User talk:Ubelowme

Please be advised that if you leave me a message here, it might be some time before I read it/respond to it. Ubelowme (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Ubelowme, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Manual of Style
Your first article
Also feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place "{{helpme}}" on this page and someone will drop by to help. Roodog2k (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Optional notification[edit]

Hi and welcome (back?) to wikipedia. You may wish to notify ArbCom of your clean start: Wikipedia:CLEANSTART#Notification_and_permission. This notification does not involve a public disclosure of your previous account. It helps to prevent future doubts as to the standing of the previous account. Bear in mind I'm just a random editor and my suggestion is entirely optional and you can choose to make no notification if you wish. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest and the suggestion. Now that I've reviewed them, I think I understand the conditions under which I should notify ArbCom and I do appreciate your having pointed me to them. I wasn't a contentious editor before and I very much doubt I'll be one now, but as you say it is best to prevent future doubt. Ubelowme (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Ubelowme. You have new messages at Dismas's talk page.
Message added 21:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Dismas|^(talk) 21:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

Thanks for participating in my RFA! I appreciate your support. Zagalejo^^^ 06:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 2012[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as on Talk:Dr. R.A. Vernon‎, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 17:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Username[edit]

Hi. Your edits seem to be exemplary but is your username a pun on "you blow me"? It sounds like it is, and if so, that's not the best basis for a clean start. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm glad to know that you think my edits are exemplary. If you have a problem with my username, feel free to share it at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. For the record, you seem to be the only person who has that opinion of its meaning. Best of luck with your future contributions. Ubelowme _U ^Me 15:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think its pretty clear that its "you below me", which while also suggestive is not nearly so graphic. Especially with your superscript/subscript signature showing the positions! Gaijin42 (talk) 14:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Defensive Gun Use Incidents[edit]

I saw your comment on the AFD. I have added some criteria to the article for inclusion in the list. Please review and see if this mitigates any of your concern? Thanks. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria do indeed mitigate my concerns -- not entirely, but you have put in some thorough and thoughtful work and it has significantly improved the article. I certainly won't be unhappy if this article remains. Ubelowme _U ^Me 14:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the feedback, would you consider making your !vote keep or at least neutral? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It is refreshing to work with another editor who is willing to keep an open mind and review their original opinion. Quite often these debates become trench warfare, with no progress once an initial position is set out (a problem which I myself am subject too more often than I would prefer). good working with you. Let me know if I can be of any assistance in your interest areas on wikipedia. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've annotated my !vote. BTW, when I mentioned the "stand your ground" laws, I wasn't specifically suggesting that the title of the article be changed; merely that that concept seems to provide a useful lens for viewing such incidents and it might be another worthwhile criterion for selecting entries for the list. Thanks for your comments; I do try to bring an open mind and I like to occasionally remind myself that the function is to improve Wikipedia, not feed my ego by making me feel good about being "right", an evanescent concept in the context. Thanks also for the explanation of "Clinton-esque", which did not offend me. An American Supreme Court judge once remarked that he couldn't define pornography but he knew what it was when he saw it; I have always found that an extremely unsatisfactory jurisprudential expression and I take comfort in precise definitions (as you have probably seen). Ubelowme _U ^Me 14:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CKW[edit]

dear ubelowme since CKW is now deleted, I would appreciate it if you omit or replace your earlier sentence "The writing style is so obfuscatory and bafflegab-ish as to render it too opaque for me to make the enormous effort to plough through it" by some more balanced statement as this can be read by anyone interested in the discussion about the deletion process. Thank you. Culturalknowledgeworker (talk) 12:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. My understanding is that, generally speaking, the results of AfD processes are meant to remain as they are precisely because they are meant to be read by anyone in a future discussion process. I meant my comment to indicate that I had a great deal of difficulty in mastering the material sufficiently to make an informed comment, precisely because I found that the writing style was so opaque. It is occasionally helpful to the closing administrator to know things like that because it helps him/her to assess the weight to be put upon my !vote -- in this case, I added the comment in case it would allow the closing admin to give LESS weight to my comment if that was merited. Since my opinion of the writing style has not changed, I'm going to decline further action. Best of luck with your future contributions. Ubelowme _U ^Me 19:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

dear ubelowme thanks. Question: What is your academic background and your field of studies? Culturalknowledgeworker (talk) 09:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely none of your business. Our interaction is now over. Ubelowme _U ^Me 13:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Una Guðmundsdóttir[edit]

Hi Ubelowme. You !voted to delete. Your thoughts on the outcome? --Shirt58 (talk) 10:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. As I noted in the AfD process, I was entirely prepared to believe that I had missed something -- I find the Icelandic alphabet difficult to manipulate in search processes -- and I am happy to see that Wikipedia has gained a useful article for which I was apparently not sufficiently skilled to find sources. I look at this as a "no harm, no foul" situation and have no problem assuming good faith on the part of all concerned. Ubelowme _U ^Me 19:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My Recent Mistake[edit]

I am truly sorry, I was using Lupin's AV tool and I saw your name and followed the trail. I'm sorry that I got that confused. Thanks!

