Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I think that your placement of tags on Henry Plater-Zyberk less than a minute after its creation, which one can clearly see is under development at this very moment, is pushing it a little bit. He is a much-cited scholar and an expert in his field. How about revisiting the article in a couple of days, and then judge it. --Russavia ^Dialogue 10:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those were not deletion tags. Feel free to remove them when the concerns are addressed. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 10:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I know they were not deletion tags, but the editor in question is building the article at the moment. We'll see how it progresses. Cheers --Russavia ^Dialogue 11:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On April 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tunnel de la mort, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 08:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I signal that I dont accept attacks either, learn before (respectiously) talking, look who begins conflicts , he treat me as banned user Ecuadorian Stalker (talk) 12:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then treat him the way I treated you. That's what the templates at WP:WARN are for. Being the victim of a crime is NO EXCUSE for committing one of your own, especially not as revenge. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SO GO PLACE ONE ON HIS TALK PAGE RIGHT NOW ! Ecuadorian Stalker (talk) 12:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's settle the sockpuppetry case first. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I attempted to create a page for a website (sunonthesand.net) I contribute to last month and was informed that it did not meet the notability requirement. This is fair according to your stipulations given that we are not that prominent as it stands but I do have one question regarding another matter. A few of our staff members have posted links to our reviews on album pages and they are constantly removed. One of us was even told by wikipedia personnel that we could do so yet our work is removed nonetheless. Why is this so? If I put a few up tomorrow, will they be taken off again? I would understand if we posted needlessly negative writing and it was subsequently removed by an overzealous fan but the reviews we have tried to post were usually in the 4 star range. Any insight on this would be appreciated. Iamnotacamera (talk) 06:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Although links to reviews are welcome, they are only helpful if they come from sites with which the reader is already familiar. This goes with our policy of having material supported by reliable sources. In the case of a link to a review from a site whose notability is questionable, that would be akin to posting a link to a review made on someone's personal blog, which is inherently a violation of our policy on neutrality. Remember that your primary goal should be to post helpful material about the songs being reviewed, not to advertize the reviewer, as you seem to be doing. Actually, I would daresay that for posting reviews from a particular reviewer on the article on a song being reviewed, the notability standards for that reviewer are much higher than the notability standards for having an article on that particular reviewer.

If we allowed every non-notable and barely notable reviewer to post links to reviews from their sites, it would serve no other purpose than to overwhelm the articles with a list of external links, all of which would be saying pretty much the same thing, if you think about it. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 11:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, while I believe that our reviews do present their own spin on albums and are helpful to music enthusiasts, I can understand the thought process here. As for flooding a page with external links, I would frankly find that incredibly convenient as a wikipedia user. Then again, that may just be me. Regardless, thank you for the reply. Iamnotacamera (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How did you come to the conclusion it was an Armenian film? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was the characters in the original language, which looked Armenian to me. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 11:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What d you mean only by browsing the refs how many albino clones are there if that dose not give you a clue that he is fictonial I don't know what will.--AKM73 (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article, as it stands now, gives the impression that you are saying these do exist in real life. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Blanchardb. You have tagged the r n km.t article with a tag containing this quote:

This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion as a recently created redirect page resulting from a typo or misnomer which is implausible and not common, and is not in another language. See CSD R3.

You are wrong. r n km.t is the Egyptian name for the Egyptian language. You might want to refer to the Egyptian language article before tagging r n km.t for deletion.

kotakkasut 02:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'll be pleased to know I have untagged the redirect even before I got your message. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That was fast. I must be having too much instant coffee or something. kotakkasut 02:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article for Coming Soon (2008 film) has now been much improved. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]