User talk:Selket#SVG and logos

A file that you uploaded or altered, :File:Selket-big.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Image:Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on :File:Selket-big-resize.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cloudbound (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I just created the page for GoDavis.biz and it was deleted due to not stating whether its an organization, person, etc. GoDavis.biz is an organization / website. How do I clear this up? Thanks I appreciate it!

----

Trish — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomason0912 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

:No, it was deleted because the article did not explain why the organization was notable per our guidelines on the notability of web content. If you feel that this web site meets those guidelines feel free to recreate the article, but make sure the article explains why the web site is notable with claims backed up by reliable sources. -- Selket ^Talk 20:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Can I try to resubmit the page with reliable sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomason0912 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

:Yes, but make sure you review our policy on self promotion. -- Selket ^Talk 21:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the inadequate information on party Supplies page, i will be uploading it with revised and updated comment. References and citations will be included. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Goldbar (talk • contribs) 17:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your point and agree with you about the "soapbox" or promotional issues but it was not intended to be promotional only informational. It is a notable company in that industry as others listed on wikipedia. I made sure to compare it to a number of related articles already on here as I put it together. I used those articles to base the format and acceptable information. I maintained that framework. The article on that company was kept the same as other approved articles like (mvm inc. article) and others. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Info1012 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help deleting "högh". Azylber (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

:No problem. -- Selket ^Talk 21:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

{{tb|WikiDan61|Speedy deletion declined: Nanci Filipelli}}

I would request you look at the other articles I mentioned as to the relevance of content and format.I would be happy to adjust things. Please look at the other article for comparison and reconsider... thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Info1012 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

:If there are other articles that you feel violate our policies feel free to tag them with the appropriate criteria for speedy deletion template, or nominate them as articles for deletion. -- Selket ^Talk 22:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't necessarily feel they violate policy since that is what is posted in multiple articles but I guess that you are...I am kind of new at this so maybe you can look at them and tell me how they differ from mine so I can improve my article and make it fit into policy like all the others that are similar ...Like..Triple Canopy or MVM inc. for starters. If you could let me know the difference I would be happy to make it right ...Like the others....thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Info1012 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

:Triple Canopy has been discussed in CNN, the Washington Business Journal, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Reuters. That establishes notability. MVM, may not be notable, if you're interested in private security companies, perhaps you could look to see if there are references to it in various primary sources and if so add them to the article. If not, perhaps you should nominate that article for deletion. -- Selket ^Talk 00:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phi Beta Epsilon--GrapedApe (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

:Thanks for the heads up. -- Selket ^Talk 00:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I recently created an article which was not accepted because of copyright violations. I am not sure what the violation was. Could you explain? I am new at this.

Alan thistle (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

:Yes, you copied substantial portions of the article from [http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/goodale/biography/index.htm]. This is not allowed by Wikipedia policy as it violates copyright law. Under U.S. law, which Wikipedia must obey, all documents are copyrighted from the moment they are created. There is no need to have a copyright notice attached. Thus any web page you find is copyrighted and you may not copy from it unless there is a specific notice stating that the work is offered under a license (such as CC-BY) that permits copying. -- Selket ^Talk 17:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Copyright violation. Thanks for making it clear. I can easily fix this.

Alan thistle (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

A little over 2 months ago a Move/Merge Request Discussion was ended at Talk:WNEM-DT2 with no consensus for move or delete. The discussion was started by User:Spshu, and was closed by User:Drmies, an admin. Today, I receive [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Neutralhomer&diff=prev&oldid=502097069 this post] on my talk page (a little over 2 months after the discussion was closed) saying I was attacking users and gaming the system (sound familiar?). Spshu tried to get consensus, failed, came back 2 months later with this fun little page and more edit-warring at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WVIR-DT3&diff=prev&oldid=502094018 WVIR-DT3]. Now he has taken me to ANI, yay. Can you help? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

:Two things. First, you should respond at ANI, not here to make sure others hear your side of the story. Don't get into a back and forth, but you can and certainly should respond. Second, when you ask for help, what is it you would like me to do exactly? -- Selket ^Talk 22:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