No harm, no foul -- and I'm sure I've done the same thing myself. Ubelowme _U ^Me 02:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit tests on David Prever[edit]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you have been adding your signature to some of your edits to articles, such as the edit you made to David Prever. This is a common mistake to make and has probably already been corrected. Please do not sign your edits to article content, as the article's edit history serves the function of attributing contributions, so you only need to use your signature to make discussions more readable, such as on article talk pages or project pages such as the Village Pump. If you would like further information about distinguishing types of pages, please see What is an article?. Again, thank you for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! This is an automated message from 28bot. False positive? Please report it. 28bot (talk) 23:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elder Helpers[edit]

You might want to clarify this edit to note that WP:NOHARM is part of an essay, not a policy. Cheers! VQuakr (talk) 23:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right, and I have done so. Thanks for the very appropriate reminder; some people involved in this discussion might have taken it as having more importance than it actually does. And thanks also for essay, not a policy, with which I wasn't familiar; I'll be using that! Ubelowme _U ^Me 00:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Hi there I understand the article deezy needed some work but why did you try to delete the article Red City Records? Post Back @ my Talk Page please Deezy.D. (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Iamdumdum[edit]

Encyclicals are notable and a suitable topic for an article. Since the article does not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion (it was not a test edit), I have removed the tag and addressed the matter on the talk page. Mamalujo (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed this on the talk page of the article in question -- after consideration and further research I think you've spelled the name wrong. Regardless of whether you feel right is on your side, the creators of articles aren't allowed to remove speedy deletion tags -- the tag itself is clear about this -- and you may want to bear that in mind in the future. Ubelowme _U ^Me 22:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Capture The Crown speedy deletion tag removed[edit]

I have removed the WP:CSD#a7 tag on Capture The Crown as it asserts significance. "This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability." Dloh cierekim 01:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry[edit]

!

Speedy deletion declined: Zaner Group[edit]

Hello Ubelowme. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Zaner Group, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nevs Models Deletion unnecessary[edit]

Google Nevs Models. Its a top model agency. It more than meets the requirement of notability. There aren't a lot of source for model agencies. Look at Models 1, Storm Models, etc. They usually only have one source on there pages. Also here are several well known models who are represented by this agency who have wikipedia articles including the names I listed in the article. There is no reason for a speedy deletion. Its a top agency that's been around since 1971. Its competitors Storm, Models 1, Select, etc all have articles. Please refer to fashion portal for advice on this subject. FMD, Models.com, and Nevs are all legitimate sources.

I disagree -- I don't think you have understood the definition of notability in Wikipedia's terms and I disagree with you about the reliability of the sources you cite. But it's not me you have to convince. My opinion doesn't matter in this context, it's the closing admin whom you have to convince, and I suggest you do that by reading up on reliable sources and adding them to the article. Good luck with your future contributions. Ubelowme _U ^Me 00:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Ubelowme. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention.
Message added 05:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

VQuakr (talk) 05:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are so inclined, it might be in your benefit to open an RFCN on the topic, so this does not continue to be brought up. You may not have noticed, but your name has reported to UAA, I think, about three times since you registered. NTox · talk 05:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your courtesy in bringing this to my attention; in fact, you are the first person to mention that this issue has been discussed at UAA so, no, I haven't noticed. I honestly think this is ridiculous and I'm on the verge of just packing it in for the second time. Ubelowme _U ^Me 14:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ignoring the complaints is a valid option since I doubt a consensus will form that the name actually violates policy. Of course if the complaints bother you, you could just change the name. VQuakr (talk) 15:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your message/Anne Block[edit]

