User Talk: Utahredrock

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

Original Wiki-welcome

ɵ'''Welcome!'''

Hello, {{PAGENAME}}, and welcome ↗ to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia ↗

How to edit a page ↗

Help pages ↗

Tutorial ↗

How to write a great article ↗

Manual of Style ↗

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian ↗! Please sign your name ↗ on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question ↗, ask me on my talk page, or place <code>{{helpme}}</code> on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Alai 06:51, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment on God Committee

Jim --
I figured out how to do this! Anyway -- you're right, the God Squad is a colloquial name for the 7- member committee that reviews possible ESA exemptions. I saw the name in 'Environmental Law and Policy' by Salzman and Thompson -- an excellent book by the way. I have also seen the God Squad refered to in law journals, so this colloquialism seems to be at least somewhat widespread. (do a google search of 'God Squad' and 'endangered species act' if you're not convinced) I'm certainly open to debate as to how prominent of a place the name should have in the article -- it might be a good idea to begin a whole new article and look at cases where the Committee has ruled for exemptions -- this will get into spotted owl territory and get quite controversial.

Anway -- what do you say that we continue this on the discussion page of the article? -- that way we may get more folks involved. Just a thought, I'm a newcomer here.

Matt

My original name

Utahmountainman was my original name on Wikipedia.--Utahredrock 04:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

On moves

Hi there, and (once again!) welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed your request for a move to Confederacy of Fools ↗ and did so, as this clearly seemed purely like as technical issue, and nothing controversial. Note that you can perform such moves yourself, just click on the "move" tab that should appear when you're logged in, and at the article in question. I've also added a 'cleanup' tag to the article; I hope you don't take this amiss, as it seems to me to be a very nice article -- I've been here for months and haven't written that much new text at a gulp. :) Rather, I just think it suffers a possible 'tone' worry, as it indeed seems somewhat to take the attitude of a ''review'' of the book. That's probably straying into original research ↗ and point of view ↗ warning bell territory. Ideally such an article would confine itself to the purely factual and indisputable (and undisputed), and those opinions on the book that can be attributed to "notable" critics and commentators. I'm sure this can be done without any major overhaul of content, though. Perhaps I can help out if there are any policy or technical issues you'd like input on. Alai 07:01, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

'''Note''' This is in reference to one of my first articles in relation to the Enron scandal and Kurt Eichenwald's book Conspiracy of Fools ↗.--Utahredrock 04:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Katrina

In reply to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dhartung#Katrina_area_affected ↗. The FEMA disaster declaration information for Alabama (for example) is here ↗. In addition to a "major disaster" declaration, there is now an "emergency" declaration http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=18462 ↗, which gives FEMA broader authority and releases more federal funding. Similar declarations were made for all four states most affected (FL, AB, MS, LA).

As for your question about the "size at landfall" of Katrina, a few sources showed a radius of 200 miles from the eye for the hurricane-force winds, meaning an area of some 120,000 miles was potentially enclosed by the hurricane. Fortunately landfall quickly weakens a tropical cyclone. --Dhartung | Talk 08:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Gabrielle Giffords related discussions

'''The following arose from the discussion regarding the request to delete the Gabrielle Giffords ↗ page I created, and defended.''' --Utahredrock 01:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't do this ↗. The article was going to be kept anyway. She was or is a state senator and meets WP:BIO ↗. Removing the nom was unnecessary and uncool. JChap (talk • contribs ↗) 23:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove warnings from your talk page or replace them with offensive content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. If you continue to remove or vandalize warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks.  --'''Wine Guy''' Talk ↗ 06:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
:As an info point, WP policies ↗ of course would affirm any user's right to remove contributions from their own talkpage after they've been read.  <math>\sim</math> J''ust''me''here''now '''''(  )''''' 11:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Just saw the vandal label. Definitely don't want that.

