User talk:Nancy/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Nancy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Re: Pedro

Hi there Nancy pleased to meet you. I see that you have read my comments to Pedro. Do you know how many students their are studying A Level computing? just over 200,000 I believe from what I can see. So just so that you know I was in the top 200 in the country so maybe this User:Chris19910 is lien because from what I can see he doesnt seem very smart to me. Anyway just thought I would drop you a line. Computermadgeek (talk) 12:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping by. Not sure why you picked up on the A level thing with such a vengance, didn't realise that I had even mentioned it but now you have brought it up could you let me know how you find out exact %ages - I should love to know what % I got in my 'A' levels but all I was given was a measly alphabetic grade so how do I find out? Kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 12:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Nancy I asked my teacher who showed me the score and also the fact that the score was really high. I will try and find out for you and keep you updated. I have my sources that can find out. I know a few of the chief examiners they worked at my college so I could just give them an email. What subjects were you interested in knowing about? No you didnt mention it but went and had a little sniff around User:Chris19910 and dug up some very interesting content. I noticed whilst using my new piece of software that he has had a previous account User:hot20024 and User:hot200245 also I dug up some other interesting things from his IP address I found that he had created various sockpuppets to get around a block implied 6 months ago he created User:Rattus nonnus and also User:Dmits all of which have either been indef blocked or have been abandoned. Anyway hope this helps you shed some light. I really love my software that I have. Computermadgeek (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Nancy I missed one he also has an account called User:Bridgwater I believe I have spelt that correctly. Computermadgeek (talk) 13:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Gosh that's amazing how you could find all that out - how does your program get access to this info? have you found a security hole in the Wikipedia database? nancy ^(talk) 13:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Nancy I have written the program so that when the wikipedia servers ask for verification my program just says hey you know me dont you and creates an invisiable file on the server which I can access any information that I want really. So in theory if I wanted I could make myself an Admin without anyone knowing about it. So maybe you could point me in the direction of some of your security boys and I will mention the loop hole. Because anyone with advanced knowledge of computers then they could write this program to do that but rather than do something useful like me they could take down the whole of the site. So I dont know if you want to look into the accounts not really much point have checked them out quite a lot of them have been abandoned. Have left a message on User:Chris19910 talk page to advise him of the dangers that he is getting himself into. Anyway best pick up my little sister. I will be back in about 20 mins if you reply I will ASAP Computermadgeek (talk) 13:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

"So in theory if I wanted I could make myself an Admin without anyone knowing about it" - err.... I'm not convinced that's a clever thing to say. Not at all. I don't believe for a moment it's possible. I do believe this is trolling. Pedro :  Chat  13:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Pedro I was just saying that. Im not going to because I want to contribute to wikipedia I don't want to get blocked before I have even started to edit. I was just informing Nancy of my program as she wanted to know about it. Computermadgeek (talk) 13:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we all know how you really got all that information about Chris19910 and my firm advice is that you should stop making claims about having developed software and being able to get in the back-door of the Wikipedia db as making up things like that can only lead to trouble. nancy ^(talk) 13:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ping

Dropped you an e-mail. Pedro :  Chat  12:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI thread

Hi Nancy. Per the above, please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Editor_claiming_technical_abilities_relating_to_WP:RFCU_and_WP:ADMIN Pedro :  Chat  13:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Spill (U.S. band)

