User talk:DarkSaber2k/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Ideal cruising

Hi

I just received a warning for my Ideal Cruising page as it is considered as a blatant advertising.

Apart from offering cruise deals we are providing our visitors with latest cruise news and cruise reviews, details of port-of-calls and destinations and we approaching this aspect of our business as a very valuable one. The website provides with latest cruise news and cruise critics allowing visitors to make just choice on which cruise line or ship to choose. We created cruise community website full of advices for people taking the trips. Cruise reviews are extremely useful for people planning to go on holidays. All data used across the cruise reviews, cruise news and cruise critic pages doesn't have any commercial value and based on cruise travelers' experiences only.

Could you please revise your opinion or give us any suggestions by how to avoid removing the page?

Do u consider Category:Travel and holiday companies,Category:Travel and holiday companies of the United Kingdom suitable for us?

Kind regards,

Jane

It is not being deleted for advertising on this occasion, it's being deleted for failing to make any assertion of notability. You should also take a look at the conflict of interest guidelines. As it stands, I will not revise my opinion and nothing will avoid the removal of the page. And as I said, recreating previously deleted material (especially under a slightly different name to avoid it being detected (this is how it tends to be viewed by editors)) can lead to a temporary, or, in the case of persistent policy violations, permanent block from Wikipedia. DarkSaber2k 14:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed answer.

I do believe we didn't confront with the conflict of interests. Our deleted page was revised. The website was updated. We didn't make any attempts to avoid detecting. The account was passed over to me at this stage, i wasn't fully aware and decided investigated the process.

Still I consider Ideal Cruising website noteable.

Please have a look on this articles, they might be handy

Newspapers:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2007090037,00.html

http://travel.independent.co.uk/news_and_advice/article319660.ece

As an award winning travel agency we have features running on us in several newspapers on a regular basis.

Regards,

Jane

I'm not sure whether the links you posted are good examples of secondary sources. They also do not satisfy the requirement for "significant coverage" as established in the general notability guidelines - merely having the company's name mentioned is not enough, it must be mentioned in detail. Finally, to clarify: merely including these sources does not establish notability - the article should establish why the company is considered noteable, and use reliable sources to verify this.

I'd encourage you to take some time to read about notability, verifiability and what Wikipedia is not (especially WP:NOT#SOAPBOX, and try to come up with a structured argument based around those guidelines/policies.

On another note, I would appreciate it if you would sign your posts in future by placing ~~~~ at the end. DarkSaber2k 15:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Killer notebooks wiki

You are absolutely right. Please delete the page I created "Killer notebooks" and I will revise the material at a later date and attempt to rectify the problems with it. Dsze4446 09:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Rambøll Management

Hi

Thank you for your message concerning Rambøll Management. Sorry about deleting the speedy deletion tag. I am reading up on them as well as the criterias to avoid further confution. However, I don't quite see why the page about Rambøll Management is considered not important enough to be part of Wikipedia? They are one of two or three most important management companies in Denmark, their surveys are quoted daily in the Danish media and they are an significant part of the Rambøll Group, the largest consulting engineer group in Scandinavia.

I plan to write more on it as well as on the Rambøll Group and other Scandinavian consulting engineers, so I hope you will reconsider the article.

Best regards, Espen Nikolaisen

I would recommend starting off by having a look at WP:CORP. It contains the widely used guidelines for what wikipedia considers notable about companies. If you have any specific question afterwards, feel free to ask me and I'll do my best to answer them. At the moment, the main problem with the article is that it has no reliable secondary sources to allow verification of the companies importance. Secondary sources have to be non-trivial (I.E. more than a couple of sentences), independent of the company (so press releases in news services would not be accepted for example) and there have to be multiple sources. As long as you can provide these, the article should be perfectly acceptable for wikipedias criteria. DarkSaber2k 12:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I couldn't find any such references in the article about COWI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COWI_A/S) for instance, but I am more than happy to provide them. Do I include them in the article or is it for "your eyes only"? Here are som references:

From the German Ministry of the Interior: http://www.bmi.bund.de/cln_028/nn_148248/Internet/Content/Themen/Integration/Einzelseiten/Evaluation__Summary__en.html From the (Danish) Copenhagen Post: http://www.cphpost.dk/get/84577.html From the (Danish) virk.dk (on Corporate Social Responsibility): http://www.virk.dk/VirkPortal/site/VidenOgVaerktoej/Oekonomi/TemaOverskudOmtanke/English.aspx From an Lithuaninan anti-corruption project: http://www.vpu.lt/sdc/antikorupcija/en/bl.htm From the homepage of the Euro-Mediterranean Transport System: http://euromedtransport.org/235.0.html

OK, these would need to be included in the article at the bottom in a 'References' section. That should make the article safe from speedy deletion, although it would be advisible to have a read of some of the article guidelines to see how the article could be 'wikified', which would help prevent any problems further down the line. DarkSaber2k 13:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added this to the article and will continue reading up on the guidelines. Thank you for your patience! Espnik 16:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

speady deletion

Newgate potential, Shredder and Your God is Dead are really important bands in the youth community in belgium, The H8000 and its bands are famous in japan, western europe and USA, notably NY. I feel this is information that has the right to be made public on wikipedia.

