be re-prodded? Which, if memory serves, is based on what Nancy is saying above - that if someone contests a prod then by definition it would be controversial to delete and therefore AFD (excluding obvious stuff). Pedro :  Chat  15:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Quite possibly, I was asking Nancy based on something she had said elsewhere. And it does seem sense, if one level fails you can't go "down the tree" to less diligent levels, again apart from the obvious. Rich Farmbrough, 19:29, 25th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

Looking for Assitance

I appreciated the way You assisted me in setting up my user name so my nickname could be linked to it, and now that is working perfectly. The only thing now is that I would like to properly link my Wikipedia account with one on Wiktionary and all the others. A message said they were all linked, but when I typed in my user name as it appears in My Preferences for Wikipedia, in Wiktionary it comes up in Red, and I have two different user numbers for each part as well. How do I link them up, so that my user page as it is on Pedia can be accessed directly in the same way with the same link on the Wikitionary ? Thank You. [[User:Christopher1968/Chris The Russian Christopher Lilly]] 06:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Your accounts are linked across all Wikimedia projects in that you have a single unified login; i.e. your username and password is the same across all projects. However..... the projects are still all completely separate entities so you will have different user and user talk pages for each one. Your accounts may have different permissions on each as well - e.g. I am an Administrator on Wikipedia but not on Wiktionary. What quite a lot of people do is put a message on the userpage of other projects with a link to their Wikipedia user page and/or user talk. This is especially useful for projects that you don't log in to very often. If however you just want to replicate your Wikipedia userpage(s) then yo just need to copy and paste the Wikimarkup from here to the other projects.

Regarding your signature, if you copy this code:''[[User:Christopher1968/Chris The Russian|Chris the Russian]]'' '''[[User:Christopher1968|Christopher Lilly]]''' in to your preferences, your signature will look like this: Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly Best, nancy 16:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank You - I shall try that. Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly 06:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks so much for Your help. Your suggestions have worked very well. Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly 06:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Foot orthoses page was part of international Academic activity to update Wikipedia

Hi Nancy, we and others around the world are mid a Wiki Flash to provide the most revelant, independent and externally validated reference material on Wikipedia related to foot and ankle biomechanics. See here for us and here for the activity. We are a group of over 700 scholars from around the world and so feel well placed to say was is correct/incorrect and relevant in our field. If the "orthotics" article has a "Foot Orthotics" section then it must be a valid topic for Wikipedia, and I can vouch that the information provided is not comprehensive, hence my article.

I cannot agree that my pages of text, that read like an encyclopedia on the details of how foot orthoses are designed, built and used, and provides a relevant view on current issues in the field, can be replaced by one line of incorrect text on the "Orthotics" page. I pray my original article is not lost as it took an age to write. At the very least it should have been integrated into the orthotics page - why did you not do that? (I started a new page because otherwise it made it intolerably long). This is massively discouraging to find this happen in a matter of hours after the article was written. I can confirm there is only independent and academic related references with no attempt to provide commercial or product biased information on the topic. I would welcome a reply since you have destroyed a days work. Regards, Professor Chris Nester, Univeristy of Salford UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhs067 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Chris. I am pushed for time right now. I will reply properly later this morning & look at userfication etc. nancy 06:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The reason that the article was deleted is, as per the deletion log, that it duplicated topics already covered at Orthotics and in more detail at Shoe insert. We cannot have multiple articles on the same topic with different names. You may argue that "Shoe inserts" is not the best name for the article but you should do that at Talk:Shoe insert and try to get consensus for a page move there.

You mention that you are "well placed to say what is correct/incorrect in your field"; I have no doubt that this is correct but you must remember that Wikipedia is a tertiary source and therefore the sort of opinions, synthesis and defined point of view acceptable (and expected) in an academic paper are not appropriate here. This is no way to suggest that we don't want you contributions, just that you must bear in mind the forum and cut your cloth accordingly. It might also be helpful to you to follow some of the links in the welcome message posted on your talk page to get an overview of how this place operates. A browse through our manual of style would also be useful, particularly regarding things like best practice for titling section headers. There are pages and pages of policy and guidelines and it would take a year to read them all but a quick trawl through the headliners should give you the groundings enough to get you started.

Finally, I have "userfied" your article text to User:Rhs067/Sandbox. Whilst it is in your userspace you can work on it with out interference & when you are ready perhaps a sensible place to put it to start with would be in the currently empty Orthopedic inserts section of Shoe insert. Hope this helps and please don't hesitate to ask if you need any further assistance, best, nancy 09:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nancy, many thanks for these pointers, will take on board and revise the material accordingly, thanks.chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhs067 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Starkey Laboratories

I see that you deleted a page highlighting who starkey is and what we do. I am the Manager of Global Talent Practices and wondering what about hte article you feel is unambiguos advertising? I will have to do a little more research on how Wikipedia works, but find it interesting that someone woudl simpyl completely delete an entry on a company that is pretty accurate, albeit, in need of some updating of facts.

Please let me know your thoughts on this matter, and your proposed next steps. Cordially, Ross Selden

Starkey LaboratoriesFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

21:33, 13 December 2010 Nancy (talk | contribs) deleted "Starkey Laboratories" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: and copyvio of http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/history2/65/Starkey-Laboratories-Inc.html) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.100.118.140 (talk)

If you look at the second reason given in the deletion log you will see that it was deleted because it was a blatant copyright violation. i.e. it was cut and pasted from pages on another website which does not have a licence compatible with Wikipedia's. (Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and, except where otherwise noted, the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. As the source website was a business directory it makes the fact that the text was written promotionally rather than encyclopaedically somewhat easier to understand. Further, It is also not usually a good idea to write about topics with which you are closely associated as it makes it difficult to remain neutral and objective; a good rule of thumb is that if a topic is truly notable then someone uninvolved will be along soon enough to create an article about it. You might also want to peruse our notability requirements for organisations. Best, nancy 19:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Zorya Fine Art

Hi Nancy, I'm wondering why Zorya Fine Art was deleted? It's purpose was to educate, inform and also contribute to wikipedia about Ukrainian art and culture within the US. If you do not decide to undo the deletion would you be able to send me the data that was on the Zorya Fine Art page in a PDF? I worked for hours trying to find all the information about them to put up and would really like to have a copy for my records... I promise I won't just upload it to wikipedia again.

