User talk:Blanchardb/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Water in moon

I changed your CSD tag, it was not a hoax (they really did) but rather a copyvio of http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20091115-236337/Thrilling-discovery-Lots-of-water-on-moon. Thanks for patrolling though and keep up the good work! You already beat me to a few speedys! (Not that it's a race, of course!)-- fetchcomms☛ 03:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Tsonka ball

Hey Blanchardb, I removed your speedy on Tsonka ball and replaced it with a PROD, because it doesn't fit under A1. Just FYI, A7 is the tag to use regarding concerns of notability, which I believe was your intention based on your edit summary. However, neologisms do not fit under that category. Keep up the new page patrol, Fingerz 00:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Woland333

11/23/2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woland333 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I created a Paul Rish page. Can you critique it and give me some suggests? I just have it under my user page right now. —Preceding undated comment added 22:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC).

The subject's notability is not established from third-party reliable sources, which means that in its current state the article will probably not survive a deletion discussion, and may even be deleted without discussion. Rish's candidacy should be referenced, at the very least, from the Macon Telegraph, and preferably the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Furthermore, the whole page looks like an electoral tract for his candidacy, something that is frowned on.

Try building the article entirely from sources over which Rish or the Republican Party does not have any editorial input whatsoever, and none of which are blogs. (Macon.com being a blog, it is not acceptable as a source.) -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank You for reviewing my article! I am busy reworking it. However, Macon.com is the official website of the Macon Telegraph. It even says so at the bottom of the Macon Telegraph Wikipedia page. The article written by Travis Fain on Macon.com is the exact one that ran in the Telegraph.

On another note, paulrish.com was the best source i found for biographical information. But I can't use it because Rish's campaign has editorial control over it. Right? Thank you again! --Woland333 (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Right. It is Rish's own site, so we cannot tell whether the information found there is accurate. Don't forget, since he's on an election campaign, he set out to make himself look good on his own site. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Forship article again

Hello Blanchardb! I guess you'll remember that one month ago you've helped me to revise the Forship article, improving its text and references in order to better comply with Wikipedia's criteria for notability and verifiability, and therefore abort a speedy deletion process. Well, approximately at the same time there was a similar questioning in the Portuguese Wikipedia, where I have created an equivalent article: pt:Forship Engenharia. There, the argument involved also the fact (brought up by myself) that I work in Forship, as an Engineering Director. After some argument, which was beggining to get hot and personal, with an editor called Gunnex, and to avoid a potential war of editions, I have taken the initiative to propose a process of elimination by voting, to bring the discussion to a wider community decision. The final result, after two weeks of voting, was favorable to the maintenance of the article, since the majority of editors considered that in spite of the fact that I work in Forship, there was no impeditive COI and all applicable Wikipedia criteria were fulfilled. Eventually, all tags (notability, verifiability and COI), were removed by admins... The reason to ask for your help once more is that Gunnex (being, as myself, editor of both en: and pt: Wikipedias) simultaneously included a COI tag to the English article. I have decided, at that time, to wait the closure of the voting process in pt:Wiki before taking any action in en:Wiki. Now that the issue is solved there, I am asking your advise about the best approach to follow. Is the decision taken in pt:Wiki sufficient to solve the COI questioning in en:Wiki? Could you deliberate about it and (in case you agree with the decision taken by pt:Wiki editors) eliminate the COI tag? Should I follow the same path and propose a similar elimination by voting process (I'm not even sure if this is also of normal use in en:Wiki) here? Can you please advise me on the subject? I am sorry to bother you with this long explanation and request, but I was not able to summarize it further... Please feel free to request more information or clarification, if needed. I thank you in advance. Rgds. Antonio Prates (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that at this point, the only thing for you to do is to wait and see. The COI tag means that the article has been edited, for the most part, by someone involved, in this case, you. Given that the article has survived a deletion discussion in the Portuguese Wikipedia, it is likely to survive one here as well, and you are allowed, even encouraged, to bring up the discussion in the Portuguese Wikipedia if no one else does.

But as for the COI tag, I guess you should wait for the article to be expanded by someone uninvolved. Remember that there is no deadline in Wikipedia. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Blanchardb. I will do as you suggest. Thanks for your advise. Antonio Prates (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Ray Oaks (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)