PS: sorry if i voilated some rules but i'm new to the wikipedia editor community. i left a message on the talk pages and i thought i could delete the heading your bott placed.

Greetings Nelson

A wikipedia fan

Why have you redirected the Evilyn page to the Clandestine album?

Christina Barrineau

I've removed the speedy tag since it looked to me like there might be enough of a claim of notability that you should take the article to AfD. JoshuaZ 16:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Bossaball

Hi DarkSaber2k.

I'm intrigued to understand why you feel Bossaball does not merit inclusion as a genuine, albeit recent, history of the use of trampolines in a sport other than pure trampolining. Now I am a 'pure trampolining' fan but I do consider it of interest to know where and how trampolines are used in other guises if only to make me feel superior in the knowledge that we do it properly and safely ;-)

Have you checked out Bossaball entries on the web - it seems to have quite a following and even international matches (e.g. http://www.dailymotion.com/zjokol/video/x1banm_bossaball-brasil-vs-espana) - I must confess I thought them quite fun to watch and wouldn't be at all surprised if it doesn't get regular air-time on sports channels before long if only because of the mix of dynamic skill and speed.

Answers to [email protected] will get to me quicker unless in Trampoline Talk where I will pick it up quickly.

DaveK@BTC 09:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but what does 'it's fun to watch' have to do with whether or not it should have a wikipedia article? If the sport got regular air-time on sports channels, then you would have firmer grounds on which to build an article. Until then, saying it WILL become notable is predicting the future, which is against policy for articles. DarkSaber2k 09:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm, does Slamball not fail by the same measures of 'notability'? Out of interest I agree 'fun to watch' is not justification; it is possible though that, since the sub-heading is "Competitive Trampoline Sports" it does merit a reference under that since it is exactly what the heading says. Given the next heading up is about History then I start to vacillate but, again, isn't anything before today history and since the sport seems to have been active for some years maybe is does merit inclusion? On the other hand - maybe we ought consider that the only notable competitive trampoline sport is trampolining (which is my thing in any event ;-) ) and change the sub-heading to reflect that? DaveK@BTC 17:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Manhunt 2

I've given reasoning in the Manhunt 2 talk page. Please read and make a decision on how you feel the info box needs to be adjusted. As it is now, the infobox is incorrect and needs to be fixed. If we cannot reach a mutual agreement, I suggest we RfC. 72.69.111.146 13:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to discuss our edits on the talk page and hammer out an agreeable solution to the issue concerning the info in the info box. 72.69.111.146 14:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Akrapovič

HI. I don't usually intrude but I had heard of the company and was surprised there wasn't an article on it. I have decided to salvage it as I believe it is of note - it is one of the worlds leading producers of motocycle parts - I've seen the logo at Moto GP'S etc also google it and you'll see the influence it has in moto racing. It is difficult to define which companies the encyclopedia should include with the problem of advertising but this is of note I believe. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 12:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfinshed Article

Yeah i'm new and still don't understand alot of the rules for wikipedia. SHould i have waited til i had all my information or was this ok as long as i get it done soon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trcole123 (talk • contribs)

I can't see the article developing into a satisfactory one at all. It's all taken from an unreliable source (Geocities sites are not accepted because anyone can make one), Wikipedia is not the place to advance a conspiracy theory you like/support/just made up, and if there is only one source, then the article is either a copyright violation or original research. DarkSaber2k 14:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright. I may not be that new but i still dont know everything but i'm learning. i don't support the theory and i didnt know geocities was unreliable. I'm Sorry.

Znn

I have removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on this article. The tag was {{db-empty}} which is for articles with no content (criterion A3) or insufficient context (criterion A1). These don't apply as there is content, and the context is sufficient for a stub. I would recommend nominating the article for deletion at articles for deletion if you still feel deletion is appropriate. Leebo ^T/C 15:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries, I shifted it to a prod, since the article doesn't exactly look like a prod is going to cause controversy! DarkSaber2k 15:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

West Rockers

The West Rockers have been cited in several New Haven Advocate publishings as well as the New Haven Independant. They have been cited on the Cafe 9 website several times and also in the well known Firehouse 12 studio+label+bar. They have videos with many viewings available at YouTube here and here --Camdenz 15:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

And how do links to the front pages of websites help establish SIGNIFICANT local notability? As for YouTube, HA! DarkSaber2k 15:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Page that could probably be deleted

Yeah i found a page that Honestly has no real reason for being placed on wikipedia. It was pretty much conspiracy theory related and i thought i would let you know. the page is pearl harbor advanced-knowledge. trcole123 15:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. THAT is a well-publicised debate, not a piece of crap like your article. DarkSaber2k 15:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Good work

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For speedy tagging the detritus and even having the decency to tell the authors about it. Keep it going! The Rambling Man 09:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I never! Thank you very much! :D DarkSaber2k 09:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Much deserved, I noticed the very speedy delete of that crap on the Manhunt 2 talk page. John Hayes^talk 09:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Why have you given me a warning?

