User talk:Crecy99

And after ? what will happen with the "Cascades Company" page ?????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.128.225.93 (talk) 12:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Moonpig

A tag has been placed on Moonpig, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of Moonpig and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. 217.33.69.50 (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Acclaim Resource Partners

Hi Rcawsey, I'm new to the Wikipedia community, but trying to learn the official rules and regulations as quickly as possible of the Wikipedia network. I'm inquiring about a page that was recently added for speedy deletion, but I was not tentative enough to add the {{hangon}} to the top of the article, because I have been out due to bereavement of a father-in-law.

The deletion reason appears to be "does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject." I wasn't sure if this is a special tag that needed to be added to the Acclaim Resource Partners past page or if it's an interpretation of the Wikipedia reviewer. The Acclaim Resource Partners page was a company website that was attempting to communicate a non biased explanation of a full service subrogation company that is developing a process for the trade of subrogation consulting. This trade in the United States and focuses with in insurance carriers and self-insured entities and how parties can resolve a dispute around vehicle insurance, property insurance, workers compensation and health claims resulting in recovery of claims paid on behalf the carrier’s policyholders. Our company is apart of an official organization with in the United States titled the "National Association of Subrogation Professionals" that are referenced on the Wikipedia page about "subrogation" as an External link, which is to enhance the stature and effectiveness of subrogation and recovery professionals and we participate in annual conferences to share our effectiveness of recovery through the different subrogation processes.

Would it be possible to recover the Acclaim Resource Partners Wikipedia page or correct/add any information to the past page that would appease the Wikipedia community or "does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject" notation to preserve a Wikipedia presence?

comment added by AaronWagner

You could ask the administrator who deleted the article to restore the page, at User talk:SarekOfVulcan, but if you were, say, the Chief Marketing Officer at Acclaim Resource Partners, you might have a conflict of interest, which is frowned on by Wikipedia. Ideally, the article would be created by someone with no vested interest in the company, this indicating its inherent notability. . .Rcawsey (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fotzenschleim

Fotzenschleim is a very important thing here in Europe. It sholud have its own article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schwanzfixierter Zuchthengst (talk • contribs) 11:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Crecy99, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 10:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dannysmitty

Ya I guess it supposed to be like that, maybe I haven't been a member long enough yet, because I don't have that tab. Thanks anyways. Dannysmitty (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dannysmitty

Ya I read that in the help too, but for some reason I can't see the tab, maybe I'm blind, but all I can see is article, discussion, edit this page etc. No "move" tab. Am I looking in the wrong spot?

Dannysmitty (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dannysmitty

Rcawsey, thanks for the feedback, I will try to find good sources for my info. Can you possible help me move the page. The real title should be Kill (SPACE) The (SPACE) 8 , so it should look like Kill The 8, rather than Killthe8 . I'd really appreciate it, I am new to posting on wikipedia. Dannysmitty (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannysmitty (talk • contribs) 18:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

gdmoore20247

Rcawsey, thanks for pointing out the problems with my ANXeBusiness article. I went ahead and completed a major re-write which removed the advertising tone from the article. Let me know your comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdmoore20247 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks greatly improved now, I don't see any serious problems with it (though can't guarantee that other editors would agree. . .) Rcawsey (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vue 7 Infinite (Zahid Shaikh)

This page's content is ot Blatant Advertising it is an dtailed version of the content on Poserpedia. --Zahid shaikh (talk) 12:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sharanam Shah

Thanks for tweaking the article. Do you need any further changes or the last edited article is fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharanams (talk • contribs) 11:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neukom Elfe

Thanks for the information you added on the Elfe PM-3 to this article, although it seems to contradict the US FAA registry data. Can you provide a reference that shows that the PM-3 has been in the UK since 1999? Basically everything stated in Wikipedia needs to be properly referenced as explained in policy at WP:V. - Ahunt (talk) 11:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing the reference. It is unfortunate that it didn't have more detail than it did! I have "massaged the wording" to include more details, plus what it seems we know from the refs. The FAA says it was sold to the same person that the Swiss newsletter says it was, Graham McLean, so I assume that it was just not properly de-registered in the US when it went to the UK, which is why the FAA has it listed as "Status - In Question". - Ahunt (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2008

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary for your edits. Thank you. Mayalld (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