Nancy,

I was very disappointed to see that you deleted Spill (U.S. Band). The band does meet the WP:MUSIC criteria as a former member, Keith Reber, went on to join A Dozen Furies (Furies was part of an MTV reality show. They were signed and toured with Ozzfest. Why is that not a notable act? In addition to that, everyone in the Dallas area in 2000-2003 new of Spill. They were regulars on morning radio and a headlining act. They were one of the most popular and memorable bands in a once great music scene. So, because they broke up just before being signed themselves they are not notable? I can show you the five minute segment the WB Network aired on the band. I can show you video of Todd Hunter and David Binnings singing the national anthem on Fox TV (aired nationwide). I can send you the CD featuring vocals from signed artist, Ryan Cabrera. As I pointed out before, wouldn't Ryan's fans find this interesting? That he recorded these works long before he signed with Atlantic? Wouldn't fans of the late Dave Williams of Drowning Pool find in interesting that he originally played with Spill's drummer? What did this article hurt? I wish you would reconsider as all of these things are verifiable. I've really soured on Wikipedia that this has become such an issue. I appreciate your consideration.Ipnotknown (talk) 00:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ipnotknown, the article was deleted as per the consensus reached at the deletion discussion which I note that you participated in. When determining consensus appropriate weight has to be given to Wikipedia guidelines; in this case the relevent one was notability and specifically notability for bands which, as crystallised by Paul Erik's comment was not met. I can understand that it is frustrating for your article to have been removed but what we all have to remember is that this is a global encyclopaedia not a place for bands whose fame you yourself admit as limited to "everyone in the Dallas area in 2000-2003" (and we'll not even venture in to the territory of whether this is a verifiable fact!). Kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 07:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

So with regard to the criteria of a former member who then went to a notable band, which is obviously verifiable, this is just being disregarded? What other rules on Wikipedia will be ignored for future posts? Ipnotknown (talk) 13:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

If the notable band you are referring to is A Dozen Furies then I'm sorry but in Wikipedia terms they are not notable as evidenced by the decision to delete the article on them back in December. nancy ^(talk) 14:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Try Googling "a dozen furies", ozzfest, Nancy, and please let me know what you find. What is "notable" if they were not? Ipnotknown (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 06:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Y thanks, entry updated nancy ^(talk) 12:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine China

Thank you for fixing the redirect: I just knew no reader entering "Fine China" at wikipedia wanted to land at Porcelain. --Wetman (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Critical GIS (deleted for original research)

Hi Nancy, just wondering why you deleted the entry on critical GIS in its entirety for "original research." Which parts in particular were problematic and what would an entry on this topic look like that would be acceptable to you? I should add this entry was written by a student of mine as part of a class project and not by myself. thanks. seltzoid (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)seltzoid

Hi there. Just looked back through the logs and I deleted it as it was an expired PROD - this means that another editor had proposed it for deletion on the grounds of original research and the proposal had remained uncontested for over five days. I just reviewed the deleted material to double check and it was indeed OR. However, because it was not deleted as the result of a deletion discussion there is no prejudice against it being recreated although it would be preferable if the replacement was a tad more encyclopaedic! Hope this helps, kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 14:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Nancy. Perhaps when you've got a moment you can say specifically some of the things that make it OR. I've reviewed the OR guide page and see that "in a nutshell" we should avoid original thought or to advance ideas not supported by the sources. I don't see at this time how the piece violated those 2 principles. I do realise the need for no OR (I'm an editor on a print encyclopedia myself) and so am just trying to learn what it was you see in there that flags it to you as OR! As far as I can assess myself, the piece was a summary of sources (and I can attest that the student is not working on original research on critical GIS). Thanks again for your time. seltzoid (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm no expert - my degree is over 20 years old now and things have moved on quite a bit in that time - but although the article was referenced it did appear to be a synthesis rather than an objective statement of fact. I will happily restore the text to your userspace if you should like to tweak it back in to an encyclopaedic form - as I said there has been no deletion discussion so it shouldn't be a problem to recreate it. nancy ^(talk) 18:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

With Bare Hands

Hi Nancy,

Thanks for the message you left on that page. I am actually the copyright holder of that text, so does that remove any concerns?

Thanks Pete Saiyingpun (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh that it were so simple! - no, that is not enough. Any text placed on Wikipedia must be released under GFDL so even as copyright holder you must still, either by placing a notice on the source webpage or by contacting Wikipedia through official (email) channels release the tesxt under that licence - essentially you relinquish all right to it. This page is the official policy and explains how you go about releasing it. btw, I saw a documentary about Alain on Channel 4 recently - it was about his climb in China - awesome!. Kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 18:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Nancy, I just read up on that myself, so will follow up on that. The C4 doco was very good, and the book is too! :) Saiyingpun (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Susan wayland by loover

