Artene50

• AFD: {{subst:afd1}}

• {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/topicname}} (add to top of list)

• {{subst:adw|NAMEOFPAGE}} ~~~~ (notice)

If you already know the rest of the deletion process, go ahead and place the articles for deletion if you so wish. To notify the author, just place {{subst:adw|NAMEOFPAGE}} ~~~~ on their talk page, replacing NAMEOFPAGE with the page's name. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• If you think it's not controversial, try a prod instead. The template for that is {{subst:prod|reason why you think the article should be deleted}}, and {{subst:prodwarning|Template:Prod}} ~~~~ for warning the user. Note, however, that someone might remove the prod; if so, then you can take it to AfD normally. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• You had [brackets] around the article name [like this]. I removed the brackets for you, so now you can make the discussion page (click "preloaded debate" on the template). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• You don't have to call me sir. Ten Pound Hammer, TPH, Hammer, or even Bobby work just fine. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• If you plan to become regularly involved in Articles for Deletion, I would recommend installing Twinkle. It automates the entire AfD process; all you have to do is type in a rationale and click a button. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As for me, it seems Sumerophile, Adil and you are the same person. But right now I dont care about it. Just remember to read the Wiki rules before the deletion of the sourced info to be successful. Andranikpasha (talk) 11:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know Sumerophile. He is certainly not me. Much of the 'sourced' info on Urartu doesn't even mention Urartu. The info. given in the article--that the last 3 or 4 kings of Urartu were really Armenian or that Urartu was a strong power even in its final years--is either inaccurate, false (since Urartu was close to collapse in its final years) or based on suppositions/what ifs. Perhaps the final Urartu king, Rusa IV, had ties to Armenians but that is all one can conclude. I noted specifically on the Redgate url that it does not deal with Urartu. I offered 2 dates for the end of Uratu--590 or 585 BC and you deleted them both. Why is that--because one is from a Turkish website? That violates NPOV or using sources from only one side and ignoring the other. What you are offering is a POV which brings into question the reliability of Wikipedia's information. (like Ararat Arev) Encyclopedia Brittanica would never consider such 'evidence' on Urartu in the first place. It is best to stick to the facts. Artene50 (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! You added at Hayasa-Azzi: "However, non-Armenian scholars doubt this connection since the arrival of the Armenians can only be securely dated to the 6th century BC with the Orontid kings in the Armenian highlands." But how this is connected with the ethnogenesis of Armenians? I dont know even one source which says Armenians have no genetical relations to Hayas's just because the arrival of the Armenians can be dated to the 6th century BC. If Hayas's participated to the ethnogenesis of Armenians (I think, its an commonly accepted fact, no any historian denies such a connection), it never means they (the Hayasa people) were already formed Armenians. So lets delete the cited sentence as an irrelevant one. Andranikpasha (talk) 09:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I only keep track of a few articles at a time. If you want to tag something as a copyvio, you can tag it for speedy deletion with {{db-copyvio|url=(the website it was copied from)}} only if it was copied from another website. There's really no specific "tag" for general AfDs though. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, it's a good idea to inform someone if you're going to AfD a page they created. If you plan to be involved in AfD, you might want to go into your preferences and install Twinkle. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a very easy way to monitor new articles. My nomination today was an article I stumbled upon, but I've done some new pages patrolling before. It's simple. On the tool bar at the left of the screen you'll see the "Recent Pages" button. Click that. At the top of that page, in the second line there is an option for clicking New Pages (Right after Utilities and RC Patrol). AniMate 10:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

All of the speedy deletion codes (G1, G2, etc.) are at WP:CSD. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 10:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• CSD A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on.
• G10 attack page
• G11 spam
• G12 copyright violation

• A1 is no context. If you plan to get involved in deletion, you might want to go into your preferences and install Twinkle, it makes it much easier to list AfDs, speedies, and PRODs, and it gives you all the CSD codes right there. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 10:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Instead of {{subst:afd1}} use {{subst:afdx}}. Alternately, use WP:TWINKLE which automates all of this. If that isn't clear, let me know. TCari ^{My travels} 02:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Pardon the intrusion but I note that you commented on the AfD discussion for Daphne Civic Center. I have subsequently expanded this article and provided a number of references to reliable third-party sources. I humbly request that you give this article a second look and see if this is sufficient to change your !vote on this matter. Thank you for your time and consideration. - Dravecky (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Much appreciated.Ffighter44 (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi on the above AFD I started, you voted delete per wp:NAR. As in non-administrative roll-back. You may want to edit that. Best --DFS454 (talk) 13:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello. An article that you had previously commented on in AfD has been resurrected. If you feel like chiming in before a new AfD is submitted, please share your thoughts at Talk:Christina Machamer. SpikeJones (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

{{ffd|log=2009 March 2}}  :March 2, 2009 here. Can be any date. Give a reason and place it for deletion.

Thanks for notifying. VartanM (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you please comment on the new version of the article (here)? It has been completely rewritten, and I believe notability has been shown. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

 

Hello, Artene50. You have new messages at Wiki: Articles for deletion/Elder Helpers.
Message added 21:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

VQuakr (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I've cast my two cents in the discussion, and I organized the article a bit. Nightscream (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what public records you mean, but unsourced information does not belong in articles, including BLP articles. Is it true that there is an unfortunate number of articles with unsourced birth info? Yes. But that doesn't make it right. If unsourced, then the Hathaway article should be fixed too. Nightscream (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Btw, I checked out the Anne Hathaway article, and the (updated url of the) source that is cited for her birth place in the beginning of the Early life section also gives the date of it. What's odd was that the birth date was given in the Lead section, but not in the Early life section (though this too, is something I sometimes come across). So after updating the url (the link was dead at the time), I added the date to the Early life section, so it's not unsourced anymore. Thanks for pointing that one out to me. Nightscream (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

In order for an image to meet the fair use criteria, it should be preferred that they are used in critical commentary. I.e. showing something that cannot otherwise be explained by simple text alone. In science fiction, this is typically a special effect or some type of design (makeup, prosthetic etc). Retrospect85.jpg is a headshot of Seven lying unconscious, while Retrospect85a.jpg shows a doctor standing over a patient. In my view, neither images are required to enhance the reader's understanding of the topic of the article. There's a rather handy description of this at User:ESkog/Rationales. Miyagawa (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

One of the tricks I used is to use pictures of the actors/actresses for illustration of the articles. Plus, what you'll generally find is that images are easier to claim fair use upon once production information is added. For example, the image in the infobox of Lessons (Star Trek: The Next Generation) would not have been able to meet the fair use criteria had there not been production information in the article about the camera angles used by the director. Also on an unrelated point, I had noticed that the production reports for Enterprise are still avaliable on www.archive.org if you look at the startrek.com website from about 5 years ago. As the website must have been about during the time Voyager was filmed, there may be additional information on the old version of the website that isn't on there now (I admittedly haven't gone looking for Voyager information). Miyagawa (talk) 11:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Did you leave the write link on your comment on that page? Doesn't seem to make sense. Thanks. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• I corrected the creator on the John Stanton article in the Afd. Sorry. --Artene50 (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)