User talk:Astronaut/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Book

Hi Astronaut, I'm editing a book and would like to get in touch with you regarding getting permissions to use your chart found at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BurjDubaiHeight.png. Is there an email address I can contact you at? Germanethings (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I am a very private person and would not be willing to give you my address. However, you can ask here; or if you wish you may like to contact me by email using the "E-mail this user" link in the toolbox to the left (but please note I very rarely use that email address and haven't checked it for months). You might also consider using the updated (and more accurate) version of the chart, File:BurjKhalifaHeight.svg. Astronaut (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Marina 106

So is it really not being built? Just not yet or is it cancelled? Every other proposed super-tall in Dubai has an article; why is this one deleted? What's the scoop on it? Daniel Christensen (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

SkyscraperPage.com says it is on-hold. Depenant on the ongoing financial situation, this project might restart at some time in the future, or it eventually be cancelled. Astronaut (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

COI assistance

Hi astronaut. A couple of years back you helped me with avoiding COI issues with a page for the company I worled for at the time Sinclair Knight Merz. The company I work for now also wishes me to assist them with a Wikipedia page and once again, I'd like to do this the right way. I thought you might like to render your assistance in this. As far as notability goes, the firm is NetComm Limited, and they are a manufacturer of routers, modems etc, kind of like D-Link, Netgear etc. We are a major supplier to some big carriers like Australia's Telstra, particularly of high-speed 3G devices. The company is listed on the Australian Stock Exchange.

Anyway, I have started to mock up the content on my Talk page [[1]] and wondered if you might want to take a look to see that it is NPOV enough?

Thanks --Mat Hardy (talk) 05:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I think you may be mistaken in the amount of help I provided. IIRC (and according to my editing history) I merely complimented you on your decision to start the Sinclair Knight Merz article with a draft in your talk page. Many novice editors, start their first article in the main article namespace where it is subject to close scrutiny and is often speedily deleted before they get too far developing the article. Starting with a draft in your talk page was unlike many novice editors, and at that time I had been paying attention to some new articles with spam & COI problems; I felt the compliment was justified. That said, I am quite happy to help you with this new article where I can.
Next, it is probably better to create the draft in a separate subpage rather than a section of your talk page. Perhaps if you moved what you have so far into User:Mathardy/NetComm. That will make it far easier to move the whole page into the main article namespace once it is OK, while maintaining the article history (this is required by the terms under which all contributions are released). It also has the advantage of a separate discussion page, and of removing your talk page from categories.
In terms of what you have actually written so far, it is not too bad. I think it is mostly free of the advertising tone and peacock terms that usually litter articles about businesses, especially when an employee (or worse still marketing departments) write about their company. However, make sure you do not copy company materials verbatim - copyright violation is taken seriously and is often speedily deleted. If you can provide citations from reliable sources, preferably third-party sources rather than NetComm's own material, that would help establish notability. I suggest you take a look at Wikipedia's policy on the notability of companies. You could also take a look at the articles for some other companies and see how it is done there.
If you wish to add the company logo, pay careful attention to the licensing. It is easy to be accused of copyright violation and having the image speedily deleted. See File:Telstra.svg for an example of licensing that appears to work.
You might also like to seek additional assistance from another editor. I would suggest User:Prodego, who also complimented you on Sinclair Knight Merz and is an administrator who is much more familiar with the rules and polices that I am. Please do come back here, or on User talk:Mathardy/NetComm if you create the subpage, if you need further assistance. Astronaut (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Givi Alkhazishvili

See User talk:Pohick2/Archive/#Givi Alkhazishvili

thanks for fixing my laziness, (or hope over experience). no machine translation available for Georgian website, moreover, i don't see any references there. this needs a Georgian expert editor. Pohick2 (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Your font spacing issue

I've added more to Wikipedia:Help desk#Image font. Be aware that this page is archived quite rapidly, I think this discussion is scheduled to be archived off very early (UK time) tomorrow morning (16 February), after which it will be available to view at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2010 February 13 but should no longer be amended. Please note that I'm not an authority on SVG files! --Redrose64 (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Miapolis

