User talk:TexasAndroid/Archive6

Archives	2005 First half, 2006 Second half, 2006 First half, 2007 July - Aug, 2007 Sep - Dec, 2007 Jan - May, 2008 May - Dec, 2008 Jan - May, 2009 June - Dec, 2009 Jan - June, 2010 July 2010 - Dec 2011 First half, 2012 Second half, 2012 2013 2014 Current

I marked the old article for watching at the time of the old AFD, and was thus surprised when an article reappeared. I believe the move to the dictionary is the best solution: well done. Peterkingiron 21:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was most surprised to see this prodded. There were several disam meanings listed. One of the main meanings was already more than a dicdef. Do you do this sort of thing often? Johnbod 13:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm. Not really sure what you mean by your question. Is my judgement perfect on these? No. That's part of the reason I tend to use the PROD on these rather than Speedy delete them, for which they generally qualify. PROD allows or five days for people to disagree with me, such as you have just done. Just A5 speedying these leaves no such room. After someone disagrees, the next step, if I still think the article is a dictionary definition, is to take it to AFD.

I'll have to think about the Favorite article. IMHO, multiple dictionary definitions in an article still leaves a dictionary definition article. The mention of historical use is IMHO marginal at best for making it not a dic def. So, as I said, I'll have to think a bit about whether I shall take this to AFD as my next step. - TexasAndroid 13:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You must be joking. The other meanings are mostly not dicdefs. Mind you, AfD it & we can start again with the proper spelling, so go ahead. Johnbod 13:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an OUTRAGE!!!

159.83.4.150 19:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect at Pokémon Diamond and Pearl was requested for deletion by User:Sceptre, presumibly so that he/she could restore the article, currently sitting at Pokémon: Diamond and Pearl (video game), back into place. The article itself was not deleted, just a redirect. - TexasAndroid 19:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thank you for catching my mistakes in the new article The Texas Aggie. Your quick realization that I meant to create a redirect (and subsequent fix) is much appreciated! Karanacs 20:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. And thanks for the barnstar. I regularly run short pages patrol, and one of the very common things encountered on such is broken/malformed/etc redirects. So I fix a lot of them. :) It's nice to have it appreciated though. :) - TexasAndroid 20:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the Bryn Mawr redirect blank - I had a problem with the computer I was using at work and when I was finally able to un-blank it, you had caught the error -- I re-edited it the way I originally meant to -- Thanks, Nicholas SL Smith 21:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually like to revert another admin's edits, but I've extended the block on Coastusual (talk · contribs) from your 31 hours to an indefinite one. After reviewing all the user's edits, it was pretty obvious that they are up to no good. I don't think you'll lose sleep over it, but I at least wanted to drop you a line. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. No problem. I was already in my mind debating whether to bother extending it myself. Look through the history on Jane Tomlinson, and you'll see this is actually the (at least) third account for this joker. User:Mightlaws and User:Onlywent are pretty obviously the same vandal. We'll see what happens next. - TexasAndroid 15:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why you deleted Ehud Bandel ???? As he is the head of Masorti, that should be enough to make him notable, like the head of the Anglican Church. Or is it because you have something against Jews ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Copy328 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Making personal attacks like that is not the way to get good discourse going. WP:AGF says we all need to assume good faith about the actions and motives of others.

That said, the leaders/heads of organizations are not automatically separately notable from those organizations. You need to provide verification/sourcing for why this gentleman is himself notable. Being the head of the organization you show is one step, and is enough that he likely should not be Speedy deleted again. But I don't really think that it's enough for the article to survive a deletion discussion. For that, you need to provide reliable, independant, non-trivial references for his notability. - TexasAndroid 14:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced a few of your recent {{prod}} tags with {{db-disambig}} instead. A disambiguation page with only one or zero articles linked can be speedied instead of prodded. Cheers! -- JHunterJ 12:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but I see you already know about that from the earlier comments. Nevermind me. -- JHunterJ 12:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have to help me, please, I can't keep those two guys in BulletBall under control. I have failed to explain to them that the concensus in the discussion was a redirect/merge, but they believe it is a keep and therefore think that is a good reason to revert the article as they please. Please, explain to them that they need to open a discussion to get the concensus they want. Please, I'm desperate. Thanks, Slartibartfast (1992) 16:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keithn is out of control and basing all his disruptions on some false concensus. I don't know how to convince him that his consensus doesn't exist. Please, I need help, I can't handle this guy. Slartibartfast (1992) 21:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not sure what I can/could do in the current situation. I'm far too involved with AI pages in general and BB in particular, for me to properly use any admin powers myself. And as an editor, I don't want the page to remain as either an article or a redirect, IMHO it should be deleted. So I'm not particularly inclined to weigh in on either side of the revert war itself, sorry. - TexasAndroid 13:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no problem. I guess I overestimated the situation and though I might need somebody to back me up... So, thanks anyway, I think I have the situation under control after all. Slartibartfast (1992) 22:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problems are over now, and in fact I'm trying to apologize to Keithn for some possible bad faith coming from myself, but he keeps reverting any messages I leave on his talk page, doesn't respond, and claims his edits as "removing fanmail" (See the history of his talk page). Is there anything I can do to remedy this? Thanks, --Slarti (1992) 21:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tamug is an old Turkish word. It was used by Shamanists. I am a Shamanist too. There are a few Shamanists in Türkiye nowadays. It is not problem for me. I will improve the "Tamug (religion)" article soon.

Meanwhile I have discovered "The Killers" nowadays. Read My Mind is a great song. Can you advice me some marvellous songs like "Read My Mind"?

Thanks again for your warnings

Take care of yourself

kızılsungur 18:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hey there, texas android....

although ska aren't awfully big in the USA (i assume you live in texas?) they are however popular in Australia so the other administrator that marked the article a 'non-important "band"' was misadvised.