Best Wishes, Shawn — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.semmes (talk • contribs) 22:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The article was deleted because there was no indication that the gallery would meet our notability requirements for organisations. It was also written in a promotional and unencyclopaedic way - containing statements such as "Zorya Fine Art brings a bold new perspective to the art world". I am however happy to supply a copy of the deleted article; you can find it at User:S.semmes/Sandbox. Best, nancy 06:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Enemy Holocaust

Hi, I was just wondering exactly WHY (in detail) that my band page has been deleted ?? I have done this several times and you keep deleting it. There is nothing on the page that is offensive, belligerent, or in any way could be taken in a bad way by anyone. So please, explain to me why my page was deleted.

Thank you, Kriss — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarfishVirus (talk • contribs) 12:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kriss. The page was deleted (only the once by the way) because the article showed no indication that your band would meet our notability requirements for bands. The most basic standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is notability--that is, whether or not the subject has received attention from the press. Wikipedia is not a place to establish one's notability, and so things like the band you started with your friends don't belong in Wikipedia unless they've been written about elsewhere. Best, nancy 12:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Kieran D'la Vega

Hello there, please can you help me with this page, i think you deleted it. This is my son's page, and i cannot understand why you would want it off wiki, could you help me in any way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynnette1964 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Lynette. The main reason tha the page was removed was it contained some unreferenced and controversial statements about the subject (about his sexual orientation, medical history and alleged drug abuse). This is contrary to our policy in biographies of living persons. Even without these statements the article gave no indication that the subject would meet our notability requirements for biographies. See the results for a google news search and a whole web search.

Regardless of the notability or otherwise of the subject, we generally discourage people from writing about topics with which they have a close personal connection as we recognise that it makes it very difficult to remain neutral and objective. A good rule of thumb is that if a person is truly notable then an uninvolved editor will be along soon enough to write an article about them.This is an encyclopaedia, not a web host so if your son needs a web page then you should look to an ISP or to sites like Myspace. Best, nancy 15:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

PAGE DELETED

HI, Dear Nancy i would like to know why page is deleted ? if there is any problem kindly let me know , i am not promoting any thing i am just puuting collage information for students ,and taking information from collage website . if you want i can provide you a permission in written document format from collage administration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabu naqvi (talk • contribs) 15:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

As per the deletion log (where you got my name from) and also the message that was left on your talk page, the article was deleted because it was a blatant copyright infringement of the college website which is very clearly marked "All Right Reserved to RGSMSR".

In order for copyright material to be used on Wikipedia it has to be released under very particular sorts of copyrights. One simple way to grant permission to copy material already on line is to put that permission explicitly on the site where that material is posted. This is commonly known as a "copyleft" notice. This notice must state that your site (or portions of your site) are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts) or that it is in the public domain. For text, a good statement of release might read, "The text of this website (or page, if you are specifically releasing one section) is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)."

If you would like to allow Wikipedia to use your content, but don't want to put a license statement on the site (note that you still must release it under those free licenses), you can contact permissions-en@wikimedia.org. See here for an example permissions granting email. For text, after sending the email, place {{OTRS pending}} on the article's discussion page. Someone will reply to your email, indicating whether the content and your license is acceptable and update the page to indicate that the confirmation of the license has been received.

However, there are three things that you should consider first:

1. Are you happy to release your copyright in such a manner?
2. Is the released material actually suitable for use on Wikipedia?

With regard to the second I would suggest that the tone of the material is unencyclopaedic and would probably be removed as advertising. Further, a general rule of thumb is that you should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability - all edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. If the achievements, etc. of your company, are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about it sooner or later. Kind regards, nancy 15:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thames

thanks for doing the edit, my brain was getting fuzzy last night; I am good at writing not so much at editing. a question what is the use for Derain pic? fair use?

[Real Irony here as the Derain picture is held by the Tate Gallery which was paid for and namesake of Tate of Tate and Lyle, sugar barons who made their money trading on the Thames] now wont let us use pic???

You cannot use the Derain in the Steamers article. The picture is still under copyright and a you cannot justify fair use just because it is a picture of Steamers. I suggest you read our guidelines on non-free images where you will see that the painting could only be used in an article which contains critical commentary of the work, the technique or the school; as the article is about steamboars not about the painting/artist/school such commentary would clearly be inappropriate and therefore you cannot use the image. Further, there are plenty of free alternatives which could be used to illustrate the article again invalidating any claim of fair use. nancy 19:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

OI ! you with the rapid fire delete button. Leave Derain pix alone... They are purdy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.23.169 (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

/* note - BLPN - The 50 Most Loathsome Americans */

Hi, there is a thread at the BLP noticeboard here about an article you refused a speedy on, your comments would be appreciated, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Too late. Perhaps not my best call. nancy 17:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries, the request was basically invalid, anyways as you saw its gone now, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Ball Park Music

Hi Nancy, I'd like to dispute your recent deletion of Ball Park Music as a g4. The version returned to the mainspace had more coverage from independent reliable sources, if I remeber right three articles from mainstream papers published after the afd. I believe this extra coverage not only makes the article sufficiantly different but it also addresses the main concerns of those who argued for deletion, ie lack of coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I still think it's borderline but I can see your point and have no axe to grind so have restored it and sent it to back AFD instead Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ball Park Music (2nd nomination), best nancy 08:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reconsidering your decision. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Michelle Materre

Nancy, it seems that you deleted the Michelle Materre page for possible copyright. I promise you there is NO copyright issue with this page. Ms. Materre is also aware of the page, and she has approved it. Ms. Materre has also agreed to provide more information for consideration, such as an impressive list of books articles and industry references –along with a forthcoming book of her own. Please, allow this page to return. Cedric — Preceding unsigned comment added by CedricBeasley (talk • contribs) 03:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello CedricBeasley. I'm afraid it is not quite that simple...... (it never is!).... in order for copyright material to be used on Wikipedia it has to be released under very particular sorts of copyrights.

One simple way to grant permission to copy material already on line is to put that permission explicitly on the site where that material is posted. This is commonly known as a "copyleft" notice. This notice must state that your site (or portions of your site) are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts) or that it is in the public domain. For text, a good statement of release might read, "The text of this website (or page, if you are specifically releasing one section) is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)."

If you would like to allow Wikipedia to use your content, but don't want to put a license statement on the site (note that you still must release it under those free licenses), you can contact permissions-en@wikimedia.org. See here for an example permissions granting email. For text, after sending the email, place {{OTRS pending}} on the article's discussion page. Someone will reply to your email, indicating whether the content and your license is acceptable and update the page to indicate that the confirmation of the license has been received.

