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.

Hello Blanchardb, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Years of the 12th - 14th century in Italy has been removed. It was removed by Theologiae with the following edit summary '(These sorts of "list" pages are found everywhere in wikipedia - please just see list of years in France, list of years in Ireland, list of years in Germany or similar year pages to refer.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Theologiae before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 12:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 12:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am contesting the speedy deletion of this page. This is my first Wikipedia page, so please bare with me. I am currently gathering the resources required to state the Newgate Clocks is a notable company, particularly in the field of Clocks and as a local business. Im just going through all the information I have here and correlating this with Wikipedia's guidelines to see what is viable and what isnt.

If you could just give me 24 hours to sort all of this before the article is deleted I would be very grateful. Hopefully with this extra information added you will see why I believe Newgate Clocks is a notable company. Many thanks!

JimJCarr (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm giving you 7 days. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! JimJCarr (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why its up for deletion when I took off the ™ symbol. I've explained the reasoning behind why I put the ™ there but as requested I removed it. You keep saying its a neologisms which is where I'm trying to hopefully get it to. For now its a Protologism. I have friends from all over the globe that use the word and I've received emails from people who came about it from the sekute tank tops and t-shirts I designed. I know this may not help but I also have it on my clothing line website. Anyway, I'm trying to spread the word and the meaning as much as possible. Lawyers as well as mine have advise me to use the ™ if Intentions to use it in commerce. I'm a fashion designer and created the word to complement my brand. I'm using it on upcoming product. So in hopes when others hear and see it, my brand will register as well.

You mention instead of getting upset or something to that nature of receiving a deletion notice, try improving it and fixing what is needed for it to be accepted. Well that is what I'm trying to do. So, if you can help with that I would appreciate it. (KKutie (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The reason why it is up for deletion is explained in the deletion discussion. The problem is not so much as to whether the article can be improved, but rather whether we even want an article on this subject. Please note that Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary and is therefore no place to promote words that you would like to see introduced in the English language. Per our guidelines on neologisms, a word must be either verifiably established in the language outside Wikipedia, or else not mentioned in Wikipedia. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Text (Deletion Of Sekute) I kinda understand what you mean. I've had and used this word for some time and figured it could be used by others as well. Hint the reason why I was creating it under the adjective set up. The word is catching on in a big way and hopefully wiki will reconsider deleting sekute but I guess what ever you guys decide I'll respect. (KKutie (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

New Text I see that Wikipedia has put me up for speedy deletion. But this time I'm confused on the reason they gave. They said something about a clear copyright infringement. How can that be when I created the word? (KKutie (talk) 23:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The thing is, we have no way of verifying that you are indeed the owner of the copyright, so by default we must assume that you are not. Additionally, please take a look at the other arguments for deletion that were brought up in the deletion discussion. I would direct you to where you can have copyright issues cleared (WP:OTRS), but I can see that it would be pointless, given that your contribution would inevitably end up being deleted over other concerns.

If you are indeed the owner of the brand, we can't take your word for it that the name "is catching on in a big way." You'd have to show, through non-trivial mentions in reliable third-party references (you know, the kind where you can't get anything changed without involving your attorney in the process) that it is indeed catching on. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments on my discussion page. This is my first attempt, hopefully now that I have added the secondary sources as suggested, this will be accepted. Lbu98mlb (talk) 20:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger is excellent idea - Fell free to do it or I will have a go in the morning. Codf1977 (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Blanchardb. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English.
Message added 07:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kudpung (talk) 07:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry your RFA is not entirely going according to plan so far. I am a Neutral at the moment, but you might like to know that the two main criticisms of over-zealous deletion proposals and your recent block are easy to remedy with a little time. Given the many positives expressed, I will not be looking for much evidence of change in these areas next time you seek Adminship. Stephen B Streater (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my recent block has generated less of an opposition than I expected, and I'm surprised that no one asked about the earlier block (clearly a mistake on the blocking admin's part, which he tried to undo himself). But this has been a learning experience, and I have already resumed editing the way I did before the RFA began. The only difference being that I have begun compiling statistics on my AfD participation, and I will start doing the same for SD's.

Additionally, for an other RFA, I will wait to be nominated (or at least co-nominated) by someone who was in the Oppose camp this time around. Then I will know that the next RFA will be a near-unanimous support. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I could represent the neutrals in a co-nom. Get the opposer first though ;-) Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry it ended up like this, I really thought you would pass. I still believe that while some of opposers made good points, it wasn't enough to actually oppose on and I still think you would make a damn good admin. Right now I'd just say watch your csd's for a while and you'll pass one before the end of the year regardless of the nominator - and I look forward to supporting. I hope this wasn't too stressful an experience for you--Jac16888^Talk 02:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On April 21, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Charron Island, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]