thanx

D av —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.209.168 (talk) 06:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page was deleted by four different admins, and finally salted by User:Eyrian, who has since left the project. I only converted the type of protection. That said, the key issue id "notability", not importance. Please read WP:BAND for the notability guidelines. Basically, you need to provide reliable, independant, non-trivial references to establish the group's notability. Once you have those references, you can go to WP:DRV to attempt to have the protection removed that is preventing the article from being recreated. - TexasAndroid 13:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sky_Eats_Airplane. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Zombi333 11:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I believe you are the one who tried to get as many tribes out of this parent cat and into the subcategories? Well, User:98.197.243.41 undid a lot of your hard work. S/he has been asked to revert the changes but perhaps there's some nifty admin way to do it. I already reverted all the Oregon ones. Let me know if I was thinking of someone else. Thanks! Katr67 16:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I've reverted the rest of those that needed reverting, sorted a few others into proper state categories, and left a couple alone that were more complex cases. Took about 40 minutes. Could have been done faster if I was not at least glancing at each one before reverting to see if revert was teh proper course of action. - TexasAndroid 17:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, you deleted and salted Blackle, which was recreated a week later at Blackle.com. Since it doesn't appear the Blackle.com article is going to be deleted, Blackle should redirect to that article. Thanks! shoeofdeath 08:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, as a computer moron, I hate learning new things, but needs must... Jimfbleak 14:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Jimfbleak but if you say so. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I just fear change ;) but I shall comply...Dina 19:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an old admin, so I like to do things the old ways (and I think it was easier the old way) ....let's see how the deletion thing goes. I hope I'll be able to change. Anyway, thanks for the info. Lectonar 15:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to state first and foremost that I apologize for ad hominen attacks on this website. However, what is more important to say is that I am not the vandal attacking Wookeepedia, nor am I EndoExo, GorgeHe, the Communism Vandal or any other troll on this site. I am trying to move on with life, and establish something more meaningful for myself. Therefore, I have no interest in childishly vandalizing and trolling this website as I had in the past. I am not sure how a CheckUser actually "confirmed" my vandalism as claimed by certain admins, but it isn't me. I actually edit productively on an anonymous account. Lastly, I understand why you would immediately delete this account and block my access to Wikipedia, but please listen and acknowledge the fact that I have discontinued vandalizing. Josebonifacio 16:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop redirecting footballers' articles. If you think a certain article lacks quality, either improve it by adding necessary categories or nominate it for deletion (in case it fails WP:BIO). -- BanRay 20:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I redirect them as an alternative to deletion when they lack enough information to make a useful article, and a similar amount of information is available at the target article. In those cases, a redirect puts the user in a place where they can get just as much information, and leave the article itself easily revertible if someone is ready to properly flesh out a real article instead of a sub-stub. - TexasAndroid 00:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there you deleted the entry on the International Va’a Federation (IVF), which is the governing body for outrigger canoe racing worldwide. I disagree that is insignificant although it is arguably not as significant as other much larger sports organisations, primarly because outrigger canoe racing is so far only a major sport in the South Pacific (Tahiti, Hawaii, New Zealand, Australia), but also in Canada and the US, particularly California. I agree that it may not be a very 'visible' organisations, in part because it doesn't even have a website yet but it does sanction international races including the biennial World Sprints, the last were held in New Zealand in 2006, Hawaii in 2004. In fact the next world sprint event will be held in Sacramento, California, in 2008).

Cheers Jörn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joernscherzer (talk • contribs) 22:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide reliable, independant, non-trivial references that show that the organization meets the criteria show in WP:ORG. - TexasAndroid 12:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TexasAndroid, I made some changes to Template:ArbcomDeletedpage. I'm not too sure I agree with the deprecation of {{deletedpage}} but the redirect's a fair compromise, as the page history's still there.

Feel free to change if you disagree with my edits. Hope you're OK! Thanks, --Solumeiras ^talk 18:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the key benefits of redirection, in addition to the history remaining, is that the several hundred non-transcluded links to it do not suddenly become red links. They still have somewhere to point to. It's not a perfect solution, the image situation mentioned on WP:AN is one defect in it, but it addresses at least some of the problems mentioned during the TFD.

Thank you for assisting with the new arbcom template. I was just going mind-blank on what the new one should look like, but I wanted to go ahead with the redirection before too many more pages were salted the old way, and I really had to deal with the existing arbcom pages before I could do the redirection. A copy of the old template seemed a good enough place to start, and I welcome any assistance in making it over into a page more appropriate to it's needed purpose, when arbcom wants a page effectively unusable, but with the history visible during the case. - TexasAndroid 18:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline relating to allegations of Israeli Apartheid apparently had the old deletedpage template substed; I think it should transclude ArbcomDeletedpage instead. --Derlay 21:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It was lower priority since, being substed, it was nto going to be effected by teh redirection, but you are right, it should have been changed with the rest. - TexasAndroid 21:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TexasAndroid,

I have not followed the discussion of the template deletedpage, so this post may be full of misconceptions. How I understnad it, the template is deleted (well, redirected), and all pages salted this way have been changed to protected titles manually by you. I have no idea if this is significant, or just one you missed, or (as I said) a misunderstanding on my behalf, but the page Chibby was protected in March (with even an excess long comment added by you :-) ), and is now suddenly unprotected and recreated by a vandal. This isnot a big problem (reprotected, vandal blocked), but may point to some flaw in the protection of these older pages.

Again, this is in no way a complaint, just a heads up so that if it is a more general problem, you may be able to find a solution. Fram 11:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history of that page, I see that it was placed under cascading protection by Cbrown1023 on April 18, on Wikipedia:Protected titles/Old SALT 2/List. Chibby was removed from the protection page on July 27 by Centrx, along with a lot of others, with the edit comment "Delete inactive ones".

One thing to keep in mind, except in rare cases, salting, whatever the method, is not intended to be forever. That's one of the reasons that the pages at WP:PT are sorted by month. It makes it easy to see approximately how long a page has been salted in order to decide when to bring them off of salting. I have no idea if this was behind Centrx's removing of the entries from salting, but it is something to be aware of. But I do beleive that the idea is that the vast majority of the situations that end up with salting, the person pushing the page is likely to move onto other things when their page title has been salted for 6 months or more.

But that all aside, if the Chibby page is still causing trouble, I would see no reason it could/should not be placed right back on protection on the current month's page. - TexasAndroid 13:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. As you can see, protection is not my forte, and so I hadn't thought to check if the protection came from somewhere else. Allright, I learned something today :-), and I'll just keep an eye on the article and reprotect it if needed. Fram 13:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Protection from somewhere else" is exactly how "cascading protection" works. The idea is that, by protecting one page with cascading protection, everything transcluded onto that page is automatically protected as well. It was designed, I beleive, for things on the Main Page. Cascade protect them, and you catch all tempaltes on them that could be tampered with. But it also allows you to transclude a non-existant page onto a cascading protected page, and effectively protect the name of the non-existant page. Pages can be prevented from recreation in this way, and this is how WP:PT works. List the page you want protected on the current month's list, using the templates provided, and purge the cache for the month's control page, and you will have the page protected from recreation until such a time as that month's protection page gets cleared 6 - 12 months down the road. - TexasAndroid 14:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help in fixing the categories of pages related to Oklahoma and Tulsa! You shall get a cookie:

