User talk:Benboy00 - Wikipedia

1 person in discussion

Article Images

PLEASE READ THIS FIRST: If I have nominated a page for speedy deletion, and you want to know why, please actually read the notice first, as it tells you why it was nominated. If you want a detailed explanation, I will almost certainly be happy to help, but I would urge you to save a copy of the page BEFORE leaving a comment on this page, because it will probably be deleted very quickly, and if it is, I can't really help you.

If a page of yours has been deleted due to a speedy delete that I placed, and you want to know why, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT I CAN HELP YOU much, UNLESS YOU HAVE A COPY OF THE PAGE. Once a page has been deleted, I cannot access it or see it, and I go through many, many pages. It is unlikely that I will remember your particular page. Please read the other sections on my talk page, as they contain comments from people just like you, and then read my replies. They are all very similar, and they basically repeat what the deletion notice says. For most of my replies (as you can see), I just copy and paste bits of other replies. This is kindof a waste of my time, and I only do it out of courtesy. Please be courteous to me by not making these requests for clarification UNLESS you have a copy of the page. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

By the way, sorry about that welcome message. I just looked through your contributions and it seems you've been around for a while now. :P

Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

"wanted to let you know that I just tagged General Mathematics for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, [[:{{{article}}}]]." -- which is what? Don't see the link to existing article. Mikus (talk) 02:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC) After some consideration, I have decided to de-nominate for speedy deletion and tag the article instead. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 02:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

DUH! I just started the page. Of course, I could write a whole monograph in Notepad and then paste it to Wiki, but I decided to start early, maybe somebody else will join. The search term does not link to any Wiki article, but does link to many resources, which are relevant to math education in the U.S., Australia and GB. Cheers! Mikus (talk) 03:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

There is no need to be rude. Many articles are created first in the sandbox and then, when complete or nearing completion, submitted as a new article. Creating an article with a title like "General Mathematics" but hardly any content seems pretty strange. I would suggest that you change the title to clarify the topic i.e. General Mathematics (Education) or something similar. Benboy00 (talk) 03:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Benboy00. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for Garden City College For Science And Technology Sudan, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers and review the criteria for speedy deletion. Particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion or proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. CSD:A7 does not apply to schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Benboy00, Just wanted to let you know that I reviewed the "Shawn Landres" article and believe that it should remain up. The article has more than 30 citations from Academic Journals, the New York Times, etc. And it does not appear to be overly promotional to me. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NathaneMiller10 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Benboy00, I created the page, Onarbor, and would like to fix it such that it will be acceptable to be published on Wikipedia. Onarbor.com is my website and company. Our business model is based off of Kickstarter that is why I used Kickstarter's wiki page as a guide to developing our wiki page. I apologize for cutting and pasting kickstarter's page in order to create Onarbor's page. I took a break from finishing Onarbor's page before removing the blatant copyrighting without realizing that Wikipedia editors would delete it so quickly before I had a chance to finalize it. My sincere apologies, this is the 1st wikipedia page I've ever created. I've re-submitted the Onarbor page to address the copyrighting. I've removed all references that were Kickstarter-specific and changed the sentence-structure and wording to be unique to Onarbor. Hopefully this will be more in line with Wikipedia's policies. Again, I'm truly sorry about this. Thank you,

Tim Peterson User:Trpeters1

Rev Stef and Jubilation. Wanted to know why my first page is scheduled for deletion? What is inappropriate about the page I posted? This is a religious group!