Are you an administrator? If the Giffords article will be kept, when will the nomination for deletion be removed?--Utahredrock 15:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I sometimes play one on TV. I read your argument at the AfD. It is a hotly debated issue around here and I encourage you to go to Wikipedia talk:Candidates and elections ↗ and make your views known. Also, if you wish to retract a statement you made, you normally should strike it out by bracketting it with <nowiki><s> and </s></nowiki> rather than just deleting it. Best, JChap (talk • contribs ↗) 23:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

'''Reply''' I took this advice, however, my comments were deemed unnecessary for that page so I moved them to this page. --Utahredrock 18:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

===vandalism===

The vandalism page states:

''Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia. The most common type of vandalism is the replacement of existing text with obscenities, page blanking, or the insertion of bad jokes or other nonsense. Fortunately, this kind of vandalism is usually easy to spot.

''Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. For example, adding an opinion once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated.'' Utahredrock 02:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Gabrielle Giffords ↗ survives

My Giffords entry survived the request for deletion made by the high school student from Australia.

Also, I survived the mini-mini-controversy (see above) as well.

I learned to NEVER alter in any way (even correcting spelling!) someone else's comments.

I'd never really engaged on discussion pages before this and got a bit of a baptism.

That addition of the word ''former'' was especially pernicious! (Trying in my very dry way to be humorous.) Learned something. --Utahredrock 05:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

::Apparently, somewhere along the way you learned how to create and edit what is IMO a pretty good article! This woman is very notable. She was already arguably notable IMO as a former state representative and then became unquestionably notable when she became a major-party nominee for Congress. (If you care to, you can check out my comments at the candidates and elections discussion, which probably don't exactly mirror yours but would come closer to being "inclusionist" than "deletionist" IMO, which I feel is pretty consistent with my overall view of Wikipedia, which, after all, is not paper ↗. (Note: No trees were destroyed in the creation of this comment :) Rlquall 14:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

'''PS'''

As of last night 90 of the 131 articles that were nominated for deletion last Saturday, July 15, were closed. Of those ninety, 77% were deleted, only 23% survived. Of the 41 that were still open last night I am guessing a much high percentage will survive since they were harder to resolve. Won't be going back to check that theory out though! This Wiki-editing can become an obsession. --Utahredrock 16:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Another note: It appears, based on today's new articles, that over 2,000 articles per day are created. --Utahredrock 22:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Newpages

Religion and politicians

Regarding your most recent edit, on her own website ↗ it states that she's a member of "Congregation Chaverim", a Jewish synagogue. I've also found this congress.org website ↗, this Washington Post website ↗, and this Jewish periodical website ↗ all referring to her religion. Should I cite these sources in the article? I just thought it would be a bit messy for a template like that. '''johnpseudo''' 22:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
:Oops, nevermind. The new "Congressman" infobox doesn't have a religion box. '''johnpseudo''' 22:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
::As per the discussion on some of the other template pages, it is a piece of information kept by the Records office of the congress. Stating a person's beliefs does not make anyone or any article a part of the Nazi legacy. Also, I feel that to remove it would only cater to WP:POINT. Stealthound 23:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Pinaleno Mountains

I wrote a new article: Pinaleno Mountains ↗. An amazing spot in AZ--especially for escaping the summer heat.

Relatives of Barack Obama

Introduction

I am adding this preface to issues covered on my talk page related to Obama family members. The rest of this introduction is copied from the second Roy/Abongo deletition debate I took part in (there were one or more previous debates on Roy/Abongo).

=What's really at stake=

The main argument to delete is the alleged non-notability of Abongo/Roy/Malik? Obama. The guy’s life is forever changed because of his remarkably talented brother who has a good chance at becoming the president of the United States. We edit Wikipedia, I hope, less as voters and more as arbiters of facts.

What got me interested in the family of Barack Obama was the viral email that was going around claiming he is not a Christian and he is a _________ extremist. While I could see through the lie immediately, I had friends who just as immediately bought in to it. When I tried to find information on the supposed accomplices to Barack’s supposed religious views, it was hard to find a thing on the Internet.

