User talk:Clubmarx/Archive 2

SE&CV

I haven't even finished the inital edits and you have already proposed it for deletion. I could at least finish the inital layout before you want toe remove it? The page is what 1 hour old if that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vchapman (talk • contribs) 16:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

As long as notability will be in there somewhere, that is fine. I'm just not getting it as I patrolled the new pages. --Clubmarx (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The Greatest Hits EP (album) - Request for Speedy Deletion

Please read the new section on the article's talk page.--Davis Junior (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Srixon

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Srixon, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that this article should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! --bigissue (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've done that to get others' opinions. --Clubmarx (talk) 22:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Gordon Levett

Hello, you've marked Gordon Levett as needing copy-editing of some sort, although I'm unclear as to your suggestion. Is it the tone you're concerned about? Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, it is unusual to have so many direct quotes. It is written more like as essay or magazine feature. Check out WP:COPYEDIT for pointers. --Clubmarx (talk) 00:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, that's probably because I was formerly a writer for TIME. I will try to convert to encyclopedia style. Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. Just letting you know I have largely reworked this piece, adding historical details while simultaneously removing direct quotations. Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I have removed your tag on the piece after over 100 subsequent edits, adding history, removing quotes, rewriting, etc. MarmadukePercy (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If wiki thinks that i m providing fake information please drop a message. i'll not write any article on wiki. I do have my own work its better me to run my business rather than write an article on wik

Dear What i do is i search people on net or surrounding to me those are notable. I dont care whether they have enogh links on net or not. If people are doing something notable for society are notable at my glance. I understand that wiki has some policies for that. If you people are very adamant for deleting any one, you are free. My job is searching people and create an article on the person. if that is notable or not this is the job auditor and administrators of wiki. If wiki thinks that i m providing fake information please drop a message. i'll not write any article on wiki. I do have my own work its better me to run my business rather than write an article on wiki. As wiki is working as non profitable organisation. i though to help wiki and update it. But if wiki and its employee thinks they do not need support. I also not very eager to provide my knowledge to wiki. There are many articles which i created but deleted by Administrators but later on these article again created by wiki.

Regards

Sameer

Sameergoswami (talk) 04:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

If you are talking about Suresh Chandra Jain you need to include in your article why this person is notable. Please see WP:NOTE --Clubmarx (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

New page patrolling

Hi there! I've been going through the New Pages log, particularly the back end of it. I've come across a few articles that you've nominated for deletion that haven't been patrolled (e.g Samuel James). I was wondering if you could make sure that you mark an article as patrolled before you tag it for deletion (or any other tag) as then it won't show up on the list, which will save people patrolling an article that has already been looked at by an experienced editor like yourself. Please accept my apologies if you are doing this and the software is lagging behind, or if you're just tagging articles that you're coming across from a different source that doesn't allow you to patrol them. Thanks in advance! --Ged UK (talk) 13:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I think sometimes I've been doing it in the opposite order, by going back in the browser history or via another. I see that sometimes it doesn't 'take'. I had thought I wasn't seeing something correctly. I'll mark it patrolled first from now on.--Clubmarx (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sometimes the software goes wonky, or it doesn't go through the server fast enough. Thanks :) --Ged UK (talk) 14:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

A to Z mysteries

I have removed your db-bio tag from the article, as the article is not about a person or group, and books are specifically excluded from db-bio. I have instead added a PROD tag to try and spur the editor to add some context or a summary, or something to show why the article should be kept.--Terrillja (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, sounds good. --Clubmarx (talk) 15:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Is your userpage vandalized?