Dear Nancye Thanx for your comment,I fully understand and aware that what you are saying is the right thing,my problem is that this is the tenth time I write the article and refine it(Actually may be the hundreth one),but there are some guys who keep deleting or tagging the article for speedy deletion assuming that the person is not meeting notability criteria,I added third party sources which confirms that Miss Wayland is on of germanys top fetish models with many apperarences in magz and mag covers,but they take it as personal and keep tagging for speedy deletion,that is why I added the note,I just wantted those person to read the article before deciding to delete it,can u imagine that one of them tagged it after only 1 minute from publishing,I think it is not enough time to read the article and see ther sources which affects wiki participants and reduce credibility and take it away from practicality,I hopr that there is a way to stop that kind of deletion. Thanx again

• please can you tell me how to give the pictures I upload a proper license???Miss wayland personaly sent me an email allowing me to use the pics from her site,isnt this a proper license??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loover (talk • contribs) 16:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Loover (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

replied below nancy ^(talk) 12:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

WHOligans - I see you deleted it immediately after the entry was made.

For the past several years this club has been working against the grain & ending stereotypes about Dr Who fans. Yet EVERY single reference to our group has been deleted or edited out of Wikipedia. If Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral representation, why do the WHOligans not get a single one or two-sentences out of reams of pages about Dr Who?

I ask because I notice you took it upon yourself to delete yet another mention of the WHOligans only minutes after it was posted. Is it (as we have suspected for some time now)all because we're based out of Canada instead the UK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weezilla (talk • contribs) 19:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi there Weezilla. Nothing as exciting as some weird anti-Canadian conspiracy, more to do with the fact that Wikipedia requires notability and unless you can show that WHOligans has some - citing reliable secondary sources would be a start - then it is more than likely that any future entry will be speedily deleted just as the previous ones have been. A good tip is to create the article in userspace first and them move it in to mainspace only when it meets the requirements. nancy ^(talk) 19:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Susan wayland by loover 2 please attention

Dear Nancy

I am waiting for your response regarding my questions,besides please can u tell me way to ask others to discuss with me before deleting my articles????

Thanxxxx Loover (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The best way to make sure that the article is not deleted is to ensure that it meets the notability guidelines. Looking at the article as it stands now I would say that it is does not meet the speedy deletion criteria so if someone did think it should be deleted it will go to WP:AFD whcih provides for a five day period in which to have a debate and to reach a consensus. You will know if it has been nominated for AFD as a notice will appear on the article and as possibly also on your talk page as a courtesy to a substantial contributor. As I mentioned before Wikipedia articles do not belong to anyone so you might like to try and stop referring to is as "my article" - as soon as you posted it on Wikipedia you tacitly consented to anyone anywhere editing, copying and yes, even deleting it as they saw fit. With regard to your question about the image licencing - the reason they were deleted is because they were marked as being available "for use on Wikipedia only" which, because everything on Wikipedia must be released under GFDL is regarded as an improper licence and so they had to be removed. Hope this helps and good luck with your editing, nancy ^(talk) 12:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

E-mail adulteration

Dear Nancy,

Hope all is well.

You have edited the "E-mail adulteration" article and redirected it to "E-mail Spoofing". Unfortunately they aren't the same. E-mail spoofing is the forge of an e-mail message header, and usually but not necessarily the content, and it is strictly a computer technique. E-mail adulteration is writing technique intended to arouse surprise in the reader by changing the original content of an e-mail message in its reply.

For that reason I ask you to approve the article I have submitted and include it in "Category:E-mail".

If you think it would be better to have the above explanation included in the article I will surely do it.

Thanks in advance.

Best regards,

Josue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josue (talk • contribs)

I redirected the article as an alternative to deleting it. If you can write a good, encyclopaedic, properly sourced article on e-mail adulteration then that would be fantastic but if not then best leave the redirect or surely someone else will come along and delete it! Good luck with your editing. Kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 19:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I see you recreated the article by cutting and pasting text from a document on a website. This is what Wikipedia terms a copyright violation so the article has been deleted now. It is usually a good idea to take advice when you are offered it. nancy ^(talk) 21:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Nancy,