Hello,
I would like you to explain why I have recieved a warning from your about my article ORSYP, S.A.
I have been developing this article, with appropriate source citations, and have recieved encouragement from one of your fellow editors (see my talk page). This morning, I tried to submit a stub so that other interested people could see the stub and maybe collaborate with me on the development of this article, but the stub was instantaneously marked for speedy deletion and I recieved a warning about being blocked.
I have submitted several messages to you, which are deleted from your talk page without response. I find this a bit abnormal given my extremely positive and constructive experience with other wikipedia administrators.
I'm a bit befuddled. *Please* respond.
Carimarie 10:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Because the article has been deleted 3 times, so you replaced it with an even worse version. Recreating deleted pages is most definitly not looked kindly upon on Wikipedia, especially when the editor responsible appears to have a conflict of interest. DarkSaber2k 10:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Dude

Spice Girls are having a world tour check their official site!--SuperHotWiki 11:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough! (Damndamndamn, thought/hoped this was a hoax!) DarkSaber2k 11:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Your edit summaries

can you please refrain from abuse in your edit summaries as you did here [1]. Please read WP:NPA, thanks --The internet is serious business 11:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I know, I don't usually. I just got narky at the blatant self-promotion. Hate it hate it hate it! But it's not like I habitually do it or anything. DarkSaber2k 11:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

What the hell was that guy on about in that edit. It made no sense at all. John Hayes^talk 11:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks me to like he was trying to name-drop their band as being 'outraged' over the events. A band jumping on a band-wagon as it were! Frankly, I wasn't expecting Oscar Wilde from someone called 'manhuntiscool'! DarkSaber2k 11:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Haha, very true. He lost me when he mentioned the Korea Mafia. John Hayes^talk 11:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Dark, regarding the warning, just to let you know I don't have an axe to grind, just dont want to see you get blocked as you do a good job of reverting the edits of the drama queens and attention whores. (speaking of which, do you think semi-protection for Manhunt 2?) Narky, great word! Stay calm friend! :-)--The internet is serious business 11:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries! As for the semi-protect, we could try for it, but I don't think the vandalism and nonsense is happening frequently enough for it to be accepted, but it's got to be worth a try. DarkSaber2k 11:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree it would be good, but I can't see it happening either, even this case was from a registered user, not an IP user. John Hayes^talk 11:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed your summary too but understand your anger! Keep up the good work. The Rambling Man 11:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Creationwiki

Hi, I figured maybe the article could be later reclassified under some other topic such as "Wikipedia parodies" or something. Even otherwise, I feel the article is of general interest because Creationism is the rage all over the US and this article would let users know of all sides of the debate. And as for the charge that the article doesn't provide "useful" information, I can only plead guilty. Thanks. Sriram sh 11:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Pirates CSG Online

I'm editing this page to perfect Wikipedia's lovely environment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinkijui KNK (talk • contribs)

Given your past edits, I'm not optimistic. And sign your posts by putting ~~~~ at the end. DarkSaber2k 15:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and Ho Ho. I didn't remember to sign, but I usually do.

Thanks!

Thank you so much for deleting that template!

I didn't remove a thing. DarkSaber2k 17:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

About Biographies

Hi, I have gone through the section, and I will follow the guidelines on what is notable. Thanks! With warm regards, Ab_18 14:49(IST), June 30, 2007.

O Pasquim

Hello DarkSaber, Can you be more specific with what you mean with insufficient context? Tks --Ludovicapipa ^yes? 15:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

HOLLYWOOD NORTH page

This is your only warning. The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to Hollywood North, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing their websites from appearing on Wikipedia and other sites that use the MediaWiki spam blacklist at all. DarkSaber2k 08:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

hello I got this warning. This was not a spam link. When this page was recreated or combined or changed a while go......the external link for HollywoodNorthReport.com was taken out. Which is odd as the website offers daily news on the CANADIAN FILM AND TV industry. I am a heavy user of the site and use the MESSAGE BOARDS of the site hourly for updates on filming, etc.

Thoughts?