EB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revstef (talk • contribs) 01:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Revstef,

Since the page in question has been deleted, I can't refer back to it, and I can't remember exactly which one it was, but if I tagged it for deletion it meant that it was (in my opinion) inappropriate for Wikipedia. The fact that it was accepted for speedy deletion means that at least one admin thought that this was undoubtedly true. I think it was probably because it was extremely promotional in tone but, like I said, I cant exactly remember. If you provide me with a copy of the article, I could give you more detailed criticism. Also, I moved your comment to a new section on my talk page. When adding messages to talk pages, please follow accepted practice, which is to make a new section unless you are commenting on an already existing section. Please do not just leave messages at the top. Also, please remember to sign your posts with 4 tildes (~). Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 13:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello Benboy00. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Bring the Thunder, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article has been edited since it was tagged and is no longer a copyvio. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi I am Samantha, You recently tagged for deletion an artist I wanted to create a page for,he has been around since the 80"s and has been well know in the music scene as well as the movies. His website is WWW.AMIRTHEPIRATE.COM. Benboy00 could you please take the time and help me understand how I'm to create this page for this artist that I admire?? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SAMANTHABARTOLI (talk • contribs) 18:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Samantha,

First of all, I moved your comment to a new section on my talk page. Please do this when leaving a comment that isn't related to any existing sections on talk pages, and also remember to sign your posts with 4 ~'s. Since the page in question has been deleted, I can't refer back to it, and I can't remember exactly which one it was, but if I tagged it for deletion it meant that it was (in my opinion) inappropriate for Wikipedia. The fact that it was accepted for speedy deletion means that at least one admin thought that this was undoubtedly true. If you have a copy of this page, I can certainly try to help you work on it, but if I nominated it for deletion because of a lack of notability, then it is unlikely that it can be made appropriate for wikipedia at this time. This is not necessarily because of the quality of the article itself, but because the subject is not notable enough to be included on wikipedia. As I said, if you have a copy of the page, I would be glad to try to help. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Benboy00. I noticed you where the one that tagged my article for deletion . Please i don't understand, what i did wrong for my article to be tagged for deletion. Please can you guide me on what not to include on the article. thank you hope to hear from you.

This is the title for the articles: Metropolitan_School_of_Business_and_Management_(MSBM) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msbm nigeria (talk • contribs) 11:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, first of all, please sign your posts with 4 ~'s. Next, since the page in question has been deleted, I can't refer back to it, and I can't remember exactly which one it was, but if I tagged it for deletion it meant that it was (in my opinion) inappropriate for Wikipedia. The fact that it was accepted for speedy deletion means that at least one admin thought that this was undoubtedly true. The reasons given for deletion were this, this and this. If you can provide a copy of the article, I can try to point out exactly why they apply, but the fact that your username is the same as the title of the article suggests that you are trying to promote the MSBM, and that this is a single purpose account. This is not the best idea, as your edits will be subject to much more scrutiny. Remember, wikipedia is not an advertising website, and you must keep this in mind when submittting articles. If it seems like an article is there to increase the notability of something, and not just document it, then it will almost certainly be deleted. I vaguely remember this article, and I think it was chock full of advertising buzzwords, unsourced claims, and copyright infringement. You cannot just copy from another website and paste onto here. Remember, the subject MUST be notable before you make an article. See WP:NOTABILITY for more information. if I nominated it for deletion because of a lack of notability, then it is unlikely that it can be made appropriate for wikipedia at this time. This is not necessarily because of the quality of the article itself, but because the subject is not notable enough to be included on wikipedia. As I said, if you have a copy of the page, I would be glad to try to help. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 12:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

This was bitey. This is a new user who introduced a few articles, and when they were deleted (perhaps without his understanding of why) he reintroduced them. Gentler is better than firmer if we want to keep new editors around, and perhaps turn them into good seasoned editors. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree that that may be bitey. Maybe I've just spent too long partolling New-Pages, where every other one is an advert (at least thats how it feels), but it seems like the sole reason that this person has made an account is to promote products. It also seems like they completely ignored what both of us said. I was hoping that the big stop sign would have more emphasis, and if that doesnt work, blocking will probably be the only alternative. Benboy00 (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello Benboy00 may i know that why you think that YOUNG_MALANG should deleted.

i just put the information about the movie i don't post any promotional material. just post the info of cast & crew whom working in that movie.. kindly remove the deletion tag from that page