As editors of Wikipedia we have responsibility and power. We have a responsibility to do our best to get the facts out. We have power because in this age of Google and Wikipedia circa 2008, tens of millions of people look to us, as imperfect as we are, as a source for information. In the case of Obama the numbers could be higher.
Do all of those people read Wikipedia? Not necessarily, but the power of this online encyclopedia to disperse information is enormous.

If this article is deleted again, for at least the third time, life will go on.

What will be lost is a place that could serve as a small beacon of truth in a world filled with those who will twist the truth.

Not notable? Who are we kidding?

Barack wrote extensively about his brother in his bestselling book. That fact alone, given Barack’s international prominence makes Abongo/Roy notable. It’s a burden that Roy didn’t ask for and I wish him the best.

I ask my fellow Wikipedians to offer a simple place where people can easily get well sourced facts on this man and not be left wondering if the latest viral email they received is true or not.

'''Another reason why this man is incredibly notable'''

While I personally could care less what somebody’s religion is or isn’t, it’s an unfortunate fact that many people do care and a person’s religion is often included in encyclopedic entries (something I’ve argued against before).

Those on this page may have not noticed, but there is a struggle in this world between Muslim extremists and others. Few people who do pay attention would deny this.

It is a historic and '''notable fact''' that the brother of a major candidate for the president of the U.S. is Muslim. '''To my knowledge it is a historic first,''' and firsts are usually notable to writers of encyclopedias.--Utahredrock (talk) 12:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

'''NOTE:''' I want to emphasize that there is zero evidence (and I've spent many hours researching this) to suggest Abongo/Roy is an extremist.

Speedy deletion of :Lolo Soetoro ↗

48px|left ↗ A tag has been placed on :Lolo Soetoro ↗, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion ↗, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate ↗, such as at articles for deletion ↗. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding <code>{{tl|hangon}}</code> 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 '''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. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins ↗ to request that a copy be emailed to you.   Loonymonkey (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: So far, Lolo has survived--as all important articles should.--Utahredrock (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: Somehow still there despite strong deletionist trends on Obama-family articles.--Utahredrock (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

More Lolo

Of course I agree that everyone deserves to get the facts, but the facts are well handled in Barack Obama ↗ and Ann Dunham ↗ in my opinion, and I don't see anything in Lolo's separate article that is new or not already covered, and a fair amount missing or incorrect. I think people looking for information on Obama's religion will be looking at his own article, and having a separate article that seems dedicated to mentioning Lolo's Muslim background doesn't seem to be doing what you say you wanted to do. I don't at all suggest that information about Lolo be left out of the encyclopedia, but I think a separate article that has nothing additional is problematic. As for the missing and incorrect information . . . Tvoz

there's nothing about their daughter, for example,
::I wasn't sure whether or not to add information on her since she's living person--Utahredrock (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
:::Yes, you can say that Ann Dunham and Lolo had a daughter, her name, date of birth, and a wikilink to her article all are fine.Tvoz/talk 03:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

unclear info about when Dunham and Soetoro met,
::It states "He met Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, when they were both students at the University of Hawaii.[1]" It does not have the year, that would be good to add.--Utahredrock (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
:::No, that's the point - we don't have any more info than that they met while in college. We certainly don't know that they met as early as 1963. Tvoz/talk 03:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

when he was an Indonesian oil engineer,
::Are you saying it doesn't have the years? It does state that is what he did.--Utahredrock (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
:::you say they met at college, then suddenly he's an oil engineer in Indonesia. No mention of when they moved there.Tvoz/talk 03:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

unsourced comment about Soetoro's influence on Obama,
::Which comment? The whole thing is well sourced.--Utahredrock (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
::::You said that he was a big influence - where does that come from? Do you have a source for it? Tvoz/talk 03:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

error about Obama's Hawaii school, etc.
::Thanks for fixing that--Utahredrock (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
::::No problem Tvoz/talk 03:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Was there a rush to add this article that prevented more research?