There's no copyright infringement because I'm one of the authors of the document referenced in the article. In fact, the referenced document was written after the article and not the opposite. My intention is to follow the standard of Wikipedia. Also, there's no references to "e-mail adulteration" on Google because this article is the first attempt to register such writing (composition) technique existence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josuejr (talk • contribs) 21:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: 90th FIghter Squadron

The material on this page is not in violation of copyright. All the information was taken for a US goverment, public domain web site

Sincere apologies. My bad: it's a bit different in the UK. I will revert changes. nancy ^(talk) 19:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I appriciate your understanding, and your vigilant eye. Cheers! Ndunruh (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Edgar Soberon cuban painter deleted

The article on the artist Edgar Soberon which appears on the Bergelli Gallery pages was written by me and given to Bergelli to use on the gallery pages. There is no copyright infringement here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.187.181 (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that it is not that simple. There is a very clear copyright notice on the source website and therefore wikipedia cannot accept the text as everything on Wikipedia must be available under GFDL. A browse through Wikipedia's copyright policy would probably be useful and the section "Information for copyright owners" show you how to release your website (is it your website?) under GFDL if you wish to (this would allow it to be copied on to Wikipedia but would also allow it to be used and altered by anyone else as well). Please don't recreate the article unless it is with text which is substantially different from before. Also of course make sure that it meets Wikipedia's other standards, specifically that for notability. Kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 16:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Namila Davui

Hi - you declined the speedy I placed on Namila Davui stating that he played for a fully professional team. Namila Davui has never played for the Bulldogs at NRL (first-grade) level. There are no stats on record for him for any NRL team. The closest he came was in pre-season trials and being named but not playing in one game in 2006. •Florrie•leave a note• 17:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi there Florrie, the only requirement to escape a speedy deletion is that notability is asserted - which it was, whether it is correctly asserted or not is another matter and should be taken to WP:AFD. The exact text from WP:CSD is "This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability; to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable". Hope this helps to explain, kind regards & keep up the good work, nancy ^(talk) 20:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, Nancy, I probably won't waste any more time on this. I fail to understand how articles about a person with genuine notability can be zapped within two minutes of creation yet this one - without any references, verifiable or not, no external links, nothing, can survive for almost two years and then cannot be zapped (without going through a tedious process) because it states an untruthful claim to notability! No wonder my husband laughs at me when I talk about editing Wikipedia. Thank you for your time. •Florrie•leave a note• 02:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Equal Parenting Alliance

Hi Nancy

I have just seen your comment about creating a web page for the above party and noting it was deleted.

Quite by co-incidence, I looked up the party last week (a few weeks after yours was deleted as it happens), saw there wasn't an article, and so created one.

So at least now there is an article back again. I would not know why it was deleted either, hopefully the new one won't be (it does make me reluctant to spend any more time improving it when there seems to be the chance it might just disappear at someone's whim in the future).

Best Regards

Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveepa (talk • contribs) 22:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Gosh - I won't even ask how you happened across comments buried deep in one of my old talk page archives; that's dedication!! I have looked at the new article and firstly I must say that it is a distinct improvement on the previous one in terms of content, good work. However.... there is still a (rather large I'm afraid) problem with notability - the fact remains that the EPA has amassed a total of only 232 votes in it's entire existence and has only 100 members which means that it falls a country mile short of the bar for notability for organisations. To give you a chance to address this and also to participate in the deletion discussion I am not going to speedy delete it but rather send it to WP:AFD where a debate will take place and you will have a few days in which to improve the article to show that whilst the EPA may only have 232 votes and 100 members it does have a wider national notability and has been cited multiple times in reliable secondary sources. I should warn you that at any point during the deletion discussion someone may just say "hang on, this meets the criteria for speedy deletion" and delete it on sight so you should get to work on showing notability pronto. The link for the deletyion discussion will be both on the article and your talk page. Kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 08:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Question about Lunarstudio

May I ask why you are removing this page? I realize that you do not find the article notable. Perhaps you are not familiar with my work, nor familiar with the field of architectural rendering. Please do not take offense, but I highly doubt that you are familiar with the field of architectural rendering. I am a part of the American Society of Architectural Illustrators.