Hi, first of all, please sign your posts with 4 ~'s. Next, since the AfD process has started, that tag cannot be removed by anyone until the discussion closes, which will typically take another 6 days. I think I clearly explained the reasons for my deletion proposal at the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/YOUNG_MALANG . Interestingly, now that the page has been edited to include an actual reference and a release date that will occur before the end of the process, one of my reasons, WP:NOTCRYSTAL, will no longer apply. That said, I am still of the opinion that this film is not notable. If others agree, then this page will be deleted. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 11:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Benboy00, just wanted a clarification: I've created the Timeneye page copying (and then editing) the contents of the Toggl page (another time tracking saas solution), trying not to add anything that were facts and avoiding any promotion. I'm not sure if just listing the main features is considered promotion. Please let me know.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by D.grassi84 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello Mr Benboy00 just wanted to clear Jatt in Mood is going to release on 4 oct 2013 it was going to release on sep 2013 but due to some issue it's wasn't released kindly remove your deletation tag. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bull18Designs (talk • contribs) 16:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

(talk page visitor) You'd do better posting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jatt in Mood where the deletion discussion is. The tag cannot be removed until the discussion is closed. Peridon (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Bull18Designs. First of all, please sign your comments with 4 ~'s. Since the AfD process has started, no-one can now remove the tag until it has ended. Please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jatt in Mood (as Peridon said) to receive a formal reply on the deletion. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've declined your speedy on Corey Robinson, as the page was created before the block. This criterion really only applies to pages created by sockpuppets, as it isn't possible for a blocked user to create under their own name. This user was blocked for copyvios, and there's no mention of them being a sock that I can see. The page is probably no use - Notre Dame is a college or university, isn't it - as the subject looks non-notable. However, A7 doesn't apply in AfC. Peridon (talk) 17:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Interesting. I don't think I've seen G8 used on an AfC article before. I'll be watching this one... A lot of AfC submissiona are on Talk pages because they're created by IPs, who can't create main pages. This one, of course wasn't. Peridon (talk) 20:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I can understand why you brought this to AFD, but the topic meets WP:NF per available sources, even if not used. [1] I would ask that you consider a withdrawal, after which we simply move the article to its proper title and tag it for required improvements. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for re-visiting. My thoughts inre WP:NFF were because it is a completed film with an imminent screening date and enough coverage, and when a release date is so very close we may use common sense, and need not have to "wait" to do what is right. I can only hope the newcomer contributor realizes the necessity for sourcing when writing any article. I've asked that the original title Young Maylang be undeleted due to it having more addressable content and context. The two histories can then be merged. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

WP:NFF, third paragraph reads "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines" (my underlining). This film is completed and as an film slated for release we may indeed have an article as its production is itself notable through notability guidelines. Look, I am not trying to put you on the fence, but being a coordinator of Project Film, I am not simply spouting nonsense. I've been around long enough and have many times seen notable films erroneously sent to AFD under the best of intentions. If you think my points incorrect, please feel free to ask for clarification from others over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello Benboy00. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Corey Robinson, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: db-talk does not apply to Articles for Creation pages - they are intentionally in "Wikipedia talk" space so that IPs can create them. I actually deleted that as WP:CSD#G6 housekeeping, because Corey Robinson already exists. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Removed Email

Hi, first of all can I ask that everyone use my talkpage instead of email, unless absolutely necessary (if information is confidential, for example), as I feel that the talkpage better encompasses the wikipedia ethos of, among other things, transparency and accountability. I appreciate that you have closed a hundred AfD's, and I congratulate you on your dedication to wikipedia. You have done a lot of good work on wikipedia, both as Bwilkins and EatsShootsAndLeaves. I understand that you are very experienced, and appreciate your input, however I still think that on this occasion you are incorrect, and that the guidelines state that a judgement, whether it be closing or relisting, should be made after 7 days, and no more. I think that this is compatible with what you have written in the above email, in that discussions can (and in many cases do) go on for more than 7 days, but I think (and think that the guidelines say) that this should happen through relisting. There are also many cases, some of which I have been part of, and some of which I see that you have been part of, where discussion actually lasts less than 7 days, sometimes due to snowballing, sometimes due to speedy delete/keep, and sometimes due to other reasons. I would like to think that on wikipedia, argument (read "discussion") is always welcome, and just because someone is experienced, it does not necessarily mean they are correct (although again, I appreciate that you are very experienced in this area). If it helps, I would be happy for you to submit an RfC, or submit one myself.