However, there are three things that you should consider first:

1. Are you happy to release your copyright in such a manner?
2. Is the released material actually suitable for use on Wikipedia?
3. Does Michele Materre meet the general notability requirements for biographies?

With regard to the second I would suggest that the tone of the material is unencyclopaedic and I also think that the answer to the third is probably no. Further, a general rule of thumb is that you should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability - all edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. If the achievements, etc. of Michele Materre, are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about her sooner or later. Kind regards, nancy 09:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Ray Rogers (labor activist)

You deleted my most recent added portion to the page Ray Rogers (labor activist). While I am pleased that you didn't delete the entire listing, I wish to be able to add to this page again. While not the copyright holder on the material in question, I do have verbal approval to use this copyrighted material. In what way can I most quickly demonstrate to Wikipedia that I have copyright approval to use this material?Gwirth (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)gwirth

Hi there Gwirth, In order for copyright material to be used on Wikipedia it has to be released under very particular sorts of copyrights.

One simple way to grant permission to copy material already on line is to put that permission explicitly on the site where that material is posted. This is commonly known as a "copyleft" notice. This notice must state that your site (or portions of your site) are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts) or that it is in the public domain. For text, a good statement of release might read, "The text of this website (or page, if you are specifically releasing one section) is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)."

If you would like to allow Wikipedia to use your content, but don't want to put a license statement on the site (note that you still must release it under those free licenses), you can contact permissions-en@wikimedia.org. See here for an example permissions granting email. For text, after sending the email, place {{OTRS pending}} on the article's discussion page. Someone will reply to your email, indicating whether the content and your license is acceptable and update the page to indicate that the confirmation of the license has been received.

However, there are two things that you should consider first:

1. Are you happy to release your copyright in such a manner?
2. Is the released material actually suitable for use on Wikipedia?

Hope this helps, best, nancy 16:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for your answer. I will work on getting the proper copyright permission via your suggestions. Again, thanks! Gwirth (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)gwirth

LILY VASQUEZ

Hi Nancy, Im Lily Vasquez Publicist and I have created her profile which I attemp to upload in Wikepedia,.I have distribuite her information to several media outlets, I'm confuse about Batanag copyright on her profile because that is the one I created originally and then it was distribute to them an other media people...can you pls how can I avoid deletion in future submisions...thank you and best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teofilonavarro (talk • contribs) 20:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see the answer in the section directly above this one[1] for an explanation of how to donate copyright materials to Wikiepdia. Further, a general rule of thumb is that you should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability - all edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. If the achievements, etc. of Lily Vasquezas re, are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about her sooner or later. Best, nancy 14:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

St.Joseph's Church Nellikuzhi Kothamangalam

Hi

I didn't understand why my pages are deleted.File:sjcn201 is my photo and no onelse have copy right on it. Pls explain me what did I done wrong. I copied some sentences from other pages and edited to suit with my pages just for quick editting but it was not a copy write written page or never copied a complete sentence. I made this page for the goodness of many people. Pls explain me what's wrong on me

Jomon Kollamparambil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joemonkzzz (talk • contribs) 12:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The map was quite clearly a screenshot from Google maps, indeed it still had the little "A" marker on it indicating the location of the original search. It is therefore copyright. As for the rest of the deleted content in the article it was removed variously because it was completely unencyclopaedic (e.g. what number to dial to call the police from the church, directions from the bus stop) - see WP:NOTDIR or otherwise entirely inappropriate (e.g. mobile phone numbers for members of the congregation), or promotional (who to contact to make donations). Before it was edited down the whole thing looked more like the website for the church rather than an entry in a serious encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is not your webhost and in order for the entry to remain you have to show how/why your church meets our notability requirements for organisations, which as the church is not even built yet will I suspect be an impossible task. Best, nancy 14:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

My Scrapbook

You have deleted a page for a website named "My Scrapbook" that was established this week. If you are not a member of said website, you will not be able to tell how many members it has, therefore you are not in a position to judge it's notability. Eddiej2011 (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The most basic standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is notability--that is, whether or not the subject has received attention from the press. Wikipedia is not a place to establish notability, and so things like the website you started last week don't belong in Wikipedia unless they've been written about elsewhere. Please see our notability requirements for websites. Further, a general rule of thumb is that you should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability - all edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. If the achievements, etc. of My Scrapbook are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about it sooner or later. Best, nancy 17:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing Nancy/Archive 17 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Logan Talk Contributions 00:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Wishing Nancy a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 16:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both. Can't believe it is three years - doesn't time fly when you are having fun :P nancy 09:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Curiosity

Hi, I am wondering, why GM Helicopters (ok, it is company) page is deleted, but Heavy Lift Helicopters (which is aviation company, too) is still available? Are there different WikiRules for american and european companies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baibucix (talk • contribs) 08:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

No there are no different rules, however consensus about notability has changed over time and you will find that there are some older articles on Wikipedia which if created today would probably not survive. I agree about the doubtful notability of Heavy Lift Helicopters and have tagged it accordingly. Best, nancy 09:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Cryoderm

Dear Nancy! You did indeed! I suspect it was because it was still unfinished and I published it without the complete info that would prove its usefulness to other users. I disagree that the article I created titled Cryoderm fits under the G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion clause, because it states right there that "Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." There was no advertising in that article whatsoever (please, review it if you disagree). Also, to be fair, you should delet the article under the title "Biofreeze" as it contains a lot more ad and a lot less useful info. Respectfully, Body Soul Mind — Preceding unsigned comment added by Body Soul Mind (talk • contribs) 00:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

All your questions should be covered at User:Nancy/Why. Kind regards, nancy 09:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

National Union of Calligraphers

Dear Nancy,

I'm sorry our page hasn't been correctly done. Probably, my mistake is I haven't mentioned about the importance of the Union and about its actions and achievements.

Please, may you give me some ideas how I can improve the article about the National Union of Calligraphers. Your opinion is very important for me.

Also I’m sorry but I don’t understand what is wrong with the copyright of the website. Should I give you any arguments that prove that the website is our own and all the visual material is published with the agreement of its author?

The National Union of Calligraphers is the first and still the only one union that joins calligraphers in our country. Being a member of the union helps calligraphers to exchange the experience, to make collective exhibitions, to give lessons for everyone who wants to practice his skills in this art. The Union also cooperates with the calligraphers from other countries.