::Actually, I was posting to you when he posted at ANI, so that was an accident and not intentional. The second part, just stop the beating of the dead horse. The WNEM discussion ended 2 months ago, he is still dwelling on it. Also, I did reply at ANI, with a modified version of what I posted above. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

:::Thanks for the BOLD close at ANI. I am going back to forgetting the whole WNEM thing again. :) I was being honest, after 2 months, I had forgotten all about the WNEM talk page thread and about Spshu. I was a little surprised that he/she showed up today with this all over again. I have said all I can say on the merge/move subject and will leave it up to the folks at WP:TVS, they have a better way of saying things than I do. Thanks again...Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

:Thank you, glad to help. -- Selket ^Talk 14:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

::A year ago, you were the 182nd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Man, you're spamming the boards. I did a look for PFG Best since it has been headline news as a gigantic fraud and the founder has attempted suicide and left a confession/suicide note, but I see you have deleted the page. Then I went to see your "contributions" (any oxymoron in your case) and see that you seem have to built a life around Wikipedia and love to delete articles. In this case, you deleted it because you said that the firm was of no importance. Perhaps you might research some of the things you delete before deleting them. This firm is front-page news for an enormous fraud:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303740704577524873909864282.html

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/ceo-of-collapsed-peregrine-financial-faces-decades-in-prison/article4415572/

Thanks for nothing. Nitwit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.4.80 (talk) 11:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

:If you read the deletion reason carefully, you will see the reason I deleted it was not that it was not notable, but because the article did not say why it was notable. Had those two links (or even just an explanation of the fraud/suicide) it would not have been deleted. Note also, that there is an article for Peregrine Financial Group. -- Selket ^Talk 14:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the question. I interpret CSD#R2 differently. It is important, I think, to consider the original intent of R2. The problem we were having at the time was that users would create non-notable, hoaxlike or other inappropriate content in their user-space. Often, they called it "a draft" and we allow some discretion in the userspace so those pages are tolerated. Some users then created redirects from article-space titles to their userpage in the hope that readers could be tricked into following the link and would read the hoax without noticing that they were no longer in the article-space. That is patently a bad outcome and CSD#R2 was created to shut down those frauds.

CSD#R2 was first written as a very coarse and simplistic rule attempting to outlaw all cross-namespace redirects. The community quickly realized that was an overreach and clawed the criterion back to exclude those namespaces where you might find a legitimate redirect. The first and most common example of that were associated with the policy-pages that pre-dated the creation of the the namespaces. (When I first started with the project, there was no Wikipedia-space - everything was no-namespace, Talk, User and User Talk.) All those policy pages were at what we now call article-space titles. They were bulk-moved to the Wikipedia-space but lots of readers still expected to be able to find the page at the old title. Well, that's exactly what redirects are for and the Wikipedia space is as well-monitored as the article space - maybe better. So redirects to the Wikipedia-space were carved out. At the same time, we realized the redirects TO the articlespace are not problematic so those were pretty much universally carved out. Portal and the others got added later as I recall.

To your original question, though, Rules to consider/Confer in e-mail debate was the original title of the content that is now part of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. The redirect was amended in Oct 2002 to redirect from the policy page to a talk page about the policy. (Because of various pagemoves, that decision is now buried in the history of another page entirely.) I can not defend that decision but I suspect that it was an attempt to compromise under the still-emerging rules of what counted as policy, what as essay and what as commentary about policy. Regardless, everyone in the debate at the time believed that we needed to retain tracability of the original title to the current content. And since Wikipedia Talk is also well-monitored, it counts to me as a subset of the Wikipedia space for the purposes of CSD#R2, at least for these old policy artifacts.

Of course, even if you disagree with my interpretation of Wikipedia Talk as a subset of Wikipedia, there is also the global CSD rule that speedy-deletion must be appropriate for every prior version of the page before CSD can be applied. If there is a version for which no CSD criteria apply, the proper answer is to revert, not to delete. And remember that for redirects created by pagemove, the prior history includes history before the move. Arguably, that means the redirect should be retargeted to WP:NPA directly rather than to the Talk page. I had not thought the issue through in enough detail before your question to challenge those early decisions about policy/essay/commentary. I think on the strength of this discussion that I will update the link to the original target - or at least to what I think was the original intent prior to all those moves.