::I certainly agree more research is needed. Unfortunately there didn't seem to be much left out there at least on the Internet.--Utahredrock (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

:::Yeah, that's the point - not much is known, and what is known is amply covered in Barack Obama ↗, Ann Dunham ↗, etc. I'm not trying to get on your case, and I appreciate that sometimes we set up stubs for other people to fill out, but it seems to me that that this one didn't even use the information right here on Wikipedia, so I have to wonder what the rush was. Tvoz/talk 00:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

::There was no "rush" there was and perhaps still is just a huge gap of information on this man who played a key role in Obama's life. I encourage you to fill in those blanks if you're more knowledgable and have better and more sources. I notice somebody removed a critical quote that she light on the fact that neither Soetoro, nor Obama's mother were muslim extremists. It is unfortunate how little detail is available on this man who has become central to the absurd argument that Obama is muslim and worse.--Utahredrock (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
:::Why do you assume he played a "key role"? As far as I can tell, Obama only lived with him for four years from ages 6-10. I removed the quote because it is not the way we write articles - it was hanging there without any context. And it was about how Ann felt, not information about Lolo. Right, the rumor is wrong. But this article stub, unfortunately, really does nothing to refute it. I don't know that any more information is going to become available - and the piece as it is fails to meet notability standards in my opinion. I don't care to do much work on it because I don't think it should be there at all. But perhaps you want to. I'll take your word for it that your intentions are good, but I don't find this article worth saving. Tvoz/talk 03:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: This discussion continued on the Lolo talk page and on Tvoz's talk page as well.--Utahredrock (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] Utah, I still don't think that Lolo has independent notability, and I think he can amply be covered in Ann Dunham ↗ - in fact I think that all of what we have in Lolo Soetoro ↗ is found in Ann's article or can be easily added without causing an undue weight ↗ problem in Ann's piece. Since notability can't be inherited - that is, just because someone has a connection to a notable person doesn't automatically make him notable too - and because we have yet to find anything at all that is about Lolo independent of Ann and Barack, I see no reason for Lolo's separate article. My concern about coatracking, as I have said, is that it appears to me that contrary to your stated intention in creating this article - to debunk the lies about Obama's religion - this article only serves to fuel those rumors with its sourcing (read some of the source articles) and the text having phrases like "Obama is a Muslim", even though it is preceded by "incorrect rumor" (maybe to increase Google hits on the phrase?). You saw the completely unacceptable, lying source that I removed whose title was something like "Barack Obama was a Muslim until age 31" - that is the kind of specious editing we have seen and can expect in this article, which is why I am watching it and removing that kind of garbage. But it would be better if we didn't have this article at all, as it adds nothing to our knowledge and is an attractive target for anti-Obama attacks. I am not here as pro-Obama or anti-Obama - I am here to defend the neutrality and integrity of Wikipedia and not allow it to be taken over by the right-wing or left-wing blog readers who frequently get their marching orders to "Add blah blah to Wikipedia", as if that will somehow validate their lies. To the best of my ability, not on my watch - and there are many other editors here who similarly watch and stop this garbage, but one of the ways we do it is to not encourage unneeded outposts for it. I think that Lolo Soetoro ↗ is one of them - even if you didn't intend it as such, and when an AfD is posted I will support it, if nothing has changed. Meanwhile, I'll be watching it and trying to keep it in check. Obama's campaign has taken a different approach to the problem - they've created a website that posts the smears and then debunks them - that's fine, and good luck to them, but it's not what we do on Wikipedia, so your idea of having Lolo's article serve that purpose is, I think, mistaken, even if well-intentioned. Tvoz/talk 21:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow all of that convoluted reasoning. Still, thanks for your outstanding contributions to the Lolo Soetoro article. Excellent work.--Utahredrock (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
:Nothing convoluted about it. Lolo has no independent notability and we have no information about him that does not involve Ann and/or Barack and is not easily covered in their articles. Tvoz/talk 22:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

