User talk:Paulmwright

Baobab Tree

An article already exists on this topic at Baobab. I have turned your page in to a redirect in order to prevent replication of information. Please research your topic before creating articles in future, it may already exist on Wikipedia. Regards, (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for Baobab before I made the entry and was surprised not to find it which is why I made the entry. I think either the search failed or I entered the word incorrectly. I will be more careful in future. Paul

Minus-day

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Minus-day, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Importance). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:Minus-day. If you remove the {{dated prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Megapixie 02:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Clive Carroll

A tag has been placed on Clive Carroll, 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, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

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 the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Jennie--x (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Paulmwright! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 41 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Clive Carroll - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 07:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Pseudoserver

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

Author who wrote page appears to be author who "coined" the term pseudoserver as shown in this pdf[1]. There is no evidence that it has been acknowledged by the security community as being different from a honey pot or even a term used at all in this context. The author is mistaken in their generalization of honeypots since deliberate vulnerabilities are not a defining aspect of all honeypots. In addition, the author is plainly wrong with their understanding of entrapment and how it relates to honeypots[2] [3] [4]. Furthermore, the unrelated final line of the article is also unattributed and simply does not make sense. Since the term appears to have been made up, the article cannot be fixed and I recommend it for deletion.

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. Dzampino (talk) 17:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]