		The WikiCookie of Excellence
		For your extremely helpful work in refining categories of almost 100 Tulsa-related pages in just a couple of hours. Good job! Okiefromokla•talk 18:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the cookie. :) I've done the major cities in Texas in the past, and was thinking about what to do next, and decided to stay reletively close to home for now. Thus OK's big cities got done. :) - TexasAndroid 19:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well feel free to help out in Oklahoma any time! :) Okiefromokla•talk 03:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagreed with some of your categorization edits for the following reason: An article being in "category:Hurricane Katrina" in no way identifies the article as being New Orleans related, and I think that some New Orleans specific articles should be categorized in a way showing they deal with New Orleans topics. I therefore would prefer having some New Orleans specific category in such articles. What are other ways to address this concern? Possibly breaking up the Hurricane Katrina category into geographically specific subcategories? Other thoughts? Thank you, -- Infrogmation 15:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking exactly this. Let's take this to the talk page of the Katrina cat, as the main difficulty IMHO is how to name the sub-cat(s), and this should be a more public discussion than just on my talk page. - TexasAndroid 15:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion started at Category talk:Hurricane Katrina. - TexasAndroid 15:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 16:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the facts and references you need are in the two links on the bottom of Bestial Warlust's article. The band is noteworthy and mentioned in many articles and should have a page of its own. There are no claims that are not referenced.Navnløs 18:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's for AFD to decide. You should start by reading WP:BAND, figuring out why the band meets the criteria listed there, and providing reliable, independent, non-trivial references as to why the band meets those criteria. If they do meet them, and they are indeed mentioned in "many articles", then this should be fairly easy to do, I would think. - TexasAndroid 18:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you delete The Umbrella Sequence!!! it may not have asserted significance yet, but it was obviously still in a starting article stage, i looked at the significance page, and they fit many of the requirements, including defining a city's music scene, and also they are revolutionizing electro pop! and i must say, the significance page is heavily biased towards popular music...but thats a different story...if i need to add more to it to highlight its significance, then i would be more than glad to, so how can i revert this deletion??

First, you need to be able to provide reliable, independent, non-trivial sourced that show that the group meets the notability requirements that you have already been looking at. You need to either convince me to reverse myself, or convince others at WP:DRV that I have made an improper choice that should be overturned. I *am* willing to place a copy of the article in your user-space, as a short-term option to allow you to work the article towards a state where it can survive both Speedy and AFD deletion. Speedy is what I did, and it's easier to survive that. WP:AFD is the more full-fledged examination of articles, and it is there that your providing of sources will really come into play. - TexasAndroid 02:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please please, let me work on the article, and i will fix it...actually i did not even know about these musical signifance when i was making it, so i apologize...also, next time i think you should give a warning before you delete the page Fanofranz 12:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This company plays a significant role in Petrochemical Trading and B2B movements globally —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.192.64 (talk) 23:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was very heavy handed and outrageos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1hotrod (talk • contribs) 03:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to talk to User:Irishguy. He's the admin who originally protected it. I just changed the type of protection on it. His deletion explanation is "CSD A7 (Corp): Article about a company that doesn't assert significance". You'll need to ask him for more details. - TexasAndroid 11:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this [1] Is there something we can do to {{copyvio}} to prevent this issue from happening? Would it be better if the instructions had people substitute the template?--BirgitteSB 17:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Substing is about the only way to actually solve the situation. I know that on other templates there were reasons given why those templated should not be substed, but I don't think the conversation has ever been held for {{copyvio}}. - TexasAndroid 18:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a bot could go around substituting {{copyvio}} if there is no objections to that. I son't see why it should be a problem.--BirgitteSB 19:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please see User:Roblday. The user has moved it into mainspace and then moved it again to another name. It requires admin privs to rename it back to its original and delete the mainspace ones. Thanks. → AA ^(talk) — 04:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or no admin powers are required to mark it as an A7 Speedy, whichit totally qualified for once out in article space.  :) Anyway, it's gone now. - TexasAndroid 13:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks. It's just that in the past when I have marked similar items under CSD, the article was just moved back to userspace - so was a bit reluctant. Thanks for sorting it out :) → AA ^(talk) — 22:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to create article on US Petrochemical someone has deleted this page and blocked it. Need assistance

An editor has asked for a deletion review of PAGE_US Petrochemical. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Worldchem 22:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I commented a couple of sections above, the only involvement I had with this was changing the type of recreation protection that was on the page. I had nothing to do with the original deletion. You need to talk to User:Irishguy, who was the one who originally deleted and protected the page. - TexasAndroid 04:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you please unprotect soulja boy and have it redirect to Soulja Boy? He's had a #1 hit. Chubbles 08:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. A #1 hit is a pretty good indicator of notability, I would agree. :) :) - TexasAndroid 12:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chubbles 18:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part I wanted those top or high level articles to be in the Chicago, Illinois category. My take is mentioned on the category talk page. Speciate 18:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I don't agree that one city should get to use the categories in a way that no other city, let alone other articles on the project get to use the categories. While there are exceptions, the general rule of categories and sub-categories is that, if an article is is a sub-category, they do not also belong in any of the parent/grand-parent categories of that category. The other way lies chaos and huge categories that serve noone any use. You appear to be trying to walk a line somewhere in the middle. But I really do not agree that a middle-road is proper with something like categories. They are designed to function in a certain way, and you are trying to work around that design. More to say, and looking for the actual guidelines on this, with exceptions, but felt the need to respond at least a bit for now.... I will however stop for now until we work this out a bit. - TexasAndroid

So you want to move all articles currently categorized in Chicago, Illinois, (with the exception of Chicago itself, and maybe Chicago metropolitan area) to subcategories? I'm ok with that, I guess. I would like certain categories to remain in the Chicago, Illinois category, though. Speciate 18:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the Category:Houston, Texas category, or Category:San Antonio, Texas categories for examples of ones I've previously done. (Also done Dallas, El Paso, New Orleans, and OK city). Basically, I move down everything I logically can move. I do not force things down into sub-categories if there is no logical sub-category for them. And on Houston, I keep going back and forth in my mind whether to create a Government of Houston category that would collect 4-6 more of the current entries there. So not *all* pages move by a long shot. Many simply have no logical place to put them. Area code page never seem to have a correct place. Some articles could have a logical place, but there are not enough articles to make the sub-cat viable in my mind. (minimum 3 IMHO articles, 4 more preferibly, to build out a sub-cat. - TexasAndroid 18:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict. Saving what I've already typed, then will respond to new comments.) Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories appears to be the guideline I was looking for, but my memory is remembering a page laid out somewhat differently. Well, that page, at least, does not appear to really support either of our positions. The closest would be the "User benefit rule" bit, but I still do not really see that enough benefit is gained to make it worth having one city do things differently from all the rest. Categories are simple and elegant navigation tools as they are. To have one city use the categories in a way that others do not is a cause for confusion on the reader's part when they move between city categories. I know that right now many city categories are not organized at all, and I am slowly working to correct that and get them much better organized. So I rally do not agree that there is anything about Chicago that could/would/should allow it to use the categories in a way not generally supported by the normal category structure. - TexasAndroid 18:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Los Angeles, California is set up much like Chicago was, but with more dreck. Speciate 18:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "user benefit" was what I was shooting for. Speciate 18:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:San Diego, California and Category:Jacksonville, Florida are examples of categories that have not had much care put into them, though if I'm remembering right OK City was over 150 articles when I first started refactoring that one. - TexasAndroid 19:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The LA cat could be like you had the Chicago cat. NYC as well. Both have only ~50 articles in them, a small number for the two largest cities in the US. But it is also possible that, at some point in the past someone did a refactoring job, and has not cleaned up since, and the articles have built back up in the time since. Unlike the Chicago cat, there are no declarations of such intent on the talk page, so it's a little hard to know what happened with them previously, other than they were fully or mostly refactored at some point in the past, or they would be a lot worse than they are now.