See recent edits. Just making sure. Green caterpillar (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It was. I just rv'd it to last edit by user and warned the user who defaced it.--Terrillja (talk) 23:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, totally vandalism. I wonder what page I deleted? I can't tell from that user acct. My first vandalism of my page! :) Thanks for reversing it. --Clubmarx (talk) 23:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Paul Elgin article

Hello,

I have had this page reviewed by another Wikipedia moderator, and was given the ok, provided we provided sources and references, and remove suggestive advertising. Wikipedia's policy does not require an individual to be POPULAR in order for an article to be written; they require NOTABILITY, which was provided within the article, with references / cross references. There is no direct correlation between us and Mr. Paul Elgin. Authors do reserve the right to create a username of their choosing, as long as any article they contribute does not show bias or support. This article about Mr. Paul Elgin is completely unbiased, factual, and verifyable. We feel that it is unfair for one or a group of individuals to determine a person or company's value, accomplishments, influence, or recognition soley based on that group or individual's independent knowledge of the person of subject within the article; it should be based on facts. If the content of the article is supported by references, we believe the article should qualify. Whether or not Mr. Elgin has received any awards or A-list recognition should not have a bearing on whether or not the things his companies have accomplished are factual, unbiased, and supported. Please consider this article for inclusion, as we see that it fits all of Wikipedia's authoring guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Htentceo (talk • contribs) 02:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Some of the sources are myspace and paulelgin.com, which are not really sources like newspaper articles are. I am not seeing too much notability still, so that is why I placed it up for Articles for Deletion to get others' opinions. --Clubmarx (talk) 02:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

There is an article on Paul Elgin's company, Catch 22 Clothing, on the World Westside Magazine's website, [1].

There is also credits given to Catch 22 Clothing within the Traxxpad game for the Sony Playstation game console, on MobyGames.com [2].

Catch 22 Clothing had a full 2 page advertisement in worldwide circulated Don Diva magazine, September, 2007 issue, pg 55.

2 music videos, Mistah F.A.B.'S "Ghost Ride the Whip" video, and Haji Springer's "Haji's Back" video, both aired nationally on MTV2, show Catch 22 Clothing's eyewear product being either worn by the artist themselves or showcased in the video.

Mr. Elgin also has a profile on IMDB.COM [3]. His IMDB StarMETER, which directly indicates a celebrity's popularity amongst IMDB users, is up 311% since the week of October 5th, 2008.

A google search of Paul Elgin corroborates all of these references. Nothing special is needed to search for Mr. Elgin in the google search bar; just "Paul Elgin". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Htentceo (talk • contribs) October 13, 2008

Clubmarx, with all due respect, are you trying to encourage people to discredit other's opinions on this Paul Elgin article? It seems that you point out something wrong for every 'keep' opinion or vote that this article receives. I thought everyone is entitled to an unbiased opinion or vote based on WP guidelines. This is not a personal attack at all, just curious. Thank you. Htentceo (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It just seems pretty convenient is all. --Clubmarx (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that's fair, but what is unfair is you posting that opinion in the discussion which could change the consensus of the debate and thus influence or steer other users from voting a certain way, thus showing bias. What do you think? It also seems very "convenient" that every delete comment is from a Wiki moderator. Should I draw the same conclusions as you?Htentceo (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not an admin, and as far as I can tell, the other commenters aren't either.--Clubmarx (talk) 01:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I apologize for miscategorizing you. I guess when we view yours these other's pages, they have elaborate set-ups, which gives the impression of a moderator. However that now brings up another question: Aren't moderators the only ones that are allowed to put an article up for deletion? Or are they the only ones that can actually delete them? Does anyone have the authority to place strikethroughs on votes? I'm just trying to understand here.

The only reason why we keep re-commenting within the debate is because we feel like we have to respond to everything YOU say, which seems to be in disapproval of inclusion of this article, which, of course you are entitled to disapprove, but don't you think its only fair for other editors to come to their own conclusions? Htentceo (talk) 02:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Callison Architecture

Hi. I took your db-bio tag off this article because (a) it is about a company, not a person, and (b) it seems to me (at least now, maybe not when you tagged it) to be adequately referenced. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Much better!! --Clubmarx (talk) 01:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You Don't Know Much About Mexican Art