Just thought I'd let you know about this; in case you didn't already know. Here is their promotional video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U738MYMkk_I Daniel Christensen (talk) 04:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The whole project is weird. If it is the one I think it is, I first heard of it some years ago when it was "proposed" somewhere else (on the west coast?). The website back then was very amateur, with images that looked like they had been made by an over-enthusiastic 15-year old. Since then, they seem to have got a better drawing package, moved to Florida and convinced someone at the Miami Herald to at least pretend to take them seriously.
As for the merits of the project, I can see some huge problems: Miami is subject to hurricanes; a building that tall would be a significant hazard to flights to/from Miami International Airport - one of the busiest airports in the USA; the funding plan is ludicrous - someone, with no track record in this kind of thing, asking small investors for "low five-figure" invesments to finance a multi-billion dollar project!; and they don't even own the land! According to the Miami Herald, the city authorities doubt this is anything other than pie-in-the-sky ("As far as I know, it's ridiculous said Miami Commissioner Marc Sarnoff...")
In fact, if it wasn't for the Miami Herald piece, I would probably seek to get the article deleted as an obvious hoax/scam. Astronaut (talk) 06:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

List of tallest residential buildings in the world

I had nominated this article for FL but it doesnt passed this time, the artile has been peer reviwed twice, i have made alot of improvements to this article but still i want to improve it more, so i need your help regarding general copy editing and to check this article for gramatical mistakes and errors.Suggest some more useful content for this article, because in a disscussion of FL, they said that this article needs some more content.And also can you add Alttext to the images of this article, as english is not my first language so i have a little problem regarding alttext. Regards.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Help Requested

Hi User Astronaut.
Here are two anonymous ips and I suspect several other related sockpuppets that are serial vandalising scores of articles related to areas I work on .I could provide citations for almost each of its edits to establish the corruption ,however it would be tedious work .Would appreciate your assistance .

Thanks
Intothefire (talk) 13:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that neither of thse IPs have edited in several months. It would be inappropriate to now accuse them of vandalism, or to try getting them blocked, so long after their edits. If you can point me to some recent vandalism, I would be happy to help you out with that. Astronaut (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Astronaut

Here we have 3 users Inuit18 (talk · contribs), Scythian1 (talk · contribs), Alefbe (talk · contribs). Collaborating on various articles to delete content constantly .Please see these links. It takes along time to research and contribute referenced content ...then these teams come along and simply overwhelm with deletions ...no discussion ...no following any conventions ....perhaps it may be time to move on .

Intothefire (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Lengthy reply left on User talk:Intothefire#You requested my help. Astronaut (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Merger of Conference committee into Committee

I noticed that Conference seemed to have some content sections after its references section and a stub template. When I went to fix this I found the references section and stub template were actually in another article, which was transcluded.

Reading the talk page, it seems Fabartus (talk · contribs) attempted to "merge" the smaller article into the larger one. But transclusion is not the proper way to do that, because of the weirdness that ensues e.g. two references sections and inappropriate maintenance templates, dablinks etc. You can fix this to some extent with <noinclude> but really, only articles designed to be transcluded (almost always in the Template namespace) should be transcluded into article space. The proper way to do mergers is using the procedure at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. I've done this, adding the appropriate templates, and if you have any comments you can add them at Talk:Committee#Propose merge-in of Conference committee. Hairy Dude (talk) 01:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Replied on Talk:Committee#Propose merge-in of Conference committee. Astronaut (talk) 10:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Still accurate?

Is the "U.S. cities containing buildings 700 feet (213 m) or more in height" template on List of tallest buildings in the united States still accurate? That page used to be way to long and took in some cases minutes to load so I split it up wih Raime's help a few months ago. Daniel Christensen (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. You are the one who changed the list. One thing though: does the {{United States buildings}} template really add value to the article (for the readers)? TBH, I doubt it. If the clickable map was to be removed, I think the article would be better for it, and it would be whole lot easier to maintain. Astronaut (talk) 01:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Humanities Ref Desk deletion

I saw that your response was deleted; I think it was an accident. I left a note on the users (German) talk page: [2]. They apologized. StuRat (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think so too (that's why I was gentle on the user's (english) talk page). Thanks. Astronaut (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Starting a new TV channel

Are you seriously interested in doing this? I am involved with this area myself. The $64000 question is, will advertising revenues cover the costs? 78.149.194.146 (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