We disagree. Oh well, there are worse things! Cheers,--Utahredrock (talk) 22:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note: Wikipedia:Administrators%27 noticeboard#Can a proposal be made by an opponent to gauge the sense of the community? ↗. — J''ust''me''here''now '''''(   )''''' 18:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I award User:Utahredrock an anchor plate ↗ of valor

50px ↗ in recognition of meritorious contributions to Wikipedia (according to my imagination: while listening to sounds of Sonoran Desert ↗ fauna {{Listen|filename=Chuck-will's-widow birdcall.ogg|title=Song of the Chuck-will's-widow (in background)|format=Ogg ↗}} muffled by the whoosh and drip-drip-drip-drop trickling of a swamp cooler ↗).  <math>\sim</math> J''ust''me''here''now '''''(  )''''' 02:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks mate!--Utahredrock (talk) 04:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
:See here ↗. Cheerio!  <math>\sim</math> J''ust''me''here''now '''''(  )''''' 18:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

.

The New Yorker cover

The New Yorker ↗ cover this week underscores the notability of close Obama family members who are Muslim and the absurdity of the whole thing. As I stated in the Abongo debate, it is the context that gives Abongo notability--trying to deny that is as silly as the charges that The New Yorker satirizes on its July 21 cover. It will be a welcome day when this encyclopedia accepts that.--Utahredrock (talk) 09:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
:Good points, I'd forgotten about the cover of the sailors kissing (probably because I didn't see it as offensive myself) and some people probably found the cover of Obama and Clinton sleeping together offensive as well. Still, this is THE offensive cover, the one that's gotten the most attention by far. If the article for The New Yorker is to have a section titled "Offensive Covers," then it should feature more than one cover. Axeman89 (talk)
::I agree. Just don't have time to research the other covers. I think the plural usage is good for potential future additions, but have no problem with singular cover now. I don't think I edited that previously, but might have. As a historian (at least in training) it is still soon to say with any certainty if this is ''the'' cover or not, but I suspect you're right there too. Cheers,--Utahredrock (talk) 17:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Arizona 8th District U.S. House race

I'm proposing a merger of the 8th District campaign article into the United States House of Representatives elections in Arizona, 2008 ↗ article. I've already copied all the material. I have no problem with re-creating this later if needed, but for now I don't think there's enough material to justify a separate article. Flatterworld (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Utahredrock

.....I've listed Lolo for its only AfD so far to-date -- ''here'' ↗. At the article's present length, for it to be found within the family article would be the best, I think. In any case, I'm hoping this AfD might contribute to some sort of basic principles being figured out to apply to various family members across the board(?)  <math>\sim</math> J''ust''me''here''now '''''(  )''''' 21:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
:Hooo. It was basically speedy kept.  <math>\sim</math> J''ust''me''here''now '''''(  )''''' 23:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Mark E. Kelly ↗

Thanks - I think it's getting there. Tvoz/talk 16:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

See my reply on cites in the lead at User talk: Tvoz#General question. Tvoz/talk 18:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

:I was offline and didn;t see your request until now - what you did was ok. No need to remove it from the talk page, but it doesn't really matter. I'm thinking the sentence about the questionable STS135 doesn't really belong in the intro since there is no mention in the text. You might want to consider how to fix that. Tvoz/talk 07:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

::The speculation over "the final" flight is intense and newsworthy. Since we mention 134 is "possibly" the final flight, I thought it was good to provide more specifics in the next sentence. Open to other arrangements. I spent WAY too much time on this yesterday! It could be added under the 134 section, but it seems noteworthy in a bigger way--Kelly "could" be the final shuttle commander. Things change so much with NASA though . . . --Utahredrock (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

::: Yes, I think it has a place in the article, so I added something to the body and reduced it from the lead, but kept a mention there. See what you think. Tvoz/talk 18:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