I don't see how this article is 'any less' notable than someone from the TV show America's Top Model (which Wikipedia editors have little to no problem reporting on.) If I got to a 'real' encyclopedia and try to research some of those individuals, I am certain you will come up empty-handed.

I feel that this action is extremely biased and unfair and request reinclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lunarstudio (talk • contribs) 20:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

hi nancy - re Equal Parenting Alliance

Hi thanks for your comments re the above article. Unfortunately I cannot make head-nor-tail of the discussion page .. what am I supposed to do on it? How do I have a discussion with anyone? Not sure whether I am supposed to email people directly or how to edit discussion page. Steve Steveepa (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Steve, sorry for the delay - I've been away for a few days but no matter in the meantime I see that you contributed to the deletion debate just fine and the AFD was closed as no consensus (which defaults to "keep"). Kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 10:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU has a new format

Due to popular demand, HAU has a new look. Since the changes are so dramatic, I may have made some mistakes when translating the data. Please take a look at WP:HAU/EU and make sure your checkmarks are in the right place and feel free to add or remove some. There is a new feature, SoxBot V, a recently approved bot, automatically updates your online/offline status based on the length of time since your last edit. To allow SoxBot V to do this, you'll need to copy [[Category:Wikipedians who use StatusBot]] to your userpage. Obviously you are not required to add this to your userpage, however, without this, your status will always be "offline" at HAU. Thanks. Useight (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Gary McHale

Heh, three editors including myself wanted a speedy. But fair enough, instead I followed his independent citations only to discover that they painted rather a different picture. So I went a goggling and the major media all paint him in the same way; indeed the only "pro" articles are forum posts and blog posts from himself and his organisation. So I hacked and slayed the article itself and removed everything that wasn't cited, and attempted to summaries the new coverage. I am a little concerned it now seems unbalanced, but I cannot find a decent "pro" article. If you could have a quick look I'd appreciate it. --Blowdart | ^talk 09:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Good work finding the cites. I have been looking though news archives for something (anything!) with a positive spin but like you have not found anything - perhaps that is telling in itself.... Kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 13:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Gary McHale

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This discussion has been moved to Talk:Gary McHale - please post any further comments there  nancy (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I am currently adding all the links to news stories regarding this topic. In fact over a dozen links have been added but are continually deleted.

Negative news appear okay to link to but not positive news stories. Maybe I should be allowed to finish with all the links before it is deleted and decided whether it is unverified statements.

Deleting the whole post when there are many links cannot be reasonable and then claimed the statements are unverified.

Please reply ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryMcHale (talk • contribs) 13:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of pre-empting Nancy (sorry Nancy) I would point to the message I left on your talk page. Blogs are not citable links, unless they are extremely well known, and blogs that you right certainly are not suitable. Interviews with yourself are COI, it's hardly likely that you are going to cover both sides of any argument. The only usable cite you had actually told a different story altogether; which was what prompted me to go on the mass edit to purges your self promotion. Please read WP:Cite to get an idea of what is acceptable; whilst the Sachem Gazette may be a good local newspaper it's not a suitable citation source, and letters pages certainly are not.. --Blowdart | ^talk 13:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur 100% with what Blowdart has said. nancy ^(talk) 13:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Why are links to OPP reports and court transcripts unacceptable?

see Court Transcripts

see copy —Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryMcHale (talk • contribs) 13:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see Blowdart's eloquent explanation above. Also those two links (to your own website) are dead. nancy ^(talk) 13:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The links have been corrected

--GaryMcHale (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Gary. I will look at them shortly although the fact that they are on your own website is an immediate red flag. In the meantime could I ask you not to make a new section header every time you post a reply - just the one will do for the whole thread. Cheers, nancy ^(talk) 13:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Nanny - Yes, they are links to my site but are scans of the legal documents and each have been used in other court cases. I am only interested in the write up on Wiki about me is fair and balance - I have hundreds of negative stories about me on my own site so I don't care about the negative stories - but we do need to have a balance story. May I suggest that I write up a section to be added and send it to you for review - if acceptable then you can post it? --GaryMcHale (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have skimmed the documents but it would really help me if you explained what additional facts you intend to use them in support of? At the moment I am struggling to see that they add anything further than the existing citations in the article - i.e. that you are a protester who has been arrested and charged in the past? nancy ^(talk) 13:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I also note that the court transcript is very clearly marked "PUBLICATION BAN" which I assume means it cannot be published. I would need to double check but I am pretty sure that this means that Wikipedia cannot link to it anyway as it has been posted "illegally" in the first place. nancy ^(talk) 14:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The publication ban applies the following day's testimony - several details in this transcript has already been printed in media.