Which brings up another point against your desired layout for the Chicago cat. To keep these categories clean requires regular visits to push the newly arrived articles down into the sub-cats. Just as we have been chatting I noticed two newer articles in the San Antonio cat and pushed them down to sub-cats. But your scheme of have a number of extra articles in the city cat makes regular clean-up much more difficult, as you really have to know which articles are deliberately left in the city cat, and thus should stay, and which have been added since, and thus shoud be moved. And since you are the one who has decided which articles are important enough to stay in the city cat, really only you have the knowledge needed to perform cleanup. And a important feature like that with only one person who can do it is just asking for trouble down the line. - TexasAndroid 19:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Reindenting) Ok. Where do we go from here. You appear above to give, grudgingly at least, Ok for me to possibly continue (your comments about me pushing "all" down). But you do want some to stay above. Which ones are you specifically thinking of at this point? The ones I generally used my "parents and grandparents" tag line on? A sub-set of those? Those plus some of the ones I actually moved, instead of just clearing out the (IMHO) duplicate category? Where do we stand? - TexasAndroid 19:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think about it, the better I like the idea of removing the articles from the category, except Chicago and maybe Chicago metro area. Maybe this will make the Chicago Portal more popular. As for the subcategories, do whatever you like, and I'll just move certain things into category:Tourism in Chicago for user benefit. Speciate 19:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Back to work then. It will definitely not get down to only those two. Likely 10-20 articles will be left when I'm done, but we shall see. :) - TexasAndroid 19:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've not quite understood your removal of the categories. WP:CAT-RD says that this kind of categorization is acceptable, I'm bothered by this unexplained change of yours, really. Category:EastEnders characters is an example of a category for its redirects. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Always fun to find out that the guidelines have been changed out from under you when you were not watching. That List redirects guideline is less than 2 months old, and I firmly disagree with it. IMHO redirects should not be in article categories except in the most extreme exceptions, and this is far from such. But the guideline appears to have been properly changed, so I will not raise a fuss if you revert those categories back on. As for my changes being unexplained, my edit summaries were the full explanation, baring the fact that the guidelines had been changed out from under me. IMHO, redirects do not belong in article categories. And that's what I said in the edit summaries. No more explanation was needed. But the guideline was properly changed, whether I agree with the change or not, so go ahead and put them back in if you want. - TexasAndroid 04:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping you could revert it yourself, no offense; administrators have that instant rollback feature and it'd take you but a moment. Whereas it'd take me several minutes since I'd have to do it manually. I made it quite clear however in my edit summaries why I did it in the first place, that's why I thought it was strange of you to do that. I assumed good faith and figured that you likely made a mistake. It's understanable, so long as you rollback your edits there I'll pretend this little conversation never happened. Happy editing! Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 08:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you would be willing to hear my side of the story here it goes. I went to the article and was editing some grammar and internal links. User:Thistime19 kept reverting my edits. In turn I reverted his because they didn't fall in line with the Wikipedia guidelines. That went on for it seems an hour. Then everything stopped and we were both reported as vandal only accounts. Which for me is NOT true. If you look at my user page User:ZeroCool and in my user links click the Edits link you will see I edit many different things positively. I looked at User:Thistime19's history and they ONLY have edited things about The Used. Thank you for hearing my side. --Zero Cool 19:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Blocking Barnstar
		I am awarding you this Blocking Barnstar because you blocked User:209.66.200.21 for six months, even though the block is a bit long. Although it was a shared IP, someone I know was using that IP to vandalize my user page four times by replacing a few words with "Famous Amos" to annoy me. Anyways, thanks for this IP block. Now I can rest for 6 months. NHRHS2010 Talk 23:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed those too messages because I took care of both of them and they didn't need to be there anymore. I forgot I logged out so it gave an IP address and not my username. --Riobravo4 17:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NP. If it had been you, and not an IP, I would in no way reverted. But a random IP, deleting people's comments from a user talk page with no explanation? That gets reverted. Sorry to cause any problems, though, and please, feel free to clear out your talk page as you wish. :) - TexasAndroid 17:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thank you for your tireless efforts in reverting and blocking vandals. Always much appreciated. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 13:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Subpar, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD A1.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. B1atv 16:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Cute. The above linked article has been getting recreated as a redirect to a number of targets. I deleted it, and was about to salt the title, when I realized that rather than salting, the name would work better as a protected redirect to the Wiktionary definition article of the same name. Never occurred to me that someone might try to tag it for CSD in the middle of that. I'm guessing you used one of the automated tools that tags and warns in one action. Your tag itself did not work, as I had already protected the Wiktionary redirect. If you still feel that it qualifies for CSD, we can see about getting an opinion of my actions from an independant admin. - TexasAndroid 16:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Janet Hilton article was marked as copyvio. However, a recent posting on the discussion page shows that permission to use the content was given under GFDL.

This article incorporate material of [2] and [3], that by means of autorización allowed used the content and to publicized under permissionGFDL.

