User talk:Bald Zebra/Archive 2

Orphaned non-free image (File:Peterborough Saxons Logo.jpg)

You've uploaded File:Peterborough Saxons Logo.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (File:Plymouth Admirals Logo.jpg)

You've uploaded File:Plymouth Admirals Logo.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of File:Spartans logo.gif

A tag has been placed on File:Spartans logo.gif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I1 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 this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:File:Spartans logo.gif|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Bettia (rawr!) 11:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andover F.C. GA

Just wanted to say congratulations on getting the article to GA status -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate! Bettia (rawr!) 09:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for fixing the vandalism on the Shimer College article.

Unfortunately, you can no longer go to the article by typing "Shimer" on the Wikipedia search box. You have to enter "Shimer College." If you have any idea how this might be corrected, I'd appreciate your letting me know. (I'm a new wikipedia editor.)

Thanks again,

abf31

Abf31 (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, there are three articles containing the word Shimer on its own: Shimer College, Brian Shimer and Robert Shimer, as well as Armin Shimerman, Shimeron and Shimerville, Pennsylvania. Seeing as none of these appear to be more notable than the others, perhaps the best step would be to create a page called Shimer (disambiguation) containing a list of links to these. Bettia (rawr!) 09:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

Whoops. Sorry about that. I didn't notice you'd offered to provide a 3O on the aspartame quote. Apologies. (You should consider removing the entry from WP:3O before you offer to give a 3O - my fault for not noticing though!) --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 23:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I'll remember to do that next time :) Bettia (rawr!) 09:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion on State Defense Forces

Thanks for your thoughts. Would you mind continuing to weigh-in on the talk page? I think that in spite of some of us trying to build consenus, we still have a bit of personal opinion and synthesis going on. Newguy34 (talk) 04:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thank you for the trust you placed in me by supporting my RfA (which passed and, apparently, I am now an admin!). I will do my best to continue to act in a way that is consistent with the policies of wikipedia as well with our common desire to build and perfect this repository of human knowledge; and can only hope that you never feel that your trust was misplaced. Thanks again! --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 23:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Penthouse Paupers now referenced and linked

Hi B,

Please check the site and remove the warning. Any questions, please let me know.

Thanks,

M —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manoovers (talk • contribs) 10:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for your message. While you included one external reference, there were still no citations. I've added one to start you off, but the article would need more of these before it could be counted as properly referenced. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 11:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiff

Thanks for your message. Whether you are aware or not, as of 02 March the airport changed its name which can be found on its new website www.tbicardiffairport.com - I have therefore reverted the link back and Wikipedia are currently in the process of changing the name of the page and all assocaited links to the new name. PP —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanrailuk (talk • contribs) 12:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so it is. Fair enough, let's get renaming then! Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 12:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, hang on a minute... the airport may have changed name, but what about the railway station? As far as I can tell, the old name is still in place.[1][2] I think we should hold fire before updating those links, just for the time being. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 12:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiff

Yes, it seems as though the train station will continue to use its original name for the time being. Fanrailuk (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Wales

Hi, I noticed you interest in getting Cardiff to FAC. May I recommend you join Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales. Maybe this will help along the way. Agathoclea (talk) 10:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe I hadn't signed up already! Thanks for the nudge

Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 10:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:RfA

Oh really? Sorry, I didn't mean to do that. Yes please merge.--₮RU CӨ 21:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An early congratulations for tomorrow. :-) -- Menti fisto 01:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA: Successful

A consensus has been reached by your peers that you should be an admin. I have made it so. Please review Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list and keep up the great work. Sincerely, Kingturtle (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bring on the mop! Well done :) --Ged UK 13:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! --RegentsPark (Maida Hill Tunnel) 13:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, welcome to the club. I know you'll be a great asset. Here's your shirt! Frank | talk 02:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many Congratulations! : ) Badgernet ₪ 14:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, use the tools well. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Mosquito

I guess it's on your watchlist, but this is just to let you know that the discussion has reached a deadlock summarised as "WP:EL allows a link to the official website of a product, even if that website is commercial, misleading or provides no unique information" versus "all Wikipedia policies should be applied with common sense, and it is common sense not to link to this website which is commercial, misleading and provides no unique information". Thanks for your time. --McGeddon (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bettia, thank you for your help in resolving the Mosquito dispute. All the best, --Purpleblue1 (talk) 02:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Account request

I've noted your account request for an alternative account. Just in case it wasn't you who made the request, I've cancelled it. This is because you can create the account for yourself anyway — just go to Special:UserLogin/signup and fill in the details, making sure to tick the "Ignore spoofing checks" option, which is available to sysops.