Sorry if the formatting is off but I am responding to your comment below. Thank you for the input. I do not believe that the article I posted was a repost of material. However, there was no way for me to check as the previous Anne K. Block page was deleted on Aug 31 and I was unable to check against the previous version. However, my cousing wrote the previous article and I took his notes and tried to write a more nuanced version of the material. The editor who deleted the first page said he was "not opposed to a neutral re-write" and that's what I was attempting to do. The subject of the article is a person of great regional import who is affecting the affairs of the state of washington at a high level. She has been covered by all major media outlets and has actively participated in the political process, thrusting herself into the public view via 11 recall attempts of elected officials, each of which requires some 40,000 signatures to obtain. The original article was up for some time until the subject started whitewashin the material. She deleted all of the sourcing and wrote first person narrative. Shortly thereafter the article was deleted. What can I do to either complete the neutral re-write or request the original article to be reposted? Thank you Deception passer (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Anne Block requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's discussion directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of recreating the page. Thank you. Ubelowme U Me 02:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC) I'm not sure if it's clear from the template with which I've provided you, but merely putting the same article up again immediately after it has failed an Articles for Deletion process is not the way to go. I recommend WP:Deletion review first -- simply re-posting the same material makes it subject to immediate "speedy" deletion. Ubelowme U Me 02:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

XsaltedX[edit]

I did feel it appropriate. I usually wait till the fourth repeat, but as they seem so determined, I decided to save everyone time. Unless they try a new title, of course... Peridon (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS I can't see anything wrong with your name. Just suggests you're stuck up a tree... If you do get problems, let me know and I'll !vote for you. Peridon (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for both the salt and the comment -- my general sentiment is "three strikes, you're out", but four is good too. (I think it's useful to have a bottom line, and I think you would agree.) I'll keep my eyes open for new spelling variants on the company name, etc., as I'm going through new page patrol. I'll bear your kind offer of a !vote in mind if and when the silliness recurs. Ubelowme _U ^Me 17:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page Curation newsletter[edit]

Hey Ubelowme. I'm dropping you a note because you used to (or still do!) patrol new pages. This is just to let you know that we've deployed and developed Page Curation, which augments and supersedes Special:NewPages - there are a lot of interesting new features :). There's some help documentation here if you want to familiarise yourself with the system and start using it. If you find any bugs or have requests for new features, let us know here. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion Declined: CertificationPoint[edit]

Hello Ubelowme. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of CertificationPoint, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Blgiles23 (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. I'm not sure exactly where you found the "credible assertion of importance or significance" -- I don't see one -- but it's a moot point since I intend to submit this for AfD. Ubelowme _U ^Me 22:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ubelowme. You have new messages at Tokyogirl79's talk page.
Message added 20:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

User:Meathanjay[edit]

I was puzzled to find this user page with a {{db-bio}} from you on it. Looking at the timings, it was in the main space and Anbu121 (talk · contribs) userfied just before you tagged it, so I'm guessing you thought you were tagging a mainspace article, which was entirely reasonable. However, as a user page it is quite acceptable, so I have removed your db tag and replaced your notice on his talk page with {{userfy}}, a useful template which tells him about user pages and also explains what they are not for. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely right, it was a mainspace article when I tagged it. Thanks for the explanation. Ubelowme _U ^Me 21:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jynx Maze deletion[edit]

Hi, what was the reason for your speedy deletion of adult actor Jynx Maze? Its hard to compare the new article with one that has ben deleted for anyone to see.Walle83 (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I'm not an administrator, so I cannot delete articles; you'd be looking for User:SchuminWeb. I looked at the article as part of new page patrol and tagged it first for speedy deletion because it didn't meet WP:PORNBIO/WP:GNG (nominations don't meet PORNBIO, only awards). When I saved the page, I was informed that there had been an articles for deletion process within the last week or so and therefore changed the tag to db-repost. I've just finished looking at WP:PORNBIO and was surprised to see that "several" nominations might qualify -- I've never seen an article qualify under that condition and I've seen many PORNBIO-based AfDs. I expect you could ask User:SchuminWeb or any other administrator for a comparison of the two articles if you have an issue that I haven't dealt with; I think an admin would probably refer you to deletion review if you really want to pursue this. Let me know if I can be of further assistance. Ubelowme _U ^Me 23:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I went and looked into the history of PORNBIO and note that the "several nominations" idea was added five months ago -- it had escaped my attention. Ubelowme _U ^Me 23:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit tests on Schoolersides[edit]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you have been adding your signature to some of your edits to articles, such as the edit you made to Schoolersides. This is a common mistake to make and has probably already been corrected. Please do not sign your edits to article content, as the article's edit history serves the function of attributing contributions, so you only need to use your signature to make discussions more readable, such as on article talk pages or project pages such as the Village Pump. If you would like further information about distinguishing types of pages, please see What is an article?. Again, thank you for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! This is an automated message from 28bot. False positive? Please report it. 28bot (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AFD Renomination[edit]

Several months ago, you commented on an AFD that was closed as no consensus. It has been renominated, and you may wish to comment again. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of defensive gun use incidents (2nd nomination) Gaijin42 (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]