User talk:Ten Thousand Bullets

Rob Capriccioso

Regarding your desire to delete this entry, the subject has been recognized by members of Congress and his work has been read into the Congressional record, which, according to National Press Club research, is noteworthy and unique. Further, according to the Native American Journalists Association, there are very few Native Americans working in the press today. The subject's inclusion is warranted based on merit and the sheer uniqueness of being a recognized Native journalist who has worked for both mainstream and Native-focused outlets.

In short, the subject qualifies under Wikipedia:Notability_(people) because: The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them; The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. Dcwash (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several journalistic outlets for which the subject has written have run his birthplace and tribal enrollment. Their fact-checking must be considered to fit the conditions of reliable, secondary sources. As for your NYT criticism, why not edit the subject page as you see fit? I will re-link when a suitable link exists. In the mean time, it seems that your original criticism, that the subject should be deleted under provisions of Wikipedia:Notability_(people), is wrong. Are we in agreement? Dcwash (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've noted your most recent changes. However, the tone is largely neutral, and direct sources are linked throughout the article. I believe the tags should be removed, but am willing to let other community members focus on that point. As to your question, that would not be correct form under the rules. I do follow D.C. journalism and indigenous-related articles quite closely, however. Dcwash (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your claims for deletion seem to fail to meet Wikipedia policy, and your suggestions that there are not references linked in the piece are wrong, which has been noted on your proposed deletion page. Since your tags are unwarranted and wrong, I have removed them. Dcwash (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)dcwash[reply]

The tags are resolved under the policies and references cited within the article and its discussion. I am removing them again. You have already noted that you acted too hastily in nominating this article for deletion. You are acting in haste once more. Dcwash (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)dcwash[reply]

Re: Richard Berman

Berman himself admits to pretty much everything in Shamrox's edited text. However, you're right about the POV. Perhaps rewording it a bit would be better than deleting it entirely? It's definitely encyclopedic material. Elm-39 - T/C 19:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, check the 60 Minutes link. Requires an "encyclopedic rewrite", I think it's called. But it can be done. Elm-39 - T/C 19:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I've given my reasoning for my edits on Berman's talk page. I'm going to revert back to my edits for the time being (as I can understand your criticisms), and I'll work on removing the POV stuff. Thanks! Shamrox (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on your edits to the Richard Berman and Center for Consumer Freedom pages. If you're looking to work on another page related to Berman, the Center for Union Facts and American Beverage Institute articles are both pretty messy and could use your help. Take care! Shamrox (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Senor's first Bush Administration job

Thank you for doing a thorough job of researching the matter - and explaining it to me. Based on that, I concede that your interpretation makes sense - so please go ahead and change the article. But one request - please post what you said on my talk page to Talk:Dan Senor, so other editors have the benefit. (I think all you need to do is change "you" in the first sentence to "another editor" and omit your last sentence.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks! Ten Thousand Bullets (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Rob Capriccioso

Hello Ten Thousand Bullets. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Rob Capriccioso, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not overly spammy, and the awards list is enough for A7. Take to AfD if required. Thank you. Ged UK 19:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Eloqua

The article Eloqua has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back. Thank you,

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]