Apologies for the long-winded answer but that's why I do not believe that R2 can apply in this case. Thanks for your patience. Rossami (talk) 14:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

:Well, I think you're mistaken about R2, but now that you've pointed it at a Wikipedia article rather than a Wikipedia talk page, it's somewhat moot. I also think you're misapplying the every version rule since all the relevant history is at the move target not the redirect that's left behind. Either way, the substantive issue is whether the article should be there, not necessarily the process.

:What I really don't understand is why, after four years of being deleted you thought we suddenly needed that redirect from article space with no incoming links. If I recall correctly those moves to project space happened in large part because it was decided that article space should not be cluttered with policy articles. Additionally, subpages in article space are now contrary to policy (and are technically blocked). I'd be fine with RfD, but I'd rather reach agreement first. -- Selket ^Talk 18:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI, you wrote [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ATemplates_for_discussion%2FLog%2F2012_July_3&diff=502477948&oldid=502477738 "Closing as no consensus -- defaulting to keep"] in your edit summary, but in the actual discussion you wrote "delete" in bold. I am assuming you simply meant "no consensus". Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

:Yup, in fact I wrote "Delete. No consensus." I'm not entirely sure how that "delete" got there, but yeah it was a mistake. Good catch, thanks. -- Selket ^Talk 02:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Selket,

You recently speedy deleted the article AnimeNation. The company has recieved coverage from the St. Petersburg Times [http://www.sptimes.com/2004/11/05/Northoftampa/Right_hobby__right_ti.shtml], Anime News Network [http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/feature/2003-01-31] [http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/interview/2005-04-17/john-oppliger], and ICv2 [http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/2310.html]. I think the coverage is sufficient to pass the notability guidelines, so I would like to ask that the article be restored. Calathan (talk) 04:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

:None of which was in any way indicated in the article. I'm happy to restore it if you are willing to add those references. -- Selket ^Talk 04:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

::I can add those sources to the article. It might take me a day to add them though . . . I need to be getting to sleep now, so I'll add them after work tomorrow. Calathan (talk) 05:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You have closed the Wikipedia talk:Stub types for deletion#Do we really need this deletion discussion category? discussion. Could you give a summary from what have been implemented in you closure? Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 05:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

:How's that? -- Selket ^Talk 05:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

::Perfect. {{thank you}} Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 05:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I liked your comment at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 July 18#Template:Join inclusionists. Gave me a good chuckle, and I like your sense of humor. Senator2029 ⚫ talk 12:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

:Thanks, mate. I try. ;) -- Selket ^Talk 14:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems DreamMcQueen is still edit-warring after his last block. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_bus_routes_in_the_Bronx&action=history These] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tribune_Company&action=history history] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WEMP&action=history sections] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_CBS_television_affiliates_%28table%29&action=history show] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_CBS_television_affiliates_%28by_U.S._state%29&action=history ongoing] edit-warring. Another block (48 hours this time) is necessary. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

:User:Toddst1 took care of it after he returned from Wikibreak (hence why I asked you first). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

::Ok, good. I'm not here every day, so check my history if you want to know if I'm active. If you need something quickly, ANI is probably better. -- Selket ^Talk 21:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

:::I was just checking in with the two admins who were on the previous discussion. No worries though, I think he is getting the message. He has 96 hours to think about it. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

::::There's nothing wrong with that. I'm happy to help if I'm around. I'm just saying you shouldn't depend on it -- I'm not very reliable ;) -- Selket ^Talk 14:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

:::::No worries. :) It all worked out in the end. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

{{WP:TWL/Header}}

Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization consisting of over 28,000 volunteers in more than 100 countries. The collaboration was formed to organize medical scholarship in a systematic way in the interests of evidence-based research: the group conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.

Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account. Thank you Cochrane!

If you are stil active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)