Of great concern to me, however, is the last sentence of your email. I don't think I have ever, in any context on wikipedia, used the term "enemies" or "enemy", and if I have somewhere, I would request that you point it out to me, as it was certainly in error. I, to my knowledge, do not have any enemies on wikipedia, and I would hope that no-one on wikipedia considers me their enemy. I think the concept of an enemy should be alien to wikipedia. I do indeed spend quite a lot of time trying to help clean up wikipedia, and try to be as civil and helpful as possible when doing so, especially when dealing with new users (although users who constantly try to advertise or spam are sometimes met with slightly less patience). When nominating many speedy deletes in a row, sometimes the nomination is not as long as it perhaps should be, although I try to make sure that no matter how short, it contains the necessary information. I do not think that I argued wrongly (indeed, I am not quite sure what you mean by this), and I think my point is valid, and would be happy to discuss it more. If you are saying that you now consider me your enemy, I apologise for whatever I have done to make this so, and assure you that I do not feel the same way about you. If there is anything I can do to make you feel otherwise, please let me know. If not, I will make a list on my userpage of people who consider me their enemy in the interests of full disclosure, to try to avoid potential COI's. As I said, I would prefer that this not happen, and hope that it does not have to. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 11:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

You do realize that copy-pasting an e-mail like this can lead to a block, right? ES &L 11:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I apologise if I have made an error, but I have not seen a guideline on this. Can you link to it so I dont do it wrong in the future? Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Are you referring to WP:EMAILPOST? If so, I am afraid I did not see this earlier, and apologise for my ignorance, as I dont usually receive wiki emails. I can't find any reference to blocking for a transgression, and ask for clarification on the relevant policy. I would like to request permission from you to post this email on my talkpage, to avoid copyright concerns. I would again ask that you do not email me unless absolutely necessary. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

You were asked to remove it - and I will ask that you have it WP:REVDEL ASAP. You did not and do not have permission. When I see an issue that requires "gentle chastising", then it's best to do that in private - hence my friendly, gentle e-mail. If you want me to do it in public, I will ... but I did not believe that it was significant enough of a misunderstanding on your part to have an on-wiki discussion. I was giving you the opportunity to read, digest, and move forward ES &L 13:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, first of all, I again apologise for infinging your copyright, though I would note that in your first post, you did not actually ask me to delete it, you just threatened to block me. I will remove it as you have now asked, and ask for a REVDEL, but I would like to continue this conversation. The reason I posted your email in full is because I found it inappropriate. I welcome all criticism, and have no qualms about it being public. I have been a wikipedia editor for some time, and although I have not been particularly active for a while, I do not consider myself a new editor who needs private criticism. I would like to ask why exactly you want it deleted? Advising someone not to argue a point with an admin because they are more experienced, and insinuating that I have "enemies", do not seem like a useful thing to say, *especially* in private, where it could be considered harrassment. I must say, from my point of view, your email certainly did not seem "friendly" or "gentle". I understand that you still believe that you are correct, just as I still believe that I am correct. I would like to discuss this point more, and would also ask that you respond to the questions and comments in my reply, posted above, to your email. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