Just to post that I was arrested without the court testimony is very misleading. The statements by the Mayor and the local Member of Provincial Parliament along with the Hamilton Cop is very important to balance out why I was arrest and also what these people think about Gary McHale. I see above that it is claimed there is no positive stories have been done... well; the testimony from elected officials is evidence that maybe the media doesn't always print the truth.

What do you think the media printed during the early days of Martin Luther King Jr.?

Is Truth only to be found in a media story? --GaryMcHale (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(again apologies Nancy - perhaps we ought to lift this to the article talk page?). There is no way to demonstrate the veracity of a pdf you have produced and you host. If you can find a notable (and again please see WP:Note) newspaper report of the statements made by officials at the trail then that would would be acceptable. If the transcript has been printed in reputable media (not on a blog please) then you could summarise and link to that report as a citation. On a personal note comparing yourself to MLK really doesn't help your image in my eyes. --Blowdart | ^talk 15:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No need to apologise. Yes, the approrpiate location for this conversation is the talk page. I will move it over & leave a link here. nancy ^(talk) 15:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been moved to Talk:Gary McHale - please post any further comments there  nancy (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Duplicate messages

"I will reply on this page as I prefer to keep conversations all in one place but will also probably place a copy on your talk page too so you get the nice orange bar."

Greetings, my fair lady; nice to make your acquaintance. Having read the above phrase at the top of the page, and as a person with an inherent "know-it-all" attitude, I should like to make a suggestion: the nice blue bar. People will still get the orange one and you also avoid the redundancy and out-of-context messages (which, I must admit, I rather dislike). Waltham, The Duke of 21:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

thanks for that, I'll see if I manage to remember to give it a go! nancy ^(talk) 15:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

And I thank you for considering my advice. I usually watch pages for as much as a week when leaving messages, but many editors have too crowded watchlists, and I think splitting conversations like that doesn't help. I find this quite a useful template, which helps us by-pass this awkwardness. Waltham, The Duke of 16:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Bozo's Blues and Manchester City Forums

Poor Moding from you, i moderate a forum and thank god i make sure i know what i am on about before i start hitting the delete button! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robspankthemonkey (talk • contribs) 19:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I am perfectly well versed in Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines thank you; it might be well for you and your associate to become so before you make any more contributions as otherwise they will likely be removed quite quickly. This help page might be a good place to start. Kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 19:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

What is your problem? We are trying to set up a page for an internet community and you just keep deleting it? We are spending personal time on this so would you mind leaving it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JongleurGrey (talk • contribs) 19:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

At this precise moment it would appear that my problem is you. Wikipedia is not free webspace for you to promote your forum either by creating a page about it or by spamming articles (cf your recent edits to Martin Petrov and Elano). As I suggested to your friend above, it might be advisable for you to acquaint yourself with Wikipedia notability and external link policy before making any more edits. nancy ^(talk) 19:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

A tad one sided i see Nancy! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Issue —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robspankthemonkey (talk • contribs) 19:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If you think that there are valid concerns, that are within policy, on the Red Issue article then you are, as is any other editor, at liberty to tag it appropriately and your actions will be reviewed and appropriate action taken, just as I reviewed the actions of the editors who tagged yours. I would however caution that some kind of tit for tat tagging of what is apparently a rival website could be construed as disrupting Wikipedia in order to make a point and you could find yourself subject to the consequences of that. Also, on a housekeeping matter, I'd prefer it if you could refrain from creating a new section heading every time you post to this thread - it's just fine for it all to hang off the existing one. nancy ^(talk) 20:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok i have lost interest in this discussion as obviously you have your love of Manchester United to look after! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robspankthemonkey (talk • contribs) 20:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Pfffffffft —Preceding unsigned comment added by JongleurGrey (talk • contribs) 20:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