For the time being, the answer is no. However, it is something I considered doing when a channel I liked closed down with no prospect of a replacement for the type of programming I had enjoyed there; and I had ample spare cash at the time to possibly waste on that kind of venture. Even though I lack any expertiese in the TV industry, I really felt that it might be possible to set up a small channel almost as a hobby, by paying other people to do almost all the work; and that seems to have been confirmed by the answers to my ref desk question. A fear though, is a lact of business credibility when it comes to negotiating programming deals and arranging the playout services. As for making money through large advertising revenues, I felt it was a nice to have if the costs happened to become too high. But if the money ran out, I though it might be fun to have been a TV exec for a (short?) while. Astronaut (talk) 02:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a great oversupply of material, so you could get content for little or even nominal cost. I happen to have a lot of business credibility. The essential thing is attracting enough of an audience to get enough advertising revenue to cover the costs, which is probably why the channel you mentioned closed down. If you were keen and enthusiastic and willing to work on this then myself and probably one or two other people in the industry might be willing to spend time on setting a channel up for you to run. 84.13.53.211 (talk) 11:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Eyjafjallajökull

The BBC ref under 14 April does not support the statement that Norway's airspace was closed, which is why I tagged it as failing verification. That situation remains. Mjroots (talk) 10:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

But it does support closure of UK airspace. Astronaut (talk) 10:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
UK airspace was not closed yesterday (14 April), it was closed this morning. Mjroots (talk) 10:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
That's correct, and that's what it says in the article: "by the morning of 15 April the airspace in the rest of Norway, as well as over most of the UK, and parts of Ireland, was being closed". Astronaut (talk) 10:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Kelzdorjee

thank you.....--Kelzdorjee (talk) 13:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me an enormous amount of information. I'm very grateful for all your help.--Kelzdorjee (talk) 08:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

inre Anya Verkhovskaya

I do understand your very real concerns when you first looked at how the article first appeared. I am grateful that in seeing its current state you are considering a withdrawal. Thank you, --Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Re:June 2010

Excuse me, but how am I being disruptive?? I am simply adding photos related to the article. Every little bit helps, doesn't it? EDIT: I know it seems like a small thing, but I feel it holds relevancy to the article.SwisterTwister (talk) 05:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but no, it doesn't help. Adding images of recycling facilities to general articles about cities is adding unencyclopedic information and is not relevant to the article (unless that city is particularly noted in reliable sources for its unique recycling methods). In general, trawling through Commons looking for barely related images and being indiscriminate in which images you actually add to an article, is quite disruptive. Please read Wikipedia's content guideline for images, particularly the sections dealing with Image choice and placement and Pertinence and encyclopedic nature. Astronaut (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I do understand that it's very trivial, but because apparently I choose the wrong images (Tesco and Recycling bins), I will no longer bother visiting Commons anymore. Also, how was I being disruptive on User:Lord Pistachio's talkpage? Secondly on Left-handedness, why did you remove the second image on the right? But, I will say that adding a gallery on "Accessibility" Left-handedness was useful, thanks. Again, on Durham, North Carolina, why did you remove useful images (such as Life Insurance Building)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SwisterTwister (talk • contribs) 23:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You were not being disruptive on Lord Pistachio's talkpage. According to your contributions, you discussed the issue of the images you had been adding, and appeared to agree to not add any more unencyclopedic images of recycling faclities (shortly after 22:00 on June 2); then went straight back to adding more images (around 03:00 on June 3).
There is more to adding images to the encyclopedia than stuffing as many as possible into an article just because they exist in Commons. It has do with how it looks on the page at various screen resolutions. Finally, take a look at how newspapers illustrate their news articles. For example, this story from The Providence Journal uses just one image relevant to the story; they only used this image of the three defendants on front page to the article and not in the article itself, and there is no image of the RI state house, the inside of the council chambers, the court house, or other vaguely related people or places, even though such images undoubtedly exist.
Astronaut (talk) 10:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Fine, what you're saying is understandable EXCEPT.....On Lord Pistachio's talkpage, they said not to add the images to COUNTRIES, he didn't specify cities. I'll agree with you halfway on Left-handedness, an image of Johnny Wilkinson alone is not helpful, without any evidence of actually being left-handed. Another note on Left-handedness I disagree with you is that instead of removing Arturo López, you could've simply moved his image to the Gallery. SwisterTwister (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Reading both sets of comments again (User talk:SwisterTwister#Recycling Photos and User talk:Lord Pistachio#Re:Recycling Photos), it is clear to me that Lord Pistachio explained quite clearly what they meant: "since every city in the developed world has recycling bins, sticking photos of them in every article does not serve to advance the reader's understanding of any subject ... things that are ubiquitous features of any city, country, etc. shouldn't be mentioned in an article unless they have some kind of special significance to a particular place. I am surprised you misunderstood this to mean it is OK to continue adding the images you have been adding.
With the specific case of the Arturo López image on Left-handedness, what purpose would the image serve in the article? Before you add an image, you should be asking yourself "does adding this image add to the reader's understanding of the subject?" Astronaut (talk) 09:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