This Union is an important part of the today’s Russian culture.

Yours respectfully, Fedor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.117.66.228 (talk) 08:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello Fedor & welcome. In order for copyright material to be used on Wikipedia it has to be released under very particular sorts of copyrights.

One simple way to grant permission to copy material already on line is to put that permission explicitly on the site where that material is posted. This is commonly known as a "copyleft" notice. This notice must state that your site (or portions of your site) are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts) or that it is in the public domain. For text, a good statement of release might read, "The text of this website (or page, if you are specifically releasing one section) is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)."

If you would like to allow Wikipedia to use your content, but don't want to put a license statement on the site (note that you still must release it under those free licenses), you can contact permissions-en@wikimedia.org. See here for an example permissions granting email. For text, after sending the email, place {{OTRS pending}} on the article's discussion page. Someone will reply to your email, indicating whether the content and your license is acceptable and update the page to indicate that the confirmation of the license has been received.

However, there are three things that you should consider first:

1. Are you happy to release your copyright in such a manner?
2. Is the released material actually suitable for use on Wikipedia? i.e. is the tone encyclopaedic?
3. Does the National Union of Calligraphers meet the general notability requirements for organisations?

Further, a general rule of thumb is that you should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability - all edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. If the achievements, etc. of the National Union of Calligraphers are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about her sooner or later. Hope this helps. Kind regards, nancy 08:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Nancy,

I'm sorry I've sent you a letter without my authorization in Wikipedia.

I'm looking forward for your answer.

Fedor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Фёдор Александров (talk • contribs) 08:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Anaerobic infections

Nancy, Thanks for working on my previous contribution. I re wrote the page as you suggested and it is therefore not similar to the deleted on. I am enclosing it below awaiting your instructions if to proceed. Thanks dribrook