T.21

I stand corrected! I've moved the article back to where you originally placed it. I had moved it to be more in line with our coverage of other aircraft by this manufacturer; if you've got time, I wonder if you could take a look at how the other articles are named and point out any others that suffer from the same anomaly? --Rlandmann (talk) 11:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slingsby

I note your interest in Slingsby aircraft, any chance of having a look at Slingsby Falke I have just created particularly if you have any specifications. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the specs, just to note we dont normally use the type numbers in British aircraft articles if they have a name but as you say it may be confused with the earlier Falke (which is not on the list of types in the Slingsby article!) so I wouldnt have a problem with a rename. MilborneOne (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Armstrong Whitworth Argosy

Thanks for cleaning up my error! I confused the Argosy with the Atalanta.Mav62 (talk) 10:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boscastle flood

Well done for spotting that old vandalism - I had completely missed it! DuncanHill (talk) 11:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Institute for Smart Government

Would you care to explain what this was all about? – iridescent 22:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems meaningless, once the buzzwords are removed nothing is left of any encyclopedic value. Rcawsey (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to sound patronising, but please read (or re-read) Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion before you do any further deletion tagging. If you can't find a criterion there which fits the article, then the article isn't speedy-deletable – you certainly can't make up your own deletion criteria when you can't find one to fit, as you appear to have done here; this kind of WP:IDONTLIKEIT tagging just wastes the time of the admins who have to clean up after you. Had you bothered to actually read the history of the article, you'd have noticed that not only was it not a speedy candidate, but it unanimously survived an AFD discussion. – iridescent 22:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry I wasted your time. . .Rcawsey (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some tips: Never go by the current version for deletion. An article may have been subject to vandalism, so there could be a good chance of what you are seeing would have had a much better version written. So do check the history always. Next, we delete articles because they are not-notable, or a blatant copyviolation. We do not delete articles for poor grammar, we use the {{cleanup}} and its variants for such. To get a sense of notability, you can do a google book and google news search and get a feel on what's written on the subject by independent sources. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Von Strausberg

How do you know it's fiction? --Dweller (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I wish he was a real person, but if it was true I would expect there to be some references to the fellow on Google...Rcawsey (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you're right (Benzene says the substance was discovered by Faraday) but I feel the prudent way to deal with hoax articles that aren't 100% obvious hoaxes, is to go via AfD... --Dweller (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, here it is: the article was created by User: Ginglik, which is the name of a nightclub based in the ex-so-called laboratory in Shepherd's Bush - [[1]], Seems to have been set up as publicity for a Hallowen party...Rcawsey (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's toast. --Dweller (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parenting for Everyone

another administrator removed your speedy deletion tag, though I am not sure why -- perhaps you might want to consider sending it to WP:AFD. DGG (talk) 02:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PCubed

hi, i notice you have made an edit on the pcubed article i am pulling together. i am pretty new to wikipedia and wondered whether it was your tag that has appeared at the top of the article regarding the content and contribution? if you could let me know that would be great, also, i have been reading through all the links and am still a little confused as to how to get this removed. thanks for your help (T.boyce (talk) 11:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I have tidied up the references and removed the conflict of interest tag as there are no obvious signs of an improper connection with the company. However it still has a NPOV tag as parts of the article sound like an advertisement and it is lacking in content from independent sources. Hope this helps. . . Rcawsey (talk) 12:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks it is a help, I notice you have added a couple of dead link tags to the refence to the 2007 best places to work. I tried the links again and they do work, is there another reason why the tag is there? With regard to the advertisement sounding parts are there any particular areas that you can outline? I will run through again to see if I can improve it further. Thanks again for your help. (T.boyce (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

You're right; the links were dead this morning but are working now, though reference no. 4 does not seem to relate to Microsoft Office Enterprise Project Management (EPM) Solution. Advertisment sounding parts tend to contain buzzwords and non-Neutral point of view terms, such as Helping organizations to deliver their most challenging initiatives in an efficient way, focusing on the delivery of business goals. Rcawsey (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Breepe

I just saw that you removed my SD tag from this article without any explanation. I have reinstated the tag; however, if there is a valid reason for removing it I would be more than open to reconsidering the removal. Generally, although not required, one should justify removing the removal of a SD tag in the edit summary or a quick note to the person that set it. ttonyb1 (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I blew it. I see you did not remove the tag. The author did. My apologies for misreading the history page. Enjoy the day...I will try to. ttonyb1 (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well block this IP