How would it not adding understanding to the subject? He's obviously seen throwing left-handed, and it's in the sports section. Two, I've seen billboard photos on Wiki, isn't that equally trivial? SwisterTwister (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Well actually, the other baseball player is throwing left-handed. Arturo López is just standing there with the ball in his left hand.
As for trivial billboard photos, do you mean images/covers from Billboard Magazine, or images of billboards you might see along the roadside? Whether the photos are used in articles is dependant on what they are used for: In an article about a musician, an example of them appearing in Billboard Magazine cover may be appropriate if that specific cover is mentioned in the text (otherwise it probably breaches the rules on fair-use); a roadside billboard might be appropriate in the billboard article or if city councillors have legislated against billboards their city, but they wouldn't be appropriate just because the billboard happened to be in a city when no other mention is made of billboards in that article (but one could argue a billboard advertizing John Deere tractors might be relevant to a farming community with an important John Deere plant or sales business).
Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of text and images. As I said before, just because a photo exists, doesn't necessarily make it suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. This is why there is the {{commonscat}} template, to allow readers to see more images on Commons without filling articles with barely relevant images. Astronaut (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

On 7 Eleven, I know there were a handful of photos, but the Thailand and China weren't overlapping anything. There were fine the way they were. Photos are helpful to an article. Yes, I know too many are a eyesore but I believe it was fine the way it was. Scandinavia certainly had many photos, but the reason I shifted them aside is because I was attempting to align them in better positions. Secondly, is there a reason you had to remove the image from Radisson Hotels? On third note, why did you remove the outer image of Grauman's Theatre? It was unique against the interior images. On a fourth note, why does it matter if the image is on the left or right? It's image presentation either way. On last question, have you been tracking all of my contributions? I find it intriguing that once I make an edit involving photos, there you are to revert my edit(s).SwisterTwister (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

On 7-Eleven I reverted your edit in which you added File:Wetwipes.thai.jpg and File:HK Jordan 庇利金街 Pilkem Street 7-11 near 寶靈街 Bowring Street.jpg. The wetwipes image says nothing about 7-Eleven, how do we even know they came from a 7-Eleven and not some other store in Thailand? The Hong Kong image is yet another 7-Eleven that looks just like all the other 7-Elevens I've ever seen in the USA, Europe and Asia. You are clearly not asking yourself "what value do these extra images add to the article?" In my opinion they added nothing to the article, especially when it was already becoming a repository for many similar images of 7-Elevens from all around the world.
I then went on to make further edits to reduce the number of images and move the remaining images so they were in the relevant section (eg. the Seattle Kwik-E-Mart image consistantly appeared in the Australia section due to the oversized thumbnail of the Super Big Gulp cup. By moving the image of the US headquarters to the history section - where it was beter suited to the subject anyway - and reducing the size of the Super Big Gulp thumbnail, the Seattle Kwik-E-Mart image now appears next to the appropriate paragraph where the Kwik-E-Mart promotion is mentioned). Although Scandanavia is a large market for 7-Eleven, I felt four images placed undue attention on the Scandanavian franchises. To be honest, I would have liked to have kept the image with the church, but it was too tall to suit the amount of text and when I reduced the thumbnail size, the already difficult to see 7-Eleven logo just disappeared completely and it just looked like any other church.
On Radisson Hotels I removed the File:Radisson Broadway NYC 2007.jpg because it didn't seem to add anything to the article.
On Grauman's Egyptian Theatre you should have noticed that File:Egyptian2.jpg was already in the article. The image you added, File:Egyptian.JPG, is similar but is taken from across the street, is crooked, has a distracting lamp post in the middle and a distracting lattice ("American Cinematheque") above the entrance - in all, a poorer photo.
It doesn't really matter whether an image is left or right, but I do prefer them on the right. However, one thing to avoid is placing images on both sides of a piece of text, leaving the text to get squished in the middle. I am not the only one who sometimes uses a narrow display. With a little though as to where an image can be placed on the page, or whether the image is really necessary at all, such things can be avoided.
It is true that I have paid some attention to your recent contributions, but I am not the only one who has reverted your edits - see this diff (and pay particular attention to Coolcaesar's edit summary), this diff (again pay attention to the edit summary) and this diff, for example.
Astronaut (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

