User talk:Paul Erik

Welcome to my talk page. Post a new message... I generally like to keep conversations in one place... For messages left here on my talk page, I will usually respond here, unless you ask me to respond elsewhere. Thanks.

Dani Pacheco

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Dani Pacheco, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Dani Pacheco was previously deleted as a result of an articles for deletion (or another XfD)

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Dani Pacheco, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 08:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Repost of Danny Pacheco

A tag has been placed on Danny Pacheco requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article and put a note on the page's discussion page saying why this article should stay. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of continuing to recreate the page. Thank you.--Ged UK (talk) 08:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Pacheco in reference to this article, as that is the discussion for the article about the footballer. —C.Fred (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I had added references to the article, which did not exist in the deleted version, so I thought that was a step towards addressing the concern about the subject's notability (in the WP:N sense, not so much in the WP:ATHLETE sense). Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Danny Pacheco

Hi. I have restored the Danny Pacheco article as you have contested my deletion of it on my talk page. I would point out though that the previous speedy was declined on the basis that the AFD was for another subject, Danny Pacheco, the singer, (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Pacheco), whereas I was deleting it on the basis of it being a repost of the article Daniel Pacheco per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Pacheco, the soccer player, which did not address the reason for deletion for which a consensus was reached in the AfD discussion, i.e. that the player does not satisfy WP:Athlete. Kind regards, --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought I had addressed that on the talk page; C.Fred appeared to agree with me and removed the speedy-delete tag. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think there is some confusion on my part about why the previous speedy was declined but you contested my deletion and I restored it on that basis so we are where we ought to be, I think. Kind regards. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

We are where we ought to be, yes. Thanks again and best regards, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Have a good weekend. :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Dani Pacheco

I have nominated Dani Pacheco, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dani Pacheco (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. --Ged UK (talk) 11:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Right, I've nominated this so that we can get some clarification either way, as this version is referenced better than i remember the old one being. Your comments of course are very welcome. --Ged UK (talk) 11:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

How have I got myself into this situation yet again? Once more, here I am going to a large amount of work defending an article whose topic really doesn't interest me. Ah, Wikipedia. :) Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for you note. I have often admired your work to find reliable sourcing for articles in danger of deletion. I believe strongly that we must guard against becoming a board of people deciding what is and isn't important enough to be covered in the encyclopedia; that would be a recipe for increasing bias and marginalisation of Wikipedia. The key is truly if there are adequate sources to write a fair and honest article. Cheers! DoubleBlue (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Right on. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hamilton, Ontario edits

Good afternoon,

You reverted my recent edits to the Hamilton, Ontario page and I don't see why? Recently Dufferin Lodge which I referenced held it's 135th anniversary in the city and I attended and saw numerous significant people there from public office. It's a very important landmark in the city. The facts i noted were also fact checked before posting? --- my mistake, it was someone else who reverted..

thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devine9 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, that was not me... Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for stopping this one, I couldn't follow anymore ! Have a nice day, Rosenknospe (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Kathy Shaidle

With respect, I'm not certain how cited materials written by the subject constitute original research. The sources can be verified on the subjects own website. 75.158.220.150 (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts. My concerns are that any article written about Ms. Shaidle include a discussion of her views. Perhaps the quotes would be useful should an appropriate source from the mainstream media also be included to provide the proper context? 75.158.220.150 (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Aaron Tveit

Sir,

The last time I posted on Aaron Tveit's wiki page was indeed verified and cited. It s hould have not been deleted this time. I properly followed your instructions and it still was deleted. You are believing claims that I am vandalizing, but I followed your instructions this time. Please explain the error.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KEMorris (talk • contribs) 02:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Paul,

The update you made is erroneous as well. The website does make claims that some people on the site are gay. Please read more carefully. Secondly, it is hard enough trying to promote the lifestyle of homosexuality. This has been one big frustration and to be accused of vandalism considering I was only posting something that is widely known in the theater community is tough to deal with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KEMorris (talk • contribs) 14:54, March 7, 2009 (UTC)

It is true that homosexuality is a difficult issue, and people who are openly gay should be able to live their sexuality without open ridicule and scorn. But those who are not homosexuals, as Aaron Tveit is not, should not have their names potentially tarnished in this way. Thank you Paul, for your help on this article. I have reason to believe the user KEMorris is acting out of personal feelings to harm Aaron Tveit's image. JNF Tveit (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. That user began by citing sources repeatedly using references that said absolutely nothing about the claims he or she was adding to the article. I'll keep the article on my watchlist. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Paul, I am doing nothing wrong. I have cited a website and relayed the information of what the site is about. It's not as if it is cnn.com and everyone knows what it is. I'm tired of the blatant homophobia. And if you do not feel that you are being homophobic, possibly you can bring a third party involved. Or possibly you need to look in the mirror. I've had enough. It's clear that JNF Tveit is protecting his/her family member. Too bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KEMorris (talk • contribs) 01:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

KE Morris- what is your motive in this? What you are trying to put forward is not common knowledge. If it were attested and attestable fact, it would be one thing. But this seems to be original content which has no attested basis in reality. JNF Tveit (talk) 05:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Expendibles

Per WP:NFF, it still fails the notability of future films. There is no significant coverage for the production of the film to warrant a page right now. It's also full of unsourced information, most of it rumors. I would simply redirect that page, plus all of the variations "(films)" (the current version capitalizes "film" when it shouldn't), "(2010 film)", "(2010 Film)", back to Stallone's personal page, given that it is his film. It can grow there, through reliable sources, until there is enough to separate it out. I wouldn't just delete it, because people are just going to recreate it again. I'm already seeing is a lot with the new Nightmare and Halloween movies.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That sounds reasonable. Perhaps, though, it should redirect to the disambig page The Expendables for the time being, in case readers are looking for The Expendables (1989 film) or The Expendables (2000 film)... ? Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ming Freeman

Thanks so much for the save Paul.  :) ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 13:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. :) Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Kathy Shaidle

Would you mind taking a look at this article? I just reverted it back. The last editor made some comments regarding the changing of the article which are of some concern to me. Thank you. AnnieHall (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're around right now or if you're at all interested, but I would appreciate the input of an administrator on this article. Thanks in advance. AnnieHall (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I have not had Internet access the past several days. Thanks for your message, though, and I ought to have a chance to take a look at the article within the next day or two. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries, and thank you for your recent edits and the addition of a third source describing the subject as being controversial. It seems, however, that three sources are not enough as the article has been reverted again. I plan on taking a look at it and investigating the cause for the reversion, but I have to admit that in spite of the years I've been contributing to the project (off and on) I'm still not entirely familiar with some of the rules regarding living people. AnnieHall (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the rule of "be very very cautious about including any negative material about a living person". :) I'll take another look as well when I have some time, although I am not there in my role as an admin (meaning I would not do any protects or blocks in the event of edit warring) but as an editor because I have contributed to the article. You could always take it to WP:BLP/N if you would like more opinions about the BLP concerns. It's been there before, as you can see here. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I would never ask you or any administrator to protect an article or block revisions. I just want clarification and you've been very kind in providing assistance in that matter. :) AnnieHall (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)