This is an IP address for the Sarasota county school district, so it would be preferable for everyone if you just gave it the ol' bannhammer now, as it will be used over and over for vandalism. 204.193.117.68 (talk) 14:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Helicopters

Thanks for your note - no problem, it was subtle unless you went all the way back and saw what he was up to! I left him a note on his talk page. It appears he also tried to write a bio on himself, but another user had it CSDed before I even saw it! - Ahunt (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St. Gallen Embroidery

Thanks a lot for your review. Some of these grammar problems, I should have seen myself, especially some of the german sentences still in :-S --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

W Dowler & Sons

Thanks a lot for the fine clean up Job ! That's some real nice help ! Greatly appreciated ! --Avner Strauss (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)--Avner Strauss (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)--Avner Strauss (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)--Avner Strauss (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Rcawsey for your kind interest

You are right about the jurisdication policy of Wikipedia. Also, please look at that:

As for the "Move Tab" suggestion: It is very logical. Unfortunately, the old page is recreated for those who are unaware of the related name law. Hence, the old version is re-edited and redirecting tag is removed from them without knowing the issue. We opened this arguement in the deletion review page of Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_February_7 ) and the solution offered is that one. Cheapfriends (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the above is a now-blocked sockpuppet of User:VivaNorthCyprus. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of shipwrecks in 1948

I see you tagged this list as unreferenced and dubious. The entry is not unreferenced as it links to an article that lists the ship, with its source clearly indicated. The "dubious" tag I can understand, but this list is, like most lists of shipwrecks, one of those which will probably never be finished. No doubt it will get expanded in due course. Mjroots (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'm working at expanding the list anyway. Mjroots (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Rcawsey for your help

You are right about the neutrality isssue... It would be great to see an opposing side to balance the article and show both sides. Worldedixor (talk) 20:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Berling

Please see WP:ATHLETE for the notablity of athletes. --Pinkkeith (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not state that Thomas Berling has played at professional or world-class amateur level. Please expand it to show notability. Thanks. Rcawsey (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Get a wiggle on

You have applied an AfD tag to Wiggleball. Are you going to complete the AfD process? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

Hi, just reverted a page change. If you did not authorize this change, feel free to revert me. Thanks. View it on your history of your user page. Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 00:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basis Instrument Contract

AfD nomination of Basis Instrument Contract

An article that you have been involved in editing, Basis Instrument Contract, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basis Instrument Contract. Thank you.

TO User Rcawsey who proposed the deletion:WIPO converge is most notable independent coverage

As noted in the Discussion page of the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Basis_Instrument_Contract:

All efforts have been to properly source and reference this article. If any portion is found objectionable, please simply state your concern in a polite and substantive manner and the issue will be addressed. The author appreciates that the concept is not widely known and arouse suspicion but please notice that credibility of the material is independently sourced and properly referenced using the WIPO website at http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?wo=2003107137. the World Intellectual Property Organization is the most authoritative body in the world on intellectual property matters. A review of the International Preliminary Examination report issued Oct 1, 2004 in the documents tab associated with the patent publication WO2003107137 show that all 273 claims made in the application are found admissible as New, involve an Inventive Step and are Industrially Applicable.

It is not simply an attempt at self promotion. In view of the present economic crisis, its content is notable importance.

AS SUCH THERE IS SIMPLY NO OBJECTIVE BASIS FOR DELETION.

Note further that under Wikipedia rules on citing oneself in No original research at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research, it is stated: "Citing oneself

This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality policy. See also Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest."

This article reflects results published in WIPO publication WO2003107137 with the highest level of reliability opinion provided.

Bics (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Makino Advert flag

Hey Rcawsey, I tried to tweak the Makino page to make it less like an advert. I'm still new to the wikipedia world, so if you have some tips for me to continue adjustments I'd enjoy the feedback. Thanks! Everpassingpxpx (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks a lot better now - advert tag removed. . . Rcawsey (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Everpassingpxpx (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stardust Awards

No, it is a separate category. No can do. The articles must remain individual. Thanks. Universal Hero (talk) 11:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed your PROD of EN 62262

I don't understand your brief assertation "Notability; unencyclopedic". It is pretty obvious in the two-line article that it's a newer version of EN 50102 - so I've requested a tech deletion and a page move instead. IMO - it's as encyclopaedic as it gets Power.corrupts (talk) 12:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are we talking about the same article? It's been deleted now, but the one I tagged had no references, no introduction, no links to or from it and no possible claim to notability. . . Rcawsey (talk) 12:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Tiny Blue Boxes article