...and yet, you retain my REAL NAME on this page after it was removed intentionally? This has nothing to do with copyright, it has to do with the publishing of non-public correspondence, which is and always has been improper if not unethical in every single culture, including Wikipedia. You also have clearly misread my e-mail to you completely. As you seem determined to put this into some form of "combative" situation, I'm withdrawing. ES &L 14:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I apologise, I did not realise that it was your real name that was the problem. I assure you this is in no way combative, and I am saddened that you feel the need to withdraw. I understand that you have the right to withdraw, and I respect that, but I still believe that there are many unanswered questions. If I have misread your email, please correct me. As you never stated a reason, I assumed, as I said before, that you wanted your email removed due to Wikipedia:EMAILPOST#Private_correspondence, on which the arbitration committees ruling (I am using their most recent one) is documented. As I said before, I would very much like to continue this discussion, because I feel it is important. As I also said, I would be glad to submit an RfC. I would not consider it improper to publish non-public correspondence (but only in the culture of wikipedia) because I believe that private correspondence should only occur when there is sensitive information in it, as one of wikipedias big goals is transparency. I understand that you thought there was sensitive information in your email, but that is presumably not why you sent it, as it would have been easy to just use your username instead in which case there would be no sensitive information. I would suggest that in the future you put more information in a request to delete content, rather than just saying what you said, to reduce confusion. Again, I respect your right to withdraw, but should you decide to come back at some point, I will summarise my points and questions here:

As ES&L has requested, I'm removing all references here per a variety of policies, which requires a certain amount of intervening clean diffs. Don't ever do that again, it's Not On. Acroterion (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I would like to again point out, at no point previously did he even hint that the problem was outing. I have unreservedly apologised for that, but would like to express my frustration that instead of clearly stating the problem, the user instead decided to vaguely hint at it. This is also Not On, and has caused several revisions of this page to be REVDEL'd. I would also like to thank you for your help with the REVDEL. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

In case it's not completely apparent, the use of anyone's real-life name, revealed in confidence to you in an email, and still worse in a copy of that email, is unacceptable and sanctionable per WP:OUTING. Note that "attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block." In this case, you've asked that it be revdel'd, but I find your comment "I do not see an issue of confidentiality other than the outing" troubling. That's the whole point. In the future don't repost email, and ES&L was within his rights to remove it from your talkpage as a violation of his confidential communication with you. The correct course of action, rather than arguing or asking for more explicit discussion, would have been to respect ES&L's action and request and ask for revdel right away, rather than dig the hole deeper. Acroterion (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am sorry that you feel that way. Again, I did in no way wish to out ES&L. I incorrectly assumed that he had used the name on his wikipedia page. I did not expect him to reveal confidential information in an email like that to someone that he had no prior email contact with, and apologise unreservedly for outing him. I confess that I did not even notice that it was his real-life name when he orignially sent it, and I admit I should have been much more careful. I appreciate that it is grounds for a block, although since in this case it was clearly unintentional, I feel that that would be somewhat harsh. I would like to again stress that if he had said that outing was what he had a problem with, I would have immediately deleted the offending part, and immediately asked for a revdel. While it is my fault for posting the email, surely some small blame must go to him for continued ambiguity, when he could have easily stated the problem. That said, I take full responsibility for my mistake and hope that I have not caused him too much distress, and again plead that he return to this debate, although I will understand completely if he wishes not to. I also would like to again point to the arbitration committees ruling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova#Private_correspondence) as the basis for my opinion on this matter. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 15:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I would also like to point out the first part of the quote from WP:OUTING that you missed out, which is: "Unless unintentional and non-malicious".

Hello there Benboy00 i'm sending you this message to ask why you asked for deletion for that page, you said it was "promotional" but it was not quite true, since all companies in here speak/write with the same way. You can take a look on others like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StreamZilla or Akamai.

StreamWithQ is the first company in Northen Greece, that actually has a datacenter of it's own, and actually making allot of techonological breakthroughs in the field of communications and streaming data. Also its working with allot of universities and techonological institutes for the same exact reasons. And for sure selling those products. So how else can we write all of this ? And i don't have a copy of the page :/