OK, ignore the warning, I was doing a couple of thing at once, just saw your name and that you had added the link to that article and jumped to the wrong conclusion. No harm meant! DarkSaber2k 09:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks I re-edited that page!

Cheers!--Hollywoodnorthreport 08:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

your Rick Astley bias

The "Rick Roll" is a documented and well known phenomenon. You have clearly demonstrated a negative bias towards this phenomenon for whatever reason. Maybe internet phenomena annoy you, maybe you hate pop culture, it doesn't really matter. You bias has been revealed in how you delete entries: first you claim "neologisms," then you claim copyright infringement, then you claim unreliable sources... a pattern forms. It tells us that no matter what, this information will not pass your smell test. You make a lot of edits and that's great, but honestly, this is not your private wiki. Some information exists that annoys us all, but living with it is part of life. Please don't threaten me and spare me the "welcome to wikipedia" stuff, if you have a point to make, just make it. If you would have just told me your reasons for hating all this "Rick Roll" stuff I probably would have just agreed and went about my business, but that's not how things turned out. You should know that I have looked at many of your entries across wikipedia, and you edit articles filled with unsourced information and you seem to take pride in telling people they aren't admins or they are a waste of time... are you aware of the fact that 95% of the Astley entry is unsourced? Yet, you could care less, you might even add a "citation needed" mark next to suspect information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocean Size (talk • contribs) — Ocean Size (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

And the funny thing is that this might have actually meant something to me if it hadn't come from a single-purpose account whose only contributions to wikipedia have been to edit-war the Rick Astley article to re-insert a poorly sourced barely-notable internet meme. DarkSaber2k 08:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Out of interest...

...what "purge" ([2]) did you mean? I've been away for a bit. --Dweller 14:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh there was a massive clean-out of the online game articles on Wikipedia after we noticed the amount of advertising style articles and articles with no assertion of notability. Somewhere in the region 30-40 articles were deleted over the course of looking through them all. DarkSaber2k 15:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

La Mixerie

Hi, My article is about La Mixerie Artist's community not about their website. I use to study all those little independent labels, community and organisations that have promoted and distributed (mainly offline) independent art in the last 10 years in the south of France, Spain and Italy. I thought that would be interesting to publish this online - just as an extra knowledge for the people like who hunt infos about those labels. I would deeply regret if this article is deleted. On the other hand, if there are smart advices than I can apply to this article to make it valid, I would be very intrested to know.

Kind regards, Real tech

Silent Hill Trivia AFD

Just wanted to commend you on your policy based approach to this AFD. It was notable in the debate.

I've closed the AFD with quite a discussion, so that others can see the points arising, hopefully this will ensure people understand why some points were relevant, others were not, given that the view is deletion of an article that had survived one AFD a while ago.

I'd be interested on your views, if any. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

DB-empty

I realise you may not have done it on purpose, but tagging this article for speedy deletion seems a bit quick to me. The article clearly had "context", but was a typical stub. It was created by a new user, and speedying this kind of article is a bit bitey. I wikified it, and removed the speedy tag. Are you alright with that? SalaSkan 15:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, but I already changed it from speedy to a redirect as suggested by WP:BAND? I thought if individual members wern't notable outside of their band, their article should redirect to their band? DarkSaber2k 15:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Starport: Galactic Empires

I'm not sure if you checked back through the history on this one at all (not blaming if didn't) but I did attempt to create a wiki entry that was encyclopedic

Unfortunately it was reverted by mass IPs and my RFC attracted no attention

I was wondering if you knew any way of reviewing the history of a deleted page, with the possible reinstatement of the old page.

Thanks,

shas 17:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Second speedy delete on Starport: Galactic Empires

• The AFD debate closed with no prejudice against recreation - as long as we steered clear of putting in game guide material, and put in reliable sources. The previous Speedy Delete - GSD A1 for patent nonsense (which it was) was also at some point removed (haven't checked logs to see by who) but as far as I can tell it ceased to become relevant once the subject material of the page changed from the nonsense it previously was.

• I appreciate that perhaps the article doesn't define notability yet.. although I'd ask what's wrong with some of the reviews that I put in (as long as they're used better than they previously were?) along with the previously quoted [3]. I'd appreciate your help on this one - I'm fairly new to this.

• I'm also somewhat unclear where the conflict of interest occurs in the editing of this article - the only people who I've seen as editing the article (in order to add content) are myself, User:KhayGaul, User:24.58.102.165 (who is Khaygaul, just not logged in) and user:M2-Destroyer. Again, if you could perhaps clarify this (I've looked at WP:COI but can't find it..), I'd appreciate it.

What we'd appreciate most is not attempts to delete the page but help to make the page relevant and in accordance with the wiki guidelines.

Thanks,

shas 12:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not that sort of editor. Quit harrassing me, I refuse to help. DarkSaber2k 12:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)