Ok Rcawsey, I'll concede, you've won. Feel free to get rid of the TBB article with no fuss, but in return I want you to promise me one thing, I want you to promise me that when TBB do meet Wikipedia notability standards it will be YOU SIR who creates the article again! Do we have a deal? I'll keep you informed. x

No deal, I don't have the power to delete articles, only to nominate them. . . Rcawsey (talk) 10:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Patrick Christie Ink (Australian Artist)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patrick_Christie_(Australian_artist)&action=edit&redlink=1

I actually do have a substantial amount of research, sources and references to write this article. I sat down to write it out last night and after just a few minutes, wikipedia.org went down so I didn't have access to the site for over 6 hours. It appears that during that time you came by and marked the article patrolled and the ever gleeful CambridgeBayWeather couldn't wait to use his delete button.

I understand why you two responded the way you did to the stub you found. Just wanted to let you know it was because of technical problems with the site.

I will develop the article on my userpage sandbox and then publish the full article when it is done to ensure technical problems don't create another roadblock.
Bio-wright (talk) 12:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic patrolling of tagged pages at New Page patrol

Hi there. There is a suggestion to get a bot to patrol any New Page that an editor has tagged for CSD, AfD, etc. As someone who patrols a lot, your opinion is particularly welcomed. --Ged UK 10:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks:User:Clearly kefir/tektite

Thanks about recovering my mistake and making redirect.Clearly kefir (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Education companies

Hi Rcawsey. Thanks for helping out with tagging spam for speedy deletion, but when you tag, provide an edit summary, and leave a note on the creator's talk page so that they'll stop doing it. WP:TWINKLE and WP:HUGGLE have tools that let you do this with a minimum of keystrokes. Thanks. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

speedy=

Se WP:CSD -- we do not normally speedy suspected hoaxes. Use Prod or AfD -- but first check to see if perhaps they are real. The db-hoax tag is for outrageous and obvious hoaxes that amount to vandalism. DGG (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Ann Beach

An article that you have been involved in editing, Ann Beach, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ann Beach. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Esasus (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All done

I've had my fun, thanks for the civil message! 92.234.232.219 (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Green Enterprise Initiative

Me again ... I think we need to get you hooked up with WP:Twinkle or WP:Huggle. It's a problem when you don't leave a message on the creator's talk page, because then they're likely to think that it was just a bug or a mistake and upload the article all over again, or get all huffy and go looking for trouble. It's not hard to sign up, and if you have access to IRC, you can get real-time help at #wikipedia-userscripts. Thanks for your tagging work. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metacca

Hello,

We have added a Wiki page for Metacca - Meta Search Engine and it looks like you have removed the "Technology" content twice stating that "Remove copyright content cut and pasted from http://www.metacca.com/aboutus.html". How can we violate our own copyrights? :-) Please stop removing contents from this page. Thanks.

~Yasin http://www.metacca.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Entelyst (talk • contribs) 17:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you confirming that you are associated with Metacca and hence have a conflict of interest? - you don't make this clear in the article so a copyright violation has to be assumed. . . Rcawsey (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Sahara Care House

An article that you have been involved in editing, Sahara Care House, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sahara Care House. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Binary TSO ^??? 08:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Kirkcaldie & Staines

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Kirkcaldie & Staines, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

issuing warnings

Hi Rcausey, can I suggest that you consider informing the authors when you tag their pages for deletion? I appreciate there are some occasions when further warnings are superfluous, but if we don't tell people why their article disappeared they won't know what went wrong with their page. Most of the speedy tags generate an easily copied template for the authors user page, and This is a good page for vandal warning templates. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this comment. I don't like to delete any article if the author hasn't been notified. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some articles are just so trivial and pointless it's not worth the fuss. . .Rcawsey (talk) 09:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only situation where I would agree with that is if the article is actively harmful (e.g., an attack page, copyright infringement, etc.). Otherwise, I think it is worth the time and effort to inform the author what the problem is before deleting. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

It's not clear to me why you've been tagging User:Benbussey's articles as vandalism. Just because something is a mess (which all of these certainly are) doesn't mean it is intended as vandalism. If you have some other information, please let me know. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bussey f1 is simply a hacked version of Scuderia Ferrari with the names changed to the author's. . . Rcawsey (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes more sense. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Air Penguin