Congratulations btw :) Stifle (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your help. It was indeed me who requested the alternative account, but I decided to use the formal account request feature just to be on the safe side. I've gone ahead and used the 'old fashioned' method. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 16:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bald Zebra. You have new messages at Isavevski's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Grats

Just congratulating you on your recent promotion. I can see you've been hard at work on speedy deletions already and appreciate your contributions. :-) Dcoetzee 06:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cardiff

Good afternoon Bettia. You might be interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Cardiff that I have just created. Its main aim to improve Cardiff-related articles, but you can see its other goals on the project's homepage. If you are interested in joining, please add your name to the project page and {{User Cardiff project}} to your user page. There are already requested tasks to be done but also feel free to add your own to-do points to it. I look forward to working with you. Many thanks Welshleprechaun (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've just noticed you've been made admin. Congratulations! Going by your Cardiff edits alone, it's well deserved. Welshleprechaun (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for joining. I'd like you to be a co-ordinator on the project. See the project page for details on what this entails. As there are no other members yet, you'd be appointed without consensus. Welshleprechaun (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well a lot of other major cities in the UK have a WP and I wondered why Cardiff was missing so I hope to improve Cardiff pages a lot with the project and am glad to have you on board. The Radyr thing may have been me, I can't remember to be honest, but if it hasn't been nominated etc. then would you mind changing it back? At the moment on WP:Cardiff, I'm adding {{WikiProject Cardiff}} with their assessment to all pages under Category:Cardiff. All pages in the sub-categories such as Category:History of Cardiff etc. that you'll see on the project page have been done. This is probably the top priority at the moment for the project. Welshleprechaun (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

my user page deletions!

Thanks. --Docku: What's up? 16:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radyr

Hi Bettia, I see that you have been really busy the last couple of days on Radyr and that you appear (I have not checked the article itself, only the GA1 page) to have cleared all the outstanding actions.

I have failed the article at WP:GAN and I can't unfail it and restart the review. There are now two ways forward down the GAN route, the first and best way would be to resubmit it at WP:GAN, and ideally another reviewer would review it (leading to a GA2 page and a decision). In theory, I could carry out a personal reassessment (also leading to a GA2 page and a decision), but I have carried out some edits on the article and if they are regarded as significant that would bar me from assessing it; and any decision I came to could be open to challenge. Either way, the article will need to be reassessed from the start against the GA criteria; not against the actions raised at the last review.Pyrotec (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There's still a few bits to do, mostly about the village's history after WWII. I'll just work through your comments, see if there's anything I can add to the article myself then resubmit it when I get the chance (and hopefully there'll be a quicker response next time!). Cheers. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 08:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I will have a look as well; so I probably won't being doing the review next time round. I hope it goes well.Pyrotec (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fihrist / Fehrest

Well, I asked for a third opinion, so I suppose I'd better stick with it.

For the record, I think you're wrong. Al-Nadim was writing in Arabic for an Arabic audience, and they would have pronounced the title Fihrist, even if it was a Persian loan-word. (FWIW, I think the Henning comment is an inference about Al-Nadim's origins rather than anything else).

The Iranica aticle is littered with Persianisms ("Ebn Al Nadim"? "Ketab"?), which aren't followed by any of the rest of English-speaking scholarship, and nor by us. So why make an exception for the name of the book?

Finally, the rule right across WP is that if there is a standard anglicization, we use it. That way we minimise the mismatch for our readers. That applies not just to names of articles, but is spelt out by the various language styleguides too - notably including WP:MOSAR, and this was an Arabic book.

The original earliest version of the article used Fihrist too [3], and so it stayed for four years until one user changed it. [4].

So I think it's completely wrong-headed to follow one rogue article, against all the rest of English-language scholarship, and all our style guides. Jheald (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Bald Zebra. You have new messages at Dabomb87's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dabomb87 (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of American football teams in the United Kingdom

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. The thing about britball (source) is that we don't about its reputation for fact checking. I usually look for these things when determining if a site is reliable:

Method(s) of fact-checking
Cited by any (multiple, if possible) reputable organizations, newspapers, magazines, agencies etc.
The site is owned or controlled by reputable third-party organization.
If the site is sketchy but the article is written by one person, does the source meet WP:SPS?