So someone with editor status should restore the page. brian stormen 14:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not delete this, it was done by User:Garion96. You need to either persuade him to revert himself, or take the page to WP:DRV. - TexasAndroid 15:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw you protected We the Kings (We The Kings, we the kings, We The kings). In light of their signing to a major label subsidiary, their charting on the Billboard Heatseekers chart, this news writeup, and these album reviews, would you mind unprotecting it so I can give it a better treatment? Chubbles 17:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page was being recreated over and over using copyright violating material. At this stage, I would suggest you try creating a new article from scratch in a sub-page in your user space. Once you have that done, it can be easily checked to make sure that it's not another copyvio, and that it meets minimum WP:BAND notability standards. At that point I would gladly lift the salting and move it into place in article space. But at this point, given the repeated recreation of the copyvio version, I'm not particularly inclined to un-salt until a vialble alternative is availible. Of course, if you disagree with this plan you are always free to seek to have the salting overturned at WP:DRV. - TexasAndroid 16:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does this look? Chubbles 22:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking in again, in case the above draft got lost in the shuffle. Chubbles 02:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for delays. Looks good. I've moved it out to article space, set up the three others as redirects, and undone the salting. - TexasAndroid 14:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I would definitely suggest adding it to your article creation list. A quick count amoung the various titles shows 3 previous G12/G4 copyright/recreation deletions from before the salting. :) - TexasAndroid 14:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You speedy deleted this article as not asserting importance, but it pretty clearly did. "anchor for the Fox 35 News 5:00", "reporting live locally and nationally on the Space Shuttle Columbia tragedy", "serves on the boards of the American Cancer Society, Kids Voting in Central Florida], Mothers Against Drunk Driving". It was also listed at AFD. Please undelete and let the AFD continue. --W.marsh 15:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restored, but I've expressed a Delete !vote. Local TV personalities are generally not notable, IMHO. - TexasAndroid 15:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, in general... but in larger markets, it's not so easy to tell. That's why I relisted the debate. Thanks for restoring. --W.marsh 15:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case you haven't noticed yet, the lag of the toolserver database seems to be under control again (~7 hours at the moment), so the shortpages tool should be usable again. I haven't had much time for Wikipedia in the last few weeks, unfortunately, but hopefully, I'll soon be able to work on the modifications we discussed a few weeks ago. Cheers, Schutz 19:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jamie Chandler. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.--- Jreferee t/c 15:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. With all the possible respect I can give you, I suggest that you back away and stop introducing yourself into my activity here. You yourself admit that you have a personal conflict with me, and claim that you cannot become involved, but it was you who ran off to ANI to file a report that turned out to be completely baseless (as the admin involved even later gave a rather unprecedented apology over). I also think any claim you might have had to remain neutral goes out the window when you go to User:Arcayne's talk page and suggest that he take the steps for you that you claim you yourself are unable to take because of bias.

Wikipedia is a very big place, and there would seem to be no reason for you to continually show up in my affairs unless you are specifically making it your business to watch what I do and take action on it. For someone with an admitted bias that would not seem to be compatible with your responsibilities as an admin.

I am working very hard here to do everything that Wikipedia expects people to do. I certainly have not used a sockpuppet or name called or any of the claims that Arcayne is making. The whole point here is that ArbCom has ruled that I should be civil and work more with people, but that sort of thing should be expected of all editors. I am afraid some people probably find that more useful as a club against others to try to prevail in disputes when other methods have failed than as a good faith effort for everyone to edit responsibly. DreamGuy 19:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I mentioned to Arcayne requires no admin powers. The only requirement for my neutrality towards you is that I not use admin powers in reguards to you. I have not, and will not. But requesting that others look at your actions is something that I or anyone else can do. Requesting a Check User on you can be done by anyone. Reporting you for ArbCom enforcement is something that anyone can do. And there's nothing in any of those actions that requires neutrality.

I expressed in my comments to Arcayne exactly why I do not intend to file a Check User on you, as I am far from certain that there has been a Sock Puppet violation, even if that IP address was you. Arcayne is closer to that situation, having debated with both you and the IP, and thus is better able to judge if a violation occurred.

As for ArbCom enforcement, again, neutrality is not required for reporting. Any of your "enemies" are free at any point to report you if they feel you have violated your restrictions. Any admin who responds and investigates any report needs to be neutral, but the reporter does not. If I see a case of you violating your restrictions, I still consider myelf free to report such, though I am not free to act on such myself. The latter is the restriction that non-neutrality places on me.

As for my coming across your affairs, I am not "stalking" you, as you like toss about (though I know you have not accused me specifically of doing that.) I have your talk page watchlisted from way, way back when we conflicted, and have been loosly following the soap opera that has been your time here. I have other pages watchlisted that you edit, but I have had them watchlisted from long before you and I ever crossed paths. These are mostly pages that I watchlisted long ago as high-vandalism pages, watched to work to keep the vandalism cleared from them. Bigfoot and Jack the Ripper are examples of these pages. OTOH, I do not follow you to other pages and watch your actions there. If you show up on a page I have watchlisted, I will continue to watch the page as before, and react to what happens on that page. But I have no intention of following you around, looking for problems in your edits.

However, I see you headed down a road towards a bad end on the project. The ArbCom restrictions are not to be taken lightly. They mean that you have very little lattitude availible to you. So far, I have seen little sign that you have really learned anything from the restrictions. The incivility of others does not excuse you being incivil back. AGF failures of others do not excuse you from AGF. And *you* are the one under restrictions, not anyone else. I do not have to be psychic to forsee that, if you fail to learn anything from the ArbCom case, if you continue on acting as you did before the case, your time here will at some point come to an unpleasant end. - TexasAndroid 20:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, Android, assume good faith. You seem to cherish the idea that I am headed down a bad road and expect to see bad behavior and so forth. I think you are only looking for what you want to find. All of my actions have been well within standard Wikipedia rules and the ArbCom extra rulings on civility. I thought I would ask you as a personal favor to try to make sure that your prior opinions do not color your actions and cause you to egg conflict on instead of trying to resolve it. Do with it whatever you want, but don't say I didn't try. DreamGuy 21:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Forgive me for replying her, but I wanted to clarify that DG has has claimed here that he has not edited by the specific IP address I have requested clarification for on both his User Talk page and the article, Jack the Ripper. As far as accusing DG of name-calling or other "claims", I believe I have not made any untoward statements towards DG, and have on repeated occasions take the steps to prevent him from being singled out. While someone under ArbCom and RfC restriction may feel like others are using it against him, I have made a point of ensuring that DG gets a fair shake in the article, and - even in my most inquisitive posts have remained civil and even-handed.

TA, I appreciate you offering insight into the matter. If DG cannot bring himself to answer the very simple question I have posed to him, he will have forced me to consider avail myself of some of them. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an odd statement: I wanted to clarify that DG has has claimed here that he has not edited by the specific IP address I have requested clarification for on both his User Talk page and the article, Jack the Ripper. As far as accusing DG of name-calling or other "claims"

That does not clarify anything. If the "has has" was supposed to be just "has", the statement is incorrect. If the "has has" was supposed to be "has not" then you've got a double negative in there and I'm not sure what you even think you mean.