If you feel that my contributions are trivial, I find it trivial that you would edit Gary Sinise just to shift a photo to the other side because of 'preference.' Second, on this edit the reason it was reverted is because I created a gallery. The reason I created a gallery is because I thought to myself "This photo is not relevant to any sections, so I took the time to create a gallery for it. Pinkadelica herself says that the article needs to be "tidy'ed." Third, on AMC Theatres, the NYC photo IS revelant because there is a USA section for it. Third and offtopic, I feel that people are attacking on my edits. I do acknowledge that many of my edits have been incorrect, but I believe people have been uncouth with me on certain edits. Such as Coolcesar on AMC Theatres, can't the article have a gallery? Backtracking to 7-Eleven, well there were two photos, a photo of 7-Eleven wet wipes or yet again another location photo. I felt like being unique and chose the wet wipes photo. As I said before, I believe people have been uncouth with me, such as on Tesco. Perhaps I am taking it too personal, and I guess the best way to put is "I should just stop caring." But what I do understand is Wiki will have it's ups and downs, just like the outside world. SwisterTwister (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think your contributions are trivial and I have not said that either. With your edit to the Gary Sinese article I assumed, perhaps unfairly, that you were unaware of the upright parameter that can be applied to images and had therefore thought moving the image to the left was the only easy solution to the problem. As I said in my edit summary, it is better to use "upright" in this case. In other cases, moving the image to the left might provide the better solution.
If the image of Joanna Garcia is "... not relevant to any sections", then why add it at all? When it comes to companies such as AMC Theatres, 7-Eleven, Tesco or any other company out there, a few images to show what they look like is appropriate, but just because Commons has additional images of various otherlocations it is not necessary to add them to the article, whether in a gallery or not. Wikipedia's Image Use Policy is pretty clear when it states "...Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article..." Astronaut (talk) 02:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand now, see I used to be confused what the difference between 'right' and 'upright.' Well, I felt that if an image is uploaded, it may as well be used. Especially if it isn't conflicting with other photos (as opposed to 7-Eleven). I well understand Wikipedia is not meant to be taken as a gallery, but I'm just trying to be helpful. Also, at least I was thoughtful of adding it to a gallery not to interfere. But, I have learned yet another lesson, I may as well just move on editing in another field, not in photo contribution. Addendum edit: On another for Joanna Garcia, may as well add the photo bare without having to add a Commons link for simply one photo. SwisterTwister (talk) 06:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

re Burj

I see, thanks for pointing that out. I'll pay better/wider attention next time. :) --Golbez (talk) 12:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Cariris Indians

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Cariris Indians, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.freebase.com/view/en/cariris. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No it's not. The Freebase article is a copy of the original Wikipedia article at Cariris. Astronaut (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Cariris (footwear)

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 21:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: List of films about religion

Hello Astronaut, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of List of films about religion, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. —mono 23:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

THANK YOU

Thank u mr astronaut for deleting my article K. A. Malle Pharmaceuticals Limited and not waiting for me to find more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishabhpodar (talk • contribs) 06:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Replied on their talk page. Astronaut (talk) 14:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

Im so sorry, basically my article was deleted even after finding and giving so much of information, so i had got pissed of. I shoudent hav been so rude in my talk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishabhpodar (talk • contribs) 10:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology. We all get pissed off now and again, but things really do run much smoother here if you assume good faith. Astronaut (talk) 10:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Cado Belle

Hello Astronaut, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Cado Belle, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The group has a notable member, Maggie Reilly. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Theleftorium (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I have reviewed WP:CSD. Per WP:BAND, a band is notable if "6. Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians". Astronaut (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
A7 is not about notability. That is a common mistake. A simple assertion of importance, such as having a notable member, is more than enough to pass this criterion. Theleftorium (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Astronaut/Archive_7&oldid=1080371646"