Extended content

INTRODUCTION Anaerobic bacteria are a common cause of infections, some of which can be serious and life-threatening. Because anaerobes are the predominant components of the skin’s and mucous membranes normal flora they are a common cause infections of endogenous origin. Because of their fastidious nature, anaerobes are hard to isolate and are often not recovered from infected sites. The administration of delayed or inappropriate therapy against these organisms may lead to failures in eradication of these infections. The isolation of anaerobic bacteria requires adequate methods for collection, transportation and cultivation of clinical specimens. The management of anaerobic infection is often difficult because of the slow growth of anaerobic organisms, which can delay their identification by the frequent polymicrobial nature of these infections and by the increasing antimicrobial resistance of anaerobic bacteria to antimicrobials. PREDISPOSING CONDITIONS Condition predisposing to anaerobic infections include: exposure of a sterile body location to a high inoculum of indigenous bacteria of mucous membrane flora origin, inadequate blood supply and tissue necrosis which lower the oxidation and reduction potential which support the growth of anaerobes. Condition which can lowers the blood supply and can predispose to anaerobic infection are: trauma, foreign body, malignancy, surgery, edema, shock, colitis and vascular disease. Other predisposing conditions include splenectomy, neutropenia, immunosuppression, hypogammaglobinemia, leukemia, collagen vascular disease and cytotoxic drugs and diabetes mellitus. A preexisting infection caused by aerobic or facultative organisms can alter the local tissue conditions and make them more favorable for the growth of anaerobes. Impairment in defense mechanisms due to anaerobic conditions can also favor anaerobic infection. These include production of leukotoxins (by Fusobacterium spp.), phagocytosis intracellular killing impairments (often caused by encapsulated anaerobes and by succinic acid produced by Bacteroides spp.), chemotaxis inhibition (by Fusobacterium, Prevotella and Porphyromonas spp.), and proteases degradation of serum proteins (by Bacteroides spp.) and The hallmarks of anaerobic infection include suppuration, establishment of an abscess, thrombophlebitis and gangrenous destruction of tissue with gas generation. Anaerobic bacteria are very commonly recovered in chronic infections, and are often found following the failure of therapy with antimicrobials that are ineffective against them, such as trimethoprim–sulfamethoxazole (co-trimoxazole), aminoglycosides, and the earlier quinolones. Some infections are more likely to be caused by anaerobic bacteria, and they should be suspected in most instances. These infections include brain abscess, oral or dental infections, human or animal bites, aspiration pneumonia and lung abscesses, amnionitis, endometritis, septic abortions, tubo-ovarian abscess, peritonitis and abdominal abscesses following viscus perforation, abscesses in and around the oral and rectal areas, pus-forming necrotizing infections of soft tissue or muscle and postsurgical infections that emerge following procedures on the oral or gastrointestinal tract or female pelvic area. Some solid malignant tumors, ( colonic, uterine and bronchogenic, and head and neck necrotic tumors, are more likely to become secondarily infected with anaerobes. The lack of oxygen within the tumor that are proximal to the endogenous adjacent mucosal flora can predispose such infections. ANAEROBIC INFECTIONS Anaerobes have been isolated in infections at all body locations. The frequency of their recovery depends on the employment of proper methods of collection of specimen, their transportation to the microbiology laboratory and cultivation. The recovery of organism depends on the site of infection and is related to the adjacent mucous membranes microbial flora. Central nervous system (CNS) Anaerobes are able to cause all types of intracranial infections. These often cause subdural empyema, and brain abscess, and rarely cause epidural abscess and meningitis. The origin of brain abscess is generally an adjacent chronic ear, mastoid, or sinus infection oropharynx, teeth or lungs. Mastoid and ear or infections generally progress to the temporal lobe or cerebellum, while facial sinusitis commonly causes frontal lobe abscess. Hematogenous spread of the infection into the CNS often occurs after oropharyngeal, dental, or pulmonary infection. Infrequently bacteremia originating of another location or endocarditis can also cause intracranial infection. Meningitis due to anaerobic bacteria is infrequent and may follow respiratory tract infection or complicate a cerebrospinal fluid shunt. Nerological shunt infections are often caused by skin bacteria such as P. acnes, or in instances of ventriculoperitoneal shunts that perforate the gut, by anaerobes of enteric origin (i.e. ''Bacteroides fragilis'').Clostridium perfringens can cause of brain abscesses and meningitis following intracranial surgery or head trauma. The anaerobes often isolated from brain abscesses complicating respiratory and dental infections are anaerobic Gram-negative bacilli (AGNB, including Prevotella, Porphyromonas, Bacteroides), Fusobacterium and Peptostreptococcus spp. Microaerophilic and other streptococci are also often isolated. Actinomyces are rarely isolated. At the stage of encephalitis, antimicrobial therapy and utilization of measures to lower the increase in the intracranial pressure can prevent the formation of an intracranial abscess However, after an abscess has emerged, surgical removal or drainage may be nessecery, along with an extended course of antimicrobial therapy (4–8 weeks). Some advocate complete drainage of intracranial abscess, while others use repeated aspirations of the abscess. , Repeated aspirations of an abscess are preferable in those with multiple abscesses or when the abscess is located in a predominate brain site. Administration of antimicrobials in a high-dose for an extended period of time can offer an alternative treatment strategy in this type of patients and may substitute for surgical evacuation of an abscess. Because of the poor penetration of many antimicrobial agents through the blood–brain barrier, there are few agents available for the treatment of intracranial infections. The antimicrobials with good intracranial penetration are metronidazole, chloramphenicol, penicillins, and meropenem. Optimally, the selection of antimicrobial is done according to the recovered isolates and their antimicrobial susceptibilities. A substantial improvement in patients’ survival rate has occurred after the introduction of computed tomography (CT) and other scans and utilization of metronidazole therapy. Upper respiratory tract and head and neck infections Anaerobes can be isolated from most types of upper respiratory tract and head and neck and infection and are especially common in chronic ones. These include tonsillar, peritonsillar and retropharyngeal abscesses, chronic otitis media, sinusitis and mastoiditis, all deep neck space infections, parotitis, sialadenitis, thyroiditis, odontogenic infections, and postsurgical and nonsurgical head and neck wounds and abscesses. The predominant organisms are of oropharyngeal flora origin and include AGNB, Fusobacterium and Peptostreptococcus spp. Anaerobes involve almost all dental infections. These include periapical and dental abscesses, endodontal pulpitis and periodontal (gingivitis and periodontitis) infections, and perimandibular space infection., Pulpitis can lead to abscess formation and eventually spread to the mandible and other neck spaces. In addition to strict anaerobic bacteria, microaerophilic streptococci and Streptococcus salivarius can also be present. Fusobacterium spp. and anaerobic spirochetes are often the cause of Vincent’s angina (or trench mouth) which is a distinct form of ulcerative gingivitis. Deep neck infections that develop as a consequence of oral, dental and pharyngeal infections are generally polymicrobial in nature. These include extension of retropharyngeal cellulitis or abscess, mediastinitis following esophagus perforation, and dental or periodontal abscess. Lung infections In adults the most common source of aspiration pneumonia is aspiration of oropharyngeal secretions or gastric contents. In children the most cause is aspiration of infected amniotic fluid, or vaginal secretions. Severe periodontal or gingival disease are the an important risk factors for establishment of an anaerobic pleuropulmonary infection. Progression of the infection from pneumonitis into necrotizing pneumonia and pulmonary abscess can occur, with or without the develpement of empyema., The infection is often polymicrobial in nature and isolates of community-acquired infection (in 60–80% of cases) are aerobic and anaerobic belonging to the individual’s oropharyngeal flora. The anaerobic bacteria commonly recovered are Prevotella, Porphyromonas, Fusobacterium and Peptostreptococcus spp., and the aerobic bacteria are beta-hemolytic and microaerophilic streptococci.Anaerobic bacteria can also be isolated in about 35% of individuals who suffer from nosocomial-acquired aspiration pneumonia and pneumonia associated with tracheostomy with and without mechanical ventilation, where they are often isolated along with Enterobacteriaceae, Pseudomonas spp. and Staphylococcus aureus. It is important that specimens are obtained in a method that avoids their contamination by the oral micro flora. Abdominal infections Secondary peritonitis and intra-abdominal abscesses including splenic and hepatic abscesses generally occur because of the entry of enteric micro-organisms into the peritoneal cavity through a defect in the wall of the intestine or other viscus as a result of obstruction, infarction or direct trauma. Perforated appendicitis, diverticulitis, inflammatory bowel disease with perforation and gastrointestinal surgery are often associated with polymicrobial infections caused by aerobic and anaerobic bacteria, where the number of isolates can average 12 (two-thirds are generally anaerobes). The commonest aerobic and facultative bacteria are Escherichia. coli, Streptococcus spp. (including Enterococcus spp.), and the most frequently isolated anaerobic bacteria are the B. fragilis group, Peptostreptococcus spp., and Clostridium spp. Female genital infections Female genital tract infections caused by anaerobic bacteria can occur are polymicrobial and include: soft-tissue perineal, vulvar and Bartholin gland abscesses; pelvic bacterial vaginosis; endometritis; pyometra; salpingitis; adnexal abscess; tubo-ovarian abscesses; intrauterine contraceptive device-associated infection; inflammatory disease, which may include pelvic cellulitis and abscess; amnionitis; septic pelvic thrombophlebitis; septic abortion; and postsurgical obstetric and gynecologic infections., Getting adequate microbiological cultures is essential. It is important to avoid contaminating the culture with the normal genital flora. Methods that can ensure adequate cultures are laparoscopy, culdocentesis, or obtaining quantitative endometrial cultures employing a telescoping catheter. The anaerobes often recovered include Prevotella bivia, Prevotella disiens, and Peptostreptococcus, Porphyromonas and Clostridium spp. Bacteroides fragilis group is rarely recovered in these infections compared to intra-abdominal infection. Actinomyces spp. and Eubacterium nodatum are often recovered in infections associated with intrauterine devices. Mobiluncus spp. can be associated with bacterial vaginosis.The aerobic bacteria also found mixed with these anaerobic bacteria include Enterobacteriaceae, Streptococcus spp. (including groups A and B), Neisseria gonnorhoeaeItalic text and Chlamydia spp. and Mycoplasma hominisItalic text . Free gas in the tissues, abscess formation and foul-smelling discharge is commonly associated with the presence of anaerobic bacteria. Treatment of these infections includes the use of antimicrobials active