Hosta

Archives

June 2006 – September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 – October 2011

Hey, my page got deleted by you for not having any real significance. How do I give it "significance"? Shaanbham (talk) 04:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Shaanbham[reply]

Please read Wikipedia's guideline on notability for information on how to assert a subject's notability. Unfortunately, from what I've gathered (from a quick Google search), it seems unlikely that Leaders Against Discrimination has enough outside coverage to be considered notable enough to warrant an article. — Malcolm (talk) 04:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you deleted my page on the Flop House Podcast was deleted for No explanation of the subject's significance, and I would like to known how I can fix this problem considering The Flop House is a true podcast that I am in no way related too in any way except for being a fan. I would also like to add that all of the facts on the page are true and the show is hosted by relevant writers Elliot Kalan and Dan Mccoy one of which won two emmys and hosted a talk show called The Primetime Kalan which featured celebrity guest Stephen Colbert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrcobbhouse (talk • contribs)

I'm sure that it is a true podcast and that you're not personally related to it, but the subject simply isn't notable by Wikipedia's standards. — Malcolm (talk) 05:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does this page need to be considered notable. This show is extremely popular, so much so that it filled 92ytribeca's screening room at there live show. It has been review by major websites such as the onion AV club where a quote from the show was the top quote of the week http://www.avclub.com/articles/week-of-june-28,57384/ Gawker a popular website posted a posting about a pitch for a movie one of the hosts did on the show here http://gawker.com/381641/the-astoundingly-good-case-for-making-a-ziggy-movie I would very much like you to tell me how I can get this to be a wikipedia page because I know thousands of fans would appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrcobbhouse (talk • contribs) 14:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that that the Gawker post is fairly trivial coverage, as it's really only a summary of a particular episode of the podcast. The A.V. Club post is a bit more in-depth, but you'd need other third-party, independent coverage to justify recreating the article. Are there any other sources that cover the podcast non-trivially? — Malcolm (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be helpful? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliott_Kalan it is a wikipedia page about one of the hosts of the show which has a brief summary of the podcast — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrcobbhouse (talk • contribs) 21:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't prove that the web content itself is notable, however: Wikipedia:Notability (web)#No inherited notability. — Malcolm (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete the page Vinod Kumar (footballer). I know it was nominated but you still should have looked around the article and saw that in fact Vinod had played in an official I-League match and that was stated in the info box and the section career statistics. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 13:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I was only considering the international level when I looked over it, but players who participate in the I-League apparently are members of a fully professional league, and therefore meet the notability guidelines. However, I request that even if you do have an issue with an article being deleted, please don't recreate its contents. If the subject is determined to be notable, either the deleting administrator or another admin will restore it. — Malcolm (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

is there any possibility you could leave us some feedback as to why this page was deeted, as far as i can see there was no reason for you to delete the page, feedback would be appreciated as simply deleting the page, WHEN INCOMPLETE as the non deletion request mentioned seems far from constructive to wikipedia users.--Jessie Megs (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I already stated why the article was deleted: it did not meet assert its notability (see the links on your talk page). Again, if you can either find any secondary sources that cover the article or explain to me why the subject is notable, I'll be willing to recreate the article. — Malcolm (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of the next references to be added to the page along with additional content, would be a direct link to the Arts Council England website, stating that over the past 4 years, The Arts Council UK have funded the arts catalyst with over 800,000 pounds towards their works and experimentations, in terms of secondary rescources we will keep our eyes peeled over the rest of the evening.thankyou.--J.skudkid (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also would the books referenced within the article entitled The genome incorperated, and Interfaces of performance not count as secondary rescources? as they are officially documentation of groups within the arts catalyst?--J.skudkid (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now found an article in the guardian that can be used to support our article, will this suffice? --J.skudkid

Yes, that would work. Its notability would be asserted then (though I can't guarantee that it won't be nominated for deletion). If you can give me a link to that article and I deem it to be valid, I'll recreate the article so you can add that source. — Malcolm (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou very much, I feel this experience has helped me learn alot about what is credible within wikipedia, here is the link, i will be changing some of the content of the page so the guardian article is clearly linked to the content of the page. www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2005/apr/07/3--J.skudkid (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I've recreated the article, so you can add that link now. If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to ask. — Malcolm (talk) 19:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou very much i will send a link to the completed article for you to have a look at, thanks again.--J.skudkid (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Malcolm! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 00:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. way to delete the Space Engine page for no reason other than to satisfy your wikiego. The claim was that it was promoting is ludicrous, it was essentially a copy although reworded of another similar software. So much for "free encyclopedia" when cyber ego supposed editors like you delete on a whim anything that does not please them.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by MassiveEffect (talk • contribs) 02:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you don't think it was a promotional article, it didn't assert its notability. It served as a description of the simulation, but it provided no reason why it was significant. If you can provide such a reason, then you may recreate the article. —Malcolm (talk) 02:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MassiveEffect (talk • contribs)