Could you explain why you tagged this as vandalism? Ironholds (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See www.air-penguin.com and Wikipedia:Complete bollocks . . . Rcawsey (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See "Wikipedia:Bollocks isn't a policy" "being fictional isn't a speedy category" WP:VANDALISM (and the definition therein) and WP:PROD. Ironholds (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion: Pure vandalism. This includes blatant and obvious misinformation. Yes, that seems to cover it. . . Rcawsey (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't misinformation, though. In universe detail, certainly. In addition it isn't "blatant and obvious"; if you can't see from the outset "yup, complete bullshit" it doesn't fall under that. Ironholds (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In what universe ? . . . Rcawsey (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The madagascar universe, I assume. What I meant was that it was "internal" detail in a fictional work; sort of like the difference between saying "Rose Tyler is the doctor's companion" and "In the television series Doctor Who, Rose Tyler is a character who acts as the doctor's companion". Ironholds (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tracks in east London

Sometimes a clean-up in WP turns out to need a much longer edit session than the available time. That was the case yesterday with my making separate articles about the railway line under the Thames. As I see it the detailed early history of the track should be in an article entitled "East London Railway Company", and not in the LU line article (which seems to carry a note about its length). "East London Railway Company" should not redirect to anything but have a hatnote asking "Did you mean This or That?". That much of ELRC history was still in the ELl article was for the reason in my opening sentence. The indiscriminate capitalisation of LU lines strengthens the impression that much railway editing is none too careful and is based on "What I think I know" rather than evidence (an example was the strongly insisted nonsense about the original name of Waterloo station). I mean to look and maybe put things as I see them. Your comments would be welcome--SilasW (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UPrinting

re: UPrinting, you tagged this page as "written like an advertisement." Could you explain your reasoning or what you might do to make it more neutral? I tried very hard to cite as much as possible and keep everything factual and barebones, but advice is welcome. Thanks - JessMW (June 01, 2009). [edited, forgot to sign in]

Another AfD

Would you mind looking at this one: [2] Thanks Niteshift36 (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Designated

An article that you have been involved in editing, Designated, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Designated. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. JHunterJ (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actium erp

Thank you for your comment! Can you provide us with more information about your criteria you made use of in tagging our article about Actium ERP as "Unnotable software; borderline spam" !?! There must be something we don't do right! We are not intended to "spam" the readership as much as demonstrate the inter-relation and co-existence of Open Source and Proprietary software. When we compare ourselves with Compiere, SAP Business One and other companies using either type of licensing in the development of their product, we fit right in! So please, can you provide us with more information about the process you make use of in the determination of our presence here representing a "spamming" threat to your readership! We will be glad to oblige! Perhaps is it the format of the article that is a problem; perhaps it is the category it belongs to! One thing is for sure, we have no intent of spamming your readership. Without prejudice! --PMaloney (talk) 21:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cotswolds

--Kudpung (talk) 10:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of content

Hi Rcawsey,

Could you please xplain what about the content I updated to a corporate site was deemed "blatant marketing"? I had received alot of feedback from people inquiring about the lack of information on BlackRock. I provided insight into the structure of the company which subsequently received feedback that this content was very useful in researching the firm.

As R'n'B requested, would it be possible that you inform someone before deleting all of their content or atleast notifying that this has been deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishsk (talk • contribs) 14:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article about BlackRock is not a "corporate site", it is supposed to be unbiased and encyclopedic. Hence my deletion of paragraphs like: Since our founding in 1988, BlackRock has come to be known as a problem solver. In times of need, some of the world’s most prominent private and public institutions have turned to BlackRock and our fiduciary mindset, depth in the capital markets, world-class risk management, sophisticated analytics and solutions-driven culture.