against all of the potential aerobic and anaerobic bacterial pathogens. Additional antimicrobial should be added against sexually transmissible pathogens should also be administered. Skin and soft-tissue infections The infections that frequently involve anaerobic bacteria include superficial infections, including infected paronychia, infected human or animal bites, cutaneous ulcers, cellulitis, pyoderma, and hidradenitis suppurativa Secondary infected sites include secondary infected diaper rash, gastrostomy or tracheostomy site wounds, scabies or kerion infections, eczema, psoriasis, poison ivy, atopic dermatitis, eczema herpeticum, infected subcutaneous sebaceous or inclusion cysts, and postsurgical wound infection. Skin involvement in subcutaneous tissue infections includes: cutaneous and subcutaneous abscesses, breast abscess, decubitus ulcers, infected pilonidal cyst or sinus, Meleney’s ulcer infected diabetic (vascular or trophic) ulcers, bite wound, anaerobic cellulitis and gas gangrene, bacterial synergistic gangrene, and burn wound infection. Deeper anaerobic soft-tissue infections are necrotizing fasciitis, necrotizing synergistic cellulitis, gas gangrene and crepitus cellulitis. These can involve the fascia aas well as the muscle surrounded by the fascia, and may also induce myositis and myonecrosis. The isolates found in soft-tissue infections can vary depending on the type of infection. The infection’s location and the circumstances causing the infection can also influence the nature of the microorganisms recovered. Bacteria that are members of the ‘normal flora’ of the region of the infection are often also isolated from lesions involving anaerobic bacteria. Specimens obtained from wounds and subcutaneous tissue infections and abscesses in the rectal area (perirectal abscess, decubitus ulcer) or that are of gut flora origin(i.e. diabetic foot infection) often to yield colonic flora organisms. These are generally B. fragilis group, Clostridium spp., Enterobacteriaceae and Enterococcus spp. On the other hand, infections in and around the oropharynx, or infections that originate from that location, frequently contain oral flora organisms (i.e. paronychia, bites, breast abscess). These bacteria include pigmented Prevotella and Porphyromonas, Fusobacterium and Peptostreptococcus spp. Skin flora organisms such as S. aureus and Streptococcus spp., or nosocomially acquired microorganisms can be recovered at all body locations. Human bite infections often contain Eikenella spp. and animal bites harbor Pasteurella multocida in addition to oral flora, Anaerobes infections are often polymicrobial in nature, and sometimes (i.e. decubitus ulcers, diabetic foot ulcer) they are complicated by bacteremia and or osteomyelitis . Infections which are in the deep tissues ( necrotizing cellulitis, fasciitis and myositis) often include Clostridium spp., S. pyogenes or polymicrobic combinations of both aerobic and anaerobic bacteria. Gas in the tissues and putrid-like pus with a gray thin quality are often found in these infections, and they are frequently associated with a bacteremia and high mortality rate. Treatment of deep-seated soft-tissue infections includes: vigorous surgical management that includes surgical debridement and drainage. Even though there are no controlle studies that support this approach improvement of the involved tissues oxygenation by enhancement of blood supply and administration of hyperbaric oxygen, especially in clostridial infection, may be helpful. Osteomyelitis and septic arthritis Anaerobic bacteria are often found in oesteomyelitis of the long bones especially after trauma and fracture, osteomyelitis associated with peripheral vascular disease, and decubitus ulcers and osteomyelitis of the facial and cranial bones. Many of these bone infections are polymicrobial in nature. Cranial and facial bones anaerobic osteomyelitis often originates by the spread of the infection from a contiguous soft-tissue source or from dental, sinus, or ear infection. The high concentration of anaerobic bacteria in the oral cavity explains their importance in cranial and facial bone infections. The high number of gut anaerobes in pelvic osteomyelitis is generally caused by their spread from decubitus ulcers sites. The anaerobic organisms in osteomyelitis associated with peripheral vascular disease generally reach the bone from adjacent soft-tissue ulcers. Long bones osteomyelitis is often caused by trauma, hematogenic spread, or the presence of a prosthetic device. Peptostreptococcus and Bacteroides spp. are the most frequently recovered isolates at all bone infections, including those caused by bites and cranial infection. Pigmented Prevotella and Porphyromonas spp. are especially common in bite and skull bone infections, whereas members of the B. fragilis group are often found in vascular disease or neuropathy. Fusobacterium spp., which belongs to the oral microflora, are most often isolated from bites and from cranial and facial bone infections. Clostridium spp. are frequently recovered in long bones infections, mostly in association with traumatic wounds. Because Clostridium spp. colonize the lower gastrointestinal tract, they can contaminate compound lower extremities fractures. Septic arthritis due to anaerobic bacteria is frequently associated with contiguous or hematogenous infection spread, prosthetic joints and trauma. Most septic arthritis cases caused by anaerobic bacteria are monomicrobial. The predominant anaerobic bacteria isolated are Peptostreptococcus spp. and P. acnes (frequently found in prosthetic joint infection), B. fragilis and Fusobacterium spp. (frequently found in infections of hematogenic origin), and Clostridium spp. (frequently found in infections after trauma). Bacteremia The incidence of anaerobic bacteria in bacteremia varies between 5% to15%, The incidence of anaerobic bacteremia in the 1990th declined to about 4% (0.5%-12%) of all cases of bacteremias. A resurgence in bacteremia due to anaerobic bacteria was observed recently. This is explained by a greater number of anaerobic bacteremia in patients with complex underlying disease or those that are immunosuppressed. The commonest isolates are B. fragilis group (over 75% of anaerobic isolates), Clostridium spp. (10–20%), Peptostreptococcus spp. (10–15%), Fusobacterium spp. (10–15%) and P. acnes (2–5%). The type of bacteria involved in bacteremia is greatly influenced by the infection’s portal of entry and the underlying disease. The isolation of B. fragilis group and Clostridium spp. is often associated with a gastrointestinal source, pigmented Prevotella and Porphyromonas spp. and Fusobacterium spp.with oropharynx and pulmonary sites, Fusobacterium spp.with the female genital tract locations, P. acnes with a foreign body, and Peptostreptococcus spp. with all infection sources, but mostly with oropharyngeal, pulmonary and female genital tract locations. The association of these organisms is related to the origin of the initial infection and the endogenous bacterial flora at that site. The main factors which predispose to anaerobic bacteremia are: hematologic disorders; organ transplant; recent gastrointestinal,; obstetric, or gynecologic surgery; malignant neoplasms intestinal obstruction; decubitus ulcers; dental extraction; sickle cell disease; diabetes mellitus; postsplenectomy; the newborn; and the administration of cytotoxic agents or corticosteroids., The clinical presentations of anaerobic bacteremia are not different from those observed in aerobic bacteremia, except for the infection’s signs observed at the portal of entry of the infection. It often includes fever, chills, hypotension, shock, leukocytosis, anemia and disseminated intravascular coagulation. Clinical features that are characteristic of anaerobicbacteremia include hyperbilirubinemia, metastatic lesions, and suppurative thrombophlebitis. The mortality rate varies between 15% and 30% and can be improved in those who are diagnosed early and receive appropriate antimicrobial therapy and their primary infection when present is resolved. Neonatal infection The newborn`s exposure to the maternal vaginal bacterial flora which contains aerobic and anaerobic bacterial flora can lead to the development of anaerobic bacterial infection. These infections include cellulitis of the site of fetal monitoring (caused by Bacterodes spp.), bacteremia, aspiration pneumonia (caused by Bacterodes spp.), conjunctivitis (caused by clostridia,) omphalitis (caused by mixed flora), and infant botulism. Clostridial species may play a role in necrotizing enterocolitis. Management of these infection necessitates treating of the underlying condition(s) when present, and administration of proper antimicrobial therapy. MANAGEMENT Recovery from an anaerobic infection depends on adequate and rapid management. The main principles of managing anaerobic infections are neutralizing the toxins produced by anaerobic bacteria, preventing the local proliferation of these organisms by altering the environment and preventing their dissemination and spread to healthy tissues. Toxin can be neutralized by specific antitoxins, mainly in infections caused by Clostridia (tetanus and botulism). Controlling the environment can be attained by draining the pus, surgical debriding of necrotic tissue, improving blood circulation, alleviating any obstruction and by improving tissue oxygenation. Therapy with hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) may also be useful. The main goal of antimicrobials is in restricting the local and systemic spread of the microorganisms. The available parenteral antimicrobials for most infections are metronidazole, clindamycin, chloramphenicol, cefoxitin, a penicillin (i.e. ticarcillin, ampicillin, piperacillin) and a beta-lactamase inhibitor (i.e. clavulanic acid, sulbactam, tazobactam), and a carbapenem (imipenem, meropenem, doripenem, ertapenem). An antimicrobial effective against Gram-negative enteric bacilli (i.e. aminoglycoside) or an anti-pseudomonal cephalosporin (i.e. cefepime ) are generally added to metronidazole, and occasionally cefoxitin when treating intra-abdominal infections to provide coverage for these organisms. Clindamycin should not be used as a single agent as empiric therapy for abdominal infections. Penicillin can be added to metronidazole in treating of intracranial, pulmonary and dental infections to provide coverage against microaerophilic streptococci, and Actinomyces. Oral agents adequate for polymicrobial oral infections include the combinations of amoxicillin plus clavulanate, clindamycin and metronidazole plus a macrolide. Penicillin can be added to metronidazole in the treating dental and intracranial infections to cover Actinomyces spp., microaerophilic streptococci, and Arachnia spp. A macrolide can be added to metronidazole in treating upper respiratory infections to cover S. aureus and aerobic streptococci. Penicillin can be added to clindamycin to supplement its coverage against Peptostreptococcus spp. and other Gram-positive anaerobic organisms. Doxycycline is added to most regimens in the treatment of pelvic infections to cover chlamydia and mycoplasma. Penicillin is effective for bacteremia caused by non-beta lactamase producing bacteria. However, other agents should be used for the therapy of bacteremia caused by beta- lactamase producing bacteria. Because the length of therapy for anaerobic infections is generally longer than for infections due to aerobic and facultative anaerobic bacteria, oral therapy is often substituted for parenteral treatment. The agents available for oral therapy are limited and include amoxacillin plus clavulanate, clindamycin, chloramphenicol and metronidazole. Clinical judgment, personal experience, safety and patient compliance should direct the physician in the choice of the appropriate antimicrobial agents. The length of therapy generally ranges between 2 and 4 weeks, but should be individualized depending on the response. In some instances treatment may be required for as long as 6–8 weeks, but can often be shortened with proper surgical drainage.