I think, though, that no matter which way that's supposed to go, it seems to be written in Wikilawyerese. DreamGuy 21:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apology; it was an extra word. I was pointing out that you have answered my question about whether the IP posts were made by yourself, and by stating "certainly have not used a sockpuppet or name called or any of the claims that Arcayne is making", you are stating that you did not and are not using the IP address. Thank you, finally for a bit of candor in answering the question. I am not sure why you felt the need to avoid answering it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you look at the article's temp page. I noticed you added to the article but I need an admin to look at the revisions and conclude it is not a copyvio (as I don't believe the original was a cut-and-paste vio as the tagger implied). the_undertow ^talk 00:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence of the Early Career section is still only one word off from the copyvio source (her first vs last name), but otherwise, it looks nicely scrubbed. Need to fix that first sentence, then it will IMHO be ready to go. - TexasAndroid 21:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it's my first time uploading a piece of artwork (webcomic illustration), and I wanted to make sure that my summary and rationale were correct... - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. It was already deleted long before I saw this message. - TexasAndroid 16:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Why did you delete the Jotun page? If you had checked the talk page -I think you should have seen where much of the information came from. An information consultant working in the company allowed us to copy some text off their web, and I have the email to prove it. Petter73 15:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the "If you hold the copyright" section of Template:Copyvio. Either the source website needs to display that the text is released in GFDL, or an email giving GFDL permission needs to be sent to the Wikimedia Foundation. An email to an editor, or even an admin, is not sufficient to validate that the text has been released under the GFDL. - TexasAndroid 16:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am now even more confused. What is the problem? This is my last attempt. Count me out for future contributions unless I'm given a proper explanation. Here is an email which was forwarded to me november 12.:

---

Forwarded by Kari-Ellen Liverod/CONO/Jotun on 12.11.2007 09:51 -----

Permissions <permissions-this-will-not-work@wikimedia.org> 12.11.2007 07:04

To Kari-Ellen Liverod <kari-ellen.liverod-this-will-not-work@jotun.no> cc

Subject Re: [Ticket#2007110210007125] Jotun on Wikipedia

Dear Kari-Ellen Liverod,

Thank you for your mail.

Kari-Ellen Liverod <kari-ellen.liverod-this-will-not-work@jotun.no> wrote:

> We allow use under GFDL of content from sections under "About Jotun" and

> "News -> Photo gallery -> References" on our company web site > www.jotun.com, in addition to supplied text and pictures. > > Please restore this page: > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Jotun_(company)

> > > > > Best regards > > Kari-Ellen Liverød > Communication officer > Group Communication > Jotun A/S > Sandefjord, Norway > > Mobile: +47 41 46 40 45 > Office: + 47 33 45 72 04 > kari-ellen.liverod-this-will-not-work@jotun.no > http://www.jotun.com >

Though we appreciate your generosity in releasing this material, I regret to inform you that the Wikipedia community has determined that this content is not appropriate for inclusion in the encyclopedia.

If you would like to know why this material was deleted or how to review this decision, please consult our Deletion Policy: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy>.

Yours sincerely, Chad Horohoe

-- Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org --- Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, you may contact the site operators at <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>.

Thank you very much! I am sure it can still use some clean-up and expansion, but I have to take a break now so I am declaring it "good enough" for the time being. I look forward to seeing what improvements are made by other editors. We might even want to nominate this for DYK. Do you happen to have any contacts who might be able to provide a photograph? Johntex\^talk 19:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I could personally go photograph the campus if that was needed (and it's obviously not in this situation), but I have no personal contacts with anyone at the school, sorry. About the only thing I can think of is whether a still from the video of the play would be doable. Definitely Fair Use, but would such a use meat WP:FU. I'm far from a WP:FU expert. I do like the DYK suggestion. Never done that myself, I'll go over and take a peak at what is required. - TexasAndroid 19:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted Translation relay by PROD. Please undelete it; feel free to list as AfD if you see fit. Thanks. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 22:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done - TexasAndroid 12:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:WormLickBone appears to be a single-purpose account that has been adding spamlinks to a host of articles and user pages, pointing to an "interesting" link. When one opens the provided link (and i don't personally recommend it):

• "would look at this first... <REMOVED> / Take out the extra T in http and it will work."

it opens a window with the spoken text "hey everybody, I'm looking at gay porn!". Funny if sent from friend to friend, but pretty much stupid here. As this has been sent actual articles as well as my User Talk page, this person likely needs to leave the project. Might I ask for some assistance in having this dead weight cut from our ranks? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, no constructive edits, clearly SPA. Thanks for being the guinea pig and clicking the link, Arcayne.. I was at work so didn't want to risk whatever it might be, and without knowing what it was I didn't feel I had enough to report it to AIV.

Account should be indef banned, no question. --Jaysweet 19:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave him a warning, and thus one more chance. He came in here with personal attacks on Arcayne, so I headed for the block button, but another admin beat me to it. :) I'm too slow. :) - TexasAndroid 19:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I think a warning is a bit too charitable, but you're the admin. I would ask, though, that you keep a close watch on the user for a few days. I am fairly sure this isn't over with the user.

And I see I was proven right. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the other users filed an ArbCom enforcement complaint here, and I've added to it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, is there a way to build an excess long comment into {{copyvio}} so it doesn't have to be done manually to keep it out of shortpages? Can a non-subst'd template transclude a comment into an article? You've probably already thought through this, but I just thought I'd ask. -- But|seriously|folks  20:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the idea is that the counts are based on the count of characters actually in the article. Non-substed templates will only ever count the size of the template call. There's really no way that I know of to write anything into the template itself that will change the character counts without substing. Sorry. - TexasAndroid 05:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On November 5, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 2007 Trinity vs. Millsaps football game, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I had started to complile article on Lekh Tandon, an Indian film director and actor (see http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0849195/#actor). Many of his movies are already having an article on wikipedia. Is there a way I can get it undeleted? or should I start with a new article?

Chirag 16:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restored for now, but if you want to avoid it being deleted again, you need to provide multiple reliable, independant, non-trivial references for his notability, or you are likely to find it deleted again by someone else. - TexasAndroid 16:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to give you thanks for all the work you did to help the dim3 page stall deletion -- for a while :) I know you admins probably get a lot of gruff and I want to thank you (especially as you listened and switched to keep for me.) I see you even made a minor edit which means you are still watching.

Again, thanks. Your help was invaluable, and hopefully I can convince this new admin to give the article another chance. Any additional help would be greatly appreciated.

Ggadwa 18:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never actually officially switched my "vote". As the one who originally nominated it for deletion, I counted as a Delete. OTOH, by the end my actual opinion had indeed shifted, and I would say that I was mostly neutral on it at that point. Not really strongly opinionated either way any more. I did not officially change my opinion because I truely did think that "No Consensous" was the likely outcome. So I did not see much point in changing when the outcome seemed so likely. And, of course, the outcome turned out totally different. <shrug> - TexasAndroid 19:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I was sort of blind-sided by that, it seemed to come out of the blue. That said, I didn't mean to mis-characterize your opinion at all, but I do want to thank you for helping as much as you did, and hopefully this new admin will do the same thing.Ggadwa 20:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I removed the redirect from The Last Puritan to George Santayana, and you undid my edit. I realize I did not add a great deal of content, but I removed the redirect so my students could find The Last Puritan page. They are going to make a page for the novel as part of a class assignment, and since they are new to Wikipedia (and I am hardly a veteran myself) eliminating the redirect seemed to eliminate one source of confusion. Are we going to have to put up a decent amount of substantial content at once to get the page to remain on its own? Does the page for The Life of Reason, another work by George Santayana, provide a decent example for what we would need in order to convince folks not to undo our probably halting and awkward initial edits? Your suggestions would be much appreciated.--Mc2000 02:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TexasAndroid, thanks for the response and the rec to ck out WP:SUP. I had looked through it a while ago, but it was helpful to check it out again and review things that did not mean so much to me the first time around. --Mc2000 18:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Day TexasAndroid! I would like to thank you for putting me out of my misery of creating the Gisd page you deleted. I know that it was because I failed to follow the Notability guidelines. I am a dismal faliure...=( I also noticed that you have achived a number of awards and I wish to congradulate you for your achivements. I also wish to ask as a young person to an elder (Like they say, Respect your elders!) for two favors. One is that I'm pretty new here so I wish to make my User page as good as the rest of the WikiUsers. I don't wish insult other people but I would like to show what I really am. Two is what do you suggestions if I'm going to survive in Wikis? Like speedy deletion, Wikidragon, Notabiltiy, Vandalism, etc. Thanks You —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junebug08 (talk • contribs)