Maybe you've had a couple of Chicano or Mexican friends, but that does not qualify you to determine what is a movement in Mexican art. You've never studied Mexican art, or your would have known that the Skull in Mexian art from the time of the Aztec's to present Mexican art has a long a profound tradition in Mexican art and culture. So don't try to show off your lack of knowledge about Mexican Art in Wikipedia, it makes Wikipedia look bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.2.129.29 (talk) 07:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe you should have some context and not attack people. WP:ATTACK --Clubmarx (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

removal of speedy template

Why are you templating an Admin?? I declined the speedy as the article did not meet G1 criteria. It is about a fictional subject. One may remove a DB tag from an article he did not create. My suggestion would be to AFD. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 01:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know you were an admin.--Clubmarx (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:CSD carefully

You tagged West field, an article about a school for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7 which applies to a very specific group of topics which not only don't include schools, but specifically flags schools as an example of things not covered under the criterion. Furthermore you tagged the page with {{db-person}} which should only be applied when you are seeking deletion under A7 of a biography of a human being. I did actually delete the article as failing to provide meaningful content but that's neither here nor there. Please review the CSD criteria and the CSD templates for applying them more carefully.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. I did A7 since there were no clear google hits on the school name. It sounded like a group of students to me. --Clubmarx (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but you really need to review what they cover. You just marked William feaver as a G4 recreation which I deleted as an A7. Receation only applies to article previously deleted after debate and on the merits, at an XfD forum such as AfD. That article, as far as I can tell, was only previously speedily deleted.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I had seen G4 used for speedily deleted articles too. I guess I misunderstood it. Sorry. --Clubmarx (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, so many users have misunderstand that criterion in the past, that we even have a template to inform users that they are applying it incorrectly {{notg4}}:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

tagging articles

Hi. I noticed you are adding a lot of tags to articles using Friendly. Many editors do not find it particularly useful to add the "unreferenced" or "uncategorized" or "wikify" tags to articles that are only about 5 minutes old. I have had some users get downright upset at me in the past for this type of behavior. The reasons are that most very brief stubs are unreferenced, and adding links and categories only takes a few seconds with such articles, suggesting to some the "tagger" is not interested in simply fixing the problem themselves but only in adding tags. Putting three separate tags on a two line stub that is only a few seconds old [4] is not really helpful, if you feel you must add so many tags to very brief new articles, please use {{articleissues}} and list the problems on the talk page. I'm telling you this because I used to do the same thing, and all it got me was a lot of grief. Your fellow editors will appreciate it a lot more if you add links and categories to articles instead of just tagging. Thanks for your time. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of WP Suspension

Thank you for deleting the article I wrote about WP Suspension, claiming that it failed to show why the subject is notable. Now that you have deleted the article I am unable to quote from it. However, the article may have mentioned that this Dutch company is a leading manufacturer of front and rear suspension units for motorcycles that has been trading for 30 years. Its suspension units have been fitted as original equipment on thousands of sporting motorcycles built by Buell, CCM, Gas Gas, Husaberg, KTM, MZ and other motorcycle manufacturers. WP suspension has been fitted to many other motorcycles as aftermarket upgrades. Several Wikipedia motorcycle articles refer to WP Suspension and Wikipedia has an article written in Dutch about WP's Progressive Damping System [5]. WP is now a subsidiary of KTM, and therefore a description of WP Suspension is an essential part of describing KTM's corporate structure and activity. I trust that you considered all these factors, each of which is substantiated by WP's own website [6], before tagging the article for deletion.

I note that you used category A7 to delete the article. A7 itself says that the criteria for why a subject is important or significant "is a lower standard than notability; to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable". Please state which of WP's achievements in the last 30 years you consider rendered this leading motorcycle components manufacturer unworthy of note on Wikipedia. Motacilla (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You've had my message for a week and I'd be pleased if you would reply with your explanation. I wrote the WP Suspension article because there is already one about one of WP's competitors: the Swedish manufacturer Öhlins. How is Öhlins worthy of Wikipedia but not WP? Motacilla (talk) 23:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I cannot take a look now that it is deleted. However, I believe it was because there were no good sources in the article. Also, a competitor's page is not a reason to allow others, see WP:PRIMARY and WP:NOTDIRECTORY --Clubmarx (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I never saw the article, so I can't comment on it specifically, but the fact that a competitor has an article here means nothing. If the article fails to meet WP:GNG, then it shouldn't be included. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Terrillja (talk) 23:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

A week ago you cited CSD A7, despite the fact that the article gave amlpe reasons why WP Suspension and its products were important. Now you claim that there was no good source for the article, which is a different criterion and forms no part of CSD A7. All the information that I used is substantiated by WP's own company website. Google lists 17,300 references to WP, including hundreds of traders who sell WP products, but few of them add much to the company's own account of itself so it wasn't worth my adding them as references.