Dribrook (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I don't have time to look at this properly right now but I will try and review this evening (GMT). In the meantime you might want to read our policy on original research as I think this may have a bearing here. Best, nancy 09:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like he is a published author and thus this work is sort of okay. He has reinstated it but it needs work. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Alexander fog page

Hi i was adding the Artist page on the wikipedia and it got deleted. I own that artist name also i own all logos and music associated to it. We want to add me and all my artists under wikipedia like was done for Lady gaga and other artists — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexanderfog (talk • contribs) 19:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The page was deleted because it was a copyright violation i.e. it had been copied and pasted from a source with a licence incompatible with Wikipedia's. That aside, it was also unclear that the page met our notability requirements for musicians so would likely have been deleted on those grounds anyway. Further, a general rule of thumb is that you should wait for others to write an article about yourself. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability - all edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. If your achievements are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later. Kind regards, nancy 19:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

KITCO India Page

Dear Nancy, As you've correctly observed, I am involved with KITCO, The Consultants, in India. I work for the organisation. I think me being a part of the organisation will only help me to present the readers with 100% correct information regarding the company. KITCO being a public limited company established by the government and nationalized banks in India, the question of promoting it out of way is not at all arising. The page is created only to have a presence in Wikipedia, where many people likely to search for us. The section you deleted- Placement services- too was not intended as an advt. The service of the wing is for the general public and is free. - Regards Jacob — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobkitco (talk • contribs) 09:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello Jacob & welcome. A general rule of thumb is that you should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability - all edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. If the achievements, etc. of your company, are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about it sooner or later. Kind regards, nancy 09:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

jonny tiffoney

Have proposed deletion instead... have been told by other mods that players in Scotland have to have at least played one game for a side in the SPL or First Division Salty1984 (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

To get through PROD or AFD that may be the case, but Speedy Deletion is a much lower bar and has very specific criteria. Best, nancy 21:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Page deletion

Hello Nancy,

my firms page was deleted and I want to know what I need to do to have it restored? I changed my user name fopr the admin account. Now what else needs to be done? The page was for Kilpatrick Stockton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.1.41.226 (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Redirects

Hi, For your information I have just reinstated redirects to Old Lindley and Jagger Green by a new editor with a rather familiar editing style.--J3Mrs (talk) 13:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Good catch J3Mrs! I've blocked as a sock. Best, nancy 13:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion was very speedy indeed! :)

Hi, Nancy,

You recently deleted an article that I was trying to get started about a book publisher in BC as part of a larger project to raise awareness about book publishing in Canada (British Columbia/Sunshine Coast). There was a "hang on" tag placed on the page, which should have given enough time for a discussion posting to explain, and yet the page was still deleted before that opportunity was given. I believe the protocol is to tag for deletion, check for a "hang on" tag, and then allow for reasoning to added to the discussion. I don't think this was the case here. Just wondering if you could explain why the protocol wasn't followed (not why the article was originally scheduled for deletion, as that was clear in the scheduled for deletion tag). Or is the window really that small for opportunity to initiate discussion about the deletion? Thank you for your help, as it will be valuable in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noroadhome (talk • contribs) 19:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what protocol you are referring to, but if you read the text of the hangon tag it says "Note that this request is not binding, and the page may still be deleted if the page unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria". The article was about a publishing house which has published two books, both by family members. There was no credible assertion of notability in the article, nor was there any indication that the company meets WP:ORG.