A glance through your deleted contributions shows no page with a name anything like "GISD", so I'm not really certain what you are referring to. As for assistance, if you have any specific questions please feel free to ask them, but I really don't have much general purpose advice to hand out, sorry. - TexasAndroid 17:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page was salted by you 18:21, 21 June 2007. There is now an article, Noah Cyrus, for the same person where notability has been (somewhat) established with her current credited name. I would like to create a redirect on the salted page to point to Noah Cyrus. Thanks, --NrDg 17:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only changed the type of salting, I did not actually salt the page originally. That was done by User:Yamla, so that is really who you should talk to about getting the salting overturned. - TexasAndroid 17:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Thanks. --NrDg 17:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

READ THE DISCUSSION BEFORE REVERTING STRAIGHT BACK -- FAILURE TO DO SO WILL RESULT IN CRIMINAL OFFENSES IN REGARDS TO HANDLING OF SENSITIVE AIR FORCE MATERIAL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melharts (talk • contribs) 21:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the continuation of the situation with the above comment can be found here. - TexasAndroid 13:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to create Slide.com and have it redirect to Slide (website). I saw that you previously deleted it. Therefore, I wanted your opinion on whether the page should be recreated or not. Thank you. --Kushal^t 20:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the slide.com article does nto meet the criteria given at WP:WEB for inclusion in the project. I have listed the article at WP:AFD instead of Speedy deleting it myself, as it is likely eligible for, to give a chance to add references to show that it does indeed meet WP:WEB. - TexasAndroid 14:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added my comment to the deletion page. I am not familiar with the deletion rules and would rather try to save every article that is being considered for deletion. However, you are an administrator and know what you are doing. Good day! --Kushal^t 15:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Vampire Hunter D characters, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Vampire Hunter D characters has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Vampire Hunter D characters, 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. CSDWarnBot 06:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly a note to self here. There were 3-4 articles in this category when I first created it. All now have been converted to redirects back to the VH-D article itself. So be it. - TexasAndroid 14:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PLS undelete this article. THE REAL ONE about the guy from the goonies.... Bluemaven 02:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what article is referred to here. There is already an article at Sloth, about the animal. I will need the exact article name in question before I can even begin to evaluate a different deleted article. - TexasAndroid 14:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please lock the Whitechapel murders article (redirected if it's been reverted) and redirect the discussion about the lock to the discussion on the Jack the Ripper article? The person who was blind reverting the JTR article to get it back to his own preferred way of handling it just up and decided to make his own, competing article because the main one is locked, in violation of WP:FORK and a number of other policies. DreamGuy 17:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it. Pretty sure you mean WP:CFORK, not WP:FORK. Anyway, you are right that it looks like a content/POV fork. I don't know which "other policies" you are refering to, but it does appear to be specifically a fork to avoid a ongoing dispute, and to avoid the protection at the main ripper article. That said, I'm not sure that this has reached the point of protection yet. I will give Colin4C a polite warning about it, and we will see what develops from there. If he does revert you, I can deal with that at that point. If you disagree with my handling of this, please feel free to take this to WP:RFPP. - TexasAndroid 17:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the timing does not fit. Looking at it a bit more, but it looks like he created that page a good while before the current dispute. - TexasAndroid 17:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I've given him a polite request not to revet the redirect. Reguardless of the creation time, it still looks like a fork to try to have things his way in a separate article, reguardless of how they were at the main article. Ball is in his court, at this point. - TexasAndroid 17:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't see when he created the page, but he just mentioned it on the JTR talk page in a way that implied he did it recently and specifically to get around the lock. He has tried to put his version of the victims section into the article in the past and could not get consensus to do so, so I think his reasons for doing so then arguably are the same as if he had created it now.

I went ahead and filed an RFC. Arcayne on one point a week or more back insisted he was going to get his way over my objection unless I filed an RFC, and I told him that's not how things work, but at this point, as several people have pointed out, we aren't going to get anywhere without more input, so I went and filed one on the two issues that seem to be the only parts they were reverted the whole article to protect. DreamGuy 18:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for the link to WP:CFORK -- I've been pointing people to WP:FORK since before WP:CFORK existed and never knew it was there. DreamGuy 18:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So we are not allowed to mention the Whitechapel Murders anywhere on the wikipedia? Neither in the Jack the Ripper article or anywhere else? Must all information on Jack the Ripper in the wikipedia be in the one article? Are you going to thus delete all the other articles on aspects of the case or only ones edited by me? Colin4C 19:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not saying anything like that. I'm saying that it is an issue in dispute, and asking you to address it in the now launched RFC. I would see three possible outcomes on the issue (and there could easily be others) 1) Your list is in the JtR article, 2) your list is nowhere, or 3) your list is restored at WCM and the shorter list is kept at JtR. I don't have a strong opinion on which solution would be best, I'm mostly just asking for you not to edit-war over this, and to give the RFC a chance to work it out. - TexasAndroid 20:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, the victims in the Whitechapel Murders file are already mentioned and listed in the Jack the Ripper article, so obviously the idea that it's not allowed to be mentioned on Wikipedia is incorrect. The dispute was that he wanted to put the full Whitechapel Murders list in the way he had it ahead of and/or instead of the canonical five. Of the three options you mention above, #1 has already happened, nobody is arguing for #2, and #3 just seems like needless repetition. 20:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DreamGuy (talk • contribs)