Terrillja cites WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The article I wrote was not a directory entry. It followed the style of any other short article describing a motorcycle related-company. It briefly described WP Suspension's history, its current ownership by KTM and its importance as a components supplier to various motorcycle manufacturers. It was useful, as several Wikipedia articles mention WP or its products without giving a description and I was able to give each such mention a link to the article.

Terrillja refers also to WP:GNG. Well, the Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines section of GNG says:

Although articles should demonstrate the notability of their topics, and articles on topics that do not meet this criteria are generally deleted, it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be...

If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or:

Ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject for advice on where to look for sources.

Put the {notability} tag on the article to alert other editors. To place a dated tag, put a {subst:dated|notability} tag.

If the article is about a specialized field, use the {expert-subject} tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online.

(Bold italicised emphases mine.) You didn't ask the article's creator. Did you ask anyone from WikiProject Motorcycling? Which of the above suggestions did you follow before tagging the article for speedy deletion? Motacilla (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you just recreate the article, trying to meet all the relevant guidelines? You seem like you have a lot of energy around this. I am not a gatekeeper to you. Whenever a new page is created, anyone can view it and make a decision about how to proceed. --Clubmarx (talk) 00:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I already wrote the article "trying to meet all relevant guidelines" - and you deleted it apparently without good reason. Why not acknowledge that, instead of trying to put the onus on me? Why should I spend valuable time repeating my work, when the risk is that it could be deleted again with similarly excessive haste, for a similarly inadequate reason and without adequate time for discussion?

A fortnight ago I asked an admin to send me a copy of the deleted article. If I receive a copy I might recreate the page and see what happens. To date I've received no reply. Given that it was your decision to delete that caused me all this inconvenience, why don't you request a copy of the deleted article and reconsider whether you were right to list it for speedy deletion? Motacilla (talk) 00:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I would write that admin again and remind him/her. There are also other admins you can contact in your speedy deletion notice. The previous work is not lost. Like I said before, it didn't meet the criteria and the admin who actually did the delete must have agreed or it would not have been deleted. I'd be nicer, but you seem to be pretty upset and I don't really feel like getting into it. --Clubmarx (talk) 04:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Darth panda

Thanks for the speedy delete of that attack page! That's the second time in two days actually, and I'm quite happy to see vandals recognizing my prominence! DARTH PANDA^talk 01:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Office robbery deprodded

Hi! I thought I would let you know that Office robbery, whose proposed deletion you had seconded, was deprodded by 70.232.80.232 with no explanation. Maethordaer (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Americantaxpayer

Check out User:Concernedtaxpayer and User talk:71.56.152.245, both appear to be socks. Working on the sockpuppet reports now. --Terrillja (talk) 02:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Sure seem to be sock puppets to me.--Clubmarx (talk) 02:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well the way they signed the articles the same was a giveaway to the IP, and naming your sock pretty much the same thing as you is pretty dumb, so there goes Concernedtaxpayer. --Terrillja (talk) 02:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

User claims to not be a puppeteer.... If you want to say anything, here is the case: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Americantaxpayer --Terrillja (talk) 03:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

212-extreme

dont deleted 212-extreme please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212xtreme212 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Worthiness of PLAY PRODUCTION

The Meadowdale High School theater is a valuable venue in the Edmonds/Lynnwood, WA community. Students, teachers, and others can use this page (which a link on the Meadowdale HS page) to find out what is happening at the Black Box Theater, and what plays the Play Production class is staging. There is no good reason to delete this article. MoiAussi3 (talk) 00:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is no notability asserted in the article. Wikipedia is also not a message board, see WP:NOTWEBHOST. --Clubmarx (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)