Hope that helps. If you have any questions, please ask, and I promise I won't take so long to answer.

Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiff

Hiya Bettia, I've had another think about the Cardiff article. It's really long already, and adding infromation and the sort of references we need is going to make it massive. I've looked at some city/country FAs and they seem to be between about 115,000 - 130,000 bytes (Peru is only 50,000 bytes). Cardiff is at 138,944 bytes, which probably makes it too big already. I was thinking of moving the Sports section over to the Sport in Cardiff article (which could use some help) and paring it down to two (hopefully) paragraphs, as part of the Culture section, which also needs to be cut. What do you think? Don't worry, I'm not asking you to do it, just looking for your advice. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 14:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Afternoon mate. I think you're right, Sports and Culture could do with trimming down. A lot of the info in the Culture section is also on the sub-article, so there's plenty of scope there in particular. Perhaps Economy too - I did trim this section a while ago when I created the sub-article, but it still looks a bit bloated. I think after those are done, as well as blitzing the Cityscape section we discussed a while ago, that may just about do it. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 15:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice. Sounds like a fair amount of work, but on the upside we may end up with a few decent articles. Not sure what you mean about the Cityscape section (probably before my time). I did take a look at it a few weeks ago to see if I could find any references (for things like Inner Cardiff etc) but I really struggled. It may need a complete rewrite (sigh). Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

So abandoned reason and logic and joined Islam? --Street Scholar (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted content

Hi I was wondering what the content of the BrainZ in JarZ page was as I never saw it. The reason put was that it had no significance or some thing like that. Im interested because Im half of BrainZ in JarZ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.96.197 (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brainz in jarz was deleted because it did not show (or even assert) notability of the band. WP:MUSIC and your first article would be helpful reads as well. Frank | talk 19:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool... not that I like it but if I understand correctly it means because we havent produced anything that can be officialy documented, i.e. on TV or in magazines or some kind of official public forum, then we cannot be recorded in an encyclopidia. Anything self made, i.e. myspace, is not an official source as it is a biography which is best kept to, well, biographical forums and sites etc. Ah well... just woulda been nice to see us on WIKI... ha ha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.96.197 (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Page

I am relatively new editing and creating on Wikipedia, but the last time I checked, company profiles were found all over Wikipedia. I recently created a page for a website I found to be extremely interesting and helps people fulfill a religious obligation to the highest standards. You deleted this page and I would like to know what I did wrong.

I do not know exactly how messages work on Wikipedia but please contact me regarding this issue.

Thank you Dspang —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dspang (talk • contribs) 03:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mikvah Calendar was deleted because it was little more than an advertisement for a commercial product. Please read WP:CORP and WP:NOTABILITY for more information. It's certainly true that any number of commercial products and companies are profiled in Wikipedia, but they have been determined to be notable. If you can show notability, determined by multiple citations in reliable sources, please feel free to do so and recreate the article. Frank | talk 03:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can provide a dozen links to news coverage, reviews, and other Wikipedia articles. The site covered in this Wikipedia article is a free service designed to help uphold religious laws to the highest standards. I think this is more than appropriate. How can I make this more notable then? Dspang

If we can find enough sources, then this article could be a goer - the Ynet and Arutz stories are a good start but I think we'd need more, especially for such a relatively new website. For the time being, I've moved this to my sandbox and made a few changes, mainly using those two stories as inline citations. Feel free to expand on this as my sandbox is open to all(!) - once we get enough sources, we'll be able to re-publish this. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 09:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATHLETE, now with added WP:FOOTYN?

Yes, I'd go along with that, and I'd imagine the best place to start a discussion would be WT:BIO, I don't know why that route wasn't tried before..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Ahmad ibn `Ali Al Thani

Hello, Bald Zebra. You have new messages at Woody's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki/Polish/Buildings

Hi can you restore this. Cheers. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Do you want that other project page restored as well? Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 09:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! No that is OK, the template was deleted because we are placing the main topics into the top banner. Once that is sorted I can start building the directory of missing content organised by main topic for each language! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yuchun