Dreamguy seems to want to mix up the eleven victims mentioned in the police files with a whole host of dubious others, thus muddying the waters of anybody trying to form a rational opinion on the case. He doesn't want a discrete list of the eleven Whitechapel murders ANYWHERE on the internet. He wants to control all the information on the Ripper on the wikipedia like a total control freak. I am just the latest of the many victims he has bullied and abused on the wikipedia. Anybody with any sense has stayed well away from Ripper article in case they recieved the same treatment. I am not a wikilawyer just someone trying to maintain some common sense. Colin4C 20:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I cannot be considered a neutral party with reguard to DreamGuy, I have opened up a WP:ANI report on this. Was my request/warning of Colin4C in line? What, if any, policy covers removing one's own comments from a talk page, and someone else restoring them? Etc. Hopefully a previously uninvolved admin can help sort this situation out. But I would remind both players that WP:3RR is in play on talk pages, including the JtR one, and so both of you should be careful about reverting each other there. - TexasAndroid 21:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying not to escalate the situation. This whole thing has become pointless and boring. In the light of what you said earlier I removed my comments on the Ripper page because I thought you had given me a satisfactory answer here. However Dreamguy seems to want to use them as evidence against me and put me in the worst possible light. Engaging in petty point scoring with Dreamguy is not the reason I started to contribute to the wikipedia. Colin4C 21:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed that the article on Lopez did not "assert significance". Well, I don't recall exactly what I wrote, but I definitely mentioned that he was the mayor of the capital of a country. That sounds pretty significant to me. Please explain how Lopez is insignificant. DO56 20:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I would not consider the mayor of a city of only 12K to be automatically notable. You do have a point about it being a capital, though. I will restore it from speedy deletion and instead list it for WP:AFD to give others a chance to weigh in on one side or the other. - TexasAndroid 20:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. How do I vote against deletion? DO56 20:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General way is to add a line like: (Cut&paste the line below, and type in your reasoning)

*'''Keep''' <Explain reason here> ~~~~

Hello :-)

I would very much like an answer regarding the deletion of Jotun. I wrote some new information on this talk page a few days ago. Cheers, Petter73 (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really cannot answer you as to why the foundation office might have declined you. I saw the email, and I don't have an answer, and cannot speak for them. I'm really not sure what else I can tell you. - TexasAndroid (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote them an e-mail a couple of days ago. Pointed to your reason for delete (according to delete comment), and asked why the forwarded email did not fix the problem. No reply yet. Here is a little something for the importance of the page: Jotun is incorrectly linked, but listed on List of the largest companies of Norway. For a place like Sandefjord, it has major importance (from my humble local point of view) as history and identity for the town. Maybe the permission email was incorrect to use? Anyhow, it's difficult to write an email address to Jotun (which is proper procedure?) on a take page which does not excist now. Unless I get better argumentation, I'll be gone. Completely. Petter73 (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They finally fixed it. It's OK now. Petter73 (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks for the wikilove. I hadn't even realized the article had been restored before you retagged it for deletion. I guess I'll go bulk it up and make you eat your hat. --evrik ^(talk) 17:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shrug. If you can come up with some reliable, independant, non-trivial sources to prove that it is notable, then more power to you. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Have a cheeseburger on me. --evrik ^(talk) 02:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sky Eats Airplane. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jreferee t/c 19:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already commented there. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume TexasAndroid1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) isn't you? Additionally, considering their contributions, they appear to be a sockpuppet of Rowhater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed a SSP case against Rowhater and TexasAndroid1. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please try not to vandilise pages.

If you want to Practice, use the sand box, baby!

Please make more constructive edits.

Chhers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeseth1992 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that the above appears to be from a user who went on a spree of such vandalism notices of a dozen or so different established users, including several other admins, and only stopped when blocked. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As noted at Talk:Pligg, I'd like to have a chance to work on this article. I'm not sure why it's salted, that seems rather extreme. Thanks, Cleduc (talk) 03:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was salted because, after a proper AFD, it was repeatedly recreated. Given that, at this point, I think that the best way to handle this is to create a version of the article in your user space, a version that meets notability and verifiability requirements, and then take the user-space version to deletion review. I would be more than wiling to provide a copy of the deleted article in your user space, to give a starting point, but a good bit of work will still be needed to get it to comply with the requirements, assuming that the web site even meets the WP:WEB notability requirements. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't tase me, bro. I throw myself on your mercy and charity of providing a copy of the article in my user space. After all, I have no choice before your awesome power. Cleduc (talk) 03:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strike that, unwarranted. However, I don't understand the hard line you are taking. It's not like I'm trying to recreate Brian Peppers here or something. It seems to me like this isn't just a mop-and-bucket job, somehow this one is personal. In any case, yessir, please provide me with a copy of the article sir. Cleduc (talk) 04:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing personal about it. This is my normal take on articles that are AFDed for non-notability, and are repeatedly recreated after that, continuing to fail to establish notability. After a few go arounds, they get salted, and at that point IMHO they generally need to show (in user space) that they can pass WP:WEB before they earn their way off of being salted. Anyway, I've placed several versions of the deleted article at User:Cleduc/Pligg. Good luck. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[4] Beautiful! -- SiobhanHansa 15:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't write it originally myself. Saw in on a page yesterday, and figured it was worth a shot on a number of other pages often targeted with "X loves Y" type vandalisms. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And just to give credit where it is due for the anti-romeo comment, here is where it originated, as far as I can tell. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you restore Shake Appeal? It was prod'd without me noticing. (My fault, I forgot to watch the article.) The reason was WP:N, but I think it clearly satisfies WP:MUSIC #6, and probably #4 too, though I'd have to double-check that. Thanks -- Torc2 (talk) 07:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. But it really, really needs references to establish how it passes WP:MUSIC. - TexasAndroid 13:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thanks. -- Torc2 19:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up the said article recently and saw how poor it was. I went to AfD it before realising that you'd done it before. Would you be willing to support a second AfD? The article clearly fails WP:MUSIC. Thoughts? Scarian^Talk 19:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A template you created, Template:Cfd-working, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked you in error, instead of the real IP vandal. I fixed it, but there may still be an autoblock. Please accept my apologies. Bearian 16:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no! My clean, unblemished block log is forever stained! Whatever will I do?

Heh. It happens. Not sure I would have ever noticed if you hadn't told me.  :) TexasAndroid 17:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ArbcomDeletedpage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Stifle (talk) 12:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've given my Keep !vote on it. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Could you please restore Jimmy Dean (song). I will add information that asserts its notability. --Bensin (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really not much to restore. Nor at the band's pge which was at Troll (Swedish band). I would really suggest you start with the band, rather than the song. If the band is not able to be shown as notable, then their songs are not likely to be notable either. Also be sure to read WP:BAND to see what is required for having a band be notable enough for a page. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry for all the damages caused by my schoolmates.-- Vintei  talk  17:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After a check I found more content missing. The Jotun (company) has been properly restored. Check it's talk page for permission. Could you please help restoring more stuff: [5] and [6]. Petter73 (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suspect you are better off talking to User:Shell Kinney, rather than me. He appears to be the one that has the permission information in hand that overcame the copyright violation that caused the original deletion. I do not have any information, personally, that would allow me to override the violation deletion. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]