::::My concern with that particular edit (in the lead) is that people may think 134 has a funding issue.--Utahredrock (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::: Oh - I'll take another look, Didn't mean that! Tvoz/talk 01:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Yeah, I know that's not what you mean. I just am afraid it could be interpreted that way especially if not read carefully or by someone less familiar with the issue.--Utahredrock (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::Just saw your edit and think that it gives the funding issue more clarity. Congress will have to do something soon on that anyway--since every month of prep costs money.--Utahredrock (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

←I can't get to it, but you should look at the opening sentence again - his being an astronaut, shuttle commander and veteran of shuttle missions really are all versions of the same thing, so it really doesn't work as a series. Tvoz/talk 01:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
::Only a fraction of astronauts are shuttle commanders . . . I need to stay away from it for now too! Other work beckons.--Utahredrock (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
:::I know, but the first is his profession, the second his current assignment, the third his previous assignments - not three equivalent statuses, but rather overlapping descriptions of what he does - he is an astronaut. I think it would be better worded along the lines of David Petraeus ↗ - look at that opening - I think that is what we should be going for, and I think that would satisfy some of Mlm's concerns. Something like "Mark E. Kelly is an American astronaut in the Space Shuttle program. He served on three Space Shuttle missions, from x year to y year. His current assignment is as commander of the upcoming STS-134" etc. Tvoz/talk 21:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
←Good tips. Just did a rewrite of the opening using your advice, or most of it!--Utahredrock (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
:Much better. Tvoz/talk 00:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
:: ; ) --Utahredrock (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

GA

I've never instituted one - I try to stay away from those bureaucratic exercises, to tell you the truth. I'll comment in them, and if you get this going I'll try to help out with satisfying the reviewer's requests, but the GA/FA process is not my idea of a good time. I don't mean to discourage you - some people love it. I think, though, that the point of "B class" is that it still needs improvement, so I don't know if it's ready for GA consideration. Take a look at WP:GAN ↗ for how to nominate, but certainly would need to have satisfied or responded to all of Mlm's observations. Might want to let that assessment percolate a bit before trying for GA, but that's just my opinion. Others might disagree. Tvoz/talk 04:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Mark E. Kelly/GA1 ↗

Hi, you have a review at the page linked above. A few issues, mostly minor, that require your attention. The nomination is on hold to give you a chance to make the necessary fixes. Don't hesitate to get in touch if you need anything, otherwise, just ping me when you want me to take another look. Best '''HJ Mitchell''' | Penny for your thoughts? 05:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Well done

{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | {{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|alt|50px ↗|50px ↗}}

|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Half Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For your efforts in collaborating with User:Tvoz (who holds the other half of this barnstar), to bring Mark E. Kelly ↗ up to GA status. '''HJ Mitchell''' | Penny for your thoughts? 00:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
|}

Your submission at Articles for creation ↗

<div style="
border:solid 1px #57DB1E;
background:#E6FFE6;
padding:1em;
padding-top:0.5em;
padding-bottom:0.5em;
width:20em;
color:black;
margin-bottom: 1.5em;
margin-left: 1.5em;
width: 90%;
">50px|left ↗ '''Dave Stevens (athlete) ↗, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.''' The article has been assessed as '''Stub-Class''', which is recorded on the article's talk page ↗. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme ↗ to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia ↗. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself ↗, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation ↗.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the '''help desk ↗'''

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider {{feedback link

|page=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation |text=leaving us some feedback |plain=yes}}.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Aaron Booth (talk) 06:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)</div>

Winter's Tale

Hi, I removed the image from the infobox because it was my understanding that images in infoboxes are always official images released by the studio (normally, of course, a poster). Since the photo was taken behind-the-scenes and only depicts the horse performing as Athansor, it seems incongruous in such a prominent position. I was probably too rash to delete the image completely but I do really feel it would be better placed further down the article, perhaps alongside the production information which I expanded on yesterday. It would also be good if you could find articles backing up the casting of Finn Whittrock and Listo the stallion - right now they're the only two cast members whose involvement isn't backed up by an article. Rachael89 (talk) 08:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

:Indented line
Finn W. is sourced from IMDB he just happens to not have a Wikipedia article yet. Wikipedia does not exist as a publicity arm of studios, and therefore the encyclopedia would have no position on using an "official" photo or not--the photo must simply be available and it needs to help tell the story of the article. This photo is appropriate because it's available and it enhances the article.