This isn't about ownership or anything, but it is clearly a sense of protectiveness over what I believe are plausible redirects. I can see here that you have also engaged in a rapid blitz of deleting. This speedy deletionism is ridiculous, there's clearly zero chance given for the creator (me, because this is basically a simultaneously tagging of hundreds of contributions of mine) to defend the reasoning for the redirects. How well, may I ask, have you checked each of these, such as seeing if the name is on the page, and if it is relevant, before deleting it? I point out Yuchun in particular because that was one I actually tagged to 'holdon' and defended it and the Talk:Yuchun was also deleted without even a word of reply. How am I supposed to know what you meant by that? Tyciol (talk) 10:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have indeed been checking them, and in virtually every case the speedy tags are valid. A lot of the redirects refer to minor characters that certainly wouldn't be notable enough for their own article and are highly unlikely to be a search term here on Wikipedia. The same would probably go for the production staff, actors etc - again, it is unlikely their names would be used as search terms, and if there are enough reliable sources for these then a stand-alone article should be created instead. With regards to Li Yuchun, I've done a quick search for the name and a few different names have come up, so I'm going to recreate this as a disambiguation page. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 10:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If these were just abandoned redirects or something then I could understand, but wouldn't it be better to have more of a discussion about this first? As for minor characters: so what? The thing is: they're in the articles. If they are not notable: they shouldn't be in the article. If they're there, then someone may want the information about the character and may type it in, and they can find it this way. I am not saying they are notable enough for their own articles: clearly many characters have been moved from individual articles to 'list' or 'cast list' formats. However: the names should still direct there, because that is information about that name. Let me give you an example using something other people have also edited:

Chouji. Or Choji Akimichi. Check the history. There have always been various character pages for him, but he is on a list now. Does this mean his name should be deleted? Or, if it were created today, it would be deleted because it is recent? What's the difference between him and other minor characters? I don't think there is a consensus here on how 'highly unlikely' it is that people would search for these characters. I think if you or others will argue that they or their names lack notability: then why not try to eliminate them from the pages they are redirected to first? If there is no information about these people on the pages, then I would certainly agree that a redirect to that page for that name would be senseless.

The problem here though: people who monitor articles about characters and series know about and defend their notability, so this is basically skirting a confrontation with them and simply making the information harder to find for people who are browsing Wikipedia. The ones tagging these redirects for deletion are choosing easy battles against newborn directions that have not gained longevity nor have anybody monitoring them. This doesn't mean they're less notable than other characters who happen to have more Wikipedians who are fans. Clearly this is not the basis of the deletion, but the basis of the deletion is purely attacking the majority of the names I have linked.

I thank you very much for the recreation of Yuchun. The thing is: a lot of these are like this. I strongly believe that in the case of single names: they do have a future of being upgraded to disambiguation pages, and for those which do not: that would mean the Wikipedia content is unique to where I've directed it. Lubdan illustrates this, as I have argued on the noticeboard. Is it at all possible to simply revert the deletion? I don't see the point of deleting and recreating articles. This just wipes out the history, when we can simply edit them to improve them to be dismabiguation (in case of a shared name) by adding to the entry to where it redirects. In other cases, it doesn't even serve a disambig role, because more than just that is being tagged, it seems like everything is, I'm literally overwhelmed. Tyciol (talk) 10:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zastory

This is another one you have deleted under Ryu's guidance, and I believe it is in error. Clearly 'Zastory' is plausible because it is a way of referring to River Zastory, a fictional character in the Black Cat series. Zastory's a member of the sweeper alliance. User:Seresin also concurs that it is legit. I know you have a lot of work to do as you are a busy person who keeps the wheels turning, but with this (and I'm going to go through as many of these markings as possible) I think it would be relevant to reconsider other deletions he suggests. If you could please undelete (rather than recreate) this so that it will point where it used to, that would be appreciated. Also excellent! with Ren Akiyama, you even found a better link for it too :) My lack of knowledge with the Kamen Rider series sorta shows I guess, I am glad more informed persons can improve these. Tyciol (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Day

Hello Bettia, you deleted James Day way back in July as a "blatant hoax". I am pretty sure that the article was originally a disambiguation page and had been vandalized with the hoax content. Can you check, and if so restore the last unvandalized version? Thanks — jwillbur 15:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay mate, I've restored it up to the last unvandalised version. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 19:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — jwillbur 21:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semih Aydilek

I just did what I thought was create a new talk page for it, which must have been simultaneous with you restoring the talk page history, which meant I effectively overwrote the old talk page with project banners. Though I didn't get an edit conflict??? Should I re-edit, to just add the project banners at the top of what was on the old talk page? or leave it how it is... Struway2 (talk) 11:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry, I've restored the text and updated one of the deletion templates, so it's all fixed now. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 11:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Struway2 (talk) 11:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for leaving Typekit in place. Seems every time I've ever done anything to Wiki it's been revoked. If you guys can find out more details on the set-up of the supposed vandal around here, I can possibly locate him and have him brought up on UCMJ. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phmadore (talk • contribs) 16:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Stephen King