Thank you in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by HerculesAsl (talk • contribs) 12:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, first of all, please sign your posts with 4 ~'s. Next, since the page in question has been deleted, I can't refer back to it, and I can't remember exactly which one it was, but if I tagged it for deletion it meant that it was (in my opinion) inappropriate for Wikipedia. The fact that it was accepted for speedy deletion means that at least one admin thought that this was undoubtedly true. As it has been deleted, I cant compare it with other pages. The fact that in your last sentence, you use the term we, suggests that you might be part of that company, although you also may just mean we as in wikipedia. If it is the former, I suggest that you read WP:COI, though I am perfectly willing to accept that it is the latter. You can ask for a copy of the page at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion, though it may not be accepted. If you do get a copy of the page, I would be happy to help more. Remember, if the company is not considered notable under WP:CORP, it is unlikely that an article can be written about it at this time, no matter what the content. On a separate note, you might like to read a post on a (in my opinion) very funny website. No offence at all is intended, your comment just reminded me of it. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 12:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

You declined my submission of a page for Christ Church Selly Park. I wanted to let you know that I will re-submit the page but I will need to look up one or two references to justify the notability. This may take me a few days. Just checking that this is OK. Dskjt (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dskjt, that is absolutely fine. Good luck! Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I didn't remove any source, there were two BBC-sources put together (that covered extactly the same thing) to support a statement, so I removed one of the BBC-source. In the edit summary I put "redundant" [2]--Spoutgale (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Regards,

Hi,

From what i can tell, those articles seem to be covering different events (Richard Gere and Shilpa Shetty are not a young married couple). I will now revert your edit. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 11:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ok,,I will never do it again but i want to know about sandbox.Can i write something in sandbox or is there any wiki rules for sandbox ? Faisal6545 (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think you can write anything, but please check the guidelines just in case. Also, I have deleted your duplicate post and renamed this section. Benboy00 (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

RE: Sanctuary church Rouse Hill i try again soon i will try to add more to make it look important thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chewyandrew (talk • contribs) 22:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

:s ok, but make sure that everything you add is true. If it looks important, but actually isnt, it will still likely be speedily deleted. Benboy00 (talk) 22:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

As you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breeze Barton, you may be interested to learn that I have opened a discussion to propose merging the article's contents to List of Marvel Comics characters: B. Feel free to comment. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

That criterion at CSD only really applies to sockpuppets. Accounts that are spam username blocked can't edit in defiance of their block unless they are socking as well. The Actia article was created before the block was imposed, and so is quite legitimate in that respect. I've taken the blocked user bit out of the tag. If you've got evidence that 'Actia Group' is one of the Morning277 flock or similar, things could be different. Doesn't look like 277 at a quick look, though... Peridon (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I see the article has been renamed. Why merging it then, instead of expanding? I will look for more info on the subject. As the voting has been archived, I opined on the article's talk page. Mikus (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

It was agreed (to an extent) on the AfD page that a merger would be proposed after the rename, for various reasons, one of which being that it was in line with the wishes of many voters in the AfD. I personally think it should be merged because there is very little interesting content in the article, and the term seems too vague to allow the possibility of meaningful expansion. If it was not merged, I would suggest it be deleted, and would think about proposing another AfD because it would mean that the close terms of the last one had been violated. Benboy00 (talk) 18:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

do you have a tamplate-infobox for living person? Friendwip.kg (talk) 08:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Benboy00. Thanks for your message. I've done my best, as an utter and complete novice with Wikipedia, to figure out how to partake in a discussion about deleting the Valkstone entry, but can't find it or figure out how.

Let me tell you about the entry. I am going to be talking to a group of year 6 students at Valkstone priamry, where my daughter goes, about how to do research on the web. Wikipedia is their go-to website and I want them to understand a little (which is all I know) about how it works. I want them to see how easy it is to post an entry and that it can be good information or not. To Wikipedia's great credit, there is a process by which entries can be, and are, challenged, to maintain the site's integrity. It's a bit of a lab. If it doesn't result in a useful entry, we'll take it down ourselves.

They use Wikipedia out of laziness. I want them to use it lots, but mindful of the way information gets onto a website and the importance of editorial processes and processes of verification.

I welcome your thoughts.