Thank you for your other edits which are outstanding.

Please do not delete the photo again. If you have any doubts that that photo is from the set, compare to the paparazzi photos where the horse is photographed (available via the external links). Also, from the timing and the geographic information available with the photo, it can literally be proven that it was taken on the set even if there is no publicly available information that's that accurate RE production schedules and locations. Unfortunately the paparazzi photos can NOT be used on Wikipedia.--Utahredrock (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

::That's fine - I have no intention of deleting the photo again and apologize for having done so in the first place - I did so as the photo looked very strange to me on the page in comparison to other similar articles. I still feel that the photo of Listo would be better placed as illustration alongside the section on 'production' but it's only a stylistic issue so I will not move the image again if you feel otherwise. I have no doubt that the photo of Listo is authentic, having seen others photos from the set where the same horse is featured.Rachael89 (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
:::Thanks!--Utahredrock (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
:::Great work finding all of those sources, and other edits.--Utahredrock (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Kenneth Chesebro

Thanks for your work on this article! Regarding whether or not his wife went to Puerto Rico with him, the most obvious answer is that he's remarried. However, I've been able to find any evidence whatsoever of that. YoPienso (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

:Sounds good. I haven't found anything either. Utahredrock (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Duplicated posting by Danbrigg on Talk:Prince Andrew, Duke of York ↗

Hi, there are several duplicate posts by <bdi>Danbrigg</bdi> on Talk:Prince Andrew, Duke of York ↗

I noticed you removed one of them with the edit summary ''→<bdi>Requested move 17 October 2025</bdi> ↗: remove duplicated posting (one remains)''

However, there are many more duplicate posts with the exact same copied text on the page. 9 remaining by my count.

Kind regards DartsF4 (talk) 22:34, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

:Yeah, I noticed how many there are too. I've removed some, but not all--ran out of steam I guess. Utahredrock (talk) 22:45, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

After the Wind

Hi there! We've been going back and forth a bit about this book on the 1996 Mount Everest disaster ↗ page, so I thought I'd drop you a line so we could discuss. His book is already mentioned in both the lead and the navbox at the bottom, and I've gone ahead and added it to the Media section, which puts it more in line with the other books' coverage. How does that strike you? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 17:01, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

:@NekoKatsun I defer to you. When you look at the list of people, I thought it would be helpful for people to be able to easily learn more about him. He doesn't have his own article, but he has the book. Linking to the book seems like an appropriate thing to do given that the article is about the 1996 expedition/disaster. I am not motivated enough to start a new article about him! Utahredrock (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
::I'd like to see if there's enough sourcing for him to get his own article, but I haven't checked into it at all yet. Perhaps that'll be my next project... I'll let you know if I do! NekoKatsun (nyaa) 21:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
:::@NekoKatsun Well Kasischke did write a book and is mentioned in many, many accounts of the expedition. He certainly passes the notability test (always subjective of course). One thing I've noticed is how Wikipedia's coverage of the disaster seems relatively thin considering the information that's out there. Utahredrock (talk) 03:05, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
::::I boldly beefed up Neal Beidleman ↗'s article, but even that could use a lot more work. Utahredrock (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion ↗ nomination of :IRestify ↗

48px|left|alt=|link= ↗
{{Quote box|quote=If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article ↗.You may want to consider using the Article Wizard ↗ to help you create articles.|width=20%|align=right}}
A tag has been placed on :IRestify ↗, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion ↗, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam ↗ and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations ↗ for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may '''contest the nomination''' by visiting the page ↗ and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines ↗. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the {{Querylink|Special:Log|qs=type=delete&page=IRestify|deleting administrator}}.   MediaKyle (talk) 10:13, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