These pages may give further guidance: Wikipedia:Spam and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Rcawsey (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lancaster Community Safety Coalition

A bit more than a week ago, you proposed this article for deletion. I deleted it as uncontested after seven days, but the article was then undeleted by another administrator. So I nominated the article for deletion at WP:AfD. If you would like to comment, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lancaster Community Safety Coalition. Regards, J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 14:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of PROD from International Public Management Association for Human Resources

Hello Rcawsey, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to International Public Management Association for Human Resources has been removed. It was removed by ThaddeusB with the following edit summary '(contest prod - appears to be a notable organization (see http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22International+Public+Management+Association+for+Human+Resources%22&cf=all) - will expand & source ASAP)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with ThaddeusB 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) 01:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)[reply]

Removal of PROD from Postmodern psychology

Hello Rcawsey, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Postmodern psychology has been removed. It was removed by Jasonstevenjowett with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Jasonstevenjowett 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) 21:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 21:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of PROD from Prosfer - market momentum

Hello Rcawsey, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Prosfer - market momentum has been removed. It was removed by WalksWithCoffee with the following edit summary '(Undid revision 318542847 by Rcawsey (talk))'. Please consider discussing your concerns with WalksWithCoffee 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) 20:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 20:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: SMB ABI

Hello Rcawsey, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of SMB ABI - a page you tagged - because: if that is the case, it's probably a likely search term, so merge and redirect instead. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. So Why 13:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Shawty Critised & Offended by Harsh Judgement

Dear Rcawsey,

Why did you have to add a "speedy-deletion" templete, on an re-assesed, constanly updated article page, that has been edited, more than 20 times, and rejected in the past.

The Radio Shawty team, was highly offened, by your critising judgement. After the article, had been submited 2 hours before, and edited to be error free, more than 10 times, after that.

The Manager, has decided to add the following message (on the bottom of this section) to the articles page, as well the discussion page of the article, on behalve of the Radio Shawty team. Plaese note, you have been informed in the past of addiing "speedy-delete" tags, on unread, and unadmistered articles. My advice to you is, please help, where needed, before judgeing. Cause unlike somepeople, others have a heart.

Thank You Lil' K-Mario (Radio Shawty Conslutant)

Manager's Response

Posted by DJ Real U, (Reply and Concern) 10 November 2009 15:45 (GMT+2)

"Dedicated message, to harsh Winkipedian, employees.

Did you read the article, and the comment that was situated at the top, when you first found it. This article has been recreated, adapted and edited more that 20 times, to make sure , it clerify's and is approved. Many radio services have an encyclopicdic article, which states, there productions, and establishment. For such, this article has been created, to expand, the views and opitions, on its listerners, and for research, from many educational insitutions, which have surveys on our broadcasts. I am, DJ Real U, Manger of this service, and as such, have illistrated evey aspected needed to produce this professtional, article. And by such, only true cietations, and information has been added. Upon reviewing, this article is a non-spam, and non-corruptive article, and has been approved by its owned firm, U.N.T Media Productions. Even so, this article, has listed its importance, by citeing, that it is "THE ONLY FOUNDED RADIO STATION IN EERSTERUST, SOUTH AFRICA, WITH A RAPID GROWING AUDIANCE OF BETTEWEEN 10 TO 20, NEW LISTERNS, IT CURRENTLY, HOLDS AN AVERAGE OF 47 LISTERNERS. It has also been cieted to be, the number 1, online urban radio service, of Pretoria, and the greater Tshwane region, this is a well-earned successful radio service, with regular donations, it has been blessed. Thank you, for reading this coment"

"AN AVERAGE OF 47 LISTERNERS": I think that says it all. . . Rcawsey (talk) 13:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEWT

Hi there. I'd like to inform you that I've reviewed some of your NPP activities at Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at CSD/Lankiveil. Happy for you to post any feedback that you might have either there or on my talk page. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Eastman Business Park

I reverted the edit by User:Smdroch to your edit because of the breach of NPOV in that users' latest edit. In fact, all edits to date by said user have been to that article - granted, three edits is a very short history, but it does look odd.Autarch (talk) 20:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CSUCI Academic Centers

With regard to your good attemps to clean-up CSUCI Academic Centers, you may be interested in this discussion [3]Emargie (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Melville Y. Stewart

Hi there. I noticed you added 'COI' and 'NOINTRO' tags to this article some time ago. Well almost immediately afterwards the author, who obviously has a close connection to the subject, simply removed them. I added them back however he removed them, this process has been repeating itself every couple weeks, no matter how many times I explain it to him on his user talk page he simply continues to remove the tags without explanation. Quite frankly I'm a bit sick of it so thought I would bring it to the attention of someone else, he obviously won't listen to me, maybe you will have some luck. Freikorp (talk) 09:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those socks you reverted earlier...

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lila_Cheney_336, a longish term sneaky vandal. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 00:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]