One sided opinions only on Wiki!!! Especially from the Manchester United fan Nancy, which has now been noticed by Manchester City Fan's world wide! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robspankthemonkey (talk • contribs) 20:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

More Thames Pics

Hi Nancy - good to see lots more missing pics being added - which I have been incorporating into info boxes. But "Better picture" may be a matter of opinion when it comes to replacing an existing pic. Regards Motmit (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Point taken; you are absolutely right. I will be more objective in my edit summaries in future :) nancy ^(talk) 18:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Will have a look at Little Wittenham. Thanks for sorting that out - it has been on my mind for a while that it needed to be split out. The Thames path should be a straight C & P from the Lock. Regards Motmit (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. Islands in the River Thames should help you sort out the islands if you have your photos in order. It would be good to have some illustration of the more obscure ones. There are one or two redlinks on the list and I am not 100% sure of the geography in some cases. Just a thought on the bridges etc - could you note if the views are from upstream or downstream? Regards and thanks Motmit (talk) 11:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll see where I get with the Islands - trouble is I dodn't photograph all of them so it's trying to work out which were missed - I was so sure at the time that I would remember! Also have added upstream/downstream to photo descriptions as suggested. nancy ^(talk) 14:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Mr Spooner

Why has my article on Mr Spooner been removed? It is in a enclyclopedia so why can't it be on this one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fish-Eda (talk • contribs) 19:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP for starters. And how about the statement Screw this, Zack you can finish this.? nancy ^(talk) 19:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait what am I doing wrong. Please explain, you are telling me I will be banned with no explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fish-Eda (talk • contribs) 19:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Something else

Hi,

You deleted my posting for CeraSport.

This is the second time in the last two weeks that my post has been deleted. I was able to address all of the concerns of the gentleman who deleted the last post. And was able to keep it up without any concerns for the last week. Can you please tell me how this last version was considered advertising when it mirrored the post of Gatorade in both tone, format and layout. Please advise.

I would like to avoid this having to keep reposting in the future.

Thanks Bjanis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjanis (talk • contribs) 03:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Nancy,

Just wanted to follow up with you. You did not respond to my question. Now the page I want to repost is lock out and for Admin only. Any Idea why this is happening?

Thanks, Brendan bjanis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.149.81.4 (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Brendan, the page had been protected to prevent further recreation. I have just unprotected it so that you may create a new CeraSport page if you wish however you must be very careful to ensure that it is not advertising and that the notability of Cerasport is demonstrated using reliable secondary sources otherwise it is likely to be nominated for deletion again. Good luck! nancy ^(talk) 07:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

User:The mongs

Blocked indef. No good has come from this account. Just to let you know! Pedro :  Chat  20:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Good call. Thanks for reverting on this page too. Cheers, nancy ^(talk) 21:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

CSD U1

Hello,

I want my brief and illustrious Wikipedia career to end(retirement). This is why I want my Talk page deleted, per wp:right to vanish. Reply here. Thanks.81.104.241.139 (talk) 08:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi there - as you are editing as an IP rather than with a logged in account WP:RTV is not applicable - right to vanish is all about disassociating the identity of a user account from its owner and involves renaming the account. Obviously this is not possible with an anon account, the deletion of an IP talk page is also more problematic as it is not exclusively "yours". To be honest the best way to leave your past behind would be to create a named user account and start again - your IP would be hidden and no-one would have any reason to link your account back to this IP. Hope this helps, nancy ^(talk) 09:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying, it's just that I don't want my IP on google. I really shouldn't be posting requests, to be honest.81.104.241.139 (talk) 11:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Judith Ann Hawkins