Hello, Malcolm I was wondering if you could help me please, for our Arts catalyst page. We need to change the main title so the catalyst has a capital C but we are unaware of how to do this, now the page has been created. I was wondering if you would be able to either change this or explain how we could do this ourself thank you for your help --Jessie Megs (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jessie. It looks like what you want to do is move the page. Unfortunately, only "autoconfirmed" users (users who have had accounts for four days and have at least 100 edits) can do that. You're pretty close to 100 edits, so you should have that ability soon. For now, I'll move Arts catalyst for you. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. —Malcolm (talk) 12:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Once again malcolm, you have been a real asset to our project, we would have been pretty stuck on a couple of occasions if it wasnt for you! we will send you a message (if you are interested) letting you know the grade we received for the project, thanks once again.--J.skudkid (talk) 13:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

cheers buddy! J.skudkid (talk) 13:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah hi, my page was also deleted because of "Significance" issues, I have read the guidlines and other than myself creating a page about me, there is no infraction... Several people have told me to make a wikipedia page for myself and I fell it is somewhat not fair for it to be deleted. It is not spam, and it's not like the site is Over Capacity with articles (I have searched for several bands that have at least 200 000 fans on facebook and only 1 came up (Protest the Hero)), so that is a minor inconvinience! (DeanBaetz (talk) 02:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, Dean. Regarding your page's assertion of notability: its content only consisted of an infobox with genre, location, and Facebook page. The question is, why is "Dean Baetz" a significant musician? You've got to make that clear if you want to make an article about the subject without it being speedily deleted. However, more importantly: to avoid a nomination for deletion, you have to prove that your subject is notable; it must fall under at least one of these criteria (a certain quantity of Facebook fans is not one of said criteria), and be backed up by reliable sources. See, you can't just make a Wikipedia article about anything you want; all articles must have notable subjects. Also, writing an article about yourself is very strongly discouraged; see our guideline for conflicts of interest. Feel free to ask me any questions you might have. I know all these policies can be kind of overwhelming for new editors. —Malcolm (talk) 03:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: uhhh... i really don't know

Up and running again. --Shirt58 (talk) 14:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I had any involvement with that page. Why are you telling me this? —Malcolm (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Complete mistake on my part. Sincere apology!--Shirt58 (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you an email via "email this user" in my role as a member of the Arbitration Committee. Your prompt response would be appreciated. Risker (talk) 02:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm - further to the email exchange between the Arbitration Committee and you, the Arbitration Committee is desysopping you for abusive use of multiple accounts in a manner inconsistent with the trust granted by the community to administrators. You may seek adminship again in the future through the RFA process. The formal announcement of your desysop is located here on the Arbitration Committee noticeboard. Please note that you are restricted to a single account and that if you wish to change usernames or create a new account, you must seek the permission of the Arbitration Committee prior to editing with the new account.

In addition, I am personally blocking you for two weeks for abusive use of multiple accounts to vandalize and disrupt the project. This is a CheckUser block, and any reviewing administrators are reminded not to reverse this block without consultation with one or more CheckUsers. I sincerely hope that you will take this time to reflect on the harm you have done, and will return to edit in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's goals. Risker (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, I've carried out the desysop now. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I will take more time to reflect on what I've done, and I assure you that I will not be participating in such activities again. Thank you for taking the necessary and deserved measures against me.

Again, I really do want to apologize for this. I understand if you or any others doubt my sincerity, but I truly do feel terrible. I'm still somewhat in disbelief that I took the time to vandalize one of the most useful, valuable sites I know of. A two-week block and a desysopping were the least I deserved for my idiotic actions. I've essentially undermined all my years of service by acting like a child. I never thought I could possibly sink that low.

I also want to apologize to you personally, Risker, as well as to the Arbitration Committee, for having wasted your time with this matter.

I do not plan to make any other accounts or change my name, but I will notify the Arbitatration Committee I gain an interest in doing so. —Malcolm (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]