:It is not my first article. I have been an editor for 21 years. I started the talk page and will add more later. Utahredrock (talk) 12:23, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
::I've declined the speedy deletion, as it is not blatant promotion covered by G11. However, the sources used in the article give no indication that the subject passes the corporate notability guidelines ↗, as they are things like funding announcements, non-notable awards, or material from the company itself. For the moment, I've moved it to Draft:IRestify ↗ in case better sourcing is available; if not, it would not be appropriate to have an article about this subject. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:25, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
:::{{reply to|Seraphimblade}} Thank you for reviewing the page and for declining the G11 nomination. I understand the concern under WP:NCORP ↗, but I ask that the article be reconsidered.
:::I contend that the article is not relying primarily on company sources, awards, or routine database-style listings to establish notability. The core sourcing includes third-party coverage from BetaKit and RENX that discusses the company’s business model, financing, COVID-era repositioning, and U.S. expansion in some detail.
:::The article also cites coverage from The Globe and Mail, KPMG, and Canadian Apartment Magazine.
:::I understand this may be a closer call RE corporate notability, but existing sources provide enough independent coverage to support a neutral article.
:::I ask that it be restored rather than removed solely on the basis of notability. Utahredrock (talk) 14:03, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
::::I looked at all the sources, and they all looked like either inadequate or passing mentions to me, but it's always possible I missed something. Could you specify the three best sources ↗ you think show the notability of the subject? Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:02, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::I see these (below) as the strongest sources because they are independent third-party coverage that discuss the company in more detail than a company announcement. The 2018 BetaKit article provides earlier independent coverage of the company’s original platform and founding-stage business model.
:::::McLean, Steve (25 March 2022). "iRestify raises $6M to grow building maintenance platform". Real Estate News Exchange.
https://renx.ca/irestify-tech-driven-building-maintenance-solution

:::::Scott, Josh (10 March 2022). "iRestify closes $6 million to bring building maintenance solution to the US". BetaKit.

https://betakit.com/irestify-closes-6-million-to-bring-building-maintenance-solution-to-the-us/

:::::Galang, Jessica (1 October 2018). "iRestify raises $1 million to help businesses book professional cleaners online". BetaKit.

https://betakit.com/irestify-raises-1-million-to-help-businesses-book-professional-cleaners-online/
Utahredrock (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::That's all funding stuff. Funding announcements are explicitly excluded under WP:NCORP ↗. Is there anything aside from funding there? Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:38, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::I just added the links above. It's more than funding stuff. Yes, that's what the headlines are but the articles cover the company by actual journalists. Utahredrock (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Of the three the third is the weakest and the most funding-centric. Utahredrock (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
{{od}}I'm sorry, I don't see it. Pretty bloggy/industry-insider stuff, not the type of thing NCORP is looking for. I don't think this organization passes NCORP. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:03, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
::(Off the subject, I quite like your username. I'm from Colorado myself, and have been out to the Colorado Plateau many times. It really is a beautiful place.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:28, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Thanks! Utahredrock (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
:{{reply to|Seraphimblade}} Thanks for taking another look. I understand your view and appreciate the explanation. Since this seems to come down to how the Real Estate News Exchange and BetaKit sources should be weighed under WP ↗/WP ↗, I’m going to move the discussion to irestify draft talk (which I need to create) and ask for a third opinion there. Thanks again for reviewing it. Utahredrock (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

3O

I reverted your readdition of a WP:3O ↗ request just now; you requested a reason on your talk page. The reason it was removed earlier is because it was delisted by User:Amatmilen weeks ago when they provided the third opinion. tony 23:02, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

:@TonySt Thanks for the note. I tracked down the 3rd opinion. I guess I thought I'd get some sort of notification. Appreciate your reply here. Utahredrock (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)