The IP user which kept reverting Template:Stephen King continues to do so under the username Cartoon_Boy. Jmj713 (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep it on my watchlist, and take any action necessary. Bettia (talk) 10:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, the user is back with the same arguments. Jmj713 (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shiki Misaki

I restored the redirect of Shiki Misaki to The World Ends with You - Misaki is a character within the series, so the redirect is plausible. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manortown United

this article seems to be up for deletion. this seems unfair as the club are a well known dublin amateur soccer club with a respected history of bringing through young players who later have become professional players.

articles on similar clubs such Stillorgan Lakelands F.C. and Vale_View_Shankill_F.C. have been allowed and these clubs would not be as well known in the league system as Manortown.

this club has won trophies such as the Milk Cup and regularly competes at the FAI CUP and FAI Junior Cup, two trophies of some history and prestige in domestic soccer in Ireland.

The club has also been featured as the central theme of an RTE television program.

For these reasons, and that articles on clubs similar to itself have been accepted, i feel it would be grossly unfair if this article was deleted.

(ps. i am new to editing wikipedia, so i apologise if i have posted this in an incorrect location)

kind regardsMarno111 (talk) 01:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, I have argued to keep this article on the grounds of the club passing WP:FOOTYN. In the meantime, if you can find third-aprty sources (news stories, books etc) which give a substantial mention to the club, it will help the article greatly. Even if it did get deleted, adding the sources would enable it to be re-added at a later date with no such problems. Bettia (talk) 08:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bald Zebra. You have new messages at JamesCollins's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

obscure rquest

hi I snet you a mail about a deleted entry i hope you can help if not too much trouble. Best —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatlin1 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've responded via email - please check your inbox. Bettia (talk) 10:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiff - cityscape

Bettia, I'd be interested in your take on these edits.[5][6][7] To my mind, the line "Cardiff already has by far the largest number of tall buildings in Wales" isn't particularly notable - it certainly isn't surprising, given the size of Cardiff compared to Swansea and Newport! I'm a little concerned that these edits look like statements of local pride rather than what you'd normally expect to find in an encyclopedia. Cheers. Pondle (talk) 12:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's certainly very promotional in tone, as though we're trying to sell the city to the world rather than just describe it, and I don't think it should be included. Personally, I think a lot of that Cityscape section could be removed, as briefly discussed on the Talk page a while ago. In fact, the whole thing is getting way too big - I've noticed I first mentioned this when it was 86KB - it's now almost twice that size, and that'll be a major obstacle if we want to get it to at least GA standard. There's a lot that could be trimmed - when I get the chance I'll take a closer look and bring it to the Talk page for discussion. Bettia (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bay Pointe

Bettia, following our recent discussion about tall buildings in Cardiff, I wonder if you think that there's a continued need for the article on Bay Pointe? Since this project has essentially been cancelled - not an uncommon phenomenon in the development game - I question it. I've opened a discussion on the article's talk page. Thanks. Pondle (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup tags

Hi, just a quick question for you. When you're tagging articles for categorization issues, could you use {{uncat}} instead of {{catimprove}} if an article has no categories on it? The latter tag is supposed to be for articles which have categories but need some additional attention; articles that don't have any categories at all should be tagged as "uncat" instead. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 04:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of PROD from Simon Line

Hello Bettia, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Simon Line has been removed. It was removed by ChrisTheDude with the following edit summary '+cats, few other tweaks, removed PROD tag as it appears he did play professionally, albeit only once, also added two refs so I guess he now passes the GNG regardless'. Please consider discussing your concerns with ChrisTheDude before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 19:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New article

Hi Bettia, following our discussions of Bay Pointe and the Cardiff cityscape you might like to take a look at this new article. The list is potentially useful and a lot of work has clearly gone into it, but some of the language doesn't look NPOV or encyclopedic to me (testimony to its heritage and ambition... increasingly prominent skyline etc.) and appears to be cited from a promo website.[8] I'm also concerns that different proposals for the same development site - the Glass Needle - are presented as if they are separate buildings, all currently under construction. I guess that Cardiff-based editors would be best-placed to improve this one.--Pondle (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]