I am also slightly concerned about your stated aim of "to raise awareness about book publishing in Canada (British Columbia/Sunshine Coast)" - Wikipedia is not the place for awareness raising, that happens elsewhere and only when awareness is raised to the level of the subject having been the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources may an article be created. Best, nancy 19:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Page Deletion

Hi Nancy, You recently deleted a page and I wanted to know what I need to do to get the page reinstated? The page name was Kilpatrick Stockton

12.1.41.226 (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC) KiToStock

Hi there and apologies for not responding sooner. I've had a look at the page and the reasons given in the deletion log are spot on. First and foremost the page was completely encyclopaedic and overtly promotional to the extent of being written in the first person - here is the first paragraph (which was also quite possibly a copyright violation from the firms own marketing blurb):

Kilpatrick Townsend attorneys are fully engaged in the success of the firm's clients. We deliver results-oriented counsel for corporations at all stages of the growth cycle, from the challenging demands of financial transactions and securities to the disciplines of intellectual property management. A close collaboration between the firm's practice areas ensures that we are well-positioned to serve all of our clients' needs.

Additionally, but secondary to the above, there was no indication that the firm would meet our notability requirements for companies.

Finally I notice that you sign yourself "KiToStock" which implies that you have some connection with the firm? A general rule of thumb is that you should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability - all edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. If the achievements, etc. of your company, are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably (re)create an article about it sooner or later. Kind regards, nancy 05:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Kitco India for deletion

The article Kitco India is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitco India until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaabbccz (talk • contribs) 20:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Always a pleasure to be hit with a template deletion message, concerning an article you didn't actually create, where the poster doesn't even sign their post......</grumpy>. Pedro :  Chat  20:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

[2] Looks odd - bad faith possibly on my part though. Pedro :  Chat  20:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with that, you can also notify other contributers. Aaabbccz Talk Contribs 20:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, [3] looks very odd indeed Pedro. I have an idea who it is, but if I am right I don't know why they posted here..... unless they actually want to be unmasked?? nancy 05:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You Deleted my page

I believe your actions are massively overzealous. The Process of building case takes at least 10 minutes. YOur rapid dleetion while I am midway through making the case is unwelcome. Then I place a "hang on" tag on the page and it still goes. I find your intervention incredibly unhelpful, unopen and not conducive to developing the openness of Wikipedia [to which I contribute as a donor] by allowing people to acquire knowledge. You are acting like over zealous policemen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cluetrainee (talk • contribs) 12:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

....I assume you are referring to @markinreading? You are not notable. Your twitter username is not notable. No amount of "hang on" tagging or donations are going to affect that fact. It's lovely that you want to contribute to Wikipedia but please familiarise yourself with our aims and general guidelines first. The Five Pillars is a good place to start. Best, nancy 13:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm disgusted by your rash judgement and I do not have the time to argue with you. Wikipedia is now far too complex and the policing system is like living in a police state. I am suspending my donations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cluetrainee (talk • contribs) 13:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I have not made any rash judgements. I have simply evaluated the available facts against Wikipedia's policies and come to an informed decision. That my judgement is not in accord with your own views of your own significance does not make it rash. I also notice that you subsequently recreated your autobio and that it has been removed by another admin who arrived at the same conclusion that I did. nancy 13:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree - you were rash - acting in haste. I was BUILDING THE CASE and inserted the *hang on" tag. You deleted within minutes while I was editing. Another admin was equally rash. I've just landed on a commercial page in Wikipedia, as it happens, full of corporate puffery and I'm thinking why you didn't pull that down. I'm very sorry I can't create "notability" within 60 seconds. Maybe you don't want it - maybe you only want celebrity. Easy quick wins which drive traffic using celebrity fodder. Sorry - I said I didn't have time - but I stil lbeleive your actions were entirely against the Wikipedia ethos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cluetrainee (talk • contribs) 11:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You did read our notability requirements for biographies? If so then we'll have to agree to disagree on whether my actions were contrary to Wikipedia consensus. Best, nancy 15:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Nancy, still to be deleted, hen ...

Talk:Cheryl Frey xxx --Shirt58 (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

DOH! Gone now. Thanks. nancy 15:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

KITCO India Page

The page I created is not deleted, at least for now. But nominated for speedy deletion. Please see that there is no reasons for the page to delete as per the policies I know about of Wikipedia. Some one has said that he searched the net and got only http://kitco.com Why don't he go down the page and see the http://kitco.in link. The first one is bullion company and http://kitco.in is a public sector technical consultancy firm in India. I wrote the page not to promote the company, but to inform about the activities of the Government organisation. About the COI issue, I think it is far better for some one from the company (like me) to write about it so that the facts will be accurate. And I thought what Wikipedia care more about is accuracy. Please tell me how I need to modify the page so that these kinds of observations do not occur in future. - Jacob universe

- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobkitco (talk • contribs) 09:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Harveys

Nancy... I am the person that wrote the harveys seatbelt bags article. This is completely unfair. I am simply a customer. I have never met the owners, not am i associated with them. i have a vast amount of knowledge of the brand as I have known about the brand for seven years. To assume that this article is not written from a neutral standpoint is nonsense. I did not site my own articles, and i used well known outside references. This piece is not advertisement at all as other editors have approved my writing in the past. I am taking every effort to follow wikipedias guidelines and although in the past i have not, the article as it stands now has notability, references and does is written as an encylopedic piece. Please reverse the notices you placed, as they do not seem fair. How do you expect someone to write about something they have no knowledge of. And also changing the name of the article is wrong as they are not "Retailers" harveys is a design and manufacturing company. Thank You for you inderstanding on this matter SJayQ (talk) 03:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate of a reply on the article talk. I have replied there [4]. Please let's keep all discussion of this matter in one place. nancy 10:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)