-- Email from QueenTimely

Hi QueenTimely, First of all, the welcome notice added to your talk page contains loads of great info about how wikipedia works, how to use the various parts, and all sorts of other things. Basically, talk pages are like a personal noticeboard where people (including you) can post things. These will usually be questions or issues of some sort that people want your response from. My talk page, as you can see, is mostly people asking why their page was deleted. You can post things on anyones talk page, although i think they can delete it if they want. More info is available at WP:Talk_page_guidelines. The problem is, at the moment, your article is in what's called the "mainspace". This is where normal wikipedia articles live. The reason that this is a problem is that edits are held to a high standard. This may mean that the article is deleted, or that edits are reverted. A good idea would maybe be to userfy the page. This is when the article is moved from the mainspace, to your username. It wont appear in searches, but it will still be accessible and editable. This will mean that edits to it are not held to as much scrutiny (if any), so you can experiment at will. Another option might be to make an "Article for Creation". This is where you make a page, and then edit it, and then when you think its ready you can submit it. It will then be reviewed and either accepted or rejected. If it is rejected, reasons for the rejection will be given as well as improvements that could be made. I leave it to you to decide what would be best out of those 3 options, although im sure there are more options than that. To reply to this message, first put a colon (:) to indent the message, as it makes it easier to read. Also, remember to sign your posts with 4~'s. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 23:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I think I'll make it into an Article for creation. I know there is a great deal of information about how to do things on Wikipedia, I just wasn't prepared for it to become a project in itself. Although, now that has become one, it's valuable. W is a wonderful effort. QueenTimely (talk) 00:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Benboy00

I like to ask you why you keep reverting my edits on Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, I gave a reasonably reason on why the country of Rockstar North doesn't need to be included on the article as it doesn't seem important. I notice other games articles doesn't included the company's country so why Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas is important, it just seem pointless as you can find out the company's country on the article where on the game's article you can just get the article's point. I hope you will reply to this post, if not than I'll just revert your reverts. TheDeviantPro (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, The proper venue for this discussion is on the article's talk page, as I said before. Please start a discussion there. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 14:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have removed the PROD on Into the Storm (Axel Rudi Pell album). I don't think this is a case of WP:CRYSTAL. The artist has announced the release date on his website, and the tracklist has been discussed on a number of forums. Better sourcing is needed, to be sure, but if we are going to accept the notability of Pell as a musician, than his studio albums are probably notable enough for inclusion as well. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

You deleted the company page I was hired to work on. You didn't even give any warning and while I slept it was deleted. I spent hours working on that for 247 Asian Media, finding the legit 3rd party links, finding the references, etc. They are a legit company who does the same thing, if not more, than Allkpop and Soompi who are listed on Wikipedia AND were put as similar interests. Everything was done right and all my hard work going down the drain is NOT appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AsianGuruGirl (talk • contribs) 23:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, first of all, I did not delete your article, I just asked for it to be deleted. This was because it met on or more of the speedy deletion criteria (probably advertising). If you read the top of my page, you know that this is as specific as I can be. I am sorry that you put so much work into it, but if you submit an article straight into the mainspace, without going through Articles for Creation, it is subject to deletion at any time. This should have been warned when you started making the article. I'm a bit strapped for time at the moment, but if you would like to discuss this further I would be happy to. Benboy00 (talk) 13:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

This is for Prof._Dr._Khalid_A._AdDamigh.

I linked a lot of words to Wikipedia articles and this page is linked on King_Saud_University#Alumni.

Can you approve it now ?

Hi, Unfortunately, it is not up to me to approve articles, especially when an Articles for Deletion process has begun. Hwever, even if it were up to me, I would still not approve this article because I believe that the subject matter is not notable. This cannot be fixed by changing the article. However, please feel free to give reasons why the article should not be deleted at the deletion discussion (which is linked at the top of the page). Please note that this is not a vote, it is a discussion. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 09:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I checked WP:PROF and there is stated: The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

You can check his personal website (http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/Khalid/Pages/Work-experience.aspx & http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/Khalid/Pages/Committees-and-Organisations.aspx) and you will see that his work experience and what has he done higher education in lot of countries. You can check his awards: http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/Khalid/Pages/Awards_E0328-4387.aspx.