regards your deletion of this article that was tagged earlier today shortly after I set it up, why was this necessary ? I had barely set it up and I was at my place of work. Very frustrating to a fellow editor when someone comes along and take the biscuit. Dmcm2008 (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It was actually deleted over two and a half hours after it had been created and over two hours after it had been tagged so you had been given plenty of opportunity to address the issues raised but had failed to do so. I think the real problem is probably that you were unable to address the problem because this woman actually has no notability at all. Being apparently related to someone slightly well-known is not notability in Wikipedia's terms. It also appeared from the talk page that you were attempting to use the article as a soapbox to right some perceived wrong regarding statements made on the Halle Berry page; whilst this is not why the article was tagged or indeed deleted it is not something which is acceptable and I would caution against doing this again. nancy ^(talk) 18:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I was at my place of work and you cannot 'presume' whatever reason I had for not completing this article. I found yours and the previous person who tagged the artice attitude to be very poor. Why must you act so strict I had also asked for a hangon. Its a bit childish to work like this regardless of nature of the article. Also, with respect, I hardly think Halle Berry is "slightly well known". I agree I will caution against creating this article again, in view of you swift actions. Dmcm2008 (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Two+ hours is a very generous amount of time for a "hang-on" & probably more than the article merited. I would also point out that the article was deleted because of its nature not regardless of it. nancy ^(talk) 19:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

for moving the page Rissen. I've got no cookies or else, so a little thx must be enough :-) Sebastian scha. (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you for taking the trouble to drop by. Kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 19:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

EDITING

I put a nomination up for CJ Barret for a swimmer and it was deleted, how can I avoid my nomination from being deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatkid46 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I don;t know what the problem was with your page & I can't find a deletion log for it but I am guessing that the problem may have been around notability. Best palce to start is to take a look at the page Your first article which pretty much takes you through all the bases you will need to cover. Hope this helps, kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 20:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ryan Pope

Why did you delete the stuff on the Ryan Pope page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.73.65.61 (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Because it was vandalism. nancy ^(talk) 20:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent Edit

Hello. I am very upset with the recent deletion of my edit to the 'British Columbia Religion' page. I am a resident of Richmond, (located in British Columbia), we go to a small church of Mcjesus, (my religion and many others too). I was very hurt at the disrespect I received when I read my deletion message. You called it 'vandalism' of the British Columbia page. I and many others believe in the power of Mcjesus, and felt it was the correct move to add it to the greatest online encyclopedia, (and suprised that it was not already mentioned for that matter). I do not ask you to become a part of my religion. I am also not making fun of yours. I just was greatly insulted to see that you had called the religion of Mcjesus 'vandalism' and do not wish to hear of this again.

Thank you Nancy, (by the way that's my sisters name, always been one of my favourite female names)

-a concerned resident of Richmond — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.33.141.70 (talk • contribs)

I am very sorry that you are upset. Perhaps with hindsight you could have prevented this by not vandalising Wikipedia in the first place. I see you have also been adding your nonsense to the Christian atheists page. I recommend that you stop right now otherwise you might just find that someone else takes the matter out of your hands. nancy ^(talk) 20:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: May 2008

I reverted the vandalized revision of Aliana Lohan () to the correct one (). You reverted me () and templated me () I don't know if it was a mistake or something, but I thought I should bring it to your attention. sanawon 22:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

My bad. Warning struck through and apology left on talk page. nancy ^(talk) 07:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Shelton High School (Connecticut)

Thank you for maintaining order in Shelton High School (Connecticut) while I was away. Your help is greatly appreciated. Thank you! --Ŵïllî§ï$2 (^Talk!/_Cont.) 19:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

pspsex

hello nancy, i am surprised you consider pspsex a spam article. playstation content is a cool sub culture. i am not sure why you consider it spam. sony even commented about the website, its not spam i am a user of it for many years and other users would like it on here . there are nurmous websites like sms.ac , that are mobile based . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendlyjewishgirl (talk • contribs) 19:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there FJG. I deleted the article as a website which did not indicate why it was notable. I was the third person to delete the article in less than 12 hours & so I protected it from recreation as it was likely that it would be created again and again and was therefore trying to prevent any more time being wasted on it (on both sides). I mentioned spam in the protection summary not because PSPSEX is a spam website but because the persistent recereation of it amounts to spamming Wikipedia. I am happy to consider unprotecting the page if you can assure me that you will do your level best to create an article which conforms to Wikipedia's inclusion criteria - a read of this page about creating your first article might be a good place to start. Kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 08:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)